cient enthusiasm. He said that his Elegy would live for ever; that a great deal of his Odes would live ; but then added, that there was a passage in one of them which was nonsense. The author of this "notice" asking him what it was? he replied "I wo'n't tell you; most people think it very fine." He blamed him freely for that indolence which prevented Gray, with his vast powers of mind, from communicating a portion of his extensive knowledge in lectures. But it was as a scholar and a critic that, in Dr. Parr's opinion, Gray soared beyond all possibility of competition. "When I read his observations upon Plato," said the Doctor, "my first impression was to exclaim, 'Why did I not write this?'" he added, "that Gray alone possessed the merit of avoiding the error into which all the other commentators on Plato had fallen." There were no fine-spun theories, no metaphysical nonsense in Gray. He considered Mason as utterly unworthy to be his editor: that "he had not powers to comprehend the depth and extent of such a mind as Gray's, and, being no scholar himself, had suppressed, from feeling of envy, some part of Gray's various and extensive learning." But of Mr. Mathias's edition of Gray he had the highest opinion. He said "it did his subject perfect justice." He had a high esteem for Mathias as a scholar (which name, I suspect, conveyed from his lips greater praise than that of a genius), and considered the following verses on Gray, in the "Pursuits of Literature," very striking. "Go then, and view, since closed his cloistered day, Dark was his morn of life, and bleak the spring, He finished by observing that, "had he known him, he should have esteemed and honoured Gray, but that he could not have liked him." The Pursuits of Literature" reminds me of an anecdote of the Doctor which he related of himself with great pleasure, and which exhibited him in the exercise of his magnanimity, one of his favourite virtues. Every reader of that classic performance must remember the rather ill-natured and (I think) unfounded attack upon the Doctor's "unpresentability," which one of the notes contains. However opinions may differ upon that subject, the note was certainly one most difficult for the object of it to forgive, as directly attacking his personal peculiarities. Dr. Parr, however, with the noble liberality of genius, overlooked whatever was offensive to himself in admiration of the writer's talents. To use his own words, he wrote to him, introducing himself, and soliciting his acquaintance "as an honour to learning." "We exchanged presents," continued the Doctor; and I may conclude this anecdote with remarking, that I do not doubt that the author, after this intercourse with Dr. Parr, perceived the errors into which the most enlightened reporters may fall, who trust in their observation upon a great man to hearsay, and the exaggerated statements of others. Another writer for whom Dr. Parr had a great esteem, was Mr. Roscoe, author of the Life of Lorenzo de Medici, and Life and Ponti " ficate of Leo the Tenth. It was on occasion of one of those works that he said he wrote to Mr. Roscoe a letter of ten pages "full of criticism." Another occasion of displaying his magnanimity was in the case of the late Lord Byron, whose introduction to him took place, according to the description of a celebrated living poet, in the following manner. Dr. Parr, all heartiness and classical enthusiasm, advanced with extended hand to greet the young nobleman, whom he considered as promising to be an equal honour to the cause of literature, learning, and liberal sentiment. Lord Byron, instead of meeting his advances, drew up stiffly, put out his foot, as if describing an unapproachable circle, and made no movement to receive the Doctor's proffered hand. The bad taste (to say no more) of this behaviour in a young man, to the venerable representative of the wit and learning of half a century, can only be defended upon the plea of that morbid eccentricity, which at moments transformed his Lordship from one of the most fascinating into one of the most repulsive of men. Such was his reception of the advances of the venerable Chancellor, when he went to take his seat in the House of Peers, as related by Mr. Dallas. Be that as it may, Dr. Parr never sufed this incident to bias his judgment in deciding upon his Lordship's literary merits, to which (as far as mere genius goes) he was ever ready to pay the tribute of the most unqualified praise; and that not when he was the loadstone of popular attractions, but in his exile, in his unpopularity. The generous spirit of Parr seemed to rise at the slightest appearance of persecution: I have heard him say, "Campbell is a poet: Byron, with all his vices, is a poet; but (as if recollecting himself) he is unamiable." Such was the gentle censure that memory extorted from Dr. Parr !† Excepting that of Byron, Moore, and Campbell, Dr. Parr thought little of the poetry of the present day: although he was the enthusiast of that of an age gone by, that of Pope, Young, Gray, Goldsmith, Thomson, Beattie; and used to say jocosely to the ladies, "The great mischief Walter Scott does is to you women; he has destroyed your taste for poetry, exquisite, pure, moral poetry." Another time he said, turning to a lady in company, "It is you women who have spoiled him, and made him what he is. His poetry is already forgotten. There was that Marmion, about which such a fuss was made"-Here the lady interposed in praise of the favourite poem of her favourite bard. « Nay, nay," interrupted the Doctor, with affected ferocity, but real good-humour, "If once you begin to cant about Walter Scott, I have done." He observed that he had at once renounced the grander resources of poetic harmony, by chusing the octave measure. The purity of Dr. Parr's If there is error in any of these statements, the author begs the subjects of them to correct them, but with candour; as they are repeated verbatim from the Doctor's own mouth. † One who had so frequently the advantage of hearing him, cannot be suspected of having so little profited by that living lesson of liberality, as to intend by this anecdote to cast additional shadow on the memory of an unfortunate nobleman, whose faults, it is humbly hoped, were partly expiated by his toils and sufferings, and of whose glorious end it might with truth be said, that "nothing in his life became him like the leaving it." When, in the course of these scattered recollections, his name, or that of other distinguished persons occur with praise or blame, it must always be kept in mind that they are mentioned chiefly with reference to Dr. Parr, and in order to illustrate some of his sentiments or opinions. † Admitting this, perhaps it will be remarked the ladies have not much to reproach themselves. classical taste, too, prevented the sparkling gaiety, faithful description, and splendid imagery, that pervade the works of this admired poet, atoning for the careless versification and simple antique phraseology. From the works of Walter Scott we proceeded, by I know not what metaphysical association of ideas, to those of The Great Unknown, to which the Doctor was disposed to allow as little quarter. He called his novels all books taken out of other books." A visitor present said, Oh, surely, sir, you will allow him merit in dialogue?" 66 Dr. Parr." No, sir: not in dialogue."* Lord Byron being mentioned; he burst into the following animated apostrophe: 66 Byron the sorcerer! he can do with me according to his will. If it is to place me on the summit of a dizzy cliff; if it is to throw me headlong into the abyss; to transport me to Elysium, or to leave me alone upon a desert isle, his power is the same. I wish Lord Byron had a friend, or a servant, appointed to the office of the slave who was to knock every morning at the chamber-door of Philip of Macedon and remind him he was mortal." In perusing these bursts, the reader must ever bear in mind the peculiar character of Dr. Parr—that classical enthusiasm and fire of sensibility and genius which nothing could tame or quench, and that boldness which," thinking no evil," never sought safety in tame or modified expressions. The introduction to Moore, the poet, displayed in its full light this peculiarity of the Doctor's. It took place about the period of the beginning of these recollections. The poet of freedom, of course, was animated and brilliant, and Dr. Parr delighted with him. At parting, he presented him from his library with a volume of poetry of one of the Latin authors of the middle ages, on which Mr. Moore seemed to set a great value. Another time, he desired his lady to join him in expressing her sense of his merit; and, on her hesitating, resumed, in his energetic manner, "She won't speak; but I'll tell you what she is: she is fascinated." He was unfeignedly delighted with "The Fudge Family;" yet seemed humorously to think an apology necessary for reading it. "It is seldom," he observed (like Parson Adams,) "that I read a modern work. No, no, I have all these in my head," pointing to his classic library. The habits of Dr. Parr were favourable both to long life and to literary occupation. "I am a six o'clock man," he used to say, when in the 76th year of his age. The precious time thus gained in the morning was devoted to his books; and the rest of the day to social intercourse, and the various duties into which his time was divided. In his engagements he was severely punctual, and justly exacted the same punctuality in return. By this means he was enabled to transact a prodigious variety of business-to keep up a constant intercourse of good neighbourhood-and to give advice-good offices-or still more important assistance to the numbers who looked up to him as their temporal protector, or spiritual guide. He was adored by the poorer part of his parishioners: being always equally attentive to administer to their wants, and to promote their innocent pleasures. To be continued. *It is observable, that although Dr. Parr cherished this distaste for the novels of the Author of Waverley, it did not extend to the other Scotch novels; I have seen in his library Galt's "Ayrshire Legatees," with the words "presented to Dr. Parr by the very ingenious author," in the Doctor's own hand-writing; and, what is more remarkable, that very novel made free with the Doctor's habiliments, describing the Presbyterian clergyman, Mr, Pringle, as returning adorned with " a parish wig" from his excursion to London. CHANCERY. A WORD on the Chancery-We are no lawyers; but not for that are we to be barred of our right of inquiry. Of this all-griping court the evils are confessed, enormous, desperate, almost "past man's cunning." It is the deep and acknowledged interest, immediate or possible, of every individual in the kingdom, above the condition of a pauper, to contribute to their removal. Lawyers alone are thought equal to the task: but from them relief must be hopeless, and from equity lawyers the expectation of it is, besides, absurd. We say not this invidiously: they live and fatten on the spoils of the victims, and will not, of course, cut away the drop beneath the feet of themselves and their successors. Let them not affect the improbable suicide. Nothing short of thorough changes in the very constitution of the court will work any satisfactory benefit; and nothing but petty and unavailing modifications can we anticipate from lawyers; modifications-conceded, at first, to blind, or perhaps to conciliate, but only, afterwards, to be querulously depreciated or peremptorily scouted. Effectual remedy must come from other quarters-it must come from the public itself; they, and they alone, can enforce the changes for which thousands groan. But in spite of all that has been written and spoken, the public, generally, are profoundly ignorant on the subject; the whole business of equity appears to them enveloped in the thickest clouds of professional obscurity. Particulars, fresh and fresh, must be supplied; general discussions fail of making adequate impression-such discussions are, besides, premature. Information more complete, more minute, more tangible, is demanded; reiterated, persevering exposure is indispensable to awaken any thing like potential interest. To aid and accelerate this exposure is a leading object with us, and we have a confident hope of being able to dart a few rays of light into the den of Cacus. Let it be allowed, that the main cause of the intolerable delays of this interminable court is attributable to multiplicity and incumbrance of business. Is this incumbrance irreducible? Much of it, we affirm, might be reduced by a little division of labour-much of it might be removed by converting equity into law-and more, by rejecting all cases that can be legally heard elsewhere. Of the procrastinating causes, which spring from the machinery and mystery of the court itself, few will make any inquiry, and fewer still will listen to the necessary detail. With these we have no concern: we leave them to the analogous sagacity of the common lawyer to detect, or to the apostate and the briefless of their own courts to betray. But there are others more obvious and intelligible, which may bring home to the conviction of every reader of a paper or a magazine the necessity, and, at the same time, the easy possibility of reform. The court has as yet sat a very short period this season: but, short as that period has been, it has already presented several cases that at once will justify our affirmations and illustrate our views. We will refer to three of them. 1. Moore v. Fitzgibbon. This was a case arising out of a divorce. Two children, born before the divorce was accomplished, were given by the mother to the adulterer. Moore is the legal parent-Fitzgibbon the reputed natural one. The natural father seeks, by settling a sum of money on the children, to make them wards of chancery, and thus secure possession of them: the legal father claims possession as matter of right. With the motives of either party we have nothing to do; the single question for the court was, who was to have possession? and the exclusive question for the public is, was this a case for the Chancery Court? Could it not have been legally brought before the common courts? Is it not a maxim of the common law, that children born in wedlock are the children of the husband, except under certain circumstances, which in this case were not pleaded? If the case was not excluded from the common courts, why was it carried to the chancery, or entertained by a court so notoriously overwhelmed with business? Are not equity courts, by their very nature, intended to supply the deficiencies of the common courts? But what is the customary course of the chancery?-sweeping every thing within its own net. The first inquiry for the court should surely be, is this a chancery case? If not, turn it at once out of court, and make counsel responsible for the waste of time. But what was the conduct of the judge in this particular case? After a hearing for three days, of we know not how many counsel, the court, with abundance of nice and elaborate distinctions, declares possession is of right the legal parent's. In the breast of no man breathing was the question susceptible of a doubt; not a lawyer, in or out of court, had any difference of opinion about the matter. Well, but, at all events, the unlearned reader will say some good is produced by this judgment of the court-what good? Does the judgment become a law? Not a bit of it. But a precedent? For whom?-for the present chancellor? It may be so; but no binding precedent, even for him. If a similar case occurred, and the parties were so ill-advised as to bring it before the same tribunal, what would be the proceeding of the court, think we? Of course, the judge would abide by the former decision, and forthwith dismiss the case. No; let not the experience of five-and-twenty years be lost upon us; the arguments would be again gone through-another three days be consumed -another clear and subtle, but long-winded, exposition of reasons and motives be given, and finally, perhaps, a similar decree be pronounced. But even the present chancellor will not reign for ever; and will his judgment, his repeated judgment, stand a precedent for his successor ? No such thing: no chancellor holds himself bound by his predecessor's decisions. And this is the substantial iniquity of English equity. Well; but it may be said, would you constitute the decision of one frail and fallible being a precedent for ever? No: but we would have that decision, if it be deemed a sound one, converted by the Legislature into a law, and thenceforth administered as other laws are, in a lawcourt, and before a jury. If equity be good for anything, it is good to be transmuted into law. Legislative enactment should tread close upon the heels of equity; it should be constantly in pursuit, and ever on the point of overtaking it. A process of exhaustion should be in perpetual operation; and thus, what is matter of equity this year, might be good, honest, intelligible law the next. What is the use of a judicial decision, unless it serve as a guide to the public, and be regarded by them as applicable to all similar cases? Of this case, we then affirm, it was one determinable by the common courts, and, of course, to them it should have been referred-three days would thus have been applicable to the harassed and legitimate suitors of the court. If we are wrong-if the case was really new, and recognized |