1811.) 
instances occupy the mind of the person 
officiating, it can hardly in any case en- 
gage the whole attention of the audience, 
or be properly-said to be the prayer of 
the congregation. 
“Secondly. Public prayer cannot be 
reasonable, because the consequence to 
be expected from it, in a moral view, 
and in acertain degree, the actual effects 
of it are pernicious, of which I think it 
unnecessary at present to mention more 
than two instances. The one is, that 
the house of prayer ever has been, and 
from its nature must be, while it exists, 
the nursery of hypocrisy, and the theatre 
of ostentation. 
“Tn the retirement of the closet, there 
can be no dissembling. No man can be 
so foolish as to hope that he can deceive 
the Being, who is “ acquainted with all 
his ways, and who understands his 
thoughts afar off; and from every other 
eye he is secluded.” 
Part IT. is entitled, “On Religious 
Instruction,” and it is there maintained, 
that the best way of securing the opening 
mind froin false impressions, ‘‘ is to pre- 
occupy it with just views and virtuous 
habits.” - He condemns almost all ygo- 
vernments, for having hitherto interfered 
with the sacredright of education; aud 
parents are supposed to be most proper, 
and best fitted to, instil precepts of mo- 
rality into the youthful minds of their 
own offspring. After remarking that, to 
the ‘ tyranny of priests we are indebted 
for the slow progress of truth in religion, 
in philosophy, and in civil government, 
we find a fine eulogium on the invention 
of printing, which is considered the no- 
blest of the mechanic arts ;” and, from its 
extension, much good, both in a religious 
and moral point of view, is predicted. 
In Part ITI. The author treats ‘of 
‘christianity as a supernatural commu- 
nication,” and seems to think, thatit is 
not the miracles which are most wonder- 
ful, but that the perfection of the duc- 
‘trine is “ the grand miracle of all,” 
We confess it is with some pleasure 
we have beheld a descendant of the house 
“of Stuart, who might be addressed with- 
out flattery, as 
«* Mzcenas atavis edite regibus;”” 
and a man who also united in -his awn 
Memoirs of the late Duke of Grafton. 
245 
person, together with the highest titles 
and the largest fortune, the blood of 
the Beauforts and the Tudors, devoting 
the latter part.of his life to liberal and 
candid inquiries concerning religion and 
politics. Let it be recollected also to 
his honour, that notwithstanding. the 
many high offices filled by him, and the 
extensive patronage he more than once 
possessed, yet the duke of Grafton never 
secured to himself, his children; or re- 
latives, any place, pension, or reversion, 
whatsoever. uy uy 
In person, he was somewhat less than 
the middle size, but Jean, slender, and 
active. His countenance greatly re- 
sembled that of his royal ancestor; and 
amidst the delirium of youth, of honours, 
and of fortune, he at one period might 
have been thought to resemble him is 
some other respects. His manners were 
agreeable, his conversation replete with 
information; and, as a parliamentary 
orator, he possessed a most solemn and 
impressive tone, voice, and gesticulation, 
In point of dress he was remarkable. 
His coat was of the colour and cut 
of those usually appropriated to the 
Quakers; and he was accustomed to 
wear a cocked hat, which gave an air of 
ancient and obsolete gentility to his 
whole person. Of late years, he addicted 
himself greatly to agriculture, and that 
too on an extensive scale; and, if we are 
to give credit to Mr. Arthur Young, was 
a most excellent farmer. This is no 
small praise; but he possessed a title to 
something far superior—that of being an 
honest man. 
His Grace, who died March 14, 1811, 
is succeeded in his honours aad entailed 
estates, by George Henry Fitzroy, earl of 
Euston, and now duke of Grafton, &c. 
&c. This nobleman was born in 1760, 
and educated at Trinity-college, Cam- 
bridge, where he obtained the degree 
of M.A. His lordship afterwards repre- 
sented the university in parliament, 
having been returned with Mr, Pitt, for 
his colleague, in 1784. In the course 
of the same year, he married Charlotte 
Maria, the daughter of the late carl of 
Waldegrave, by her royal highness the 
late duchess of Gloucester, by whom he 
has a numerous issue. 
SCARCE 
