LORD  BYRON  and  his  TIMES
Documents Biography Criticism

Memoirs of the Rev. Samuel Parr
Ch XI. 1816-1820

Ch. I. 1747-1752
Ch. II. 1752-1761
Ch. III. 1761-1765
Ch. IV. 1765-1766
Ch. V. 1767-1771
Ch. VI. 1771
Ch. VII. 1771-1776
Ch. VIII. 1771-1776
Ch. IX. 1776-1777
Ch. X. 1779-1786
Ch. XI. 1779-1786
Ch. XII. 1779-1786
Ch. XIII. 1780-1782
Ch. XIV. 1786-1789
Ch. XV. 1786-1790
Ch. XVI. 1776-1790
Ch. XVII. 1787
Ch. XVIII. 1789
Ch. XIX. 1790-1792
Ch. XX. 1791-1792
Ch. XXI. 1791-1796
Ch. XXII. 1794-1795
Ch. XXIII. 1794
Ch. XXIV. 1794-1800
Ch. XXV. 1794-1800
Ch. XXVI. 1800-1803
Ch. XXVII. 1801-1803
Ch. XXVIII. 1800-1807
Vol. II Contents
Ch I. 1800-1807
Ch II. 1807-1810
Ch III. 1809
Ch IV. 1809-1812
Ch V. 1810-1813
Ch VI. 1811-1815
Ch VII. 1812-1815
Ch VIII. 1816-1820
Ch IX. 1816-1820
Ch X. 1816-1820
‣ Ch XI. 1816-1820
Ch XII. 1816-1820
Ch XIII. 1816-1820
Ch XIV. 1819
Ch XV. 1820-1821
Ch XVI. 1816-1820
Ch XVII. 1820-1824
Ch XVIII. 1820-1824
Ch XIX. 1820-1824
Ch XX. 1820-1825
Creative Commons License

Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Produced by CATH
A.D. 1816—1820.
Comparative view of the three learned professions—Dr. Parr’s preference of the medical profession—His opinion of the ancient physicians—Hippocrates, Celsus, Galen, &c.—His opinion of the modern physicians—Browne, Sydenham, Boerhaave, &c.—His medical friends—Dr. Percival, Dr. Arnold, Dr. James Johnstone, &c.—His opinion of the legal profession—His friendly intercourse with many of its distinguished members—Jones, Erskine, Romilly, &c.—His opinion of some of the church-dignitaries—His friends at Cambridge—at Oxford.

In the comparative view which he often took of the three learned professions, Dr. Parr thought the preference due, in many respects, to the medical.1 “Whilst I allow,” says he, “that peculiar and important advantages arise from the appropriate studies of the three liberal professions, I must confess, that in erudition, in science, and in habits of deep and comprehensive thinking, the pre-eminence must be assigned, in some degree, to physicians.”2 In the hearing, indeed, of the present writer, he has often declared that he consi-

1 “The most desirable profession,” said Dr. Parr, “is that of physic: the practice of the law spoils a man’s moral sense and philosophic spirit: the church is too bigoted and stiff-starched; but the study and practice of physic are equally favourable to a man’s moral sentiments and intellectual faculties.”—Dr. Gooch in Blackwood’s Mag. Oct. 1825.

2 Reply to Combe, p. 82.

dered the medical professors as the most learned, enlightened, moral, and liberal class of the community; and though he often lamented the scepticism on religious subjects which some have shown; yet even this, he thought, might be explained upon principles, which evince the strength rather than the weakness of the human mind, contemplating under certain circumstances the multiplicity and the energy of physical causes. But if the “
Religio medici,” when weighed in the balance of the sanctuary, might in some instances be found wanting; yet he consoled himself, he said, with reflecting on the many instances in which there was certainly the deepest conviction of religious truth, not merely declared by an exterior profession, but displayed in all its best and happiest effects on the heart and the conduct. “In support of our sacred cause,” he would often say, “might we not triumphantly appeal to such illustrious names as those of Sir Thomas Browne, Sydenham, Boerhaave, and Hartley, in days that are past; and, in our own times, to those of Gregory, Heberden, Falconer, and Percival?”1

There was no subject on which Dr. Parr delighted to converse more than on the character and the pretensions of the great men, who, at different times, have appeared in the medical world. Speaking of the most distinguished of all the ancient physicians, Hippocrates, he said that he had read much of his works, as much as any man in this country: and he thought that the duties of a physician were never more beautifully exemplified

1 Reply to Combe, p. 83.

than in his conduct, or more eloquently described than in his writings. He often particularly noticed the attention which the great father of physic paid to the nature and properties of water, and its effects on the human frame. This he considered as a subject of far more importance to the medical practitioner than is commonly apprehended; and perhaps the observation was suggested to his mind, by recollecting the laborious researches, directed to that very object, by his much-respected friend,
Dr. Lambe; begun during his residence at Warwick, and continued many years after his removal to London. Celsus he pronounced “a very wise man;” and said that his works ought not only to be read, but read night and day, by the medical student. His style, he said, is very good Latin; and if it were not so, he ought still to be read for the medical knowledge which he communicates. Almost all that is valuable in Hippocrates, he remarked, may be found clearly and beautifully epitomised in Celsus. In recommending to a young physician the study of Aretæus, a bold and decisive practitioner in the reign of Vespasian, whose works have ever been admired for the accurate description of diseases which they contain, and for the judicious mode of treatment which they prescribe—“Aye,” said he, “if I could find one, with a mind like Aretæus, he should be my physician.” Speaking of Dioscorides, distinguished no less as a botanist than as a physician, he said that he sometimes read his works, and always with pleasure, though it is often difficult to translate his words, especially in the description of plants.
Tournefort, Sibthorpe, and other travelling botanists, have taken, he thought, the only sure method of explaining the plants both of Theophrastus and Dioscorides, by diligent researches in the countries where they were originally found. He looked upon Galen as decidedly one of the most learned men who have ever appeared in the medical world; though inferior in other respects, especially as a pathological observer, to Hippocrates or Aretæus. The poem of Frascatorius, the celebrated physician of Verona, in the 16th century, being mentioned, Dr. Parr said, it was one of the most classical productions, which have appeared since the Georgics of Virgil; with which indeed for its melodious versification, its vivid imagery, and its noble sentiments, it has often been compared.

Descending from the ancients to the moderns, he often spoke in praise of the literary acquirements and professional skill of Sir Thomas Browne, Sydenham, and Harvey; but pre-eminently his favourite medical writer was Hermann Boerhaave; and upon his genius, his attainments, his important works, and his noble character, he was accustomed to expatiate, with almost rapturous delight. It was he that opened, Dr. Parr said, a new and splendid era in the science of medicine and chemistry: and to his instructions, delivered in his lectures and his writings, the wonderful discoveries and improvements of later times may be principally ascribed. Next to Boerhaave, the glory of the Dutch school of medicine, stood, in Dr. Parr’s estimation, the contemporary and friend of Boerhaave, Dr. Mead, the illustrious ornament of me-
dical science in England; who was eminently distinguished, not only for his professional talents, but also for his literary attainments, and for his fine taste in all the arts which adorn and improve human life. The Latin style of his works, Dr. Parr said, is entitled to commendation: but, he added, though a good scholar, Dr. Mead was not skilful in writing Latin; and was therefore obliged to borrow the aid of
Dr. Ward1 and Dr. Letherland.2

In Dr. Freind he admired the man of profound erudition, as well as of extensive medical knowledge: and in reading his works, he always met, he said, the deep-thinking philosopher, as well as the elegant writer. Sir George Baker he considered not only as one of the best physicians, but also as one of the best scholars, and one of the best writers of Latin of his day; and readily yielded to him, in this last respect, the palm of superiority over himself. Dr. Akenside he extolled as a man of vast learning, as well as of high talent, but united, unhappily, with excessive pride. Cullen he thought a most extraordinary man; and said that he once intended to write his life. In Dr. Aikin he acknowledged elegance of taste and high cultivation

1Ad Middletoni de Medicorum Vet. Rom. conditione Diss. Responsio.—By Ward of Gresham College, who, together with Dr. Letherland, defended Mead against Middleton, but unsuccessfully. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 473.

2Reinesii Variorum Lectionum libri tres.—Dr. Parr very much values this book; for it was once the property of the very learned Dodwell, of Wasse, whom Dr. Bentley pronounced the next scholar to himself, and Dr. Letherland, who was called the walking dictionary. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 319.

of mind.
Dr. Heberden he called “the amiable and accomplished author of the ‘Commentaries,’ or history of the diseases which came under his own observation, written in pure and flowing Latinity.” Of Dr. Gregory, well known for his useful moral as well as medical publications, Dr. Parr remarked, “that his writings are extensively read, and that they do credit to the ingenuity, the sensibility, and the piety of the author.”

With great and unfeigned respect, Dr. Parr cherished the memory of Dr. Percival, Dr. Arnold,1 and especially of Dr. James Johnstone of Worcester, whom he describes “as a man of much intellectual vigour and various research,”2 and of his son the accomplished and truly excellent Dr. James Johnstone;3 whose life fell a sacrifice, at the age of thirty, to his humane and zealous discharge of professional duty, in visiting the prisoners, during the period of a raging fever in Worcester gaol. No medical practitioner ever acquired, within the same space of time, a higher reputation than this young physician; and his virtues, his talents, and the valuable services of his life, terminated under such affecting circumstances by his death, have secured for him a place in the grateful and honourable remembrance of the city

1Arnold’s Case of Hydrophobia, &c—Ex dono eruditi auctoris. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 462.

2 Bibl. Parr. p. 391.

3Account of the Medicinal Water near Tewkesbury, by James Johnstone, Jun.—He was the elder and most ingenious son of the very ingenious Dr. Johnstone of Worcester. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 634.

in which he lived and died, and of all to whom his name and his merits were, in any degree, known. A monument to his memory was erected in Worcester cathedral; for which the inscription in Latin was written by Dr. Parr.1

Of the members of the medical profession, whose friendship Dr. Parr cultivated, whilst living, and whom he has enumerated in his “Last Will” amongst the number of his friends, are, Dr. E. Johnstone, and Dr. Male, of Birmingham, Dr. Lambe, Dr. Bright, and Sir Anthony Carlisle2 of London, Dr. Hill of Leicester, Dr. Bourne of Coventry, and his own medical attendants, Dr. J. Johnstone, Dr. A. Middleton, Mr. Blenkinsop,3 and Mr. Jones. In the same solemn registry, he has recorded the high value at which he prized the friendship of “the very learned, scientific, and truly pious Dr. Falconer of Bath;” and of the eminently distinguished Dr. Holme, “who,” says he, “in sincerity, in uprightness, in professional skill, in taste for reading classical authors, and in the knowledge of chymistry, zoology and English antiquities, has few equals among his contemporaries.”

1 App. No. II.

2Synopsis of the Arrangement of the Preparations in the Gallery of the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons.—This book was given me in Lincolns Inn Fields, by a skilful surgeon, a profound philosopher, a most animated writer, and a most valuable friend, Sir Anthony Carlisle. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 476.

3 “I give a ring to Mr. Blenkinsop of Warwick, surgeon, whose professional diligence and judgment have for many years contributed to the health and comfort of my family and my own.”—Dr. Parr’s will.


Of the legal profession, in its effect on the mind and the character, the reader is aware that Dr. Parr thought unfavourably. As its honours and preferments depend so little upon merit, and so much upon court-favour, he could not help trembling, he used to say, for the moral and especially for the political integrity of those, who entered into it. He often deeply deplored the subserviency, to men in power, amounting almost to sycophancy, not only of the law-officers, but even of too many of the judges; and often indignantly adverted to the remarkable fact that, during the last and the present reign, their decisions on all questions between the crown and the people have been, with few exceptions, against popular rights, and in support of regal prerogative. In mentioning this last term, so much a favourite with the advocates of absolute authority, he would sometimes pause; and, with a smile, remark, that of all their arguments, none amused him more than those founded on prerogative; “because,” said he, “the very derivation of the word, from prae-rogare, supplies of itself a clear and sufficient answer to them.” In describing the state of the law, he condemned, with severity, the excessive attachment of lawyers to the barbarous institutions of ancient times, their pertinacious adherence to the most obvious errors and absurdities, and their obstinate resistance to all reformation of “that hideous mass,” as he called it, “of iniquity, inconsistency and sanguinary cruelty, the criminal code.”—“We are bad enough,” he said, “in the church:—but the church is purity itself compared with the law:—
the accumulated abuses of which,” he often insisted, “ought to be reprobated by every honest and reflecting man, as at once the shame and the curse of the country.”

With this strong opinion on the defective and corrupted state of the law, and on the evil influences, to which all who engage in the study and practice of it are exposed, great in proportion would of course be his admiration of those magnanimous individuals, who have not only the virtuous principle to stand firm against the tempting seductions of professional honours and emoluments; but who have the strength and elevation of mind, to break from the trammels of long-established system—to soar above the powerful prejudices, which chain down the whole herd of practitioners to their hoary precedents and antiquated maxims, and to ascend to those large and enlightened views of jurisprudence, which lead to the true end of all just government, in securing and promoting the rights, the liberties, and the happiness of the governed. In this high class of illustrious individuals stand the distinguished names of Jones, Erskine, Romilly, Bentham, Mackintosh, Montagu, Brougham, and Denman, and all these, it was with pride and with joy that Dr. Parr reckoned in the number of his friends. Amongst many others, also, for whom he entertained the greatest possible respect, may be mentioned, Sir William Adam, Sir Thomas Plomer, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, Sir James Scarlett, Sir Nicholas Tyndal, Mr. John Williams, and Mr. Dwarris.1

1 All these are respectfully noticed in Dr. Parr’s will.


Among the liberal and enlightened members of the legal profession, who were honoured with a place in the friendly regards of Dr. Parr, the writer is proud to introduce into his pages the name of one of his own relatives, Barron Field, Esq., late judge of the supreme court of New South Wales. On assuming his official dignity in the distant province, over which he was appointed to preside, he was called to deliver an opinion on certain actions, to recover duties which had not been imposed by Parliament; and he gave it against the crown. So equitable and so reasonable did this opinion appear, that the governor of the colony, who had himself imposed the duties, acquiesced in it; and the crown-lawyers at home afterwards fully justified it. The writer cannot soon forget the high and delighted approbation, which Dr. Parr expressed, when he was informed of these acts of constitutional firmness and spirit, exhibited on the seat of justice; where, he was accustomed with sorrow to remark, we too often see the subserviency of the courtier, rather than the independence and impartiality of the judge.1

1 “Cases have occurred, in which Mr. Justice Field has displayed a very independent judgment; and has proved that although he was ready to give effect to the public orders and proclamations of the governor, whenever he found them to be consistent with the laws of England, or to be justified by palpable necessity; yet he has never allowed his decisions to be swayed by any consideration of the personal wish of the governor, or the supposed influence of the government. Your lordship has been already apprised of Mr. Justice Field’s refusal to receive actions in the supreme court for the recovery of duties on spirits, or imported goods, until those duties had received the sanction of the British legislature.”—Second Report of Commissioners of Inquiry in New South Wales, p. 9.


Dr. Parr always spoke, with peculiar satisfaction, of his occasional intercourse with Charles Warren, Esq., chief justice of Chester; “who has often delighted me,” he said, “by the shrewdness of his remarks, by the clearness of his reasoning, and by the great accuracy of his knowledge in the Latin language.”1 Of the late Mr. Serg. Lens, so justly regarded by the whole profession, and by every one who knew him, as a model of all that is honourable and dignified in the lawyer and the man, he has thus traced the character:—“His erudition, his taste, his correct judgment, his spotless integrity, gave additional lustre to the reputation, which he deservedly acquired by his professional knowledge.”1 He entertained, and he has expressed a high opinion of the present Mr. Sergeant Rough, “for his professional and classical knowledge, for his delicate sensibility, for his polished manners, and pure integrity.”1 To this gentleman he intended to bequeath a legacy of 100l.; but afterwards changed the bequest into a gift of the same amount presented to him during life. With exultations of pride and delight Dr. Parr often spoke of his acquaintance with the celebrated Jeremy Bentham, Esq., whom he describes as “the ablest and most instructive writer on the most difficult and interesting subjects of jurisprudence that ever lived.”1

Mr. Butler of Lincolns Inn, eminent as a lawyer, and highly distinguished as a writer, has himself given an account of his friendly intercourse with

1 Last Will.

Dr. Parr, in the second volume of his Reminiscences, lately published. “They frequently met,” he relates, “at the houses of their common friends: the reminiscent could not but be gratified in seeing that Dr. Parr was pleased with his society; and even sometimes desired him to be invited to parties purposely made for him. The reminiscent uniformly found the Doctor instructive and agreeable: with strong prepossessions on some subjects; with kind and liberal feelings on all; loved and esteemed in proportion as he was known and justly appreciated; ever mentioned with esteem, and frequently with gratitude. He honoured the reminiscent by a bequest of a ring.”1 This account is given by Mr. Butler as introductory to “a correspondence” of some extent between himself and his learned friend—in the course of which some pleasing criticism on classical subjects occurs; and many remarks by Dr. Parr, chiefly complimentary, on Mr. Butler’s publications in defence of the “Catholic faith,” of which he is a bright ornament and a powerful advocate. Certainly, if any thing could reconcile a Protestant to the religious system, for which Mr. Butler pleads—a system so revolting to reason, so opposed to the rights of private judgment, and to the benefits of free inquiry—it would be the softened aspect under which that system is exhibited, and the tolerant spirit with which it is united, in his writings and in his conduct.

In the whole circle of the legal profession there were few who stood higher in Dr. Parr’s estima-

1 Butler’s Reminiscences, vol. ii. p. 187.

tion than
Robert Smith, Esq.,1 member in the last parliament for Lincoln. He was educated at Eton; where he acquired fame, not only as a classical scholar, but as a principal contributor to a work entitled “The Microcosm,” reflecting so much honour on the youthful writers engaged in it. From Eton he went to Cambridge, and entered of King’s College. He is mentioned by Dr. Parr, among the learned academics,2 whose numbers and whose merits justify, he thought, the application to the two universities of the praise bestowed by Cicero upon Athens, as “omnium fere doctrinarum inventrices, ubi dicendi vis scribendique, vel reperta, est vel perfecta.”

Shortly after his appearance at the bar, Mr. Smith received a high legal appointment at Calcutta. On his return to England, he soon obtained a seat in parliament; but he greatly disappointed the expectations, excited by the extraordinary powers he was known to possess, when he appeared among the orators of St. Stephen’s. He rose to speak; and after uttering a few sentences, sat down, and was never heard more.3 With that anxiousness

1Homeri Opera, Gr. et Lat. curante Lederlino et post eum Stephano Berghlero, 2 vols.—The gift of that most honourable, magnanimous, learned, ingenious man, Mr. Robert Smith, before he went to India in 1803. I value them exceedingly; for they were his constant companions. S. P.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 175.

2 “Τη άκριβεία και δεινότητι μεγαλοπρεπεία, ευδοκιμουντος.”—Spital Sermon, Notes, p. 110.

3 “To Dr. Parr’s most sagacious and most learned friend, Robert Smith, whose terrors in his first, and indeed only speech in parliament, quite overcame his wonderful courage,

to soften the pang of disappointment, which ever distinguished him,
Dr. Parr soothingly said, on hearing of it: “Well! it is of little consequence. Smith can well afford to lose the portion of additional fame, which that speech would have gained him.” In his “Last Will,” bequeathing to him a ring, he bears his testimony to that “admiration with which he had ever contemplated in him erudition, genius, and magnanimity!”

The public have heard much of the friendship which subsisted between Dr. Parr and Sir James Mackintosh; and of the long interruption of that friendship, in consequence of some serious displeasure, which he, by whom it was excited, would probably now confess, not to have been wholly without just and reasonable cause. That displeasure, and the cause which excited it, are here alluded to, however, merely in justification of the part which Dr. Parr thought himself obliged, on that occasion, to take. Replying to the exclamation of an acquaintance, “What! you and Parr not friends! why, you were the idol that he worshipped!” when Sir James said, “That may be: but Parr is a furious iconoclast, who knocks down the idol he has set up!”—there was more wit

he used to apply one of Polemo’s sayings—‘Gladiatores aliquando spectans, quendam æstuantem et horrorem præsentis exitii totius corporis sudore declarantem cum intueretur; talis est, experto credito, dixit miseria oratoris declamatorii.’ The same remark has been made by Cicero concerning himself—‘Equidem et in vobis animadvertere soleo, et in me ipso sæpissime experior, ut exalbescam in principiis dicendi, et tota mente et omnibus artubus contremiscam,’ &c.”—Bibl. Parr. p. 693.

than real force in the reply; since it cannot be denied that the idol, thrown down, was not exactly that, which had been set up.

It is pleasing to relate that the friendship, thus interrupted, was afterwards renewed; and the object of respectful and affectionate regards restored to its former place in Dr. Parr’s estimation. Many are the testimonies he has borne to the talents, the acquirements, and the public services, of which he thought so highly; and to these is added, in his “Last Will,” the following:—“I bequeath to Sir James Mackintosh, M. P., a ring, as a mark of my unfeigned respect for his deep researches in metaphysics, ethics, history, and literature—for his splendid eloquence—and for his meritorious parliamentary exertions, in mitigating the severity of the penal code.”

Of the church, among the dignitaries, to whom Dr. Parr looked up with high and unfeigned respect, were Archbishops Sutton and Magee, Bishops Howley, Cornwall, Pelham, Burgess, Law, and Legge, and his own pupil, Bishop Alexander. Great similarity in literary pursuits and tastes, much harmonious concurrence in religious and political opinion, and an equal participation in the same noble spirit of candour and charity, drew close the attachment between himself and the excellent Bishop Bathurst. He delighted to speak of the “very learned” Bishop Kaye, the “amiable and accomplished” Bishop Ryder, the “kind-hearted and learned” Bishop Huntingford, and “the eminently learned” Bishop Blomfield, lately raised to the see of Chester.
But how disappointed and mortified would Dr. Parr have been, if he had lived to witness the first efforts of the last-mentioned prelate exerted, as a peer of parliament, and that too in opposition to his own decided opinion in former life, against the claims of a large portion of his Majesty’s subjects to the rights which belong to them as men and Britons! On so plain a question of civil policy and religious toleration, involving, too, the integrity and safety of the empire; the determined resistance of so many of the clerical and of some other orders of the community, pretending to be “pars indocili melior grege,” is the shame of the present age, as it will be the wonder or contempt of the next.

Of the state of the ecclesiastical bench, during his own time, speaking generally, Dr. Parr often said, that it comprised, indeed, no very great learning, no very brilliant talent, but much strong sense, much right feeling, and a large portion of the wise and just spirit of religious moderation. To express his idea of that moderation, turning to the present writer, whom with affected concern, but with real good-humour, he usually designated “the inveterate non-con,” or the “incorrigible heretic,” he would say, “Sir, I do not believe there are more than two or three individuals on the bench, if so many, who would do even such as you the slightest harm.” He always, however, bitterly deplored, as mistaken and mischievous policy, the opposition of the high dignitaries and the whole clerical body to all reforms both in church and state, and to all plans for the diffusion of know-
ledge, and the extension of religious and civil liberty. “Ah!” he would often mournfully say, “our venerable church is injured and dishonoured far more by its friends than its enemies.”—“Yes,” he would sometimes add, “if they go on so, much longer, they will force even me, who hate schism, to become a schismatic.”

With these strong sentiments impressed upon his mind, it is easy to imagine the joy, with which, if he had lived, Dr. Parr would have witnessed the progress and the happy issue of the late parliamentary proceedings, which terminated in the repeal of the test and corporation acts; and that joy, it may be added, would have risen to the high and proud exultation, which all who are concerned for the honour of the church must feel, in observing that this important measure was not only not opposed, but approved and actively promoted, with few exceptions, by the whole bench of bishops; and approved also, in general, though not actively promoted, by the whole body of the clergy. “De nobis, quos in republica vobiscum simul salvos et ornatos, quoties cogitabitis, toties de incredibili liberalitate, toties de singulari sapientia vestra cogitabitis; quæ non modo summa bona, sed nimirum audebo vel sola dicere.”1

There is one distinguished divine, in the church, towards whom Dr. Parr always felt and expressed the most extreme dislike and disapprobation. Even his sincerity in the profession of religious truth he called in question; and would never acknowledge him for a true and faithful son of the

1 Cicero.

church. The present writer, having read and studied his theological works, with high satisfaction, was strongly disposed, from admiration of the author, to think well of the man; and in attempting to defend his character, and especially in asserting the value of his literary labours, he often found himself engaged in a warm contest with his illustrious friend. “He had once some right feeling,” said Dr. Parr, “but he has long walked in a crooked path.”—“Of his talents,” he would say, “I will allow they are considerable, but not great: and of his learning, that it is something, but not much; and what little he has is second-hand, not derived from original sources, but from modern writers.” Even upon one of the most acute, and probably most important theological, works of the last century, Dr. Parr, more from the impulse of his prejudices than from the dictate of his judgment, poured ridicule and contempt. On another ground, his censures, hurled against the distinguished ecclesiastic here alluded to, were more reasonable. “Sir,” said he on one occasion to the writer, “will you pretend that our church owes him any obligation for the audacious attempt to prove that it would be endangered by the circulation of the Scriptures, if unattended or unexplained by the Common Prayer Book?”—“What an attempt!” he exclaimed, after a moment’s pause, with a scornful expression, “why, it is as much as to say that the plain and obvious sense of Scripture is against us! If you, or any of your heretical crew had so said, we should have instantly retorted,—a foul calumny! a wicked lie!”—“I say,” con-
tinued he, speaking vehemently, “that publication was the act of a traitor, stabbing the breast which he ought to protect and cherish.”—“And, sir,” added he, “what I tell you, I have told him:—yes, himself!” and then he went on to relate the following story, which the writer has heard him repeat more than once or twice:—“When I visited him,” said he, “at his own college, soon after the publication just mentioned, I reproached him bitterly for his disingenuous and unworthy conduct; and on parting with him at the college-gates, I laid hold of his coat-button, and looking him full in the face, said, ‘For writing that book—I do not swear—but I use the word emphatically—you are a —— ——!’”

Occasionally he visited Cambridge; and he always returned from his excursions refreshed and delighted. This was the transient scene of one of the happiest periods of his life; and from the recollection of the pleasures and advantages which he there enjoyed, Cambridge kept a strong hold upon his respect and gratitude, to the latest moment of his existence. He was proud of belonging to that university, because, as he often observed, more unfettered freedom of thought and inquiry was admitted, and wiser and better plans of study adopted, than at Oxford; though it must be owned that some late important reforms have done much to remove the reproach, which had so long rested on that sister university.

At Cambridge, it was always with joy that Dr. Parr met his former associates, rivals, and instructors; though of all these, the number, with ad-
vancing life, must have been continually diminished, by removal and by death. But other friends succeeded in their places, and rendered his visits often highly interesting, and always agreeable. In a letter to
Mr. Parkes, dated Cambridge, June 10, 1814, thus he writes:—“I never spent my time more agreeably; and yet, you may suppose, that my understanding and my memory have been severely exercised by the many learned men with whom I have had to converse, and sometimes to struggle.” Speaking to his friend, Dr. Wade, who had mentioned his intention of going to Cambridge—“Aye,” said he, “when I met you there in the summer of 1822, I had a delightful visit. Then I took Mrs. Parr with me to show her the university. I was most sumptuously entertained in the combination room of your college. Pray, remember me to Hornbuckle; and tell him I shall never forget his hospitality. We were all in high spirits; full of fun and glee. I think they did not dislike my company.”1

Among his Cambridge friends, who stood high in his estimation, were, Dr. Davy, master of Caius; Dr. Cory, master of Emanuel; Dr. Thackery, provost of Kings, the grandson of his own revered preceptor, formerly master of Harrow School; Mr. Brown, of Trinity; Mr. Woodhouse, of Caius; and the two learned Professors Monk and Dobree. Dr. Davy was, for a short time, Dr. Parr’s pupil, and through life his devoted friend; of whom he has expressed his high opinion in these words of his “Last Will:”—“I give to Dr. Davy a ring, as

1 New Monthly Mag. June, 1825.

a mark of my just, and therefore great respect for him, as a man of learning, as a man of science, and a man of integrity quite unsullied.” Of Mr. Brown, in a letter of introduction to
Mr. Roscoe, he thus speaks:—“He is a Whig; he is a scholar; he is a gentleman; and he is my friend.”

Sometimes Dr. Parr visited Oxford, and though these visits were less frequent, they were scarcely less agreeable than those to Cambridge. It may be thought that he entertained an unfavourable opinion of the Oxford men, since he used to say, “they are very good men; but too orthodox in religion, too rampant in loyalty, and too furious in politics.” It was, indeed, impossible that he should not look with disgust upon the efforts of lazy, prejudiced, and jealous minds, to shut out, from the first and greatest university, the light of increasing knowledge and improvement, and to paralyse the exertion, and stop the progress of human thought; yet he was ready to do justice to every individual instance of literary excellence, which appeared amongst its professors: and he acknowledged that he always found at Oxford many very wise and very worthy men, with whom he delighted to converse; and some of whom he was most happy to receive, on the terms of friendly and confidential intimacy. Among these, were the late Dr. White, professor of Arabic; the late Rev. H. Kett, of Trinity; Dr. Elmsley, of Alban Hall; Dr. Copplestone, provost of Oriel; and Dr. Vaughan, warden of Merton; and to them remains to be added the name of “his most learned, most wise, upright, and truly pious friend”—so he him-
self reverently designates him—
Dr. Martin Routh, of Magdalen College.

It is of this learned scholar and excellent man that Dr. Parr thus writes to his friend, Mr. Roscoe:—“I have told you that I think the President of Magdalen, where I am now residing, the most learned ecclesiastic in England, and one of the best men in Christendom. He is nominally a Tory; but his sagacity, his knowledge, his integrity, his independence, and his benevolence, lead him to think and sometimes to talk with you and me. Yes!—you ought to be acquainted,” &c.

It is of the same most revered and beloved friend, that Dr. Parr, in one of his printed works, has drawn the following portrait, traced with the outlines, no doubt, of truth and fidelity, though probably touched with the warm colourings of fond and affectionate friendship:—

“Why should I deny myself the satisfaction, I must feel in saying of him here, what of such a man I could say every where, with equal justice and equal triumph? The friendship of this excellent person, believe me, readers, will ever be ranked by me, among the sweetest consolations and the proudest ornaments of my life. He, in the language of Milton, ‘is the virtuous son of a virtuous father;’ whose literary attainments are respected by every scholar to whom he is known; whose exemplary virtues shed a lustre on that church, in which they have not been rewarded; and whose grey hairs will never descend to the grave, but amidst the blessings of the devout and the tears of the poor. He fills a station, for which other men are some-
times indebted to the cabals of party, or to the caprices of fortune; but in which he was himself most honourably placed, from the experience his electors had long had of his integrity, and the confidence they reposed in his discernment, in his activity, and his impartiality. The attachment, he professes to academical institutions, proceeds not less from a sincere conviction of their utility, than from a deep reverence for the wisdom of antiquity, in the regulations it has made, for preserving the morals of youth, and for promoting the cultivation of learning. His government, over the affairs of a great and respectable college, is active without officiousness, and firm without severity. His independence of spirit is the effect not of ferocious pride, but of cool and steady principle; which claims only the respect it is ever ready to pay; and which equally disdains to trample on subordination, and to crouch before the insolence of power. His correct judgment, his profound erudition, and his various knowledge, are such as seldom fall to the lot of man. His liberality is scarcely surpassed even by his orthodoxy; and his orthodoxy is not the tumid and fungus excrescence of prejudice, but the sound and mellowed fruit of honest and indefatigable inquiry. In a word, his mind, his whole mind, is decked at once with the purest crystals of simplicity, and the brightest jewels of benevolence and piety.”1

1 Sequel to a Printed Paper, &c. p. 108.