« PreviousContinue »
« he may
on some time, in making the arrangements, the Duke said, whas Thall we do with Mr. Fox? Mr. Pitt replied,
have, the Pay-office.” This was a triumph to Mr. Pitt-o pui Mr. Fox below him, and into the office he had left. But it was a triumph 100 diminutive for the dignity of Mr. Pice's mind. However, he enjoyed it ; which hews the influence of little passions in men of the first abilities. Lord Anson was proposed for the Admiralty. Mr. Pice declared, that Lord Anson should never have the Corić. spoodence. The Duke replied, that would be such an alteration of the Board, as could not be made without his Majesty's consent. Here the conference broke off. Mr. Picc had an audience of the King. He laid before his Majefty, the difference between the Duke of Newcastle and himself, concerning the Admiralty. The King consented, that the Correspondence with the naval officers, usually in the Board of Admiralty, hould be given to Mr. Pitt, and that the Board should only bgn the dispatches, without being privy to their contents. It was at this audience that the following remarkable words were spoken, which Lord Nugent repeated in the House of Commons in the year 1784 ; Mr. Pirt said, “ Sire, give me your confidence, and I will deserve it.” The King replied without hesitation, " Deserve my confidence, and you shall have it.” Lord Nugent added, “ that Mr. Pitt at last so won upon the King, that he was able to turn his very partialities in favour of Germany to the benefit of his country.” Lord Anson cook the Admiraliy, under Mr. Pite's limitation ; and Mr. Fox took the Pay-office. Mr. Legge had the Exchequer. All the arrangements being settled, the parties all kissed hands in July 1757; and this dation was thereby restored to tranquility and satisfaction.' (Vol. . p. 150, &c.)
The moft curious part of this arrangement is the following note respecting Mr. Pitt's mode of transacting business with the Admiralty Board:
"The rule, or custom is, The Secretary of State fends all the orders respecting the navy, which have been agreed to in the Ca. binet, to the Admiralty, and the Secretary to the Board writes those orders again, in the form of instructions, from the Admiralty, to the Admiral, or Captain of the fleet, expedition, &c. for whom shey are designed : which instructions must be figned by three of the Board. But during Mr. Pite's Administracion, he wrote the InAructions himself, and sent them to their Lordships to be signed ; always ordering his Secretary to put a sheet of white paper over the writing. Thus they were kepe in perfect ignorance of what they had ligaed. And the Secretary and Clerks of the Board were all in the same fate of exclusion.'
It is scarcely credible that men, whose rank in life recom. mended them to feats at the board of admiralty, would, for the fake of such seats, and even of the emoluments annexed to them, stoop to such contemptuous treatment! Indeed, on Mra Pitt's part, it was perfedly consistent with his declaration, in a debate on the loss of Minorca, that Lord Anson was not fit to command a cock boat upon the river Thames *.' Yet, the fame authority, in detailing the debate in the House of Lords on the seizure of Falkland Islands, records the following paffage as part of Lord Chatham's speech, without the least remark on it!
• My Lords, upon this subject I can speak with knowledge-I have been conversant in these matters, and draw my information from the greatest and most respectable naval authority that ever exifted in this country-I mean the late Lord Anson. The meriis of that great man are not so universally known, nor his memory so warmly respected as he deserved. To his wisdom, 10 his experience, and care, (and I speak it with pleasure,) che nation owes the glorious naval successes of the last war. The state of facts laid before Parliament in the year 1756, fo entirely convinced me of the injustice done to his character, that in spite of the popular clamours raised against him, in direct opposition to the complaints of the merchants, and of the whole city, (whole favour I am supposed to court upon all cccafions,) I replaced him at the head of the Admiralty ; and I thank God that I had resolution enough to do so.' (Vol. II. p. 75, &c.)
Such instances of weak memory, or strong confidence, are now so familiar to us in popular declaimers, that we also thall pafs it without farther remark ;-and shall now, leaving the upper house, attend the author into the lower house, to which we all look for the protection of our rights and property:
• Parliament met on the 25th of November 1762. The most extraordinary provision was made for this event. The Royal Houshold had been encreased beyond all former example. The Lords and Grooms of the Bedchamber were doubled. Penfions were thrown about indiscriminately. Five and wenty thousand pounds were issued in one day, in bank notes of one hundred pounds each. The only ftipulation was, Give us your vote. A corruption of such notoriety and extent had never been seen before. There is no example, in any age or country, that in any degree approaches to it. The dole was lavih beyond the probability of account, or posibility of credit. Mr. Fox had the management of the House of Com. mons, with unlimited powers.' (Vol. I. p. 236.)
This management is thus defcribed :
• The management of the House of Commons, as it is called, is a confidential department, unknown to the Constitution. In the public accounts, it is immersed under the head of Secret Service. It is usually given to the Secretary of State, when that post is filled by a Commoner. The bufness of the department is to distribute, with art and policy, amongst the members, who have no ostensible, places, sums of money for their support during the seffion'; besides contracts, lottery tickets, and other douceurs. It is no uncommon
circumstance at the end of a session, for a gentleman to receive five hundred or a thousand pounds for bis services' (Vol. I. p. 121.)
Once more on this head :
· The management of the House of Commons is become so per: fe&tly mechanical, that it requires only a small knowledge of the principles of the machine, to be able to transfer the majority at almolt any time, from the most able Statesman, to the Favourite of the Crown, or the Confident of the enemy; who may have no other recommendation, than the smiles of the first, or the money of the last; with the same facility, that an India bond, or any other negociable property, is transferred every day.' (Vol. I. p. 202.)
Whither Mall we turn our desponding eyes, when legislative assemblies expose themselves to such open contempt ?
This article is too long already to extend farther concerning a personage and events so well known. The author's character of Lord Chatham is collected from several contemporary writers : but one trait of it in his own words, is, tha: “ bé was not born for subordination.' (Vol. II. p. 183.) This affertion, ftanding as a detached sentence, is another instance of the author's dashing * manner of writing; for if this were really the case, the Earl was totally unfit to tread British ground, in any capacity whatever : or indeed any other ground, where he could not say, flet pro ratione voluntas.
The author's relations, however true, are often disagreeable truths, generally conveyed in harsh terms, of which a variety of examples might be cited ; and while they frequently bear very hard on great names, they require the fanction of the name of the writer, which is always eflential to the establishment of bold anecdotes and unqualified assertions. The intelligent author, however, is well known, and his opportunties of information must be allowed.
Art. IV. A Defence of Public or Social Worship. A Sermon
preached in the Unitarian Chapel, in Effex Street, London, on Sunday, December 4, 1791. By John Disney, D.D. F. S. A. 8vo. Pp. 23. 61. Johnson. 1792. x the interesting inquiry which has been started by Mr.
Wakefield, whether public worship be authorized by Christ and his Apostles, or be in itself expedient, as we have (in our last Number,) fully reported his objections, we think it our duty to give, at some length, an account of what is of. fered in reply.
* We have adopred, perhaps too hastily, this mushroom exprelfon, a more significant term not instantly occurring.
Rev. MAY 1792
Dr. Disney, confining his objections within the limits of a fort sermon, suggests only a few cursory hints on the subject. On the passage produced by Mr. Wakefield, to prove that our Lord himself did not join in public worship, he remarks:
• That Christ frequently retired to pray alone, instead of joining in social worship, is very true; but we are not from thence to conclude that he was averse to public prayer. On these occasions, he may have been determined by the circumstances of the case; the subject of his prayer might have reference to his particular mission, or he may have been infuenced by the state of his own mind, the fatigue of body, the desire to leave his disciples for a while without the restraint of his presence; or the peculiar trials to which he was, at different times, particularly exposed, which required his strengthening his mind by devout application to God, independent of those who were then with him. All, or any of, these considerations, may have disposed him to retire alone, without intending in the least degree to discountenance social prayer.
• Upon the argument of our author we ought not only to confine ourselves to private prayer, but follow the example of Christ in retreating to a mountain, or a wilderness, or to reserve the evening or night season for this delightful intercourse with God.-Or, we might, with the same propriety, apply the injunction, “not to let our left hand know what our right hand doeth *," as prohibiting our concurrence in any public charities for the relief and comfort of the more distressed part of our brethren, because such acts must be seen and known by men.
• We are challenged, by our author, to produce “one single positive proof of the existence of social worship among Christ and his apostles t." Let us, therefore, try, though we hould fail to satisfy some inquirers, at leatt to justify ourselves to others, by producing sufficient reasonable evidence of the fact.
• Luke records (ix. 28.) that, previous to Christ's transfigura. tion, when he went into a mountain to pray, he took with him Peter, and John, and James; and these, it may as reasonably be presumed, were selected to join with him in prayer, as well as so be witnesses of what passed on that occasion.
• Of that prayer of Jesus, recorded in the seventeenth chapter of John, it is said by our objector, that “no mention is made of any invitation to his apostles to join or assist him in these devotions 1." But, is it not equally observable, and as probable, chat no invitation was thought necessary, -or that the evangelist might omit to write it down? The example of Christ, and the respect his disciples entertained for bim, would most probably lead them to join him in every aspiration to God, in his behalf, without requiring to be bidden to do that, which their own minds would involuntarily prompt them to.'
In reply to Mr. Wakefield's challenge “ to produce one single positive proof of the existence of social worship among
1 Ibid. p. 14.
Christ and his apostles,” Dr. D. refers(as above,) to Luke, ix. 28. where it is recorded, that, previously to Christ's transfiguration, he went up to a mountain to pray, and cook with him Peter, John, and James; a reference which will scarcely be admita ted as the positive proof that he demands. Dr. D. fariher re. marks, that the disciples would naturally, from their own inclination, without any command, join in our Saviour's prayer, recorded in the 17th of John to have been made by Christ in their presence ; that the promise, Matt xviii. 20. appears to have been confined to that first age of the Gospel, when miraculous powers were dispensed, and to have been made to encourage the disciples to join in prayer for that purpose ; and that, previously to the railing of Lazarus, Christ not only prayed in public, and before his disciples, but for them, and probably with their assent.
On our Saviour's precept for secret prayer, on which Mr. W. chiefly refts his argument, Dr. Disney's reply is, that our Saviour's reprehension of the Pharisees was intended to reform, not to suppress, their public meetings for social worlhip:
• Parade and oftentation are not necessarily connected with social worship, neither is it always a mere lip-service. Humility of mind, un feigned repentance, and the most fervent devotion, are as attainable in public, as in private prayer. The act of meeting our fel. low-christians in the ordinary way of assembling ourselves together, do more nourishes hypocrisy or pride, than retiring into our own clofers, apart from all focial intercourse, for the same purpose may beget pride or self conceit. And further, we may either receive considerable improvement from the example of others, or communicate it by our own, not in the way of enchufiaftic or superstitious influences, but in the rational exercise of our faculties, and in the pleasing contemplation that in christian love for each other, we, the creatures of God, are paying the homage of the whole heart to the one God and Father of all.'
Many instances of social prayer, among the apostles, are given, in passages cited from the Acts.
See chap. ii. 42. iv. 24. xiii. 3. xx. 36. i. 24. iii. 1. vi. 6. X. 2. xxi. 45.
With respect to the utility and expediency of public worship, Dr. D. properly says,
• What individual, it may be asked, can take upon himself to say, that “ all social worship conlists of outward exhibition, oppoled to inward in Auence; in the honour of the lips, oppoied to the aspiration of the heart; in che vain oblations of ceremonial homage, opposed to the sacrifice of the whole man, body and 1pirit, on the altar of the divine will ?” Nay, let mc make my appeal to every one, who now hears me, whether he has not known the devotion of the heart affitted by social worship, and the love of his fel. low-creatures spread abroad in his heart, by joining with them in the acts of public worlhip. And when, or wbere, can“ genuine