I may have been to blame. I shall only fairly state a few circumstances which have been violently exaggerated, or grossly misrepresented; the greater part of the charges being wholly groundless.

"I had so fully persuaded myself that I had for many years, especially in the late awful crisis, been devoting my time and humble talents to the promotion of loyalty, good morals, and an attachment to Church and State, among the common people, that I was not prepared for the shock, when a charge of sedition, disaffection, and a general aim to corrupt the principles of the community, suddenly burst upon me. In vain have I been looking round me for any pretence on which to found such astonishing charges. One circumstance which is now made a ground for past accusation is but recently brought forward. The circumstance I allude to is, my being charged with having constantly attended and received the sacrament at Mr. -'s chapel at Bath for fifteen years. The simple fact is this: The novelty and talents of Mr. ——————, a celebrated dissenting minister at Bath, were considered as such an attraction, that I, in common with a number of strict church people, frequently went to hear him preach. It was chiefly at six o'clock in the evening, an hour which did not interfere with the Church Service. It was not unusual to see, perhaps, near half a score clergymen, who, I presume, no more thought they were guilty of disaffection than I myself did. I went, of course, to church as usual, except that

the extreme nearness of this chapel drew me a few mornings, in severe weather, when my health was bad. At one of these times I unexpectedly found they were going to give the sacrament. Taken by surprise, in a moment of irresolution, never having been used to turn my back on the communion at church, I imprudently stayed.' How far this single irregularity, which I regretted, and never repeated, deserves the term of constant, your Lordship will judge. My eldest sister has been accused of denying it.

She well might deny

I believe it to

it, for she never knew it till now. have been nine or ten years ago. Again, I did not begin to reside part of the winter at Bath till about the beginning of 1791. I never go thither till near Christmas, and at the time alluded to I always left it, and went to London in February. During a part of this short season I was generally confined by illness. When the interests of the Church became a question (I cannot be quite accurate as to the time, but I think it was either seven or eight years ago) I ceased entirely to go to Mr. -'s. How far this justifies the charge of fifteen years constant attendance, your Lordship will judge. And is it unfair to request your Lordship to draw your own conclusion concerning the accuracy as well as the candour of my ac

I The subject of Mrs. More's attendance at this meeting will be resumed in the last chapter. It constituted, especially in the exaggerated form mentioned in the letter, a prime article of accusation with those who, in the Blagdon controversy, asserted her alliance with methodism and dissent.

cusers? It was subsequent to this that Mr. Bere thought so well of my principles, as to importune me, even with tears, to establish a school in his parish, lamenting its extreme profligacy and his own inability to do any good to the rising generation. There was company present when he repeatedly made these applications, which I refused, pleading want of health, time, and money. I also declared my unwillingness to undertake it, unless it was the wish of the parish. He then sent his churchwardens as a deputation from the parish; I yielded at last, on hearing that a woman, one of his parishioners, was under sentence of death. I only name this to acquit myself of the charge of intrusion.

"As to connection with conventicles of any kind, I never had any. Had I been irregular, should I not have gone sometimes, since my winter residence at Bath, to Lady Huntingdon's chapel, a place of great occasional resort? Should I not have gone to some of Whitfield's or Wesley's Tabernacles in London, where I have spent a long spring for near thirty years? Should I not have strayed now and then into some Methodist meeting in the country? Yet not one of these things have I ever done.

"For an answer to the charge of my having ever made any application to get Mr. Bere removed from his curacy, I refer your Lordship to Dr. Moss and Dr. Crossman, in case you are not satisfied with the declaration of both in Dr. Crossman's printed letter to Sir A. Elton.

Mrs. Bere's letter to me, dated January 4th, 1799, complaining of Young's Monday meeting, which I was prevented answering by a long illness, was, in fact, virtually answered immediately, by my sister's writing to Young to put a stop directly to the irregularities complained of; which was done. A proof that this ground of complaint had ceased to exist when Mr. Bere made his first attack on me in the beginning of April 1800, appears by a very friendly letter which I have by me from Mr. Bere, dated March 8th, 1800, only about three weeks before Mr. Bere's open attack, and nearly a year and a quarter after the complaint had been made and redressed. Mr. Bere's affidavits, taken by himself, in his own cause, which were flatly contradicted by counter evidence, and which, having no dates to the facts which they attest, could never have been admitted in a court of justice, have all a retrospective reference of one, two, four, and even six years back. Another proof that there was no longer any ground of complaint existing is, that, when Mr. and Mrs. Descury, a respectable family, came to live at Blagdon, near a year after, they were introduced by Mrs. Bere to the school in presence of my sister, with the highest encomiums; their attachment to the school originated from those warm praises, and was afterwards confirmed by their own frequent attendance. I should add, that, having heard in the preceding summer that Mr. Bere had thrown out from the pulpit some insinuations against the school, I went to him with

the greatest civility, and assured him that, as I was shocked at the thought of carrying on an opposition scheme, I was ready to withdraw the school, if it had not his entire approbation. Again he shed tears at the bare idea, and implored me not to deprive the parish of such a benefit.

"When Mr. Bere sent me his hostile letter, menacing the schoolmaster, (April 1800,) I was in London; and, being unable, at that distance, to inquire fairly into the complaint, I wrote twice to Mr. Bere, earnestly requesting to refer the whole to Sir A. Elton, as a respectable and judicious magistrate in the neighbourhood; and begged they might investigate the business together. This Mr. Bere twice positively refused. I could have no partial motive in the reference, for I knew so little of Sir A. Elton, that he had never been in my house; whereas he had been long known to Mr. Bere, and I could not have suggested a more fair and peaceable mode of setting all to rights.

"The ground on which human prudence, especially judging after the event, may most reasonably condemn me, is, that I did not instantly dismiss Young. I grant that it would have saved me infinite distress. But I not only thought myself bound to protect an innocent man, whom I still conceive to have been falsely accused1, but I was also convinced that, as the event has proved, the object in view was not merely to ruin him, but to

1 Mrs. More does not allude to the charge of irregularity, which was admitted; but to that of having traduced Mr. Bere.