for its grandeur and sublimity, and I admire that (which is falsely called the Gothick) still more, for the admirable skill and science, added to a sublinity no ways inferior, which I have seen displayed in the fine specimens of it, that I have viewed with so much delight. But like many other good things they will not bear to be mixed, every attempt at uniting the two orders invariably ending in monstrous incongruity, and disgusting deformity.

It is an error of this nature that bas disfigured the building in question, for the entrance or vestibule, has been so disposed as to terminate in a pediment, which is a member of architecture entirely of Grecian origin; and yet a most unaccountabie perversion of taste has led the planner of the building, whoever he may be, to finish this pediment with an embattled parapet, a species of finishing used in Gothic architecture only, and which, so far from being ornamental, makes it look so extremely anomalous, that it might almost be worshipped without a breach in the second commardiment, not being the likeness of any thing in heaven above, the earth beneath, or the waters under the earth.

The embattled parapet is moreover independent of architectural considerations, an improper termination for a place of worship dedicated to the religion of the Meek Jesus, who both by precept and example discouraged every thing of a warlike nature. This kind of parapet was first used for fortresses, and castles, and other places of defence in war; and from the old castles being in other points of the Gothic architecture, come to be considered and used for a termination to buildings of that order, intended for very different purposes. This parapet was in fact a mode of defence against smell arms, and the arrows used when

the old castles were built; that from behind it the beseiged might discharge their missive weapons, without being much exposed; and with equal propriety (as the using this parapet for a christian place of worship) the church yard should be surrounded with a ditch, rampart, covered way, and glacis, and have embrasures with cannons in the proper places. That the embattled parapet is not a necessary termination to a Gothic building for religious purposes, any more than a congruous one, is evident from many instances where other kinds of parapets are used; but in this case one example will suffice, especially as it is of undisputed authority, which is that elegant specimen of the Gothic order, St. Mary Radcliff in Bristol, which is so justly admired (and for its beauty and perfection, added to its small dimensions, may well be called the Gothic gem); where the parapet is formed of a species of open work in angular compartments, perfectly congruous to the Gothic arch; and which has an effect extremely light and rich and harmonious in the most pleasing manner with the beautiful whole.

In giving this last parapet the encomiums it so justly deserves, there is no intention of recommending it as a model for the new chapel; it would indeed be almost as unsuitable to the stile of the building as the one now used: but certainly, filling up the embrasures, and placing the coping stones in right lines in continuation in all parts of the front, but particularly in the part over the vestibule (resembling a pediment, would be a very obvious improve. ment, which among other advantages would have cheapness to recommend it; and is worthy of notice, that had the parapet been built in this way at first, it would have cost considerably less than the embattled

1811.]

APPROVING of that friendly

discussion, which gives a zest to literary correspondence, and like the animated No in conversation, recommended by Cowper, enlivens the pages of a periodical work, I am inclined to make a few observations on two essays which have lately appeared in your magazine. Such discussions often by their collision, produce a spark, with which to kindle the lamp of truth to enlighten us through the dark passages of life, and can do no damage, if care is taken to keep remote from the gunpowder train of the passions, and from all consequent danger of explosion.

A. P. censures George Ensor, who in his Essay on National Government, blames the people for their disinclination to political reform, and for that apathy, which is the present epidemic. I see nothing to induce me to think that George Ensor's censure is misplaced or mistimed. We must admit that the majority of the people are too inert, and require to be roused, and if this end be obtained, it is altogether indifferent, whether the arguments are drawn from the theories of materialism or immaterialism. We may proceed to prac

185

tice without delaying too long in ascertaining the theory. The habit of apathy is at present a desperate dis

ease.

The skilful physician directs his remedies to the existing state of disease, and judiciously administers corroborants and stimulants in cases of debility and langour, while he would direct sedatives in a contrary diagnosis. According to my view of our political state, we require something to arouse us, but not to be farnished with a nostrum to af ford us a plausible excuse for our indolence. I hope however from the conclusion of his essay, that I have A. P. more with me than I expected from his introductory remarks. In his attack on reform, I think we have him in reality on our side, while he playfully brandishes against us his polished shaft of irony.

To

But I am afraid to give the enemies of reform an apparent triumph, by having such an advocate for a moment in their ranks. If the people are too generally supine, and negligent to their best interests, it is the duty of the friends of reform, to keep at their posts, and to give the alarm of danger, whether their warn. ings are attended to, or neglected. The few who are enlightened, must keep before the multitude, endeavour to draw them on, and incessantly stimulate to virtuous exertions. such precursors, and heralds of reform, mankind have in all ages been greatly indebted, and found among then their best benefactors; and these have been in the end repaid for all the obloquy thrown on them by the revilers of merit, and been amply compensated by the calm approbation of their own minds, and the grateful tribute of a judicious few. The names of Milton, Sidney, Locke, and many other illustrious defenders of liberty, will be remembered with well merited gratitude, as the friends of man, while the Filmers, and the

supporters of arbitrary principles will be forgotten, or be remembered with disgust. I might adduce illustrious names of later date, but I forbear from reasons of prudence. I am not a friend to reforms brought about by force, but I earnestly desire to see the friends of reform rally round its standard, and incessantly persevere through reproach, through exil report, and every difficulty, in their exertions to enlighten theircountrymen. But may the well wishers to this great and glorious cause, who are gifted with talents to do much good to it, never betray their trust, through timidity, indolence, or any indulgence of the selfish passions. May they keep on the alert, their opponents are active, and they with so much a better cause, should not be behind then in vigilance, Much injury has been done by precipitate attempts at reform, but much loss may be also sustained by temporizing and timid delay. If we wait too long for experience to confirm the benefit of charge, the occasion may pass by, and we may waste our lives in strenuous idteness, I now turn to another correspondent, who remarks on a note ma former number on the names of the months I am unconvinced by his reasoning, that calling the months by a numerical name adapted to a foriner calendar, is not a nasnemer, while according to the calendar cow in use, and the act of parliament which altered the style, it is declared, that January shall be the first month. According to the old style, the 7th month was with sufficient propriety demonstrated September, now it appears inconsistent to retain the former appellation, when it is the 9th in order. If the simple numerical course were adopted, there is no room to dread, foolish as nations are, that such a change would furnish cause for serious quarrels,

and wars, or that the change of seasons in the northern and southern hemispheres, a circumstance well known to most school-boys, would be any material obstruction to the changes of the names. The beginning of the year has been fixed at both the vernal and autuumal equinox, and a little after the winter solstice, without any disadvantage or inconvenience in either system. If it were continued as it now is, we in the northern hemisphere might commence our mode of reckoning, as it now stands, while those of the southern would have their winter in the middle instead of the end of their year. For an argument either for or against the alteration, I shal not go back to the tower of Babel, or stop to notice which system is most calentated to produce coafusion.

It is also objected, that other matters of more confusion require to be reformed before this, an alteration, confessedly of smalt importance be made. With those who dislike reform no time is ever suitable,soby a parity of reasoning no subjectis suitable, because other cases perhaps more insportant can be pointed out, in which reforin ought to begin. But if we are to set about reform, we must begin somewhere. This I admit is a case of no great importance, but it is well to be right even in trules, while we are careful not to attach too much importance to them. It may be the safest way neither to be indifferent to reform in smaller maters, nor to attempt to swell thein into importance.

It is objected that the French made not any approach to propriety in their change of the calendar. I consider that to see and avoid an error, is some approach to propriety, aithough I do not conceive they adopted the proper mode of rectifying the error. I think they fell into another error in their manner

new

of amending the former one. I would have liked better the numerical mode. But in this instance, as in many others, the French appear to have had a quick sense of errors, but were not sufficiently cool to apply the best remedies to correct them. Bonaparte, I conceive, revoked the new calendar merely to facilitate his views in removing, as far as he could, ail traces of the revolution out of his own road to arbitrary power. However unsuccessful the French revolution has hitherto been, and how much soever the good effects resulting from it have as yet been marred, by the passions engendered under the old system of errors and prejudices, by the unprincipled concert of princes against the born liberty, and by the self-interest and ambition of Bonaparte, I cannot concede that it ought to be called "the era of folly and madness." I contemplate it in a very different character. I lament the excesses, the acts of violence, and the errors with which it was accidentally attended, but I think I perceive in it, the germ of future improvements, and that philanthropists will here. after refer to it, as the commencement of an epoch of amelioration, when the dreadful fermentation may have subsided, and according to a kind, and always operative law of our nature, good has been produced out of evil. I do not expect, and certainly I do not desire, the permanency of the Napolean dynasty, but having long been convinced of the necessity of a change, from the ac cumulated abuses and prejudices of former times, and long cherished the hope that the French revolution was the commencement, or perhaps rather the forerunner of an era of reform, I cannot readily bring myself utterly to abandon my hopes. To use a significant, but not a courtly phrase of a nervous writer,

For the Belfast Monthly Magazine.

I PUT it to the candour and good

sense of R. whether he thinks he has answered my plain question.-" Сам the author of the political retrospect justify his frequent and severe attacks upon dissenting minis ters, by pointing out a single condition in the grant of the R. D. that encroaches on the discipline, the doctrine, or the rights of the dissenting church"

Has he pointed out one condition, that has corrupted or injured our church? Not one-since then no injury has been done, I might here dismiss him on the merits; but as he has alleged one injury, and only one actually done, I shall examine that, and then proceed to his probabilities and conjectures.

It is alleged, that the patriotism of dissenting ministers, at its meridian glory, in 1782, has declined since the augmentation. This I deny. The old whig principles, not the overthrowing principles of after times, animated their bosoms in 1782, and still continue to animate them. And if they have not been as forward in avowing these principles of late years, their silence has been owing to their abhorrence of those revolutionizing principles that have been since grafted on the tree of rational liberty, and have produced nothing but sour, rotten, and bitter fruit. This perversion of the origiginal principles of reform to the purposes of revolutionizing democracy, and the consequent staining of the cause by the unprincipled having recourse to criminal meates, united with the conviction of the injurious consequences resulting from the interference of the church with the state, determined them as ministers to decline meddling with politics. But be it understood, that in a civil view they fear not to ace knowledge, that they are the same friends to a constitutional reform, that they were in 1782. The augmentation has not made them toriesas to the additional burthen to the people, (an argument never adduced before by the reviewer, though here alleged to be his principle argument,) the whole amount of the grant has been ere now bestowed upon three or four miscreants, without exciting such a clamour as has been excited against this moderate and seasonable remuneration to 150 useful instructors, not for nominal offices, or sinecures, but for service actually done to the community.

If requiring the oath of allegiance be "encreasing the influence of the crown," it is an encrease that the King can require of all, or any of his subjects, when he and his council think proper. Nor is this any additional qualification, having been always required, and continuing to be required at every minister's ordination, before the people, and

since the augmentation, before two magistrates

As to the unequal distribution of the R. D. to one third, 501, to another third, 75l, to another third 100%; though this plan is objectionable, as not proportioning the reward to the duty, nor to the necessi ty of the rewarded persons, yet does it not create a disparity of rights, or even of influence. There is no distinction of ranks, of rights or of orders, in our church. Superior talents and probity retain the preeminence they are entitled to, in our ecclesiastical assemblies, but these are no more exclusively at tached to classes, now, than they were to higher stipends, before classification took place. Seven years experience has not made the slightest encroachment on our primitive equality.

The right of the people to choose their own pastors, has not been once encroached upon, though it is most unfairly insinuated by R. that an encroachment has been made on this right. As to independence of the people, be it remembered that seven years enjoyment of this mere competence has not made them corrupt partizans of the state, nor has it relaxed their endeavours to promote the spiritual interests of the people.

Where then is that love of truth, of liberty and of christian charity, with which the Belfast Magazine made its auspicious debut. Is either of these manifested in theBut I hope the reviewer has tallen into the common error of supposing that the g-t were to have a VETO on the people's choice, and that he will candidly acknowledge and recant that error. I shall now take my leave of R. after having proved, that no encroachment has been made on the rights, or purity of the