letters, testimonies to the generous indignation which the sufferings of Hannah More excited in every virtuous breast. In a letter to Dr. Whalley, written during the early stage of the controversy, Mrs. Piozzi observes,

"I hate when vice can bolt her arguments,

And virtue has no tongue to check her pride,'

says Milton. And they want now to stop the warning voice which yet would save us, if men would permit. So valuable a writer, and writings so well timed as hers, will not be found again; and if their vile detractions should injure her feeble health, the mischief done would be past my computation." The apprehensions here expressed were not altogether unfounded. One calumny propagated during this contest, though not less preposterous, yet more atrocious, and more revolting to her delicacy, than the rest, when, by some accident, it came to her knowledge, gave her very serious distress, and cost her a severe and dangerous illness. The reputation of Mrs. More had been continually before the mirror of the world, and not a slur had dimmed the reflection in all the five and fifty years of her honoured life; she had mixed extensively from early youth in the most select circles, whither character was an indispensable passport; and in the most religious, where membership implied it; yet it was not thought too monstrous for malice to

1 The concise language of Mrs. Martha in a letter to Dr. Whalley is, "My sister H. is again ill,—we are alarmed about her. This affair, I fear, will destroy her."

conduct an argumentative controversy by an im peachment of her honour! The spirit which suggested and cherished such an accusation cannot be better illustrated than by the language of "a celebrated poet," as he is termed in an article on Mrs. Hannah More in the twenty-first number of Tait's Edinburgh Magazine, who informed the penman of that exquisite production, that he "would rather have paid 1,000l. than have lost so choice a piece of scandal;" saying, that "his happiness was injured," and his peace of mind disturbed," by the loss of "so precious an anecdote !" "Much bemused in" opium truly must he be, who could record so fiendish a sentiment with unruffled complacency.

Although Mrs. More offered no public opposition either to courteous or calumnious adversaries, yet when, in 1802, Dr. Beadon succeeded to Bishop Moss in the see of Bath and Wells, she deemed it her duty to explain to the new prelate the transactions at Blagdon, lest he should be induced to disapprove her schools in general; in which case she could not, consistently with her opinions as a churchwoman, have continued to maintain them. The letter which she wrote on that occasion is, perhaps, the most important single document in existence for the illustration of Mrs. More's character and opinions, as well as one of the most eloquent productions of her pen. I am here, by the great kindness of her friend, enabled to present it to the reader entire from the auto

VOL. II.-3

graph; with the omission only of one short passage, relative to a strictly private transaction, and the substitution of a dash for a name.

"My Lord,

"It is with deep regret that I find myself compelled to trouble your Lordship with this letter, though your known liberality of mind gives me more courage in taking a step which I should, in any case, feel it my duty to take; for, however firm my resolution has been never to answer a line to all the calumnies under which I have been so long suffering, yet to your Lordship, as my Diocesan, I feel myself accountable for my conduct, attacked as it has been with a wantonness of cruelty, which, in these mild times, few persons, especially of my sex, have been called to suffer. To that defenceless sex, and to my declared resolution to return no answers, I attribute this long and unmitigated persecution. I am not going to make your Lordship a party;—I am not going to clear myself by accusing others. Of my assailants I will speak as little as possible. I wish I could avoid naming them altogether. It will be out of my power to enter into a full vindication of myself against charges with which I am not fully acquainted. A wish to keep my mind calm in a dangerous illness of some months induced me to read but very little of what has appeared against me. I can only notice such more material charges as have come to my knowledge. I do not mean to extenuate, much less to deny, any point in which

may

I have been to blame. I shall only fairly state a few circumstances which have been violently exaggerated, or grossly misrepresented; the greater part of the charges being wholly ground

less.

66

1 had so fully persuaded myself that I had for many years, especially in the late awful crisis, been devoting my time and humble talents to the promotion of loyalty, good morals, and an attachment to Church and State, among the common people, that I was not prepared for the shock, when a charge of sedition, disaffection, and a general aim to corrupt the principles of the community, suddenly burst upon me. In vain have I been looking round me for any pretence on which to found such astonishing charges. One circumstance which is now made a ground for past accusation is but recently brought forward. The circumstance I allude to is, my being charged with having constantly attended and received the sacrament at Mr.'s chapel at Bath for fifteen years. The simple fact is this: The novelty and talents of Mr., a celebrated dissenting minister at Bath, were considered as such an attraction, that I, in common with a number of strict church people, frequently went to hear him preach. It was chiefly at six o'clock in the evening, an hour which did not interfere with the Church Service. It was not unusual to see, perhaps, near half a score clergymen, who, I presume, no more thought they were guilty of disaffection than I myself did. I went, of course, to church as usual, except that

the extreme nearness of this chapel drew me a few mornings, in severe weather, when my health was bad. At one of these times I unexpectedly found they were going to give the sacrament. Taken by surprise, in a moment of irresolution, never having been used to turn my back on the communion at church, I imprudently stayed.1 How far this single irregularity, which I regretted, and never repeated, deserves the term of constant, your Lordship will judge. My eldest sister has been accused of denying it. She well might deny it, for she never knew it till now. I believe it to have been nine or ten years ago. Again, I did not begin to reside part of the winter at Bath till about the beginning of 1791. I never go thither till near Christmas, and at the time alluded to I always left it, and went to London in February. During a part of this short season I was generally confined by illness. When the interests of the Church became a question (I cannot be quite accurate as to the time, but I think it was either seven or eight years ago) I ceased entirely to go to Mr.'s. How far this justifies the charge of fifteen years' constant attendance, your Lordship will judge. And is it unfair to request your Lordship to draw your own conclusion concerning the accuracy as well as the candour of my ac

1 The subject of Mrs. More's attendance at this meeting will, be resumed in the last chapter. It constituted, especially in the exaggerated form mentioned in the letter, a prime article of accusation with those who, in the Blagdon controversy, asserted her alliance with methodism and dissent,