feebly commanded navy of Spain. The operation of cutting out armed ships from under powerful batteries had been indeed very generally attempted, and had most commonly been crowned withsuccess, during the latter years of the long war which raged in Europe. The Spaniards on board the Esmeralda must have kept, a most negligent watch, as the first intelligence of the attack seems to have been the meeting of the parties who had boarded her on different sides, on her quarter-deck. After a desperate bat confused resistance, the ship was carried, and removed beyond the reach of : the batteries, before those who ought to have directed them had acquired sufficient calmness to point their guns with any effect./ The moral influence of this gallant operation, an operation which discovered both skill and courage in Lord Cochrane, was far beyond what could have been produced by an action of equally successful result on the open sea; and we cannot but think that the prompt and decisive conduct of the naval part of the armament, forms a contrast not to the advantage of the commander-in-chiefwho personally led the land part of it.,

When by the united efforts of the army and navy the great object of plunder was in some measure attained by the surrender of Lima, we are not surprized that the commanders of the two arms should quarrel about the division of it; or that one should accuse the other, when they had both been disappointed in its amount. Without offering any opinion on the relative demerits of the combatants, each of whom treats the other as the vilest of culprits, we may give the outline of the charges reciprocally produced.

The secretary of state, Monteagudo, in a letter to Lord Cochrane, dated 3d October, 1821, after relating several scandalous: transactions, which he affects to pass over, accuses him in the most direct manner with having levied contributions on the merchants trading on the coast, without authority; and with giving passports to places blockaded by order of the government, by which his lordship alone profited. There is something so whimsical in the style in which the secretary addresses the noble culprit, that we must amuse our readers with a few literal extracts.

"Your excellency has sent the ships of the squadron, against the positive order of the commander-in-chief, to places and objects in op position to his plans. Your excellency disarmed the Pueyredon against the wish of the government of Chile, and took possession of the prize which that vessel had just made, in spite of the orders that were com municated to you, and the claims made by the captain premier. Your excellency caused to be stolen the medicines of the army in Huara, ordering Captain Crosby, with an armed force, to break open the doors of the room in which they were deposited. Your excellency gave pass+} ports to the prisoners of the Lord Lyndock for the contemptible consis

deration

deration of the money that you have received from them. Your excel-> lency, has possessed yourself of the private property on board the Laura, and you have opened the public correspondence which she brought from Chile, Your excellency has deposed various captains without the forms prescribed by the articles of

war, substituting for, deserving officers were no other recommendation than the being worthy, and who had to your interest. Your excellency has taken of the property of government, monies which exceed double of its debt to the squadron; and notwithstanding you have not returned the money of private individuals, ex-! posing many to almost certain ruin of their fortunes, and proving in this your bad faith; since otherwise you would have returned a surplus, as your pretext for surprizing it was to pay the squadron.'

The other charges are promoting insurrection in the fleet-negociating treacherously with the enemy-slandering the governments of Chili and Peru and disobedience of orders-for all of which San Martin would have before exposed him, but from consideration for the military life of the accused, and his character as a general of the state of Chile.'

It is rather singular that Mrs. Graham, as the professed advocate of Lord Cochrane, and who has not been sparing in the letter-press of her Appendix, should have omitted to favour the public with the charges and counter-charges thus brought by the general and the admiral against each other; more especially as she represents herself as being employed in printing, whilst in Chile, the composition of the latter, and speaks of it with no slight complacency. Whoever has seen, and happens to recollect, Lord Cochrane's address to Lord Ellenborough, published after his trial, will be able to conceive. the kind of answer which he would give to the charges brought against him. In his letter to this ex-protector of Peru, dated 19th November, 1822, instead of refuting his accusations, he asstimes the office of accuser; and with every vituperative epithet that language could furnish, charges his late commander, Don Joze de San Martin, with being a liar, a coward, a cheat, a robber, a hypocrite, and a murderer. These charges, in a paper of forty pages, are reiterated, varied, and pertinacionsly maintained. As a specimen we quote a passage from a production, the whole of which would form a valuable study for one who felt either delight or disgust in the contemplation of revolutionary heroes.

My plan,' says Lord Cochrane, was, on the capture of Lima, that one half of the Spaniards property should be taken, leaving them the remainder; your plan, after assuring them of protection, and selling' them letters of citizenship, was to take the whole, and banish their persons; and accordingly, after you had obtained half their property as the price of their permission to embark the other half, you caused the remainder to be seized, and hundreds of the miserable owners to be Moistob

S

crammed

crammed into the prison-ship Melagro, where your soldiers on guard completed the work of deprivation. Some of the old men who were piteously dragged from their homes and imprisoned, some crowded in the ship just mentioned and some in another, in order to be transported to Chile, died of grief and ill usage; but those who died, and those who were murdered on their passage under a most questionable pretence of intended resistance, cannot in this world bear testimony to these atrocities; but of those who survived and were brought to Chile, some yet live as witnesses of their truth.'

It is not for us to settle the point of precedence between these two heroes. The whole correspondence brings to our mind a tale of Franklin's. Two men who had been most violently accusing each other of villany, at length appealed to him. I am no judge of the matters in question,' said he, but you seem to know each other.'

ART. VIII.-Aspersions Answered: an Explanatory Statement, addressed to the Public at large, and to every Reader of the Quarterly Review in particular. By W. Hone. 8vo. pp. 68. London. 1824.

INFIDELITY is not so good a trade as it was four or five years, ago. When men's pockets were empty, their tempers were squred, and their ears open to every evil suggestion. But with the improvement of their resources, there has occurred the natural improvement of their dispositions, and the radical and deist are left to bewail the loss of their auditors and admirers. To relieve himself from this distressing situation, Mr. Hone has published a pamphlet, announcing that his character has been quite mistaken, that he is a very sound Christian, and that, in his opinion, Christianity is a pure principle-a mental illumination, &c. &c.' To prove the purity of his faith, he thinks it necessary to show that the Apocryphal New Testament, (published for him,) the base and disgraceful falsehoods of which we exposed nearly three years ago, was not written with any bad intentions against the Christian religion, and that we wilfully misrepresented its design and execution. Having said that the pamphlet before us is published by this notorious person, and put together by himself, or one of his party, we need not add that it is written in a spirit of the most vulgar and contemptible ferocity. The nature of such men cannot be mistaken, and it would be as unjust towards them, as it would be degrading towards ourselves, to feel either wonder or anger at their using the dialect and style to which they are habituated. The time happily appears so distant at which dispositions like these can hope for the same freedom of action, as of words, that the implied menace at the con

clusion

clusion of the tirade, towards the individual supposed to be the writer of the article on the Apocryphal New Testament, is simply ludicrous. Hardly less absurd are the reproaches directed against him for concealing his name under the shelter of a Review. The exposure of a bold bad man, and the detection of ignorance and falsehood, are actions which can cause no shame, and require no concealment: but it is well worthy of the sagacity of this pamphleteer, to accuse his adversary of aiming at notoriety, and hunting after church preferment, and yet of endeavouring to throw a cloak of secrecy round his name and actions!

Mr. Hone, it may be remembered, advertised an answer to our Article immediately after its publication, and continued for some time to do so; but that answer never appeared. The allegations of dishonesty which we brought were such as to cast some discredit, we presume, on the editor of the Apocryphal New Testament, even among his own coterie, of au Qio and a more worthless crew never sold themselves to work wickedness—and it was judged necessary to make a show of resistance. But it was not quite clear at that time which way the tide of public affairs and opinions would set, and therefore it was not prudent for Mr. Hone to commit himself farther, or more decisively. Had the evil spirit so long prevalent increased, or had it not received a decided check, we should have heard no more of Mr. Hone's Christianity, or our malignity; but we should probably have received his thanks for so clearly establishing his claim to the character of an anti-Christian writer. Of his intentions at the time when the Apocryphal New Testament was published, besides the whole tone of the work and the general system of falsehood pursued, its very form (which, we presume, was designed to caricature the Gospels of the New Testament) and the manner in which the publication was hailed by the Liberal Party, were sufficient proofs. We shall not disgust our readers by repeating Sir Richard Phillips's nauseating praises of it; it is sufficient to say that he prophesied it would soon be bound up with the real Scriptures, and be the subject of pious discourses and commentaries! and that another Magazine (once far more respectable than his) ventured, after a deal of more odious trash, to say that it was even affirmed that from St. Matthew's Gospel it could be shown, that he recognized' one of the most infamous of the forged gospels as genuine!

We notice this pamphlet, not because such accusations as it brings against us require any answer, but because their dishonesty will more clearly fix the character of the party concerned in the production of the Apocryphal New Testament; and because we think that an useful lesson, may be derived to the halflearned readers of infidel writings, from the extraordinary degree

.. VOL. XXX. NO. LX.

H H

of

of ignorance which the editor of that work is compelled to confess, in order to escape from the heavier charges of falsehood and dishonesty. One great accusation brought by the pamphleteer against us (in common with others) is, that we have basely attacked the literary reputation of Mr. Hone, by our assertion that, contemptible as was the execution of the Apocryphal New Tes tament, that worthy person neither was, nor is capable of being the editor of it. Even this charge the pamphleteer cannot state with any regard to truth. In page 15, he says, He (the Quarterly Reviewer) informs his readers that I (Hone) am a poor illiterate creature, far too ignorant to have any share in the composition of the work. We knew nothing of Mr. Hone beyond his publications; Heaven forbid we should! we wrote professedly as knowing nothing; we informed' our readers of nothing whatever on our own knowledge. The passage which he garbles is this: He (Hone) is represented to us as a poor illiterate creature, &c.' What words could be chosen to express more distinctly that we spoke from the information of others, not from any personal knowledge of Mr. Hone's capacity or incapacity? The statement we gave was and is generally credited; nay, in this very pamphlet, (p. 50) grievous complaint is made of Archdeacon Butler for actually alluding to an individual as the real editor. The only authority on the other side is the assertion of this falsifying pamphleteer; we prefer that of common rumour; she cannot be convicted of fouler mendacity than he will presently be. The matter is, however, one of perfect indifference; if it be true that Mr. Hone was the editor of the Apocryphal New Testament, the only difference in his demerits is, that, instead of paying others for inventing and propagating falsehood, he performed that meritorious work, proprio Marte. We have no doubt that the editor and the Pamphleteer are the same person; the similarity of their styles of equivocation and juggle is a strong proof of their identity.

The next charge (page 19) is that we reproached him for having produced, for his own purposes, some wretched forgeries ascribed to St. Jerome, as genuine, when Fabricius had clearly exposed the imposture. This clear logician thinks that he has convicted us here of wilful falsehood, for, says he, I cannot read Latin, and could not therefore know what Fabricius said.' Unless we were to know, by divination, that a person who undertook such a publication as the Apocryphal New Testament, was incapable of even reading the collections on the same subject, how are we liable to any accusation of falsehood? But he goes on. • If the Re

The Pamphleteer, sagely imagining that Fabricius's is an original work, accuses us here of inconsistency in saying that he had read it, and yet that he had not had recourse to any original source of information!