BEING in London, and feeing in France, whofe virtue and wisdom hove

600

Remarks on the late Riots at Birmingham.

Lavage wars bythe mad ambition of their rulers! 13. May the fword be never unsheathed but for the defence and liberty of our country! and then may every man caft away the fcabbard until the people are fafe and free!

14. To the glorious memory of Hampden and Sydney, and other heroes of all ages and nations, who have fought and bied for liberty. 15. To the memory of Dr. Price, and of all thofe illuftrious fages who have enlight ened mankind on the true principles of civil Society.

16. Peace and good-will to all mankind. 17. Profperity to the town of Birmingham. 18. A happy meeting to all the Friends of Liberty on the 14th of July, 1792.

It is but juftice to the liberality and public fpirit of an ingenious Artist of this town to mention, that he decorated the room upon this occafion with three elegant emblematic pieces of fculpture, mixed with painting, in a new style of compofition. The central piece was a finely-executed medallion of his Majefty, encircled with a glory, on each fide of which was an alabafter obelifk; one exhibiting Gallic Liberty breaking the bands of Defpotifm; and the other reprefenting British Liberty in its pre. fent enjoyment.

A truly refpectable gentleman, a member of the Church of England, was chairman-others of that profeffion were of the company; nor was a fingle fentiment uttered, or, I believe, conceived, that would hurt the feelings of any one friend to liberty and good governinent, under the happy Conftitution we are bleffed with in this kingdom.-I aver this to be a true and juft reprefentation of the proceedings, which have been fo fcandalously mifreprefented in the Paper abovementioned, and am, Sir, Yours, &c. WILLIAM RUSSEL.

OD forbid that any man should cx

Gut in the late devaftations at Birmingham! Let us all make the cafe his own, and be thankful that the horrors have not been extended in this happy ifle, as they are continually repeating in diftracted France.

But it is impoflible, Mr. Urban, not to indulge one reflexion; that the adrocates for Revolution are, in one leading inftance, involved in the confufion we muft all have waded through to accomplish their defigns. "Their mifchief has returned upon their own head, and their violent dealing is come down upon their own pate."

The people of England feel their own

[July,

happiness, and are not to be led by the delufions of a few mifguided zealots, who do not diftinguish between fpeculation and practice. These outrages do 1780 in the Capital, in plunder and the not originate or terminate, like those of release of mifcreants; they are the rude effufions of the popular mind, expreffing their high difapprobation of innovations in the religion and polity of their country. It is the national language re. echoing that of the old Barons of this land. How different is the language of the English populace from that of the French, let this inftance fpeak in sounds too forcible ever to be forgotten by the friends of OLD ENGLAND!

Dr. Priestley has lived to fee his favourite doctrines exploded; his chemiftry, founded on a mistake in a Scotch profeflor, detected; and his perfon, long held, as himfelf confefes, in deteftation, expofed with his property to the fury of that populace whofe favour he has been all along courting, but who prefer their old rulers and leaders to new lords over their confciences, guides of their opinions. If they have been deluded for a moment, the frong fenfe and fpirit of Englishmen have thaken off the delufion, and refifted the innovation.

That the imprudent (and this is a very gentle appellation of it) conduct of the friends of the Revolution, in a town where they must have known they had fo few adherents and abettors, was the oftenfible pretence for thefe excelles, cannot be denied: but it is not lets evi

dent that the form has been long brewing for the devoted head of their leader, who has provoked it to burst on himself and followers by every outrage of language and publication. His principles ought to have been as publicly ditavowed by the Diffenters as many men of moderation among them have privately wifhed him to curb his career. They certainly, as they, love themfelves and good order, and as they would tranfmit their names with honour to pofterity, fhould come forward with an unequivo cal declaration, how contrary their seal fentiments are to thofe which his effervefcence has afcribed to them.

I thank God that I have lived to fee this teft of the integrity and good principle of my countrymen; and my carneft hope and prayer is, to live to fce faction, fedition, and innovation, in every form and difguife, completely extinguished, while I can fubfcribe myfelt AN ENGLISHMAN.

Mr.

602

Shakspeare's Wainscot Chair, and his Mulberry Tree. [July,

November, 1790, by Thomas Hart*, the prefent occupier of the houfe, to Major Orlowski (fecretary to her Serene High nefs Ifabella Princefs Czartoriska), who, accompanied by an interpreter, a native of Poland, came to Stratford purpofely to purchase it.

Hart was happy in receiving for the relick twenty guineas, with an entertainment given at an inn to his family (though I am allured, had he afked, he might have received a much larger fum for it); and the man, who made the cafe to pack it in, alfo received a guinea for his trouble.

When I first vifited Stratford, Mr. Urban, now fome time fince, I was fhewn (as I understood all ftrangers were whole curiofity led them to call at the house) this chair, had the honour of fitting in it; and the people of the houfe cut from one of the feet, and prefented to me, a fmall chip, which I must own I was not Virtuofo enough carefully to preferve, as there appeared to me a degree of improbability in fuppofing this chair fhould have continued there for near two centuries, though fixed in the wall, and bearing evident marks of antiquity, or that it was ever the one, as fome have fuppofed, in which our Great Poet firft repofed, when

Each change of many-coloured life he drew,
Exhaufted worlds, and then imagin'd new.

But, to return to my information. In February laft, the Interpreter again vifited Stratford, faid a doubt had arifen refpecting the authenticity of the relick, that it was purchased for the faid Princefs, and that her Highne's requested a certificate, fetting forth that it was the fame chair fhe had feen and fat in in the fummer of 1790; which certificate was granted, figned by Thomas Hart, John Warilow, Auftin Warilow, and John Jordan +.

* Thomas Hart is fifth in defcent from Joan Hart, Shakspeare's fifter. MALONE.

+ John Jordan, whofe fignature is annexed to this certificate, is a man well informed, though in an humble ftation of life (a journeyman wheelwright); is the author of a poem, called, "Wellcombe Hills," &c.; was employed by, and collected for, Mr. Malone, many valuable materials for his Shakspeare; for which contributions, much to the honour of that gentleman, he has been liberally rewarded; and Mr. M. ftill continus his affiftance to Jordan's family at this time, by Dr. Davenport, Vicar of Stratford, paying for the education of his children, and promifing his future fupport. I acknowledge myfelf indebted to Mr. Jordan for part of my infor

mation.

Refpecting the celebrated MULBERRY-TREE planted by Shakspeare, the relation of the following anecdote led me to make fome enquiries: A gentleman, paffing through Stratford, called at the houfe of a Mr. Sharp, a cutler, who, it is well known, procured fome of the mulberry-wood after the tree was cut down by Mr. Gaftell, and who, without doubt, has received, and continues to receive, confiderable emolument from vending a variety of articles, fuch as toys, &c. faid to be made of that wood. Taking up a tobacco-ftopper, from amongst other articles which he had intended to purchase, and on which was indented, as is on all the toys, &c. Shakspeare's wood, he thus interrogated the perfon attending: "Will you fwear, Sir, that this tobacco- ftopper was ever a part of the original mulberry-tree planted by Shakspeare?" "No, Sir," replied the young man, "I will not fwear it; but my father will." This young man was Sharp's fon!" But, Mr. Urban, notwithstanding this anecdote was related to me as a ftubborn fact, I have weighty reafons to believe I thould mifinform you, were I to fay Sharp has not, at this time, in his fhop a quantity of the wood in toys, &c. as well as unconverted; for of this tree (which, it is fuppofed, was planted by Shakspeare about the year 1609, and was cut down by Mr. Galtrell in 1757, being then grown to an enormous fize, and part of the body decayed), there were many large boughs preferved which were perfectly found, fome of which were fent to the fhop of George Willes, a joiner, who is now living at Stratford, to be converted by him, at Mr. Gaftrell's request, into an eafy chair; but thefe branches having remained with Willes unconverted until after Mr. Gaftrell's death, they were then purchafed by Sharp. The body of the tree was cut up, ftacked amongst others as fire-wood, and as fuch fold to different perfons; but Sharp, I am informed, had the greateft part of it, which is fuppofed to have been about 20 cwt.

The late Thomas Mortiboys, efq. had feveral pieces, out of which was carved that elegant box, prefented by the Corporation of Stratford to David Garrick, eiq. in 1769. After the deceale of Mr. Mortiboys, amongst his effects, which were fold, Sharp again became the purchaler of all that remained of this celebrated wood, giving for it one filling per pound.

The first idea of Sharp's manufactory

was

was fuggefled by George Cooper, a
joiner, having bought a part of the wood,
which, converted into goods, he found a
ready fale for. Sharp afterwards em-
ployed this man. I was fhewn at S's
hop tea-caddies, goblets, &c. manufac-
tured of this wood; moft of which pur
chafers must pay barply for.
Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

T. T. S.

June 15. A CORRESPONDENT in ale fome CORRESPONDENT in your last

ftrictures refpe&ting the originality of the portrait of Milton, in the poffeffion of Sir Joshua Reynolds, on which I beg leave to make fome obfervations. That your readers may have a diftin&t view of the question, I fhall tranfcribe the writing which is on the back of the picture:

"This picture belonged to Deborah Mil

ton, who was her father's amanuenfis; at her death it was fold to Sir William Dave

nant's family: it was painted by Mr. Samuel Cooper, who was painter to Oliver Crom

well at the time Milton was Latin Secretary to the Protector. The Painter and Poet were near of the fame age (Milton was born in 1608, and died in 1674; Cooper was born in 1609, and died in 1672 ;), and were companions and friends till death parted them. Several encouragers and lovers of the fine arts at that time wanted this picture, particularly Lord Dorfet, John Somers, efq. Sir Robert Howard, Dryden, Atterbury, Dr. Aldrich, and Sir John Denham.”

Your critick first observes, that Deborah Milton, dying in 1727, all thofe encouragers and lovers of the fine arts, here mentioned, were dead long before that time. Secondly, he remaiks, that the picture could not belong to the Dor fet family in 1720, which belonged to Deborah Milton in 1727. He afks like wife, what can be meant by the miniature having been fold to the family of Sir William Davenant, as the memorandum bears fo late a date as 1727? These objections, I will fuppofe for the credit of the writer, would not have been made if he had feen the print, under which he would have found the following remark:

"The manufcript on the back of the picture appears to have been written fome time before the year 1693, when Mr. Somers was knighted, and alterwards created Baron Evetham, which brings it within The nineteen years after Milton's death. writer was miftaken in fuppofing Deborah Milton was dead at that time; the lived till 1727, but in indigence and obfcurity, married to a weaver in Spitalfields.”

There is no reafon to think (notwithftanding Mr. Warton's fuppofition, that Lord Dorfet was probably the lucky man who purchafed the picture) that it ever was in Lord Dorfet's poffeffion. Vertue, indeed, had defired Prior to fearch in his Lordship's collection for this miniature, probably from the fuggeftion of Richardfon, whofe fon Jonathan informed Sir Joshua Reynolds, that he had heard his father fay, that there was fomewhere a he was told, was a remarkable à ne pier miniature of Milton, by Cooper, which,

ture, but that he himself had never feen it. Perhaps Lord Dorfet was thought likely to have been the poffeffor of this picture, because he formed a large collection of portraits of the most eminent men of his time, which are still to be feen at Knowle. I cannot avoid adding, that the prefent Duke, with equal refpect to genius and talents, and with ftill more skill in the art, continues this plan; and to this collection of his anceftor has added the portraits of Dr. Johnfon, Dr. Goldfinith, Mr. Garrick, and many others.-The third objection is eafily anfwered: there is no date at all to the memorandum; and, fo far from its bearing fo late a date as 1727, it is very apparent it was written before the year 1693, and that the writer of it was probably Sir William Davenant's fon, who was at this time 37 years old; and the picture may be fuppofed to be at that time wanted by Lord Dorfet, John Somers, Efq. &c. The critick says, "I never had an opportunity of feeing the original miniature in queftion, and, unfortunately, the print by Mifs Watfon has never fallen in my way; but I should wish to know whether the drop ferene be visible in it, as in Faithorne's drawing, and in the bust. The date on the miniature is 1652, by which time Milton had become utterly blind."

In regard to the drop ferene, we can affure your correfpondent that it is not vifible in the miniature, and that he is miltaken in faying that it is visible in the crayon picture by Faithorne; and that it is visible in the buff, as he affirms, is truly ridiculous. Milton himself fays, that, though he had loft his fight, it was not perceptible to others; and that his eyes preferved their original luftre.

The date on the picture is 1653, and not 1652. This inaccuracy is of no great confequence: but how did he know that there was any date at all, as he fays he never faw the picture?

That Deborah Milton recognized her tacher's