ART. 24. A Review of Dr. Priefley's Letter to an Anti-Pado Baptift. By fob David. 8vo. 28 pp. IS. Vidler. 1803. T In the opening of his work, Mr. David extols Dr. Priestley for his inflexible virtue, as well as for his exalted genius, and unmerited sufferings. We leave the two latter points' to the judgment of those who have attended to his writings and his conduct. But, as to the first, he is afterwards declared to be, not only" by nature hafty", but “towards the memory of his deceased friend, Mr. Robinson, uncandid and illiberal" (p. 21); that is (we fay) unjuft, and fo not inflexibly virtuous. Mr. David is not fingular in his mode of judging, which is plainly this as far as Dr. P. is on my fide, hoftile to Church and State, he is every thing good; at the point when he ceafes to be fo, he becomes any thing but good. As to arguments against infant-baptifm, there is not a tittle of novelty in this whole book; and we leave to Dr. P. the vindication of himfelf and his Letter, which was noticed in our 21 volume, p. 328. POLITICS. ART. 25. A Reply to fome financial Miftatements, in and out of Parlia ment. Svo. 68 pp. Is. 6d. Hatchard. 1803. The financial Miftatements out of Parliament, to which this author replies, and which he reprobates with just feverity, are those of Mr. Cobbett, in his Political Regifter: thofe in Parliament are afcribed to a noble Lord, whom the writer of courfe treats with more refpect. As an apology for entering into "the ferious examination of inconfiftencies fo glaring, and the formal expofure of errors fo grofs and felf-evident", the author (in his Preface) obferves, that "one of thofe few fubjects on which this reproof would not be juftly founded, is finance; in which the refults are fo highly and generally interefting, while the ftudy of the materials from which they are deduced i, comparatively fpeaking, familiar to a very fmall number of readers." The author then proceeds to point out "fuch errors and inconfift encies in the affertions and inferences of Cobbert, as thow how unacquainted he is with the matter, and how cariefs in the manner, of his argument." The first of thefe errors refpects the furplus of the Confolidated Fund. In his remarks on this fubject, Cobbett is fhown to "have applied to the Budget for 1802 what belonged to the budget for 1803"; and confequently to have grossly mifreprefented Mr. Addington, who is ftated to have calculated the furplus for the four quarters ending the 5th of April, 1803, at 6,500,000l. whereas the 6,500,000l. were taken on the Confolidated Fund for four quarters ending the 5th of January, 1804; and this author fhows, by referring to Woodfall's Parliamentary Regifter, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 4th of June, propofed a vote of 4,500,000l. without any eltimate of a larger receipt, for the year ending the 5th of April, 1803. I Several Several other grofs mistatements of the fame writer are shown, and fome glaring inconfiftencies pointed out, by only comparing different paffages of his Regifter with each other. But we turn from this fubject to one more worthy of attention, namely, the financial miftatements of Lord Grenville, in the Houfe of Lords. These statements are here opposed with confiderable ability, and we think with fuccefs. They relate chiefly to the estimates of expence for future buildings in the navy, the army eftimates, the account of the permanent taxes, and the estimated pro. duce of the lottery. The whole conclufion drawn by Lord G. from his ftatement of thefe expences and probable receipts depends", fays this author, " upon an error of a very obvious and palpable nature. The Noble Lord applies the income of the year 1802 to the establishment of a future period, in which an increase of income was distinaly held out by Mr. Addington, who ftated his reafons for expecting it. Deducting from the ttatement of expence 700,000l. which we have fhown to be improperly charged for the extra buildings of the navy, the amount of the expenditure will remain, as in Mr. Addington's eftimate, 10,533,000l.; and, adding to the account of receipt the fums deducted by Lord Grenville, for reasons which we have thown to be infufficient, it will amount to 9,682,000l. To this all cafual receipts are to be added. There would therefore remain an apparent deficiency of about 900,000l. of which the increase of the revenue in the first quarter of 1803 would have fupplied 700,000l. The whole of Mr. Addington's ftatement depended upon the probability, fupported by experience, of a progreffive increase in the produce of the revenue. And it is the total inattention to this part of the statement which has given occafion to many unfounded charges. "From thefe obfervations we conclude, that any statement, founded on Lord Auckland's papers, is, in two very material refpects, difadvantageous to the Minister. Ift, that all incidental receipts of the Confolidated Fund are omitted; and, which is far more material, that it fuppofes the revenue to have reached its utmost produce in the year 1802. This is fo far from the truth, that we have already proved, that, in the first quarter of 1803, an improvement took place of 700,000l.; and Mr. Addington was fo far from holding out an expectation that, even in the year 1803, the revenue would reach its utmoft height, that he diftinétly ftated the produce of the Confolidated Fund for that year at about 6,100,000l. though he thought himself juftified in expecting its future produce might amount to 7,845,000l. The actual produce in the year 1802 fully realized his estimate; and the produce of the fucceeding quarter, as we have before shown, very confiderably exceeded it." P. 58. Upon the whole, the writer of this tract appears to us to have ably vindicated the financial statements of the Minifter, and to have thrown a very clear light on an intricate, but highly interesting fubject. His work appears to us well worthy the attention of all who defire to have accurate information, and to form just opinions, respecting the finances of the country. ART. ART. 26. Alfred's Letters. An Effay on the Conftitution of England, and an Appeal to the People; with Six Letters, on the Subject of Invafion, originally addreffed to the Printers of the Two Shrewsbury Papers. 8vo. 36 pp. 15. 6d. No Publisher's Name. 1804. Too much praise cannot be given to the object and defign of this little pamphlet. The Effay, which the author has placed first, delineates justly (upon the whele) though without much ingenuity or novelty of remark, the conftitution of this kingdom; and exhorts us to the defence of it against our implacable enemy. The Letters (which are fix in number) chiefly relate to the Volunteer Corps in that part of the kingdom where they were published, and contain many well-intended exhortations, and fome not injudicious inftructions, calculated to render them more perfect in difcipline. The ftyle of this author is inelegant, and often vulgar; but his admonitions (though hardly worthy of republication) may have been useful to thofe Volunteer Corps, for whofe fervice they were written. ART. 27. Reflections on the late Elections in the County of Cambridge: with incidental Remarks on the prefent State of the Nation. By a Freeholder of that County. 8vo. 48 pp. 1s. 6d. Hatchard. 1803. The title of this declamation fhould have been reverfed: Remarks on, &c. with incidental Reflections on, &c. For, among forty-eight pages, feven only have any concern whatever with the county of Cam The rest of the book is a medley of the pobridge and its elections. litics of ancient Rome and modern England. Every page is fwelled with common place fcraps of Latin. We have feldom been more fatigued than in this cafe, by reading the fame number of pages: yet the author fometimes appears equal to higher things. He is probably a young man, who writes as faft as he talks, and who talks much fatter than he thinks. INVASION. ART. 28. Serious Confiderations, addressed to British Labourers and Mechanics, at the prefent Crifis. 8vo. 19 pp. Debrett. 1803. Very just and ftriking Confiderations; which we recommend to be printed (without lofs of time) in a cheap form, plainer words being occafionally fubftituted; and to be diftributed in their respective neighbourhoods, by all perfons attentive to the prefent fituation of their country. MISCELLANIES. MISCELLANIES. ART. 29. Obfervations on the Correspondence between Mr. Adam and Mr. Bowles, with the Correspondence fubjoined. By John Bowles, Efq. 8vo. 48 pp. IS. Rivingtons. 1804. We have carefully attended to the fubftance of this Correspondence, and have principally remarked in it two things. First, that the friends of the late Duke of Bedford are laudably anxious to rescue his character from the charge of irreligion; fecondly, that Mr. Bowles, who made the charge, is anxious alfo to prove, that he did not make it wantonly. For the former purpose, Mr. Adam published the Correfpondence alone, and had it distributed gratis; for the latter, Mr. Bowles here prefixes to it his own Obfervations. To us it appears, that whether the charge be just or not, Mr. Bowles had fufficient grounds to think it fo, at the time when he alledged it. With respect to the facts in difpute, though we cannot think the retractation of the old parish clerk of equal validity with the affertion of a moft exemplary clergyman, we are happy to fee added, in the statement proposed by Mr. Adam, three important facts; that the Duke had ordered the parish church of Woburn to be repaired at his own expence; that he had made provifion there for his own attendance; and that, on a folemn occafion, he particularly defired to partake of the Sacrament with his brother. Thefe are circumstances which throw a light upon his character, of which not a ray affuredly appeared in the famous pa negyric of Mr. Fox*. In the laft Letter of the Correfpondence, Mr. Bowles claims a right to reply, which he has here exercifed, merely for his own juftification; and, as he has alfo republifhed the whole Correfpondence, it is unneceffary to take a feparate notice of the former book. Mr. Bowles infifts chiefly upon two points; that his motive was pure, and his authority for what he afferted fufficient. He was anxious that a character fhould not be held up to the public as perfect, in which religion made no part, and was even trongly fufpected to be wanting: and he fubftantiated his charge by teftimony, which he had good reason to believe irrefragable. That his motive was other than good, cannot be fuppofed, without a grofs ignorance of his character; and it feemed rather a harsh proceeding, to endeavour to preclude him from the means of fuch a juftification as he has here publifhed. He had already removed from his former publication the two facts which are here controverted. The caufe of religion is manifeftly promoted by the whole difcuffion. See Mr. Bowles's Letter to him, Brit. Crit. vol. xx. p. 93. ART. ART. 30. Afhort Account of certain notabl: Discoveries in Hiftory, Science, and Philology, contained in a recent Work, entitled "Elements of General Knowledge", &c. By Phil leatheros Orielenfis. 8vo. 19. Cooke, Oxford; Payne and Mackinlay, London. 47 PP. 1803. Who it was that affumed the appellation of Phileleutherus Lipfienfis, and for what purpose, few of our readers will require to be informed. It was no lefs a perfon than the illuftrious Bentley, when he chofe to diffect the mischievous discourse of Collins on Free-thinking. With what modefty a fimilar name is prefixed to an illiberal and uncandid attack up on an eminently useful book, we leave the public to decide. Does the author men to imply, that though his antagonist may not refemble Collins, he at leaft is the very counterpart of Bentley? Or would he teach us. that a peculiar love of freedom is required to pen farcaftical infinuations? After three editions of the work have been exhausted, a perfon of Oriel finds time to write and publish 47 pages of objections. But even if the objections were all valid, this could hardly be fuppofed to demand the learning or acuteness of a Bentley. It is certain, however, as we shall fhow in a very concife Article, that fome of the objections cannot be allowed; and thofe which cannot fully be answered, owe no small part of their importance to the exaggerations by which they are accompanied. The Introduction, of four pages, is dedicated to the purposes of aggravation only. It endeavours to leave the author attacked without excufe for the errors which may be found. This, therefore, belongs not to the love of freedom, but the love of malice. The remarks begin at p. 154 of the fourth edition; and the first amount only to this; that in a rapid ferch the accounts are concife. We are then carried at once to vol. ii. p. 318, to notice (probably) an error of the prefs, in putting Catullus for Tibullus, on which much ftrefs is laid, and much pedantry wafted. That the latter was meant is clear, not only from the mention of "tender and penfive elegies", but becaufe the country house of Tibullus at Pedam must have been within a moderate walk of Tivoli. Bentley would not have laid himself open to so easy an an(wer. as An appearance of inconfiftency is then tolerably made out, on the fabject of Horace, by bringing broken paffages together; but all might be remedied by the change of a fingle word. The remarks on geography and chronology are of no great confequence. Mr. Kett has taken the Dutch account of the Caffres; the pfeudo-Bentley prefers the accuracy of an author who fays, that it is " falfe as it is unmerited"; who, however, had not published when Mr. Kett's book was prepared for the prefs. On the fubject of the reform of the Kalendar, a real error is detected; and of courfe is fufficiently amplified, by the rule of candour. The remarks on hiftory are worked by the fame rule, but are by no means all unan'werable. We must not, however, go through BRIT, CRIT. VOL. XXIII. MARCH, 1804. |