men from an estate, great crimes will go unpunished. Against it, it is said, as far as the experiment has been tried, by the admission of free persons of colour, it has led to the most dreadful perjury, and shows that this unfortunate class of persons is not yet ripe for it. If slaves, untaught as they now are, were admitted to give evidence, they would be under the influence of their masters, and a malicious or unprincipled proprietor of slaves could be able to produce a body of evidence to support any charge or claim he pleased to institute. Have you read or thought on this subject? Adieu. Mrs. Dwarris (with myself) begs to be kindly remembered to Mrs. Parr; and ever believe me, my respected friend, most truly yours, F.DWARRIS.

A dreadful case has occurred here in the cruel whipping of a slave to death by a gentleman of property and influence, Best (brother of the man who shot Lord Camelford), and a puisne judge! The coroner's jury met and adjourned for three days, during which Best escaped, as must have been intended. We will unrip this bolstered business, as surely we ought! I shall send this open to Denman.

The Chief Justice has just paid us a visit. He prefaced many observations with," Mind, gentlemen, I am no lawyer."

F. D.

Court Dewes, Esq., to Dr. Parr.

DEAR SIR,

W'elsbourn, March 14, 1793. I answered your last letter and received news of the German victories on the same day; I am sorry that a warm expression dropt in the hurry of I hope pardonable exultation at a success which has probably saved Holland, should have displeased you. I am not much accustomed to use warm expressions, nor will I stop to defend the fitness of yours; that is in a great measure matter of feeling, but your charge of impiety hurts me, and I must endeavour to repel it. I would avoid the appearance of canting, and I hold it unfair and mean to urge a divine with theological arguments, which, though they may admit of an answer, that answer cannot always be given absque invidia; but here your candour will allow, that, to clear myself from the accusation of impiety (at which alone I

am concerned), my proofs must be drawn from the fountains of piety and from sacred history, for there only can we find what we are permitted to know of the motives of Providence; there you will as frequently see nations (no matter whether good or bad,) employed to punish a bad people, as in profane history you will see others comparatively good sinking under the oppression of the bad. The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, denounced in the New Testament, and described by Josephus, is a striking instance. The conduct of the Jews, as the historian relates it, has some similarity to that of the French; their factions were committing every species of horrible crimes within the city while the enemy was at their gates. I do not insist on the monstrous avowed irreligion of the French, or how far that may render them objects of divine punishment; I do not presume to throw in prospect the wrath of heaven, but when the wrath has fallen, and on such subjects, I trust I may be permitted without the imputation of impiety modestly to conjecture from what hand it has been launched.

I lament as much as you can do the necessity of the war, but I believe the alarming progress of the French conquests made it unavoidable. The sentiments at the conclusion of your letter are those of a wise and good man. I am truly sorry that very unmerited calumny should have taught you to feel some of them.

I don't like to hear you talk of a morning visit; cannot you contrive to spend a day with me? Any day next week (except Tuesday) I shall be at home, and happy to see you. I am, with great regard, very sincerely yours, C. DEWES.

DEAR SIR,

Welsbourn, March 19, 1793.

I shall never regret an imprudence which has produced the masterly and instructive letter which I received from you yesterday. You have cured me for ever of talking of the vengeance of heaven; at the same time you may observe that I tacitly admitted the impropriety of it when I apologised for the hurry of exultation. I attempted to defend the expression on no other score than for the charge of impiety, and even on that narrow ground, you have shewn me one error in my defence, and clearly

taught me not to apply what has happened to a people so peculiarly circumstanced as the Jews to other nations, though you yourself allow that later cases of the Jews may be resolved by the general course of Providence, and my instance was a very late one: however, you admit that, both in sacred and profane history, nations (of whatever character) are raised up sometimes by Providence to punish other bad nations, and when an event has happened which, to, perhaps, a weak and too precipitate mind, appears to be judicial, the expression of its sentiments may be rash, may be foolish, but cannot surely be called impious. I took the distinction between sacred and profane history for no other purpose, and made use of it in no other way, than because in one I thought the motives of the divine interposition were to be found, in the other not, or at least not so clearly, and I still think so; in the one they are explicitly declared, in the other they can only be collected by inductions often obscure and fallacious. I laid no stress on the characters of the respective nations; and I made use of the word comparatively merely to qualify the generality of the epithet good, which, absolutely taken, can be applied to no earthly nation. I did not consider Josephus in general as a sacred historian ; but when he relates the fulfilling of a scripture prophecy, though he neither acknowledges or refers to it, he may in some sort be reckoned as completing the sacred history.

DEAR SIR,

W. Frend, Esq. to Dr. Parr.

No. 17, Charlotte-street, Bloomsbury, 18th Feb. 1794.

When you mentioned to me the other night that an attempt was made to excite an unfavourable opinion of Mr. Palmer's character, I could only give you some vague ideas of the transaction on which it was founded. Since that time a füller account has been imparted to me, which convinces me that Mr. Palmer was only doing his duty in opposing those intrigues by which Dr. Milner was paving the way to the situation he now holds in Queen's College.

Dr. Milner, previously to this transaction, had introduced Mr. Carlisle from Christ's to Queen's, and procured him to be made fellow. He had brought Hubbersty from Trinity for the same purpose, and seemed to be laying the foundation of an interest which was to give him the entire rule of the College. This conduct displeased Mr. Palmer, who was greatly Dr. Milner's senior, and in the year eighty-one, when the election of fellows, which, according to the invariable practice of the College, ought to have been in January, was postponed by an artifice of Milner's to March, Mr. Palmer interested himself in behalf of a man of his own college. Thompson, domestic Chaplain to Sir Rowland Wynne, would have been elected, if the election had been at the proper time, but by Milner's manoeuvre he found an antagonist in Hubbersty who had but just taken his degree. The literary merits of these candidates were nearly the same; Hubbersty had taken a rather better degree, but Thompson was a year his senior, had distinguished himself more in college exercises, and had obtained the college prize. Previous to the election Milner went round individually to the fellows, and, endeavouring to prejudice them against Thompson, threw out hints of some base transaction which must for ever be a bar to his admission into a fellowship. Mr. Palmer laughed at the insinuation, but was much surprised to find it worked up into a serious charge by Mr. Carlisle at a college meeting. Mr. Carlisle declared that he once saw Thompson winking at his partner when he had two by honours in his hand, and this charge was considered as a sufficient reason for rejecting a man of otherwise unimpeachable character, and Hubbersty, an alien, without any particular pretensions, was elected.

You will think, with me, these things too ludicrous to be attended to by any man of principle, but as we live in days when those who give themselves a latitude in every vice, and every thing disgraceful to the character of gentlemen and scholars, are happy to find the least pretence for a charge against an individual whose great faults are a sanguine temperament, a hatred of all intrigue, and the strictest integrity, it is incumbent on us to call upon the adversaries of Mr. Palmer to state clearly their charge, and to shew in what respect he has offended, either as a gentleman, or a fellow at a college. In consequence of this

opposition to Dr. Milner, he was prevented from succeeding to the Bursarship, and Mr. Hammond, who supported him, was denied access to all college offices. A paper was also drawn up, and read in the combination room by one of the fellows who had at one time expressed to Mr. Palmer his disapprobation of Dr. Milner's proceedings, by which paper Messis. Palmer and Hammond were declared cut off from all social intercourse with the society. Thus Milner gained several points; he gratified his malice against the individuals who opposed him, he became the head of a party in college, to be annually increasing, and by excluding two men from college offices, made the disposal of them an act of special favour conferred on others by himself.

A statement of this affair was, I understand, drawn up by Palmer, and shown to several of his friends, to Drs. Peckard, Glynn, Gardner, Bullock, Seale, Messrs. Mainwaring and Hunter. Dr. Glynn, on reading it, said that it was so infamous a business that he ought to show the case to every one. Whether this statement is in existence or not I don't know, and it is to be lamented that the insinuation against Mr. Palmer was not di vulged whilst he was in the kingdom, and capable of answering for himself; but as the statement has been read by so many members of the University, we may reasonably presume that, notwithstanding the temper of the times, they will bear testimony to the truth, and not suffer the reputation of an individual to be fritted away by the grossest calumnies.

In laying this account before you, it is not my intention to cast any blame on Mr. Carlisle. He was brought from Christ's by Dr. Milner, was only a Bachelor of Arts, and could not be supposed to be much acquainted with college intrigues. I consider him as the tool and dupe of Milner in this business.

With Mr. Palmer I was not acquainted for several years after this transaction, but from my knowledge of him, and what I have heard from many of his acquaintance, I am convinced that the insinuations thrown out against him are groundless, that on the one side will be found the flat resolution to become per fas et nefas master of Queen's College, and on the other a proper and manly resistance to Milner's intrigues, and a conscientious discharge of the duties of a fellow of a college. I remain, with great respect, dear Sir, yours very sincerely, W. FREND.