1822.] 
tains also some spirited arid just obser- 
vations on the abortiveness of mission- 
ary labours. It appears that the “ Church 
Missicnary Society’? expended upwards 
of £30,000 last year,and that of twenty 
converts made.at one of their eight 
stations in four years, they had all re- 
lapsed except one! 
“© Notes on the Cape of Good Hope’’ 
is the best criticism in the Nuinber—if 
the reviewer’s observations be correct, 
and he appears to write from personal 
knowledge of the colony. The “ Notes” 
had become rather popular from the 
flattering notice of several reviews, and 
we ourselves thought them an enter- 
taining “ little book ;”? but certainly 
if—we again say if—the reviewer be 
right, they contain a great deal of 
flippant random statement concerning 
manners and society at the Cape, and 
the unfortunate adventure to Algoa 
Bay, which the writer will do well to 
correct in the next edition. 
The ninth article. “ the Report on 
the State of Agriculture,” is fair, ho- 
nest, and enlightened, and we entirely 
concur that a free trade in corn is ulti- 
mately the wisest policy for this coun- 
try to adopt. On the general principle 
indeed, nearly all intelligent men are 
agreed, and the only difference is as to 
the safest mode of reducing it to prac- 
tice. Sudden changes are generally 
hazardous, even in reverting from bad 
togood. The least objectionable mea- 
sure appears that suggested by the re- 
viewer: namely, a protecting price 
gradually decreasing, so that at the ex- 
piration of a definite period for the corn 
trade to become entirely free. To re- 
peal the corn duty at once, would not 
only cause an injurious revulsion of 
_ capital, but from its effect on foreign 
exchanges, and consequent exportation 
of specie, be incompatible with mea- 
sures now in progress for restoring a 
metallic currency. On the literary 
merits of this article we shall forbear to 
comment, as the writer has apologised 
for the hasty manner it was written: 
it contains a good deal of obscure dis- 
sertation, with some principles either 
erroneous or imperfectly explained, 
and on the whole we have praised it 
more for candour and good intention 
than the ability with which it is exe- 
cuted, 
* Blomfield—Aischyli Agamemnon,” 
forms the tenth article, in which the 
editor appears quite at home on longs 
and shorts, the Greek accents, and the 
Quarterly Review, No. L. 
23 
arrangement of the choral measures. 
We proceed to a more interesting sub- 
ject. 
* Lady Morgan’s Italy.” We sus- 
pect this redoubtabie article is written 
by a rival bookseller; it is certainly 
no review of Lady Morgan, but of her 
» publisher: what, however, a critique 
on “ Jtaly’* had to do with the pufts 
and advertisements of Mr. Colburn, 
one cannot conceive. Whoever wrote 
it—whether Mr. Murray or old Dennis 
—is not material; it isa mere drufum 
fulmen, an cyercharged gun which re- 
coils on the author. The writer indeed 
seems mightily incensed—he is so 
choaked with rage he can scarcely vent 
his choler, but his anger only makes 
one laugh. Every body knows that 
certain authors—though they spoke 
with the “ tongues of angels’*—the 
Quarterly must paint as black as devils. 
Now Lady Morgan is one of these— 
she has vented her indignation freely 
against shallow, corrupt statesmen at 
home—against holy alliances, legiti- 
mate imbecility, feudal abuse and pri- 
vileged robbery abroad: how could 
such offences against “ social order’ be 
passed over by a journal, whose ofhice 
is as much to punish them, as that of 
the Attorney-General political libels ? 
But this intrepid wriler has more 
grievous sins to answer for ;—she is 
read not only in England, but through- 
out Europe—read, too, not by the 
‘““ mob,” but the “ higher orders ;7’-— 
she earries the torch of truth among 
those classes where its rays seldom 
penetrate :—hence she is doubly hated, 
because she is doubly dangerous, or, 
to’speak without ambiguity, doubly 
useful to the cause of truth and justice. 
We have read “ /taly’’ with atten- 
tion, and refain the opinion we first 
expressed of it; it is infinitely supe- 
rior, in our opinion, to the “ france’’ 
of the same author—free from many 
faults which infected the latter work. 
Its merits we may infer from the man- 
ner it has been treated ; the article in 
the Quarterly is mere brutal abuse, and 
it has abstained from quotations, lest 
extracts might have exposed the injus- 
tice of its censure. 
As to the inferior assailants, who 
have attempted to crawl into notice on 
the back of the author, they are too 
obscure and contemptible in every re- 
spect to merit attention ;—that such 
seribblers should feel an aversion to 
Lady Morgan is as natural as for cer- 
tain 
