in the country, certainly have little claim to any profit from the patrimony of the Church. Inftances are not unfrequent of gentlemen poffeffing very confiderable eftates, clearing 8001. or 1000l. per annum by long leafes of tithes; while the meritorious but unfortunate Vicar with the utmost difficulty fupports his family, and mainLains hofpitality, on an income perhaps not exceeding 1001. or 2001. a year. My opinion, Mr. Urban, is, that in all cafes, the Refident Incumbents Should have an offer of a leafe of the great tithes, either for feven, fourteen, or twenty-one years, as may be moll agreeable to the patrons. Thus both parties would be benefited: the Proprietors of the great tithes would increate their revenue, and the flender falary of the Vicar would receive a confiderable augmentation. I am aware that one objection would be raifed; the Clergy are generally in narrow circumftances. But, to obviate this difficulty, the Vicar to whom the tithes are to be let on leafe, fhould be obliged to find two fecurities of 500l. each, or to pay a year in advance; by this plan the patrons could not fuftain any injury, and the condition of the inferior Clergy would be much ameliorated. I fuggeft these hints, which perfons better acquainted with the fubject may improve at their leifure. Yours, &c. Mr. URBAN, A LAYMAN. Nov. 10, 1807. T HE remarks of your Correspondent And thus in fympathetic words he spoke, Mr. URBAN, Nov. 11, 1807. CORRESPONDENT defires to A know, whether it was Homer or Pope that was napping in the quotation which he has adduced. I have a fac fimile of Pope's handwriting traced from the original manufcript tranilation at the British Mu Jan. 21. Mr. URBAN, It is sa rential to the is merely from a regard to that very exiftence of civilization in foeiety, that I flep out of my way to make a few oblervations on a paper which ftands fentry, as it were, at the head of your Magazine for last month, and, like the Dragon of the Hefperian gardens, feems determined to arreft our courfe towards the inftructive feast which you every month prepare for us. It is doubtless no fmall comfort to your Correfpondent to know, that it would be utterly impoffible to detail the very extraordinary, and to him confounding, hiftory of the Claim in that Publication into which he has fcrewed his invective. The utmott that can be done there is, to anfwer, where we can difcover diftinctnefs, his diftinct obfervations. Let us attempt it. He tells us, in the first place, that the late Claimant was "tainted by the filleft fort of pride, which rendered him an eafy prey to the artifices of others, * The words in hooks are expunged, and fondly and on her inferted. and and fuffered him at laft to be feduced into the adoption of a measure," &c. (meaning the inftitution of the Claim); and "that the Claimaint's indignation ought to have been applied against thole who had made him their flalking-horse, &c." Now on this I will obferve, that what he here advances is fcarcely poffible. For the Claim was inftituted, as I have always understood, under the immediate aufpices, and for fix years carried on with the co-operation of a Herald (whofe well-known modefty I will not offend by naming him), who, though (as appears by the peculiar line of practice which he prefers in his profeffion) a pretty conftant encourager of what your Correfpondent calls the fillieft fort of pride, undoubtedly would have inftantly and honourably difclofed to the Claimant that folly, or fallacy, which his experience and ingenuity, aided by the Claimant's implicit confidence, could not have failed to detect. Sudeley muft mean then, I fuppofe, to charge that perfon with undue artifices, and with making the late Claimant his ftalking-horfe; and thus he himself furnishes us with the firft proof of his ignorance of a moft important circumftance in the hiftory of the cafe. He has contrived to couple, in very few lines of the next paragraph, a grofs mifreprefentation with a very mifchiev ous equivocation; for he there tells us (and afterwards repeats it again and again) that the article in p.989, relating to the death of the late Claimant, imputes the moft" infamous and diabolical motives to the perfans who have been indecently called Opponents, whether appearing at the Bar of the Houfe of Lords as the great Law Officers of the Crown, or in the more humble, but not less respectable, character of Heralds." Not to dwell for a moment on the abfurdity of imputing indecency to him who may give the very natural name of Opponents to those who oppofe, or on the concluding member of the fentence, which, ftrictly conftrued, makes the fame identical perfons alternately great Law Officers of the Crown and humble Heralds, I will appeal to every man who has read that article in your Obituary, whether a single word is to be found, from which the utmoft ingenuity of mifconftruction could infer even a hint of reflection on any of the great Law Officers of the Crown. Here is the mifreprefentation; now for the equivocation.. It is convenient to his purpofe to speak plurally of Heralds. Does he mean to fay that the Heralds were unanimous in oppofing the Claim in queftion? or that a majority of them oppofed it? Does he mean to fay even that more than one of them oppofed it? If he means to fay either, he means to deceive your readers. The fact is, that the very Herald who, as I have said before, originally undertook the conduct of the Claim, and did conduct it for fix years, afterwards became its most zealous, bufy, and indefatigable Opponent; and that no other Herald ever did oppofe it: among the reft, fome warmly efpoufed it, and others were indifferent. I mention thefe circumftances, not only to expofe in this inftance that want of candour which difgraces equally every part of your correfpondent's letter, but in order to obtain juftice to these faid Heralds, who have been thus, I dare fay unwillingly, dragged into fuch confpicuity. If the oppofition of the one individual among them who did oppofe the Claim were laudable, to him be allotted the whole praife; if it were blameable, his brethren in office ought not to share the obloquy. In the conclufion of his letter he quits his profound ambiguity, and deviates into fomewhat like meaning. Here, therefore, he may be fhortly and easily answered. It confifts in two points: Firft, in charging the prefent Reprefentative of the late Claimant's family with abufing fomebody. Secondly, In charging fomebody with illicit practices as to various evidence touching the claim. As to the firit, I have already, faid that I believe not even the flighteft breath of complaint on the fubject has ever been uttered by any one against the Law Officers of the Crown, or against any of the Heralds, one only excepted. On this point I pofitively deny your Correfpondent. Let him tell us then who the perfon or perfons are on whose behalf he has thus boldly, and permit me to fay rafhly, thrown down his gauntlet? As to the fecond, it refutes itself. That high Court of Judicature which by its vote of June 13, 1803 *, fufpended the claim to the Barony, has too much reverence for its own ex * See Gent. Mag. vol. LXXVII. p. 958. alted alted and important functions, and too keen a jealoufy of its own Privileges, to fuffer fuch practices as he prefumes to fpeak of, to pafs with impunity. That Houfe would have ftamped the cafe with the feverest and most public cenfure. It would have difinified the Claimant and his Family not only from its prefence, but from fociety. How widely different was the cafe! In a divifion of the Committee, confifting of twenty-two Peers, feven voted that the Claimant had eftablifhed his cafe; and he quitted the Houfe perhaps more overwhelmed by the kindness of their condolence, than by his temporary difappointment. In what meafure the two Princes of the Blood, and the other Peers who compofed that minority of feven,are obliged to your Correfpondent for his opinions, I leave him to judge. I have fcarcely another word to fay. The Author has tagged his with paper ftrange and mighty threats, of marvellous matters, which he tells you he can difclofe, without travelling much out of that direct path which the printed evidence has marked out for him." But tell him, if you have any regard for him, that he will find fuch travels dangerous. Tell him too, that it is ufual for honeft and honourable men, either openly to produce facts which may throw any light on cafes fub judice, or to remain filent. Tell him, that however Englishmen may be liceufed by custom to write freely, under feigned appellations, of public men and public meafures, that there are few English men fo bafe and mean-spirited as to attack private characters under a mask. Tell him, above all, that the partial hiftory of this memorable cafe which happens to be flored up in the feanty library of his mind, or rather of his fancy, is not the only one extant; and that, if he should think fit to offer his to the publick, another may make its appearance, which will clear away falfe bood, and fubftitute truth. In order however to obtain that distinction, he muft, in the first place, condefcend to adorn his page with his real name. DETECTOR. Yours, &c. It is a fubject of national importance; and the difcovery is certainly a most valuable one, as it has been the means of faving the lives of many thousands of our fellow-creatures. From this extract then, I think it will clearly appear, that Admiral Graves is the original Inventor of the Life-boat; as the Boat defcribed here, and the prefent Life boat, agree in every respect, except the gunwales being of cork in the latter, whilft in the former ox-hides were ufed. The reafon they were, may be, that they were eafier procured than cork, as Admiral Graves, perhaps, might have the idea of cork alfo. Mr. URBAN, North Shields, Jan. 11. HE following extract, taken from THE Blowing ex Naval and Military Memoirs," a moft interefting and valuable work, will, I think, tend to convince the world who the first and original Inventor of the Life-bout was. Yours, &c. N. R. "Vice-Admiral Graves had obferved, that the fharp conftruction and great quantity of water of the men-of-war boats, rendered them very unfit for the neceffary and frequent fervice of going up the narrow creeks which abound in the vicinity of Boiton [in America]. As thefe creeks were in many places fo narrow as not to admit of their turning, and fo fhallow as to endanger their taking the ground, it was often hardly practicable for them to retreat; and both the boats and their crews were in danger of falling into the enemy's hands. To obviate thefe difadvantages, he invented a Boat of a particular conftruction, which was 36 feet in length, 12 in breadth, and fo formed as to. row with either end foremost. Having the greateft draught of water in the middle, and from thence gradually fhallowing towards the extremities by means of her curved keel, fhe was admirably formed without the neceffity of winding round. for moving quickly forward or backward, Thus fhe could in all cafes approach the fhore, or make off from it, with equal eafe and fpeed, as occafion fhould require. Her peculiar conftruction facilitated even her turning when there was room. She mounted a four-pounder at each end, had eight fwivels upon the fides, rowed with 20 oars, carried 75 men, and when armed and accoutered with a week's provifions of all kinds complete, drew only nine or ten inches of water at moft. She was fteered with an oar in a grumet, and would out-row the fleeteft of the Navy barges. If the should happen to run aground, in the eagernefs of purfuit, or in the night, the rowers had only to face about, on their prefent feats, or upon the next thwarts, to pull in the contrary direction, and he went off in a moment. Each bow was fecured by a mantlet of ox-hides, and proof against mufquetry, and the piece of ordnance, by moving in a groove, could be placed in any direction." Beatfon's Memoirs, 1775, vol. IV. p. 84. *** By |