Mrs. Hannah More

Some time after the publication of the life of Mrs. More in five volumes, and which (with a few exceptions), I much approved, I received, being then in London, the following note: —

141, Strand, Monday, March 9. Reverend Sir, — In consequence of the communication made here this day by your son, respecting a new Memoir of my late excellent friend Mrs. H. More, I write to say, it will afford me much pleasure in having a conference with you upon the subject. — Will it suit your convenience to call upon me to-morrow between twelve and four? Or shall I call upon you between twelve and three?

Your obedient servant,

Thos. Cadell.

The interview explained the design. Many persons, he said,” had expressed a wish for a memoir of his admired friend, more select and compendious, &c.; and he asked if, knowing her as I did, I would undertake it? I immediately declined, saying, I wanted leisure, and did not deem myself fully adequate to the work; that, with whatever candour I wrote, a tinge of my own principles as a Dissenter would hardly be avoidable; that Mrs. More was an Episcopalian, and a very large majority of her connexions belonged to the Established Church; and that an author of her own community had better be employed, especially for his own profit as the publisher. He said, in reply, that the objection did not weigh with him; but, if I declined, he had an offer from a clergyman which, as yet, was unanswered, &c. I also intimated that it was probable I should leave behind me a reminiscence of her, along with some others.

The intimation is here imperfectly realized.

With this eminent and excellent woman I was, by the kind providence of God, early and intimately acquainted. When I took up my residence in Bath she had a house in Pulteney-street, in which she passed the winter-half of the year. To this I had a free and welcome access, which was the more inviting, as it afforded an opportunity of frequently meeting with very interesting company, though none was so attractive and engaging as her own.

Mr. Pope has said, “Most women have no character at all.^^ If this be intended to satirize, it fails of its purpose; and, as it is ordained that, in their complete state, light should be without colour, and air without odour, and water without taste, so it is actually the perfection of woman to be characterless. Mrs. More had the proof of true greatness, to be distinguished by nothing extraordinary on ordinary occasions. In her habits she had no little peculiarities, or solecisms, or wonderfulnesses. When, therefore, Mr. Hall, returning one day from a visit to her house, was asked by an eager inquirer what he found in Mrs. More remarkable, answered,” Nothing, ma’am.’’

She was perfectly free from all direct and indirect attempts at display, so that no one in the conipany was terrified into silence by a profusion of talent, but each was rather encouraged to speak. Nor, though entitled to take the lead in conversation, did she engross a disproportionate share of the discourse. Yet she spoke with great ease and elegance, and what she delivered was always seasonable, and pertinent, and tending to usefulness. No one could be freer from the common fault of tale-bearing and scandal, or more heedful of the admonition, ^’ Speak evil of

At the period after the French Revolution, when there was such fierceness of party-spirit, both political and ecclesiastical, it was surprising with what address she contrived to manage and harmonize the differing parts of her company; so that, if they met as foes, they separated as friends.

On one side Mrs. More’s parentage was descended from Nonconformists, but she herself preferred the Establishment; not, however, to the unchurching of other churches, or the invahdating of the orders of their pastors. For many years after my settlement in Bath, I never heard of any clergyman of a decidedly evangelical character officiating in any of the Established pulpits; so that when Newton, Scott, Cecil, Foster, and others visited our city, they had access only to my father-inlaw’s church at Bath Easton, who held the same sentiments with themselves. As, therefore, Mrs. More had begun increasingly to appreciate and relish a certain kind of preaching, as to doctrine, she made no scruple to sacrifice a little of the Episcopalian, and attended frequently and commonly in Argyle Chapel.

I think I have elsewhere mentioned some hints which I received from her as to delivery and composition; but here I remark one thing only, with regard to preaching. Even in this more early stage of her religious experience, and notwithstanding her talents, if she peculiarly noticed a sermon, it was sure to be, not one that betrayed a little ingenuity or originality in the preacher, but one that bore upon the conscience of the hearer, and was most likely to awaken and convert the sinner; observing, that preaching was an instrument, and that the best instrument was that which answered its end best; adding,” a knife is valued for its edge, and not for its ebon handle.^’ Thus, even her praise, like everything else about her, was moral, instructive, and edifying.

From hence may not some preachers derive a lesson? When they preach before an individual or two of greater learning and talent than others, in order to suit and please them, how often are they tempted to overlook the body of the congregation, and to drop familiar illustrations and striking applications, which would be useful to the common people and the poor! But, first, are hearers, merely on account of literary or intellectual endowments, deserving of such exclusive, or at least peculiar, reference and regard? And, secondly, are even such personages always, or commonly, pleased with such (shall I call it?) flattery, or partiality? If they have anything like piety and benevolence, as well as personal distinction, they will always commend a discourse which is best adapted to benefit the people at large. Such an aim, therefore, has frequently failed of its purpose; and the mistaken preacher has been unprofitable to the many, and not acceptable to the select few. What case is there in which” he who walketh uprightly does (not) walk surely? ‘^ And in what does not God honour those that honour him? Perhaps a personal allusion here may hardly be allowable; otherwise I would say that, as I have had more opportunities of addressing such peculiar individuals than some of my brethren, so I was never induced by their presence to alter the manner of my preaching, which I had been led from conviction to adopt; and I never found that I had cause to repent of my consistency.

Besides Mrs. Morels attendance on my ministry, she did (oh! tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the streets of Askelon!) she did, one Sabbath (oh, let that day be darkness! let not God regard it from above!) she did — ajQected by the discourse she had been hearing on the love of Christ, and feeling powerfully inclined to remain, and join with those who were just going to commemorate the death of their common Saviour — she actually did stay, and partake with them!

The offence, it would seem, was not repeated. She, therefore,

years after, applied to me, by Mr. H, for a kind of certificate

that she had only received -the communion in Argyle Chapel once; saying, that it was not with her for a moment a question oi right or wrong y but of truth ox falsehood, for the Anti- Jacobin Review and other enemies had charged her with the thing as her common practice; whilst she, whenever asked, had said it was a single deed.

The affair itself excited much animadversion and censure at the time, and also since. There was also some misrepresentation of the fact itself. Dr. Valpy, in particular, in his reminiscences, has related the account of this awful transaction, given him, he says, by Mrs. More herself. I am far, very far indeed, from accusing such a man of wilful misstatement; but, could I believe in the exactness of the relation, I should despise, as much as I now respect, the memory of Mrs. More, whose veracity and honour were unimpeachable. The inaccuracy of the circumstances, therefore, was doubtless casual, and probably arose, after a distance of time, from indistinctness in remembering a conversation too trifling, in such an article, to have made a very deep impression upon so occupied and candid a mind as that of Dr. Valpy.

The late Mr. Owen, Secretary to the British and Foreign Bible Society, assured me he was once present at the table of Bishop Porteus, when this affair was mentioned in a way not very friendly to Mrs. More. The narrator had enlarged the thing, and several clergymen present had much censured it; but his Lordship, stripping off the additions, and stating the case precisely as it took place, and which he could do, from his intimacy with Mrs. More, said, with a smile, “This is the front of the offending; but it had been better, especially for the sake of her friends, not to have done it.’’

This, from such a quarter, was rather candid; but he might have said, as the late Rev. Richard Cecil did, when hearing of a similar accusation against a good churchman, —” Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shew-bread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests ?^^

And now, what do the spread of such clamours and the need of such denials and apologies imply? Is it a state of things which a mind imbued with the spirit of the New Testament can approve? Are we not only to have our own convictions, but to forbid everyone else to be fully persuaded in his own mind? Are we not only to prefer y but to exclude? While our general practice shows our choice, are we by no single act to evince our charity? Are we to behave towards those we believe to be born of God, as if they were strangers and foreigners, and not our fellow-citizens, because they live in another street? Or, as not being of the household of faith, because, as children, they are not of the same growth; or, as servants, they are not in the same employment? Shall we resemble John, or Jesus? John, who said, — Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us V^ Or Jesus, who said, — ‘^ Forbid him not: for there is no man who shall do a miracle in my name that can lightly speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is on our part?^^

Two other questions may be asked: — Firsts As all the present distinctions and differences among Christians will be done away with, hereafter, is an approach to the spirit and manners of that heavenly state to be considered an excellency or a disparagement now?

Secondly, If the Lords supper were designed, as it obviously was, to unite the followers of Christ, reminding them, by the participation of the same bread and the same cup, that they are all equally partakers of the same symbolized benefits; is it not as strange as it is lamentable, that this ordinance should ever become the means or occasion of dividing them, and making them think and feel that they are not one in Christ Jesus? And whence is it that Christians can join in all other acts and exercises of religion, and turn from, and turn against, each other, when requil-ed to sit at the same table, and eat and drink in remembrance of Him who died for them and rose again? Oh, let the same mind be in us which was also in Him, who stretched forth his hand towards his disciples, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren. For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother!” And must we always be ashamed, and blush to own all that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity, unless we meet them in a particular place, or wearing a particular dress?

Some feel and display a better disposition, and form a noble contrast to many miserably contracted beings. Archbishop Usher, having expressed his sense of, what he apprehended, the deficiency of certain churches abroad, in being without Episcopacy, adds, — “Yet, for the testifying of my communion with these churches, which I do love and honour as true members of the church universal, I do confess that, with like affection, I could receive the blessed Sacrament at the hand of the Dutch ministers, if I were in Holland, and at the hands of the French ministers, if I were at Charenton.^^

And the Rev. Baptist Noel, more honourable by his spirit than by his rank, though a clergyman of the church, even pleads for the possibility and propriety of an occasional exchange of services, between the Episcopalians and Dissenters. And would this tend to destroy anything, but what is better abolished than maintained, in our respective departments? This was formerly allowed in the Kirk of Scotland; and was it this that injured or endangered its institutions? The Free Church safely and nobly tolerates and promotes the same practice now; and” as many as walk by this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.’’

It is marvellous, but it seems there are those who profess to believe not only the truth, but the importance, of evangelical principles, who can wish that Mrs. More, whose talents were to have such an extensive influence over others, should, at the formation of her spiritual character, rather never have heard those evangelical doctrines, than have heard them where she did hear them!

To return from this unintentional digression, which, yet, I found it almost impossible to avoid; — I never knew a person in whom the words of our Lord were more exemplified: — ‘^ To him that hath shall be given;” or the promise by the prophet: — “Then shall we know, if we follow on to know the Lord.” She always lived up to the light she possessed, and a constant advancement was made in her acquaintance with “the truth as it is in Jesus.” Her spiritual progress is perceptible in her successive publications; and this progressiveness, rather than more instant maturity, was attended with advantage; as many of those who were disposed to read her works could not bear everything in the Evangelical system at once. They required “milk, and not strong meat.” She, therefore, laid hold of them in this degree of their knowledge, and led them on gradually by her side to the more perfect day. And in this view, I have met with some of more sudden and profound attainments in ‘^ the deep things of God,” who have much underrated the amazing good she certainly accomplished; for her works were bought and read almost without measure.

I communicated, by request, and which may be seen in the last volume of her life, a few anecdotes concerning her, to which it would be easy to add more. — Though she did not believe in absolute predestination, and loved the doctrine of universal redemption, she was peculiarly fond of perusing the works of the old Puritan and Nonconformist divines, whose sentiments, in these articles, diflfered from her own; and when asked how this was, she replied, “I find nothing so good as the lean of their fat.”

One day, as her letters came in, I saw she broke off the seals, and put them into a jar. I was anxious to know why she preserved them. “Ah/^ said she,” see the ingenuity of poverty; there are those who get a trifle towards their support by melting these into a secondary kind of wax.^^ Was not this gathering up the fragments, that nothing be lost? She one day wished to inform me of some very improper returns she had met with from an afflicted pauper I had recommended to her beneficence; but she called me away from the company, lest they shoidd hear, saying, ‘You know we must not speak of these things before persons, for they will make them excuses for their illiberality; “adding, ‘it is well, perhaps, for us to meet with such instances as these, to let us into a discovery of our motives in giving, and to remind us of our own vileness with regard to God; for what is the ingratitude of the worst of our fellow- creatures towards us, compared with our ingratitude towards Him?”

I cannot, in fairness to Mrs. More and to myself, but notice what seems a remarkable circumstance. Towards the close of her memoirs it is said — “Mrs. Morels regard for Mr. Jay is well known, and that she frequently attended his ministry for reasons which she has assigned in her address to her Diocesan, in a former volume,” If a person should think it worth while to turn back to this document, they will find no reason assigned, or even the name of the preacher mentioned, but only a statement or defence of her true Churchism. What was inserted was correct, but the explanation is not found. Is this omission the effect of design? And did it result from a presumption that no inquiry would be made? Or from an apprehension that anything she had favourably said to justify or excuse her attendance, might induce others also to offend? I hope, and would believe, that her reasons were left out by mistake and oversight. However this may be, the whole of the address to his Lordship, with the addition of some extenuations of her supposed crime furnished by her sister, may be now seen in her life by the Rev. Mr. Thompson. This biographer, who has written with ability, knew not Mrs. More personally, and only came to the church at Wrington as she was leaving the neighbourhood, owing to the conduct of her servants and tradesmen, to reside at Clifton; and much of his information appears to have been derived from persons who could have known little of her earlier connexions and habitudes. Yet, even with these partial accounts, Mr. Thompson finds no little difficulty in bringing her off a spotless church-woman; that is, in his meaning of the term. There is, therefore, as to many particulars, much misstatement.

This was the case also as to the “Blagdon Controversy.^’ The clergyman of the parish, provoked to become her enemy, (and the less from any other cause than her evangelism and zeal, and her not exerting herself to get him preferment,) endeavoured himself, and prevailed upon others to co-operate with him, to run her down for irregularity as a member of the Church, and encouraging sectarian practices. The case was this: — Though at length, very much by her influence, a number of evangelical clergymen surrounded her, and gladly acted with her, (they were called contemptuously by her adversaries ^’ Hannah Move’s ninepins,” in allusion to their number,) yet it was not so when she began her efforts in the neighbouring villages; and I have often heard her confess that what she did then was not only without clerical countenance and aid, but was opposed by them. Yet she established schools, and placed over them pious masters and mistresses, who not only taught the children to read, but to understand the simple truths of the Gospel.* They were also accustomed to pray with these children, and to address them

* She more than once applied to me to recommend such as, she said, would be called Methodists; adding, “I find none seem to do my poor children good beside.”

occasionally, in plain and familiar language, concerning their souls and their duties. Sometimes, also, a hymn from Watts or Wesley was sung. During these exercises, some of the ignorant rustics would now and then drop in, and listen, and feel a religious concern. When her parochial accuser published these things, with his colourings and enlargements, void of the circumstances of explanation or excuse, some took great alarm, and, ,eager for her defence, plunged incautiously into the dispute; and, judging only by what they knew of her then, they denied things which many living could not but own had been substantially true. She could not come forward to contradict her injudicious friends, and she disdained entering into a conflict with her im.- worthy foes. In this dilemma her suffering and perplexity were great. Some of the results of this vile persecution led her to change, not her principles, but some of her movements and proceedings. She gave up her residence in Bath, and resigned her worshipping intercourse with some of her former connexions; endeavouring by her future conduct, if possible, to cut off occasion of offence from many who were not only dear to her, but had contributed, and contributed still, largely in furtherance of her charities.

Here persons will differ in their opinions, and not a few have censured her. But she has always stood clear in my own mind. I am fully persuaded she acted conscientiously. She is to be viewed as a very extraordinary character, in a very peculiar situation, and whose duties must be judged of by circumstances. She only perfectly understood her own position; and, after reflection and comparison, she could not but act according to her own convictions. I well remember her saying, — “I throw myself upon the candour of that part of the religious public I as much esteem as ever, to exercise some spiritual self-denial, and which I find to be the most trying of all self-denials.’’ She, therefore, never withdrew her friendship; sent me, as usual, her books when they were published; and at last remembered me in her will. •” ■: ’

My own testimony concerning her is, — and I speak advisedly, and from no little acquaintance and observation, — that her piety was equal to her talent, and that her talent was superior even to her fame. Genius is not commonly combined with a strong and hale constitution. Mrs. More often suffered from indisposition; and often composed under aches and pains which would have entirely deterred others from the use of the pen.

Her poetical productions are few, compared with her prose, and her renown as a writer will be more derived from the latter than the former. Coleridge has remarked that, though the force of female genius might be supposed to lie chiefly in imagination, yet, into the long standard list of English poets, no female author has been thought worthy of admission, while so many of them have been distinguished as novelists and dramatists; and he asks whether this does not prove that other qualities are as necessary to good poetry as what is called imagination? But may we not venture to ask whether this non-admission of females has in no degree arisen from the empire and jealousy of the Lords of the Creation? Surely, some one of our females deserves a place among the canonized bards, equal to that of some of the poetical, privileged males?

By nothing, perhaps, did Mrs. More do more good, or display her talents to more advantage, than by throwing herself into the social feelings and habits of the common people, in the series of tracts she published for their use. I remember being present when she started the proposal. It was at her own house, and at a breakfast-party. The company was large and select.* They

* It was on this occasion I first met with the famous John Foster. He was silent all the morning. (The Editors think it not improbable that it was to this meeting Mr. Foster alluded in one of his letters to Dr. Faweett, dated Bristol, Oct. 15, 1791. “Life and Correspondence of John Foster.”

z2 were asked by her their opinion of the probable circulation and usefulness of a number of cheap, short, and familiar publications, especially as they might become a substitute for the poor, licentious, and injurious trash found on stalls, and vended by hawkers. When all naturally approved of the scheme, and doubted not of its success, Mrs. More, as a specimen of the sort and quality of the articles intended, produced “The Shepherd of Salisbury Plain,” which she had composed for the purpose. I was called upon to read it. This I did, not without difficulty, being affected to tears with some of its exquisite touches. This probably was not unpleasant to the writer; but all were delighted with the simple and beautiful, fictitious tale. I say “fictitious,” for it was not, as often supposed, founded in fact. A multitude of these tracts soon followed. I need not mention that many of them were not of Jier composition. Several of

—Vol. I. p. 16.) “A few days since, in company with Mr. Hughes, I spent a day with Miss Hannah More. She, with four other sisters, all unmarried, resides at the distance of about ten miles from the city. They are all very sensible and agreeable, but she is quite interesting. She was familiarly acquainted with Johnson, and many other distinguished persons who are dead, and is equally well known to most of the geniuses of the present day. Perhaps her poetical abilities, though acknowledged very great, form one of the least of her excellencies. If piety and beneficence can give lustre to a character, hers is transcendent. She lives in a kind of retirement, little noticed, except by her distant friends; and, in conjunction with her sisters, whose minds are congenial with her own, employs most of her time in benevolent undertakings, in visiting the poor, furnishing them with necessaries, and procuring instruction for their ignorant children, at the very time that she could figure among poetesses and peeresses. Some of her undertakings, in the design, conduct, difficulties, and success, are so very remarkable, and discover such evident interpositions of Divine Providence, that they almost assume the air of romance. If I ever saw the spirit of the Redeemer and his religion realized, it is in her conversation and character. I expect the pleasure of visiting her to be pretty often repeated.”

them were written by her sisters, Sally and Patty, and more by other friendly helpers; and though none of them can compete with her own, they were all valuable and useful.*

Did this lead, by example and reflection, to the establishment of “The Tract Society,” in London, which has become so vast, and useful an institution?

In these compositions, and some larger publications of a similar kind, Mrs. More has been charged with partiality; and there is some ground for it. In her sketches of good and evil characters, the excellencies are almost always exemplified in members of her own Church, while defects and improprieties are found in the adherents to Methodism and Dissent. Her reading, her personal acquaintances, her judgment, her candour, should have prevented this. There is no perfection on this side heaven.

Mr, Hill, in his “Village Dialogues,” is thought by some to have erred in the other extreme, especially in his clerical bad examples; though it should be remembered how much many of the reverends then differed from the same class now. Do not all parties need a voice behind them, saying, ‘’This is the way, walk ye in it,” when they turn to the right hand, or when they turn to the left?

I sometimes met at Mrs. Morels house and table the celebrated Alexander Knox, who has more than noticed me as a preacher in one of his letters to Bishop Jebb. I remember well his once specially introducing his views of Justification;

* Among the private papers of Mrs. More, was found an interesting record which she m,ade on the completion of this series of useful puhlications: — “Bless the Lord, O my soul, that I have been spared to accomplish, this work! Do thou, O Lord, bless and prosper it to the good of many; and, if it do good, may I give to thee the glory, and take to myself the shame of its defects. I have devoted three years to this work. Two millions of these tracts were disposed of during the first year. God works by weak instruments, to show that the glory is all His own.”

when Mrs. More, though less enlightened then than afterwards, made no scruple to express her dissent, and alleged several scriptures with great propriety. If he did not believe in baptismal regeneration, he talked very ambiguously upon it. Indeed, from my personal intercourse, and my subsequent perusal of his letters and papers, I have thought he helped to prepare the way for Puseyism.

At Mrs. Morels, too, I also repeatedly met Sir James Stonhouse. He was formerly a physician of note at Northampton. At that time he was a hearer, and the intimate friend, of Dr. Doddridge, in speaking of whom I recollect his observing the amazing affluence and readiness of his mind. “We sometimes,^^ said he,” for a little excursion and recreation, left home together, for a week or a fortnight; and, after exploring the sceneries and curiosities of places in the course of the day, he frequently preached in some meeting in the evening to a crowded assembly, without time for retirement, without notes, without fatigue; with an ease, an order, an accuracy, and a fervour, truly astonishing.^^ — Yet he professed to prefer Orton to Doddridge as a sermonizer, and indeed to every other English divine! 1 believe he much coalesced with him in sentiment.

Rather late in life, he left his professional engagements, and entered the Establishment, and became vicar of Cheveril, in Wiltshire, where the Rev. Mr. Stedman was his curate, to whom, by his desire, Orton addressed a small volume of letters, which were afterwards published, and which are well worthy the attention of every young minister.

I first became acquainted with him while residing at Clifton, and when serving Lady Maxwell at Hope Chapel. He lived in

Row, and occasionally preached in a chapel-of-ease in

Square, where he was much followed. His access to

this pulpit he assigned as the reason why he could never appear in the place I occupied, as prejudice might deprive him of much opportunity for usefulness, though he paid for the sitting of his servant, and his daughter, Mrs. Vigo, who attended my ministry. When he first came to Bath he was very schismatical himself, for I believe he always attended in our conventicle. But religion lives, and moves, and has its being, in various degrees. He was a good man, with too little spirituality, and too keen an appetite for human praise; therefore Mr. Hervey, whom he attended as a physician, said to him, when dying,” Dr. Stonhouse, beware of the world! beware of the world! beware of the world! ^’ His sentiments were the skim-milk of the Gospel j but he must be classed as belonging to the Evangelical Clergy, though very near the border that separates theip from others.

As an author, he wrote only a few small, useful tracts for the afflicted and dying; but, as a preacher, he was famed for his eloquence, and still more for the admirable manner in which he read the prayers; in which, he said, he had availed himself of the dictation of Garrick. He was a very sensible and accomplished man, yet noted for excessive egotism, but for which he would have been a more delightful and edifying companion.

I can, perhaps, be hardly excused for introducing the following letter, the last I ever received from Mrs. More; but it pleasingly displays traits of her more private character, and affords another proof of her kind and constant friendship: —

My dear Sir, — I know not how to express the gratitude I feel for the very excellent works you have had the goodness to bestow upon me. To feel deeply their inestimable value, and to offer my fervent prayers to the Almighty Giver of every good gift, are all I can do. May He enlighten and strengthen me more and more by the constant perusal. Your last bounty, the new edition of your Prayers, with the valuable additions, is a great additional treasure. We fell upon it with a keen appetite this morning, and I hope I shall be the better for it as long as I live.

My truly pious friend, Mr. Elven, who is my chief spiritual visitor, said, when I showed him your volumes, “Mr. Jay has more ideas than any man I ever knew.” I could not prevail on myself to keep this remark from you.

I thought my hard necessity to leave Barley “Wood was a great trial, but it has pleased my gracious God to overrule it to my great comfort and benefit. I was there almost destitute of all spiritual advantages; here I find four ministers of great piety, who are much attached to me, and who supply my want of public attendance at church.

It was a very agreeable surprise to me to see your good lady, and I was grieved that the largeness of the party (almost all strangers), prevented my attention to her, which was so justly her due. I beg to offer my most kind regards to her.

I hope you will have the goodness to remember me at the Throne of Grace; no one stands more in need of your prayers than, my dear Sir,

Your very faithful

And highly obliged

Friend and Servant,

Clifton. — Saturday, 1829. Hannah More.

The following lines have never yet appeared in print. They were addressed by Mrs. More to the celebrated and pious Miss Steel, of Broughton, Hampshire, during her visit, and after they had walked to Danebury Hill, an ancient camp, near which, according to tradition, a battle had been fought between the Saxons and the Danes. Miss Steel having written a poem entitled “Danebury,^^ Mrs. More gathered there a sprig of juniper, for which she thus apologized: —

Sylvia, forgive thy daring friend, 1,

And do not take it ill,
If her presuming hand has plucked

A wreath from Danebury Hill.

Yet, though I much admire the gifts

Thy genius can impart.
Far rather, Sylvia, would I steal

One virtue from thy heart.

And who, fair Sylvia, do you think.

Would blame the moral theft? - •:

One Virtue you would scarcely miss,

You ‘d have so many left!

At the time when Mrs. More was so cruelly persecuted by the

Rev. Mr. B n, and the Rev. Mr. S n, and Mr. E ds,

(not to mention others) Peter Pindar was in his popularity; he also insinuated his unprovoked slanders and ridicule, and endeavoured to rob her of her fame as an author; upon the reading of which a member of my church wrote the following severe and deserved address, and published it in the papers: —

To Peter Pindar, Esq., on reading his “Nil Admirari,” etc.

This is not candid in thee, Peter Pindar;

‘Tis a fresh blot upon thy dubious name,
To envy that applause thou canst not hinder,

And blast a woman’s literary fame.

* ‘Tis very contradictious in thee, Peter;

It looks unmanly, and betrays thy spleen,

To insult a female, and with scorn to treat her!

It blunts the edge of satire, else so keen.

* More has no genius,’ Peter says; moreover,
* She has no claim to merit, not the least; ’

Yet in her style improved, thou canst discover,
She must have been assisted by a priest.

If mental powers which Garrick could admire, — If talents that command a Porteus’ praise,

May without arrogance to fame aspire.
Her claim is good, whatever Peter says.

Thy judgment, Peter, comes, I guess, too late;

Its prompt applause a virtuous public gave her;
Nor will thy wicked wit reverse her fate,

Or cancel that decision in her favour.

But, let the public as it may decide.

There is a dread tribunal, Peter, hear — Where thou, and all thy actions, shall be tried,

And what thy doom will be I greatly fear.

Believe me, Peter, all thy ridicule

“Will turn to very poor account at best;
:.: Thou hast for many years but played the fool,

* And prostituted genius to a jest.

y-”, That man’s a simpleton who flings away
The precious grain, and only hoards the chaff*;

And he ’s no better, flout it as he may,

Who squanders his whole life to raise a laugh.

Try to repair the past; reform thy plan;

Conscience will tell thee thou hast acted wrong;
Assume the moral dignity of man.

And give to virtue all thy powers of song.

Bath, Nov. 7, 1*799, Akybston.