I

Mr. URBAN,

Aug. 1. WAS much pleased with the pious reflections in vol. LXXIX. p.1020, on the unhappy female who drowned herself in a cistern, and hoped your Correspondent would have favoured us with more of his judicious remarks on other occasions. I possess not his talent in delineation; but am tempted to send you a counterpart to that melancholy story, which I lately received from a friend at the sea-coast. Her housemaid, whose mild and modest demeanour in her station procured her the esteem of every one, asked her permission one day to go to some relations at a little distance, and return at night. When the servants were called to prayers, this young woman being missed, occasioned some surprise, mixed with alarm for her safety. The servants sat up for her; but she did not arrive till 6 o'clock next morning, when she appeared wet, weary, dirty, and dejected to their enquiries she confessed she had attempted to drown herself, which she had frequently revolved in her mind, having been disappointed in an attachment she had formed to a fellow-servant in a former service: some circumstances preventing their union, she had prudently quitted the place to avoid him; but the disappointment had preyed so on her spirits, that she gave way at last to the desperate resolution of termipating her existence. The painful struggle with the waves, and the near prospect of death, from which Nature, unassisted, always must recoil, made ber reflect with horror, that she was going to appear in the presence of her Maker uncalled, stained with the guilt of Self-murder; and, determining never to repeat the rash attempt if she could get out of the water, tried to say her prayers; but her extreme agitation did not permit her, and she sunk. It was providentially the ebb of the tide; and she was

She

My

thrown senseless on the beach. Partly herself recovering, she imagined dead, and in the other world; but, after some time, regaining the use of her faculties, she walked up from the shore, and met a man, who, suspecting what her intention had been, gave her good advice, and made her promise not to repeat the attempt: he walked three miles with her. afterwards reached a public-house, where she endeavoured in vain to gain admittance, and took shelter for some time in an out-house. She then tried to proceed; but the salt water she had swallowed gave her such violent pain, that she rolled in the road; after which she became sick, and, discharging a great quantity, was able to pursue her journey. She was put to bed, and soon fell into a short sleep. friend says: "After breakfast I went to her, and sat by her the greatest part of the day, for I cannot tell you how greatly I felt interested for her, as I thought her a soul as it were snatched from perdition; at intervals between her sleeps, she seemed composed by being read to, and prayed by. I endeavoured to fix strongly in her mind, sentiments of gratitude for her providential preservation, and to represent to her the great increase of guilt she would incur, if, after such a mercy, she should ever recur to such a desperate act again; adding, that I trusted the great Searcher of Hearts saw it was more the effect of a dejection she had not strength to resist, than a deliberate act of disobedience to Him; and that, by a resignation in future of her will to His disposal, and an endeaYour to discharge every duty, however painful, to which she might be called, she would make all the return in her power for such an undeserved mercy."

form divine service in their Churches on week-days, and even on those of them which happen to be Church Holidays. This charge of c ‚ommission, if universally intended, is partly true, and partly false.

to some of the City Churches, divine service continues to be regularly performed on all Holidays, Wednesdays, and Fridays; whilst in a greater number of them, perhaps, these services are omitted, not SO much, let us hope, through the neg ligence of the Clergy, as for the want of a Congregation.

At least, I can confidently affirm this statement to be correct, in many instances, I have myself been a Lon don Rector about nineteen years, On my induction, I found that there had been no week-day Prayers in my Church for many years past; on which, desirous of reviving the pious usage, I gave public notice, both from the pulpit, and by other means for more complete information to the parishioners, that divine service should be performed every Wednesday, and in Lent every Friday likewise; and F have not failed, from time to time, to invite, and recommend from the pulpit, an attendance upon these services. One, two, or three indivi duals, out of one family, together with an occasional straggler, were alf the Congregation I could ever collect, through the space of eighteen years; and, in very numerous instances, there has been no attendance at all; and latterly, even for months together. Under these very discouraging circumstances, I have for the last twelvemonth altogether given up my practice of attending to perform the week-day service; but 1 should be happy to resume it, if there were any probability of obtain ing a Congregation; although, there being so Parsonage-house in my parish, I reside at some distance from it.

Your Correspondent E. mentions the disappointment he experienced on Ascension-day. On that day, in this very year, I experienced, perhaps, greater disappointment. A peram bulation of the bounds of my parish was to be made; and on the previous Sunday, 1 gave notice myself, from the Altar, after the Nicene Creed, that the Church would be opened for divine service on Ascension-day, and that the perambulation would com

mence immediately after the Service. I also notified the same to the Churchwarden, who caused it to be circulated, in a hand-bill, through the parish. Notwithstanding all which, the Churchwarden himself was the only person who came to attend the Service; and not more than half a dozen of the parishioners accompanied us in perambulating the parish, though the muster at dinner was about twice the number.

Similarly circumstanced, I am persuaded, are most of the Clergy within the walls of the City: to charge them with blame, therefore, for not having divine service performed in their Charches on week-days, is untair and uncandid.

I am, Mr. Urban, your constant Reader, and occasional Correspond ent, A LONDON RECTOR.

me

Mr. URBAN, Aug. 15. SHOULD be much obliged to any gentleman who can favour with Memoirs (or with a reference to them) of Sir Thomas Merry, knight, one of the clerks comptroliers of the Green Cloth to King James I. and a great favourite with that Monarch, who in 1606, and again in 1612, gave him large grants of lands. He parchased Gepsal in Leicestershire in 1618; but more of him I know not. Of Sir Henry Merry (probably his son) an Epitaph is given by Bancroft, and another for Walter Merry.

In Aldbury-church, Surrey, is the epitaph of Dame Elizabeth Merrye, consort of Thomas Merrye, esq. of Gopsal, who died in 1652; and at Brewood, in Staffordshire, is the epitaph of Mary-Magdalen, wife of Gilbert Merry.

Yours, &c.

Mr. URBAN,

A

M. GREEN.

P.

Aug. 1. N Observer," Vol. LXXX. p. 001, is respectfully informed, that I am not conscious of having "misquoted" Drake, in regard to my opinion delivered in Vol. LXXIX. 221, about the dates of the North and South transepts of York Cathedral. I followed that Author wherever I conceived him correct; but, when otherwise, I held to my own ideas, derived from ocular demonstration. Drake ascribes the North transept to Walter de Grey, 1227; and the South, transept to Roger, 1171. Now as

the monument of De Grey is set up in the South transept, I merely reversed dates, as naturally supposing the Prelate was interred in that part of the fabrick which he himself had raised.

It is to be suspected "An Old Inhabipant," Vol. LXXX. p. 614, I had almost said "An Old Correspondent," is no friend to our Antiquities, by his advising, under the plea of "improvement," the taking away on the South angle of the Abbey Church, Westminster, the antient building there connected; or he is little acquainted (mayhap pretends to be so) with the Historic interest of the object he wishes to 66 destroy," which is no less a place than the famous "Jerusale Chamber," where Henry the IVth died!" An Old Inhabitant's” advice, given in this Miscellany, sacred to the welfare of our Antiquities, is wholly irrelevant, and cannot be read but with dissapprobation and dissent, Therefore let this Improver direct his ideas to the offices and advertisements of those Innovators who are hourly waiting the alteration or destruction of our Antient Religious and Royal Structures; it is from them he will receive due thanks, and no doubt the due reward he is in pursuit of. Yours, &c. J. CARTER.

Mr. URBAN,

Aug. 5. WAS much gratified by finding in p. 83, the very appropriate address to the Earl of Northesk and Sir Richard Strachan; and am happy to perceive that the worthy Chamberlain so ably follows the example of his immediate Predecessor, who particularly plumed himself on the terseness of these short occasional Speeches on subjects of the first national interest. To complete the series, I send you exact copies of two Specches recently made, which you have by

some accident omitted to record.

Yours, &c. AN OLD CITIZEN, "General Lumley,

"I give you joy and in compliance with a Resolution of the Court of Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London, 'in Common Council assembled, do return you their unanimous Thanks for your gallant and skilful Conduct, so gloriously displayed in the Attack and Capture of the Fortress of Monte Video, in South America.

"And as a Testimony of the high Esteem the Court entertains of your gallant

and

my powers of exertion shall cease, I shall cease even to have a wish to live.

"I beg leave again to return my heartfelt thanks for the Honour this day conferred upon me."

Mr. URBAN,

July 16. THE inclosed is a copy of a geTuine Letter from Lord Nelson; and as it mentions the officer to whom it relates in a very distinguished manner, I am of opinion it merits insertion. It shews the ardent and zealous mind of that GREAT MAN, to be alike in Friendship and in Battle. Yours, &c.

E. M.

"Victory at Sea, 10 March, 1805. "MY DEAR Lord,

"I inclose some remarks made by Captain Layınan whilst he was in Spain, after the very unfortunate loss of that fine sloop, which your Lordship was so good as to give him the command of. Your Lordship will find the remarks flow from a most intelligent and active mind, and may be useful should any expedition take place against Cadiz; and, my dear Lord, give me leave to recommend Captain Layman to your kind protection: for, notwithstanding the Court Martial has thought him deserving of censure for running in with the land, yet, my Lord, allow me to say, that Captain Layman's misfortune was, perhaps, believing that other people's abilities were equal to his own; which indeed very few people's are.

"I own myself one of those that do not fear the shore; for hardly any great things are done in a small ship, by a man that is: therefore, I make very great allowance for him. Indeed his station was intended

and if he did not every day risk his sloop, he would have been useless upon that station. Captain Layman has served with me in three ships; and I am well acquainted with his bravery, zeal, judgment, and activity: nor do I regret the loss of the Raven, compared to the value of Captain Layman's services, which are a National loss.

"You must, my Lord, forgive the warmth which I express for Captain Layman; but he is in adversity, and therefore has the more claim to my attention and regard. If I had been censured every time I have run my ship, or fleets under my command, ino great danger, I should long ago have been out of the service, and

never in the House of Peers.
"I am, my dear Lord,
"Most faithfully,
"Your obedient servant,
"NELSON & BRONTE.

"To Lord Vis. Melville."

Mr.

Mr. URBAN,

T is a pity that your Correspondent should have copied from Betham's Baronetage; and for the same reason, it is a pity that Mr. Betham should have inserted there, what both of them might so easily have discovered to be a mistake, by consulting Beatson's, or any other List, of the principal Lawyers; namely, that "the first of the family of Folkes was Attorney General to Queen Anne.”

6

In reply to your Correspondent J. S. Hardy, p. 613, who wishes for some account of Dr. John Godolphin, take the following from Dr. Coote's useful" Catalogue of English Civilians," between 1641 and 1645.

"Here we may introduce John Godolphin, who, notwithstanding the omission of his name in the Register, was certainly incorporated among the Advocates. He was a native of one of the Scilly islands;

received academical education at Gloucester Hall (Oxford), and took his doctorial degree in 1643. He joined the prevailing party, and promoted the Republican arrangements; and in 1653 he was appointed Judge of the Admiralty with Dr. (William) Clerk, and a barrister of the name of (Charles George) Cock, who also encroached on the practice of the Civilians, by acting as a Judge of the Prerogative Court, when the Spiritual Courts were subjected to the Judicial sway of Parlia

mentary Commissioners. During the

Eclipse of the Monarchy, Dr. G. published some Theological works. After the Restoration, he illustrated by his pen the Juris diction of the Admiralty, explained the law of Wills, and of Intestacy, and presented his countrymen with an useful Repertory of Ecclesiastical Law.

His

Mr. URBAN, mouth Dock, Aug. 1. Landulph, near Ply

THE