lication, entitled, "A Statement of Facts relative to Mrs. H. More's Schools;" I beg leave to tranfmit for your information, and that of the public, the following further particulars, corroborative of the ftatement which I then gave you. It is to little purpose, that your ears, and thofe of the public, are attempted to be diverted by a multiplicity of details, which are incorrect and fallacious. Mifreprefentation, concealment, aggravation, and all the arts by which plain matter of fact is fet in different colours from thofe in which it really ftands, will not do when detection is so easy and proofs fo numerous as in the cafe before us. The Controversy has al ready been extended to a length, which every good man must lament, and every peaceable man wifh to avoid. And if the authors will write and pubJifh in contradiction of facts, which yet have exiftence, and can abundantly be proved to have fuch, there is no knowing where the Controverfy will end. It will be perpetuated, and must be fo, as long as there is one who, with the means of information, has refolution enough to oppofe truth to falfehood, and who will not fuffer the latter to triumph while it is in his power to prevent it. I fend you, Mr. Editor, fome further particulars demonftrative of the statement which I have before been the inftrument of communicating to the public, and contradictory of that which I have already oppofed in the British Critic. And this I do without any wish to incur the oppofition of any man living. To provoke hoftility was not my object in what I fift fubmitted to your attention. The fame avowal is my declaration now. But the fame motive which then induced me, induces me now, and will, I traft, when occafion demands, for ever; a with to throw a check upon the propagation of error, and to add my testimony-however inconfiderableto the confirmation of truth. The pofitions in the Eritish Critic, which I took upon me to contradict, were the following: (See British Critic for April.) Ift. That it is a fact well known and confirmed by the teftimony of all the Clergymen refid.nt in the parishes where Mrs. More has established fchools, that the invariably places them under the direction and controul of the officiating Minifters." 2d. That Mrs. H. More does nothing without the officiating Clergy. man's approbation." 3d. That where Mrs. More's fchools have continued for any length of time, the Methodists have loft all their influence, and have been induced to leave the place." Thefe pofitions I mean again to controvert, and to obferve the order of the British Critic, fhall begin with the confideration of the firft; which contains a declaration of a fact and of a teftimony. With regard to the fact, that Mrs. More invariably places her fchools under the direction and controul of the officiating Minifters." I fhall beg your attention to the following particulars.-In the fpring of the year 1795, I fixed my refidence in this place. Soon after my arrival, the care of Axbridge church was given to a gentleman who had lately taken Prieft's Orders, and was a member of Corpus Chrifti College, Oxford. This gentleman (whose name I would readily mention did I think, with the anonymous author of the pamphlet before alluded to, it would add one iota of credit to what I relate) has authorised me to declare he never was invefted with any authority over Mrs. More's fchool then fettled in this place; nor was even defired by Mrs. More to lend his affiftance, or take any part in the manage ment ment of it. He afferts further, that bad he been poffeffed of any share in the management, he should have required, as an indifpenfible requifite, the attendance of the miftrefs with her fcholars every Sunday morning and evening at church, from which, during one or other of the fervices, they always abfented themfelves. He did not approve of thofe Sunday readings as they are called, and expoundings of Scripture, which he thought had been much better performed in the church, and made a part of his own duty. And, in order to do, away the neceffity for thefe, he lectured and catechifed the children of the parith himself, after the evening-service had been finished. This gentleman left Axbridge the latter end of the fame year, and was fucceeded in his office by the prefent Curate, the school still continuing as before. By him (the prefent Curate) I am authorised to declare he has never had any, the leaft application, mediately or immediately, from Mrs. More, to aflift. inspect, or regulate, her fchool in any manner whatever; that he has never exercifed any controul over it, and that from not oppofing the manner in which it was, conducted, and the principles which he is affured were taught there, he never thought it incumbent on him to give it any countenance by his attendance; and it never met with his fupport. The non-attendance (which was generally alternate) of the scholars at church in compliance with Mrs. More's directions was contrary to his fenfe of propriety; and the evening lecture, which affembled people from all quarters in different parishes, was a new fpecies of inftruction which he did not deem free from moft weighty objections. Thefe facts,Mr. Editor, were the principal ones which had fallen under my immediate obfervation when I first wrote to you, and I imagined, together with that fingular inftance at Blagdon, they were fufficient deviations from that invariable rule which the British Critic afferts Mrs. More obferves, with regard to placing her fchools under the direction and controul of the officiating Minifters, to authorize me to contradi&t him. This fchool, fettled at Axbridge, was withdrawn at the end of the year 1799 or beginning of 1800, for no other apparent reason than because the most respectable inhabitants feeing its departure from its original conftitution, and additions made in their nature objectionable, withheld the countenance which they before afforded it. Refpecting the teftimony to the above fact, which the British Critic afferts he had of all the refident Clergy, it would be waite of words to attempt to difprove it. It was perhaps the teftimony of one or two, and the eager zeal of the partial critic multiplied them into all. I come now to the fecond pofition; "that Mrs. More does nothing in her fchools without the officiating Clergyman's approbation." And this requires as little of my trouble as the former to place the veracity of the Critic in a very questionable point of view. Two fucceffive Curates have been employed at Axbridge, neither of whom had any management or infpection of Mrs. More's fchool established there; but both difapproving the manner in which it was conducted, thought proper never to attend it. It follows of course nothing was done there with their approbation. I pafs on to the third and laft pofition,-"That where Mrs. More's schools have continued for any length of time the Methodists have loft all their influence, and have been induced to leave the place."-To exemplify the incapacity of the reviewer to give a verdict in this particular, I fhall begin with the confideration of Axbridge, the place of my refidence, and of courfe of my more conftant obfervation. Here then is a meeting-house of the Methodists, open twice a week. It was fo while Mrs. More's teacher was was here. There is no appearance of any inclination to leave the place, nor can it be seen that their numbers or their influence are diminished. The conduct of the teacher was not fuch as to discourage them, much lefs to eradicate them, as may be icen by referring to my former letter. Hence we will proceed to Cheddar, a parifh adjoining the above, where Mrs. More has alfo an established school, and has had for many years. Here there are two meeting-houfes; one a private houfe, about two miles from the church, the other. an appropriate one, just built, about as many hundred yards. This is the parifh where Mrs. More's very flourishing fchool is fettled, and where (according to a teftimony figned Thomas Drewitt, Curate of Cheddar, in the parish already alluded to) there are not twenty perfons in the Methodift's connection, to fill, as it fhould feem, theie two houfes. One is apparently capacious enough to contain 150 perfons, or more, and I am told is generally to full as to be incapable of admitting an additional member! I proceed next to Wedmore, another adjoining parish, and where Mrs. More has alfo, though lately, about two years fince, made an establishment. In that parifh another conventicle has begun to rear its menacing front, and is to be foon, if it be not already, dedicated to the fervice of the Me-' thodists. Hitherto they have been fatisfied with the humbler convenience of a licensed private houle; but now, it feems, their pretenfions, as well as their ftrength, foar to a higher pitch. I must now carry you to the parish of Winicomb, alfo adjoining to that of Axbridge. In this, likewife, there was a fchool, under the patronage of Mrs. More, but it has now been difcontinued for lone years. Methodists, I am informed, had here alfo a licensed private boule during its continuance, and now have an appropriate conventicle. The perlons who, by Mrs. More's appointment, prefided over the fchool, are now the conftant attendants at this feceding receptacle, but very inconftant at their church; to inconftant, as to have deferted it altogether, Thele four parishes, Mr. Editor, adjoining to each other, and falling under my more particular obfervation, occurred forcibly to my recollection on the perufal of thofe affertions in the British Critic which ran directly counter to thefe inftances demonftrated by fact. They occurred to me as irrefragable teftimonies, that the Reviewers, on fome account or other, had departed from truth. They will occur to you perhaps, to the production of a fimilar conviction, and if there be any man who can withhold his affent from the juft arraignment of the critic's veracity, notwithstanding the inftances above alledged, I muft pronounce him incapable of receiving fatisfaction from the greateft poffible multiplicity of evidence and firength of proof, I fhall forbear, therefore, to protecute my enquiries in other parishes in which Mrs. More has fixed her eftablishments, where yet, I don't doubt, were I difpofed to feek further, I fhould abundantly be furnished with fimi. lar inftances to thofe already fubmitted to your infpection. The pamphlet which has occafion d me to fend you these corroborations of my former affertions, though it be produced by an anonymous editor, yet contains the fignature of nine clergymen of the Church of England, all bearing teftimony (of what nature, may perhaps hereafter appear) to the management of theie ichools; and meant, as it thould leem by the strictures towards the latter end of the pamphlet, to difcredit the account you have already laid before the public from me, It is not, howevel, my purpofe at prefent to make animadverfions, but to ftate facts: though, I must confels, I was not a little furprited, that nine clergymen fhould give their names (if this be really the cafe) to an editor, who, by the fophiftry of his argumentation, fhews, he either wants the wildom to draw a true conclu fion, or the honefty not to difcard a falfe one. If he really think he has convicted me of falfhood, and added a prop to the tottering credit of the British Critic, I must leave him to exult in his wonderous ingenuity. I muft remind him, however, that "inspection and direction," are words of very different import; and, that if he will confound the two, and argue from them as if they were fynonimous, it is impoffible to fay what inference he may draw. It is often, he must know, the part of a fubaltern to inspect an army, but the direction and controul are in the hands of the general who commands it. So with respect to Mrs. More's fchools; the officiating minifters, as the pamphlet alluded to certifies, and as the Curate of Blagdon might have alfo certified with regard to himself, have fometimes the inspection of it, (and what individual, whether clerical or laical, may not have); but to controul and direct it, is not theirs, but the part and affumption of some one above them. Some of the clerical characters, it is true, whofe fignatures are to be found in that pamphlet, have certified, that the schools, inftituted in their refpective parifhes, are entirely under their management, direction, and controul. But fuch, I imagine, will be included under the exception which I made, that it was not the cafe, except where the officiating clergyman was, what is called, a Gofpel minifter. In fhort, after a cereful revifal of my former letter, I fee no reason to retract but one affirmation, and that, not furely in the estimation of my opponent, a very confiderable one. It is that, if there were one refident clergyman who had confirmed what the Reviewer had attefted, he had confirmed a known and wilful falfhood." There might have been one, I allow, (though this be not probable either) who had confirmed it ignorantly or unknowingly: but the confirmation was a falfhoood ftill, and the public being impofed upon thereby, the perfon who did it was guilty of a prefumption, in no fmall degree cri.ninal and reprehenfible. non I have now done, Mr. Editor, with the task which I fet myself, of subftantiating, in fome degree, my own veracity; led thereto by a refpect which I feel for my profeffion, which requires of every one who sustains it, ut* " mentiatur unquam, decipiendi, aut nocendi caufa," that he be never an affertor of falfhood for the purpose of deceit, or for the fake of injury. One thing, however, yet remains; that I fatisfy the fcruples and anfwer the demands of the anonymous editor, who is of opinion, that in order to attach credibility to what I have written, I fhould have told my name, and stated that I had myself attended the schools. To the former of thefe, I can af fure him, it is my ftedfaft hope my heart will never fuffer me to indite what fear or fhame will ever prevent my putting my hand to; and though I do not fee the neceflity in the fame light which he does, I fhall readily do away this objection, which he seems to have, to credit the contents of my letter. To the latter I could alfo answer in the affirmative, that I had been at Mrs. More's fchools, if not attended them habitually. But no anfwer of this kind is neceffary, fince the facts I have stated are facts which are not at all affected by the queftion. They are facts, the greater part of which have come under my own knowledge; all can be proved to have existence by teftimony competent and unquestionable. To oblige this gentleman, though concealed himself behind the fhrine of an anonymous publication, you will, if you pleafe tell him, that I am, Axbridge, August 17, 1801. His and Your humble fervant, *Lactan, Lib. vi, RANDOLPH's I HAVE taken in your Review from its commencement; and, with every true friend to his country, I moft cordially with you fuccefs adequate to the meritorious defign of your undertaking, and the mafterly manner of its execution. If ever I derive greater fatisfaction from the perufal of one part of it, than I do from another, it is from the Reviewers Reviewed; in which juftice is done to the merit of thofe writers, whofe talents are exerted to ftem the torrent of infidelity, jacobinifin, herefy, and fchifm; and who, for the praife-worthy part they take, are fure to be either mifreprefented, paffed over in filence, or difmiffed with a fneer, in many of the periodical reports of new publications. In this part of your Review, particularly, you have done eminent fervice to the Church of England; you have expofed the fophiftry of the Monthly, and Critical Reviewers, and taught the Reviewers to write with more modefty, and caution. I was, for the first time, furprised, not to fay concerned, when, on taking into my hands your laft Number, I noticed the admiffion of a cenfure on one of your own critiques. It feemed to me, that you had carried your liberality fomewhat too far, by establishing a tribunal against yourself, and permitting any objector to fit in judgment, in your Magazine, on what is written in the Review. Whatever appeal either an author, his friends, or his enemies, may think proper to make from your critical decifions; in my judgment, and in that of fome of your warmest friends and fupporters, that appeal should not be admitted in the form of an Anti-review. You have established, in the opinion of those who are most competent to appreciate merit, a character for found principles in theology and politics, no lefs than for juft criticifm on works of literature and fcience. Without pretending to infallibility in your remarks, you may reft fatisfied with the approbation of the wife and good: but, if you fuffer your criticisms to be cavilled at, or controverted, in your own Review, you will open a door, which you will not be able to fhut; every fcribbler and fciolift, who fet a higher value on their writings, than in your better judgment they deserve, will raife frivolous objections to your obfervations; and every one, who diflikes your principles, or envies your fuccefs, will avail himself of the opportunity you give him to vent his fpleen on the Review, the Critic, or the Author; and you will be drawn into endlefs contentions with difappointed and angry authors, with their injudicious friends, and their rivals for fame; and (what I fhould be forry to fee) you will descend from the dignified character that you have hitherto uniformly fupported. I addrefs myself to you, Sir, individually, as the fole conductor of the Review and Magazine, through whofe hands, and under whofe infpection, I fuppofe every manufcript intended for infertion to pass, before it receives its imprimatur. But though the management of fuch a work may be limited to the controul and fuperintendance of an individual, it is not poffible, from the multifarious nature of the undertaking, and the general information that it muft comprehend on a vaft variety of fubjects in every branch of human learning, that it can be carried on by the unaffifted abilities, however fplendid or extenfive, of one man, unless he were endued with the wifdom of Solomon, You have, doubtlefs, many able auxilaries, whofe genius and particular pur fuits and ftudies beft qualify them to write on the fubjects they felect for their critiques |