The Rolliad, in Two Parts. George Ellis
is well suited to the dignity of the occasion. The heroes of Homer generally address each other by an appellative, marking their affinity to some illustrious personage. The Grecian poet, it must be confessed, in such cases, uses a patronymic, expressive of the genealogy; as Pelides, Æacides, Laertiades; but it is not absolutely necessary to observe this rule.—For, [1]M‘Pherson, a poet with whom our author is most likely to be intimately acquainted, makes his hero, Fingal, address Ossian by the title of “Father of Oscar.” It should seem therefore to be sufficient, if in addressing a great man, you particularise any celebrated character of the family who may be supposed to reflect honour on his connections; and the Reverend ROWLAND HILL was certainly the most celebrated of our worthy Baronet’s relations, before the late creation of Lord BERWICK, on which the next line happily touches.
Our author seems very fond of Mr. DUNDAS,
Whose exalted soul
No bonds of vulgar prejudice controul.
Of shame unconscious in his bold career,
He spurns that honour, which the weak revere;
For, true to public Virtue’s patriot plan,
He loves the Minister, and not the Man; Alike the advocate of NORTH and Wit, The friend of SHELBURNE, and the guide of PITT, His ready tongue with sophistries at will, Can say, unsay, and be consistent still; This day can censure, and the next retract, In speech extol, and stigmatize in act; Turn and re-turn; whole hours at HASTINGS bawl, Defend, praise, thank, affront him, and recal. By opposition, he his King shall court; And damn the People’s cause by his support. He, like some Angel sent to scourge mankind, Shall deal forth plagues—in charity design’d. The West he would have starv’d; yet, ever good, But meant to save the effusion of her blood: And if, from fears of his Controul releast He looses Rapine now, to spoil the East; ’Tis but to fire another SYKES to plan Some new starvation-scheme for Hindostan; Secure, to make her flourish, as before, More populous, by losing myriads more.
Our author here seems to understand the famous starvation-scheme of Mr. DUNDAS, as literally designed to produce an actual famine in America, though undoubtedly from the most benevolent motives imaginable. But this is contradicted by a [2]late writer, who appears to be perfectly conversant with the language and purposes of our present men in power. “Starvation (says he) is not synonymous with famine; for Mr. Dundas most certainly could not intend to produce a famine in America, which is the granary of the West-Indies, and of a great part of Europe. The word Starvation (continues he) was intended by Mr. Dundas to express a scheme of his own, by which he meant to prevent the Americans from eating when they were hungry, and had food within their reach; thereby insuring their reduction without blood-shed.” However, both authors agree that Mr. Dundas proposed to starve the Americans (whatever was to be the mode of doing it) in mere compassion, to save them from the horrors of throat-cutting. How finely too does the Poet trace the same charitable disposition in the late measures of Mr. Dundas and his Colleagues at the Board of Controul! Factious men have said, that the Indian politics of the new Commissioners have a direct tendency, beyond any former system, to encourage every kind of peculation and extortion. But what kind Mr. Dundas would peculiarly wish to encourage, can admit of no doubt, from his known partiality to starving—any body, but himself. And how, indeed, can the prosperity of the East be better consulted, than by some new starvation-scheme; such as was contrived and executed by certain humane individuals in the year 1770, with the most salutary event! For, notwithstanding one-third of the inhabitants of Bengal were then swept away by the famine, the province, in consequence, is now become more populous than ever. This may a little disturb all vulgar notions of cause and effect; but the writer above-mentioned proves the fact, by the testimony of Major Scott.
There are many more lines relating to Mr. Dundas. But as this gentleman’s character is so perfectly understood by the public, we shall rather select a short catalogue of some among the inferior Ministerial Heroes, who have hitherto been less frequently described.
DRAKE, whose cold rhetorick freezes in its course,
BANKS the precise, and fluent WILBERFORCE,
With either PHIPPS, a scribbling, prattling pair;
And VILLERS, comely, with the flaxen hair;
The gentle GRENVILLE’s ever-grinning Son,
And the dark brow of solemn HAMILTON.
These miniatures, as we may call them, present us with very striking likenesses of the living originals; most of whom are seen to as much advantage in this small size, as they could possibly have been, had they been taken at full length. How happy is the allusion to Mr. DRAKE’s[3] well-known speech; which, in the metaphor of our poet, we may style a beautiful icicle of the most transparent eloquence! How just too, and yet how concise, is the description of the literary and parliamentary talents, so equally possessed by Brother CHARLES and Brother HARRY, as Lord Mulgrave affectionately calls them. We must, however, observe, that in the Manuscript of the ROLLIAD, obligingly communicated to us by the Author, the line appears to have been first written,
Resplendent PHIPPS who shines our lesser Bear;
the noble head of this illustrious family having been called the Great Bear. But this was corrected probably in consequence of the Poet having discovered, like Mr. Herschel, that the splendor which he long attributed to a single constellation, or (if we may depart a little from critical nicety in our figure) to a single star, in reality flowed from the united rays of two. We have nothing further to add on this passage, only that the character of VILLERS seems to be drawn after the Nireus of Homer; who, as the Commentators remark, is celebrated in the catalogue of warriors, for the handsomest man in the Grecian army, and is never mentioned again through the whole twenty-four books of the Iliad.
[1] Mr. M‘Pherson is said to be one of the principal writers on the side of the present administration.
[2] Key to Parliamentary Debates, published by Debrett.
[3] “Behold, Sir, another feature of the procrastinating system. Not so the Athenian Patriots—Sir, the Romans—Sir, I have lost the clue of my argument—Sir, I will sit down.”
* * * * *
NUMBER IV.
A new edition (being the nineteenth) of this universally admired poem having been recently published, the ingenious author has taken that opportunity to introduce some new lines on an occasion perfectly congenial to his muse, and in the highest degree interesting to the public, namely, the late Fast and Thanksgiving; together with the famous discourse preached in celebration of that day by that illustrious orator and divine, the Reverend Mr. SECRETARY PRETTYMAN.—This episode, which is emphatically termed by himself in his prefatory address to this last edition, his Episode Parsonic, seems to have been written perfectly con amore, and is considered by critics as one of the happiest effusions of the distinguished genius from whose high-rapped fancy it originated. It consists of nine-and-forty lines, of which, without farther exordium, we shall submit the following extracts to the inspection, or, more properly speaking, the admiration of our readers. He sets out with a most spirited compliment to Dr. PRETTYMAN. The two first lines are considered by critics, as the most successful example of the alliterative ornament upon record.
Prim Preacher, Prince of Priests, and [1]Prince’s Priest;
Pembroke’s pale pride—in PITT’s præcordia plac’d. —Thy merits all shall future ages scan, And PRINCE be lost in PARSON PRETTYMAN.
The beauty of the historical allusion to Prince Prettyman, need not be pointed out to our readers; and the presage that the fame of this Royal personage shall be lost and absorbed in the rising reputation of the ingenious divine, is peculiarly happy and well turned. The celebrated passage of Virgil,
“Tu Marcellus eris:”
is supposed to have been in the poet’s recollection at the moment of his conceiving this passage—not that the
“Oh miserande puer!”
in the preceding line, is imagined to