upon Lady Hervey's picture of the times, that there is little new under the sun, will frequently occur to the reader of this volume. The date of 1822, would suit the following extract as well as that of 1744, when it was penned :

"I find by your letters both to my son and me, that you are in a patriot fright, which, on this occasion, is synonymous to a panic fright on any other. I wish you were here; you would make a trio in the pathetic, political performance I hear every noon, which I sometimes hiss and sometimes parody-what should be great I turn to farce: if I did not, the tragedy would be too deep to hear repeated every day. I hope things are better than my tragedians represent them, and have one reason to hope it; which is, that above five-and-twenty years ago I heard the same dreadful prophecies from the same dreadful prophets, and was advised to sell immediately out of the stocks, for there would come a sponge in less than a year. That year and four-and-twenty more are passed without the sponge, therefore, dum spiro sperabo: my reason, my experience and my spirits, (which latter, thank God, are not English,) all concur in enabling me to do so. Had I cried for my country as long as Lord Bristol has been telling me I ought to do so, I should not by this time have had au eye left to cry with; and now I have two, and a mouth to laugh, which I am resolved to make use of as long as I can. I don't know whether this is philosophy or madness; but, if it be the latter, I may say, with Torresmond, There is a pleasure in being mad, which none but mad folks know ;' and if any wisely endeavour to cure me of it, I shall say with the Argive lunatic, Pol, me occidistis, non servastis. When I remind Lord Bristol how long it is since he bespoke my tears for my ruined country, he shakes his head, and says, Ay, Madam! but it is nearer and nearer, and must happen at last: therefore, according to his method, one should begin to weep for one's children as soon as they are born; for they must die at last, and every day brings them nearer to it. Let his Lordship be a disciple of Heraclitus if he will; I prefer Democritus, and should be glad to have you of the same sect. Ride si sapis !” pp. 80-82.

6

The period comprised between the accession of Charles I. and that of Geo. III., was "the reign of pamphlets." For the last half century, political warfare has been chiefly carried

on by means of newspapers. These Letters shew the interest taken in the writer's day, in the former species of ephemeral literature. She mentions, and with becoming disapprobation, (p. 19,) a political parody of the Te Deum, of which, she says, that the wit does not compensate the impiety.

Several heterodox divines and (proh pudor!) bishops are brought forward in this volume. Lady Hervey praises or blames them according to their individual merits: her Editor, who is probably a clergyman, takes uniform offence at the name of an unsound churchman. The story of Dr. Thomas Rundle is well-known. In 1733, Lord Chancellor Talbot recommended him for the see of Gloucester; but the heads of the English Church resisted the appointment, and Rundle "was obliged to content himself with the lucrative bishopric of Derry, in Ireland." Rundle is described, by Lady Hervey, as the greatest flatterer and greatest talker she ever knew. (P. 51.) Her ladyship speaks with great respect of Bishop Hoadly: not so, her Editor, who complains of Queen Caroline's being somewhat of a latitudinarian, and using her influence to raise prelates of suspicious orthodoxy to the bench. Of Hoadly, he says, in this connexion,

"His Lordship was almost a Dissenter, or, at least, what would now-a-days be called a very liberal Christian. When some Free-thinking writers were mentioned before Archbishop Secker as being Christians, Yes,' said he, in allusion to the principles of the Bishop, and the title of the books printed for Winchester School, Yes, Christians secundum usum

Winton !

And yet we find that the orthodox Archbishop himself has not escaped similar and even worse imputations. I have read somewhere that Secker was an Atheist !"-P. 94, Note.

Dr. Conyers Middleton has been before mentioned as the friend of Lord Hervey. To this nobleman he dedicated his great work, the Life of Cicero. He was on terms of friendship with Lady Hervey, who appears to have embraced his principal opinions. The Letters shew an incessant interest, and even anxiety, with regard to his various controversial publications. This displeases the Editor, who will not allow Middleton to

have been a sincere Christian (p. 145, note); it might mend his charity if he would condescend to read this writer's eloquent letter to Mr. Venn, on evangelical" defamation. (Works, 8vo. I. 421, &c.) With very censurable neglect, to say the least, this anonymous critic quotes a passage from one of Middleton's "private letters," in order to disgrace him, without referring to any publication, or in any other manner authenticating the quo tation. Supposing it to be genuine, it does reflect discredit upon Middleton, but how many other dignified clergymen have there been, and are there, at whose Christian_ integrity it virtually glances ! The Editor's remark is as follows:

"Lady Hervey would probably not have thought so highly of him if she had known that he had subscribed the Thirtynine Articles politically, merely to obtain the living of Hascombe, although he was in affluent circumstances, which ought to have put him above such deplorable meanness. His avowal, too, of this act in one of his private letters is almost as shameless as the act itself: Though there are many things in the Church which I wholly dislike, yet, while I am content to acquiesce in the ill, I should be glad to taste a little of the good, and to have some amends for the ugly assent and consent, which no man of sense can approve.' The spirit of a philosopher, forsooth!"-P. 60, 61, Note.

Mr. Morris appears, from one of the Letters, to have recommended to his distinguished correspondent, one of the works of Dr. James Foster. She replies, that she has not so great an opinion of him as Mr. Morris expresses; and adds, most unwarrantably, "I believe he is a man of parts, but, with all his Presbyterian sanctity, as much a man of the world as any one." (Pp. 151, 152.) Never was character more mistaken, for if there were any two features of "modest Foster's" character more striking than any others, they were his freedom from all professional and sectarian affectation, and his disinterestedness. But a Dissenting minister is, we apprehend, always regarded by persons in high life, as a person to be either suspected or pitied. The orthodox Editor says, "his works are now nearly forgotten:"-this is somewhat too

much, for we apprehend, that, with the exception of the Calvinistic party, the clergy have not yet left off preaching Foster. His Sermons, we say fearlessly, are entitled to a permanent place in that class of English literature; and will, we predict, keep it, notwithstanding his having been Dissenting minister."

Lady Hervey's own religion was of à very doubtful kind. She explains it thus: "I will think as I can, believe as I must, do as little hurt and as much good as I am able, and take my chance for the consequences." (P. 57.) On this subject, she writes from Paris, Jan. 5, 1751, a characteristic anecdote :

"I was, a few days ago, agreeably entertained by meeting, at a third place, a very deep, acute, determined Deist, who undertook me and a very sensible, cautious Abbé; after arguing, twisting and turning about our several arguments very cleverly, and shewing what he called our different, but continued inconsistencies, he very dexterously turned us upon one another; ridiculed both our tenets; and ended by saying, my antagonist the Abbé was determined to believe more than he could; and that I was ready to give up as much as I dared. I wish you had been there to have heard it all, and to have assisted me; for I own I sometimes wanted it. Altogether, it was very agreeable and very entertaining, as there was warmth enough on all sides to keep up a spirit, and not heat enough to produce any ill-humour."-P. 184.

The uncertainty of Lady Hervey's mind upon religion, left her a frequent prey to apprehension and melancholy. She grows sad as she grows old. In 1748, she writes, "There is nothing wanting to my present happiness but the thoughts of its continuance; but the knowing how short its duration will be, is" (the italics are copied) "the cruel something that corrodes and leavens all the rest." (P. 135.) In 1767,-"I find a life after sixty is but a burthensome affair, &c. All one can do is to suffer life; to enjoy it is impossible. This is a bad prospect," &c. (P. 327.) Again,-"There is a cruel difference between youth and age," &c. (P. 328.) And in her last letter, dated June 22, 1768, (she died the 2d of September following,) she speaks miserably concerning death,

and profanely (though in borrowed language) of an hereafter:

<< What you seem most to apprehend is not a subject of horror to me. I think about it as I do about death; 'tis not

that I fear, but 'tis the way to it; 'tis the struggles, the last convulsions that I dread; for when once they are over, I don't question but to rise to a new and better life. Dr. Garth, I remember, used to say, I vow to God, Madam, I take this to be hell, purgatory at least; we shall certainly be better off in any other world. I think I am of his opinion."-Pp. 330,

331.

Like the greater part of the fashion able world, this lady had no conception of religion but as an instrument of human policy, legitimated by parliamentary or royal authority. She tion of the Reformation conducted by expresses in one place her approbathat Christian Reformer Henry the Eighth, but at the same time her great doubts of the right of Luther and Calvin to go so far as they did in opposition to ecclesiastical usage! Here she had forgotten her preceptor, Dr. Middleton.

The fanatical admiration of Frederic the Great (as he is styled by courtesy), King of Prussia, which has been exposed in our IXth Volume, p. 548, infected Lady Hervey, who ridiculously describes the heartless monarch as "something in the great scale of beings between man and a deity!" (P. 235.)

We meet occasionally with lively descriptions of Lady Hervey's French acquaintances; the picture of Fontenelle in the letter from Paris, before referred to, of Jan. 5, 1751, is very pleasing:

"I dine sometimes with a set of beaux esprits, among which old Fontenelle presides. He has no mark of age but wrinkles and a degree of deafness; but when, by sitting near him, you make him hear you, he never fails to understand you, and always answers with that liveliness, and a sort of prettiness peculiar to himself. He often repeats and applies his own and other people's poetry very agree ably; but only occasionally, as it is per and applicable to the subject. He has still a great deal of gallantry in his tura and in his discourse. He is ninety two, and has the cheerfulness, liveliness, and even the taste and appetite of twenty

two."-P. 183.

VOL. XVII.

pro

P

Lady Hervey lifts up the veil which Earl Waldegrave forebore to remove, and shews us the nature of royal pastimes. Her introductory remark is not on a courtly theme; but from cends to the family of Frederic Prince "horned cattle" she presently asof Wales, at Leicester House:

tle breaks out in many new places. The "I hear the distemper among the cat. town is sickly; and nothing seems prosperous but gaming and gamesters. "Tis ladies play; but in spite of all these irrereally prodigious to see how deep the gularities, the Prince's family is an example of innocent and cheerful amusements. All this last summer they played abroad; and now, in the winter, in a large room, they divert themselves at base-ball, a play all who are or have been schoolThe amusement; and the latter return the boys are well acquainted with. ladies, as well as gentlemen, join in this compliment in the evening, by playing for an hour at the old and innocent game of push-pin, at which they chiefly excel, (if they are not flattered,) who ought in every thing to precede. This innocence and excellence must needs give great joy, as well as great hopes, to all real lovers of their country and posterity."-Pp. 139, 140.

This extract was written, Nov. 14, 1748. On the 1st of the next February, she returns to the Prince of Wales, whom she denominates Sosia: "As for the Sosia, I agree with you, and firmly believe the prologue and epilogue are both his own; at least they are (as Lord Paulet, when he was Lord Hinton, once told him, on being asked his opinion of some of his poetical performances) worthy of his Royal Highness." P. 147. It is not a part of the court religion to praise princes long dead, especially princes that were never perfected by becoming kings, and therefore the Editor gives us, in a note on this passage, (pp. 147, 148,) the following scarcely decorous intelligence and halfdisloyal reflection :

here called Sosia, I do not see; but the "Why Frederic Prince of Wales is rest of the allusion is to the play of Cato, performed on Wednesday the 4th of Ja uary, at Leicester House, by his Royal Highness' children, and some other boys; a copy of the cast of characters may, perhaps, amuse the reader. -Cato, Master Nugent.

therefore they invoked Christ as himself the object of prayer. The word

Servetus examines some of the Reviewer's criticisms on former Unitarian writers, and hesitates not to avow his dissent from some of their arguments and conclusions.

"In another place you seize hold on what you regard as a concession of Mr. Yates, fatal to the Unitarian cause : that he is unable to form a very decided opinion on the meaning of the phrase calling on the name of the Lord: Acts ix. 14-21; 1 Cor. i. 2. I do not wonder at your seizing this advantage: I only wonder that it should have been given you and I must again remind you that your bringing forward the opinion of an individual proves nothing, unless you can prove that the general body of Unitarians hold the same: but so far from being able to prove this, you must in the present instance be fully aware of the contrary. Mr. Yates, and not the Unitarians, is responsible for the doubt and the difficulty. Wakefield, a competent scholar, I presume, thought the proper rendering of the words was being called by the name of the Lord,' or taking his name upon them.' What, then, is to be done? We must step out of the 'single text,' and take our stand on the broad analogy of Scripture. We there find that the apostles bowed the knees to the FATHER of our Lord Jesus Christ.' It happens, however, that there can be no doubt, and that there is no difficulty. The phrase is neither more nor less than a Hebraism (for, strange to say, though you and Bishop Horsley imagine that the apostles were inspired to write modern idioms for the express use of the English nation, they actually employed the language of their age and country); the calling on the name, or calling a name apon them, implies no more than the being enrolled as the followers of him by whose name they are called,

the passage of Acts, I appeal unto Cæsar: Acts xxiv. 11. It has, therefore, no necessary and inseparable connexion with religious invocation."-Pp. 72-74. "The next charge is more serious : you really appear, for once, to be in the right, in so far as the individual is concerned. Mr. Worsley, as well as Mr. have not the book before me, and I canYates, must 'bear his own burthen.' I not, therefore, tell whether you have garbled the extracts or stated them fairly: but his allusion to the Magi, which you, of course, hold up to your readers as a specimen of the way in which Unitarians treat Scripture, is probably connected with a doubt whether this much-canvassed narrative be Scripture or no. But your chief charge respects the name of the LORD OF HOSTS. That political preachers have perverted this title, to consecrate the unhallowed ambition of statesmen delighting in war, is a fact that requires no proof: but it seems strange that Mr. Worsley should both have countenanced this false interpretation by regarding it as the sense of the Hebrew nation, and that he should have overlooked the occurrence of the name in passages of unequivocal inspiration. By describing the writer, with mock gravity of information, as no Deist, but a minister of a Dissenting congregation, who dedicates his work to the Unitarian Fund,' you wish to convey the impression that the identity of the Hebrew title Lord of Hosts with that of the God of Buttles of the northern nations, is the familiar and approved construction of Unitarians. Your malice shall be disappointed. I shall simply refer the reader to a Sermon, entitled 'The name Lord of Hosts explained and improved, by JOSHUA TOULMIN, D. D.' It is there expounded as implying dominion over the hosts of heaven, the moon and the stars which he had made: thus involving at once a reproof and refutation of the Gentile worship of the planetary idols. I mention the definition, because though smelling blasphemy afar off,' in Mr. Worsley's mistaken irreverence for the term, I suspect you lie under the same mistake as to its import. The blunder was originally Voltaire's. will not be able to make much of this discovery. Mr. Worsley is in orthodox company."-Pp. 81-83.

You

Charges of various kinds are pre

• "Dictionnaire Philosophique, Guerre,