Bishop Huet's Mifcellaneous Thoughts, IX. Francis de Beaucaire de Puiguillon, bishop of Metz I have lately read the history of Francis de Beaucaire de Puiguillon, bishop of Metz. This man was at no great pains to hide his paffion and his partiality. He was born the vaffal and domeftic of the † conftable of Bourbon, and he imbibed at his birth fo blind an efteem for that prince, that he carried fo far as to excufe his wicked revolt, for which, the Chevalier Bayard reproach ed him fo nobly, and fo courageously in his laft moments. On the contrary, he decries with afperity the conduct of Francis. 1. He condemns with the fouleft abufe that of Louifa of Savoy, the king's mother. What bitter invectives does he utter against the chancellor du Prat? At length, he attached himself to the princes of the house of Guife, and that attachment drew on him fuch cruel and fuch continnal reproaches from the This prelate had been preceptor to the Cardinal of Lorrain, and (as bishop of Metz) was prefent at the council of Trent, where he made a very ingenious difcourfe after the battle of Dreux. He afterwards quitted his bishoprick. He published a great number of works, An effay on infauts flill-born, Poems, a treatife against Colvinifts, and a Latin hiftory of France from 1461 to 1580 [to the laft of thefe M. Huet alludes.] He died in 3591. Morevi. + Charles III, Duke of Bourbon, conftable of France, having revolted from Francis I. to the emperor Charles V. was killed at the fiege of Rome in 1527. The queen's mother, Louifa of Savoy, is faid to have been the caufe of the conftable's revolt, being fo piqued by his refufal to marry her, that by harrthing him with law-fuits, the obliged him to quit the kingdom. One of the greatest generals of his age. Being mortally wounded in Italy in 1524, he ordered himself to be placed under a tree with his head on a ftone, and his face towards the enemy, Being found in that condition by the conftable of Bourbon, who then comcommanded the Emperor's army, on his expreffing great pity and concern at feeing him in fuch a ftate, My lord, anfwered the che valier, I return you thanks. But I am not to be pitied for dying as a good man ought, in my mafter's fervice. You are to be pitied for bearing arms against your prince, your country, and your oaths. Alfo Cardinal, archbishop of Sens, &c, though a great lawyer, obfervant of no other laws but his own intereft and his fovereign's paffions, for which he was deservedly odious to all good men. He is alfo charged with irritating the queen's mother against the conftable in hopes of sharing fome of the Prince's fpoils, He died in 1535. conftable de Montmorency, that he never named him without fome heinous calumny. Could he blacken with greater indignity the memory of Pope Julius III? Upon the whole, if you divelt his history of its malignity, you will find nothing there very striking. His ftyle is tedious, diffuse, obfcure, and embarrassed. The work abounds with inftances of puerile ignorance. Thus he fuppofes the word amiral [admira!] to be derived from the Greek word aulòs, which fignifies falt, becaufe the water of the fea, of which an admiral has the command, is falt. Thus he pretends that the country of Forez is fo named on account of the number of forefts that are found there. Thus he derives the word Boulevard [bulwark] aró Tv Bex, from the darts that are thrown from a bulwark. Thus he imagines, that the country of Liege took its name from the Roman legion's that were quartered there. Thus he maintains that the word feigneurs [lords] comes from fignatores, which, according to him, anfwers to the title of onvropes Xay, [leaders of the people] which Homer gives to Kings. Thus he would perfuade us that the word ecuyer [elquire] comes from Equarius, which is derivd from equus, thus confounding knights and fquires; and that the name of heraut [herald] is the fame as heros [hero.] Thus he mentions, without confuting it, the ridiculous opinion of thofe who imagine that the language of lower Bretagne is the language of the Trojans; from whence it must follow, that Æneas made love to Dido in low British, and that the answered him in Phoenician; which must make a very curious dialogue. Thefe abfurdities difgrace his hiftory, and difcover his knowledge to have been very fuperficial, X. Character of St Auguftine. A certain English bifhop, who has made himself the fubject of difcourfe, being at Paris, had the presumption to affert in good company, in the king's library, that St Auguftine had no wit. This man had no wit himself, or had never read St Augustine. On the contrary, I find in him a great compass of wit which comprehends every thing contained in the subjects of which he treats; a difcerament which thoroughly This great general alike illuftrious by his birth, his employments, his love for his country, his conduct and his conrage, after having been in eight battles, was killed in that of St Dennis, at the age of 80, in 1567, Penetrates, Zo penetrates, and a fagacity which unra vels and explains them. But when he is obliged to fix and determine his judgment, the warmths of his imagination always carries him to extremes, without obferving the bounds of moderation. His book of the city of God is a'confused collection of excellent materials. It is gold in bars and ingots. A nemarkable Case of Confcience. XI. The Ancients are defective in method. · This want of method is obfervable in most of the ancients. The academic philofophy, which Plato profeffed, and the custom of treating it by dialogue, which was familiar to that fect, does not permit the exactness of method. But he ought, at least, to have obferved fome order, which might lead the mind according to the fubordination and natural difpofition of the subject; he who understood fo well the two ways which are fuppofed to conduct reafon to truth, namely, fynthefis and analyfis, of which, it is faid, he was the inventor. Ariftotle is much more regular. He was the firft of the ancients, (at least known to us) who had kill to divide and define;' in which the whole fecret of method confits. But though he is the firft author of method, it may nevertheless be faid that his method wants method, and that he is ftill far diftant from that exact and delicate precision. to which our age has carried philofophical speculatiens. It is furprifing that the philofopher Panætus, in his book of moral duties, thould have forgotten to define them, for which he is reproached by Cicero. But which is ftill more furprifing, St Thomas in his Sum of Theology defines nothing; and that work, which appears fo methodical, is, nevertheless, defective in this part, which is effential to method We muft give Ovid the praife of having propofed at the beginning of his Art of Love, and of having followed, in that work, a divifion very regular and very methodical. (To be Continued.) & Letter from the Rev. Mr WILLIAM ROBERTSON, author of a late work entitled An attempt to explain the words Rerfon, Subftance, Perfon, Creed, Orthodoxy, Catholic church, Subfcripti on, &c.) fubjoined to the fecond Edit, of that work, and addrefs'd to the Rf Rev. the Ld bishop of Ferns In Ireland. My dear good Lord, tion in my mind, upon a fubject of the highest importance to me. But now that my refolution is fixed, and my mind a little fettled, I find myself, in fome mesture, capable of writing to you. And first, my Lord, fuffer me to return you all the thanks that can flow from the most grateful heart, for your great goodness to me. That you should not only offer me the parishes of Tullimony and Ballyquillane, but affure me, in your last letter, that you would accommodate me in the best manner you could!-how then must I lament, in the fecond place, that I find myself incapable of receiving your Lordship's favours? I beg leave to inform your Lordship, that laft October a book was put into my hands, which, (though it had been published many years) I had never feen before, called Free and Candid Difquifitions, &c, I fet about reading it with fome prejudice against the avowed defign. But apon confidering matters feriously, I was brought over to be of the author's opinion in feveral particulars. So that I find I cannot now bring myself to declare an unfeigned affent and confent to all things contained in the book of Common Prayer, &c. In debating this matter with myself, befides the arguments directly to the purpose, several strong collateral confiderations came in upon the pofitive fide of the question. The ftraitnefs of my circumftances preffed me clofe: A numerous family, quite unprovided for, pleaded with the most pathetic and moving eloquence -: And the infirmities and wants of age now coming fast upon me, were urged feelingly. But one fingle confideration prevailed over all these, That the creator and governor of the univerfe, whom it is my first duty to worship and adore, being the God of truth, it must be difagreeable to him, to profefs, fubfcribe or declare, in any matter relating to his worthip and fervice, what is not believed strictly and simply to be true. M. Rouffeau's profecution of M. Saurin. P.S. I am quite at a loss what to say to my good Lord Primate. If your Lordship will please to make my moft grateful acknowledgements to him, you will oblige me much. N. B. Mr Robertson had been recommended by the Primate to the Bifhop. M. ROUSSEAU's profecutions of M. SAURIN, continued from Vol. xxxvii. p. 630. SAURIN's narrative of his own M⚫ life had the defired effect with the public. He wrote, befides, a letter to Madame Voifin, the chancellor's Lady, who favoured the profecution, and that illuftrious perfonage ceafed any longer to appear openly against him. He next petitioned for leave to bring proof of the fubordination of the witneffes. His innocence triumphed, and the judges were convinced of the infamous practices of his accufer, and gave judgement accordingly; from their fentence, however, M. Rouffeau thought fit to appeal, in confequence of which appeal, he obtained a rehearing before the Commiffary General, who was appointed to report the caufe. At this juncture, he published a memorial, in which he speaks with all the confidence of a man, who believes the Judges will pronounce in his favour. I don't (fays he) infist on prefumptions, thefe vanish at the appearance of truth. M. Saurin has too long abufed the credulity of the publick, dif' avowed his crime, and charged an innocent perfon with his own guilt. It is but juft, this wicked man, this calumniator be exposed as he deserves. M. Rouffeau does not oppofe illu fion to illufion. He leaves M. Saurin all the advantages he may draw from a fpecious eloquence, and confines himself to the facts proved in his information, and to the confethat naturally flow from fuch quences proofs. The general idea of the point in question, ftands thus. In the month of February laft, M. Boindin received by a little porter, the defamatory verfes on which this procefs depends. This porter received this packet from William Arnold, cobler; William Arnold had it from the hands of M. Saurin. This is the fimple fact ftript ⚫ of its circumstances; and it is attefted in the frongest manner. Firf, William Arnold depofes, that he gave the packet to the porter, This The confeffes on his examination; he knows the porter again on their being confronted together, and the porter af firms he is the perfon from whom he had the packet. Secondly, William Arnold had this packet from the hands of M. Saurin to give to the porter. This he owns on his examination. He repeats it before His father and M. Saurin himself. mother depofe to the fame effect, and perfift in this confeflion in M. Saurin's prefence,' As a farther confirmation, three days after fending the packet, M. Saus rin fhewed William Arnold one of the drawers of his cabinet, and told him that the verfes he carried were there, and that they were very comical.' If we add to thefe proofs, (which are as pofitive as the law requires to fix the guilt) all the corroborating circumftances, the truth will appear to a demonstration, and the evidences amount to conviction.' M. Saurin owns, that this William Arnold, whofe ftall lay beneath his win dows is the only perfon he has employed to go his errands for two years paft. He was therefore the likelieft perfon he could employ on this occafion to convey thefe verjes by a third hand.' He further owns, that he gave Arnold a fuit of black cloaths. Now this prefent appears to have been made precifely at the time the verfes began to make a noife, and the cabal in order to ruin M. Rouffeau, pretended to find out the perfon who gave them to the porter.' But there is yet a more remarkable circumftance in the examination of William Arnold. He there fays, that these verfes were in M. Saurin's drawer, and that that gentleman told him they were comical, When happens this difcourfe? Why truly at a time when they were yet a fecret to the publick, two or three days after the packet was fent, and be fore it was difcovered at Mrs Laurent's coffee-house. On taking the feal off M. Saurin's papers, thefe verses are accordingly found in MSS. under the appearance at leaft of an autograph; that is to fay, with fome erafures and alterations, particularly in the part relating to his own character; a plain proof he was more embarass'd on that head, than with respect to the reft.' Now we may appeal to any one, if on a review of thefe proofs, he can fuppofe William Arnold could have fo exactly guess'd an affair, of which he could not have the least knowledge, but asir was commu 22 M. Rouffeau's profecution of M. Saurini communicated to him by M. Saurin? And how he can imagine M. Saurin would let one of his condition into fuch a fecret, if he did not design to make use of him as a tool in the affair? Thefe are facts that mutually fupport each other, and leave no room to doubt of the truth. It is to no purpose, after this, to alledge, that M. Saurin is no poet. The publick were only of this fentiment, because they knew not what M. Saurin had owned upon his examination; that he had wrote love verfes in his youth, and that he was the author of the letter to M. de la Motte on his quitting the monastery to write for the stage.' (See Vol. Xxxvii. p. 603.) It is as little material what is faid, that M. Saurin can never be fupposed to reprefent himself in fuch a horrible manner as he is defcribed in the verses. For in the first place it is very difficult to know the recesses of the human mind, especially when it is corrupted, and fecondly, we shall find on examination, that M. Saurin has only attributed to himself a wrong turn of thought, and caft fome reflections which are indeter minate, and confequently leave no impreffion, while the other characters are more diftinétly marked, and placed in the most ridiculous and odious light. To conclude, his friends pretend, that William Arnold was fuborned to fwear against him: A few remarks will clear that matter.' First, To believe fuch a fubernation, we muft fuppofe that M. Rouffeau after having been legally discharged from M. de la Faye's accufation, willingly expofed himself to a fecond risk of a more dangerous nature. Second, That in this view, of raifing the blackeft calumny, he felected from a fet of poets, his declared enemies, M. Saurin, a man who paffed for being no genius that way, yet better fupported and befriended than all thofe gentlemen put together, in fhort, a man who has had the art to impofe on feveral perfons of diftinction, and make them his friends.' Third, It is not natural to think, that M. Rouffeau, after corrupting William Arnold, fhould raise a new process against him and imprifon him. This would have been to weaken his own evidence; people don't use suborned witneffes in fo harsh a manner.' On the first imprisonment of M. Saurin, he clapt Arnold into another prifon to prevent M. Saurin's friends from having access to him, By parity of reafon, the porter also must be fuborned, as well as the father and mother of William Arnold. But to fuppofe this, we must own a mutual conftancy and conduct unufual to perfons in low life. Thefe witnesses never vary from their first confeffion, they never contradict each other, and they keep this uniformity in all their confrontations with a man of M. Saurin's abilities, whofe fuperiority of genius and natural cunning gave him all poffible opportunities by a cross interrogation to take his own advantages.' This imaginary fubornation being thus not only deftroyed, but rendered, wholly improbable, let us obferve the whole tenour of his conduct.' A feries of actions carried on by the fame perfon to gain his end, makes it very apparent that the fame perfon, once convicted of fending the packet in the artful manner mentioned, is the author of the verfes inclofed. Why does he deny what is fo evidently proved? Because he apprehended it might give light to a further difcovery." Such has been M. Saurin's conduct. While his friends raise an outcry against M. Rouffeau, he with a feigned modefty and a fpecious air of compaffion, pities him; praifes his abilities, and by that means, enedavours to infinuate he is the author of the fatyrical verses.' 'Indeed if ever man truly merited pity, it is M. Rouffeau. He is fure be-' fore this crime was laid to his charge, he had the good will of the publick, and that fince that time, he has had the mif fortune to lofe the greatest part of his friends.' He has feen himself subjected to an arreft on the depofition of M. Roindin his declared enemy for ten years paft, defamed himself in the libel in queftion, and looking on himself as a party. This witnefs, guided by his fpleen, has ventured to affirm M. Rouffeau guilty, on prefumptions, founded in his own imagination. On this account, M. Rouffeau has fuftained for three months a criminal process, attended with an uni verfal outcry against him. If a prejudice fo fatal to him had been fupported by the leaft of the proofs that appear against M. Saurin, what might not M. Rouffeau have expected? What would he not have deferved? Of all the crimes that infeft human fociety, there is none merits feverer punishment than direct and ungoverned fatire, but if he who compofes fuch a libel be justly thoughta bad Obfervations in favour of bad man, what name fhall we find for him, who adds to this villany, that of accufing an innocent perfon, makes his moft intimate friends his worst enemies, fecretly aims at his ruin, and either openly, or by his emiffaries, fpirits up a perfecution, of which he is the fole author. [Thus far M. Rouffeau.] the Suttonian Secret. 23 He was, however, again fummoned by found of trumpet to appear, but to no purpose. And the whole informations being examined and duly weighed, the court declared the contumacy of John Baptift Rouffeau fully proved, and hereby has banished and does banith the faid Rouffeau for ever the kingdom of France, confiftating his goods and effects for the charges of the process. Mr. URBAN, IS M. Saurin began his defence, by a petition, wherein he fet forth, that M. Rouffeau, who had been his accufer, was himself previously accufed on the fame head, and that he had only obtained a difcharge from this profecu tion by a private agreement with his adverfary, which bore, that the latter ⚫fhould defift from his pursuit, and fuffer him, by virtue of his non appearance, to obtain a discharge, but without any damages allowed, or cofts of 'fuit.' 6 He next proceeds to the arguments that appear in his favour, he fhews, that the principal basis of the accufation is the lingle teftimony of William Arnold, the cobler's boy, corrupted and bribed, and on the hearsays of this boy, fo prepared, repeated by witneffes, gained and pofted for that purpose by M. Rouffeau. He fhews, that all the depofitions of this witnefs, as well as thofe raised upon it, are falfe and felf contradictory in the moft material circumftanees, that they are full of fuch blunders and abfurdities, as nat to deferve credit from any man of fenfe, and lastly, that they are all invalidated and deftroyed by the confeffion of the principal witness himself, taken before a magiftrate of diftinction.' And lastly, he enters upon the proof of the fubornation of the witnesses by M. Rouffeau. He lays open the whole procedure, and brings convincing reaTons to fix this guilt on the cobler's boy, William Arnold, and all who had depofed in this cafe. He fhewed all these informations in their true light. The confpiracy of M. Rouffeau with Milet, officer to the lieutenant criminal, the principal contriver of the plot, is expofed in the fulleft manner. And as M. Rouffeau's memorial is wholly founded on thefe depofitions, fo with them, the whole illufion vanished. Add to this, that the King's Attorney General commenced a procefs against him for feveral defamatory libels of the fame nature. And as guilt has not a more dreadful or dangerous enemy, than he, whofe fupreme power makes him the just avenger of it, fo M. Rouffeau being cited to appear in juftice, thought it most prudent to avoid the confequences by flight. Taves the finall-pox has formerly made in this ifland, and what irremedi- As to this fecret medicine, the Suttons will enter into partnership with country practitioners, and have done fo with many, to whom they confent to impart and deliver their medicine, but they decline difcovering to any of them the ingredients of it. But leaving the Suttons to themselves, to whofe practice, one cannot but with all imaginable extenfion and fuccefs, I would ask whether fevers of various kinds have not been as fatal to the fons of men, as the finall pòx? And whether we mortals, were we to live conftantly under fome fuch method of preparation as they prefcribe, though not fo perfectly strict, might not deliver ourfelves from the apprehenfion and danger of violent and malignant fevers ? 1 would propofe, for example, that people in their ordinary way of life, and efpecially those who are fubject to fevers, as many are, fhould keep the body open and cool, fhould take now and then a paper of the powders, and should breakfaft, dine, and fup, upon fuch aliments as they have directed to be used during a courfe of preparation for the small pox. |