The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-07 00:00:00

LORD BYRON'S 44 CAIN."

LETTER FROM LORD BYRON TO MR. MURRAY
PISA, FEBRUARY 8, 18'22.

DEAR Sin—Attacks upon me were to be ex-
pected ; but I perceive one upon you in the
Papers, which I confess that I did not expect.
How, or in what manner you can be considered
responsible for what I publish, I am at a loss to
conceive. If " Cain" be " blasphemous," Para-
dise Lost is blasphemous ; and the very words of
the Oxford Gentleman, " Evil, be thou my
good," are from that very poem, from the mouth
of Satan ; and is there any thing more in that of
Lucifer in the mystery ? Cain is nothing
more than a drama—not a piece of argu-
ment. if Lucifer and Cain speak as the
first murderer, and the first rebel may be
supposed to speak, surely all the rest of the
personages talk also according to their cha-
racters ; and the stronger passions have ever
been permitted to the drama. I have even avoid-
ed introducing the Deity, as in Scripture (though
Milton does, and not very wisely either) ; but
have adopted his angel, as sent to Cain, instead,
on purpose to avoid shocking any feelings on the
subiect, by falling short of, what all uninspired
men must fall short in, viz. giving an adequate
notion of the effect of the presence of Jehovah.
The old Mysteries introduced him liberally
enough, and all this is avoided in the new one.
The attempt to bully you, because they think
it will not succeed with me, seems to me as
atrocious an attempt as ever disgraced the times.
What ! when Gibbon's, Hume's, Priestley's, and
Drummond's publishers have been allowed to
rest in peace for seventy years, are you to be sin-
gled out for a work of
,fiction, not of history or
argument ? There must be something at the bot-
tom of this—some private enemy of your own—
it is otherwise incredible.

I can only say, " Me—me adsum qui feci," that
any proceedings directed against you, I beg may
be transferred to me, who am willing, and ought
to endure them all ; that if you have lost money
by the publication, I will refund any, or all, of
the copyright; that I desire you will say, that
both you and Mr. Gifford remonstrated against
the publication, as also Mr. Ilohhouse ; that
I alone occasioned it, and I alone am the person
who either legally or otherwise should bear the
burthen. If they prosecute, I will come to Eng-
land ; that is, if by meeting it in my own person,
I can save yours. Let me know—you shent suffer
for me, if I can help it. Make any use of this let-
ter which you please.—Your's ever, BYRON.

THE LONDON JOURNALS.

EXTRACTS FROM THE D %ILI( MORNING PAPERS,
March 7, 1822.

[BRITISII PRESS.]
The circumstances that attended the funeral of
her late Majesty, the unfortunate Queen Caro-
line, were yesterday evening brought before the
House of Commons by Mr. H. G. Bennett. The
Honourable Member gave an historical statement
of the decease and fumeral of that unhappy Prin-
cess, and the narrative was well calculated to ex-
cite in every humane and generous mind a feeling
of grief and shame, that the Government of this

country could have so utterly violated every
principle of decorum -and propriety in the con-
duct which they pursued on that melancholy oc-
casion. The character of the Goverhment was
abandoned at the period of the Queen's death
to the uncontrolled judgment of Lord Liver-
pool, and from this Noble Lord emanated
the various orders under which the inferior
servants of the Crown acted in the manage-
ment of her Majesty's funeral. There was a time
when this same Nobleman was an anxious can-

didate for the favour of this unhappy Princess,
and when lie represented himself to her Royal
Highness as one of the most faithful of her friends,
and was received i❑ her house in this distin-
guished character. The recollection of such a
circumstance in the life of the Noble Earl, con-
trasted with that of the insults which under hia
authority were heaped upon her lifeless remains,
must give rise to many painful feelings. Mr.
Bennett's motion was couched in. the form of a
Resolution, stating in effect that the respect and
solemnity which had been uniformly observed
in the funerals of Queens of England had been
grossly and unnecessarily violated in the funeral
of her late Majesty. After a long debate the
motion was negatived without a division.

[MORNING POST.]
In the House of commons, last night, Mr.
lennett idly brought forward his long-promised
motion relative to the circumstances attending
the funeral of the late Queen, but with no ex-
pectation, as he himself admitted, either of its
being carried, or producing any effect. So fully
sensible indeed as he of the untenableness of
the ground be had assumed, that he did not
attempt to maintain his position, but abandoned
it, after all the trouble he had given, without
daring to take the sense of the house upon the
rash step which his imprudence had led him to
adopt. For our own part, our constantly ex-
pressed wish, ever since the death of her Ma-
jesty, has been that all considerations respecting
her case should be buried in oblivion; and we
have reason .to believe that in this respect
we only share the common feelings of all
the well-disposed classes of the community.—
It is with infinite regret, therefore, that we
still discover the existence of a disposition
anxious to perpetuate the unpleasant subject,
and certainly not with less pain that in the
present instance we witness the glaringly false
colouring, and no less unjust construction of
the whole of the circumstances, that have been
unblushingly attempted in the face of Parlia-
ment, and of the Country. The weakness of the
means resorted to by Mr. Bennett, on this ill-
advised occasion, stands sufficiently exposed as
it presents itself, without any effort on our part;
but, unworthy as his conduct was, we really
did not think the Hon. Gentleman would have
stooped so low as to call in aid of his purpose
the ignorant and foolish resolutions of the low
predominating faction of the Common Council of
London ! Oh ! Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bennett—
how deplorably fallen is thy state!—All the
Officers who were entrusted with the arrange-
ments of the funeral completely falsified his
statements in regard to it, while the unanswer-
able speeches of Mr. Secretary Peel and the
Marquess of Londonderry gave the Coup de grace
to the Hon. but unhappy Member for Shrews.
bury. Neither Dr. Lushington nor Mr. Denman
(to their credit be it stated) had advised the re-
vival of the subject, or attempted to justify the
course pursued ; and the silly motion was in the
end negatived without a division.—We have
neither time nor space to dwell any further upon
the subject, and must therefore refer our readers
to the Debate.

[MORNING cuito:sucLE.]
Mr. Curwen recommended last night the re-
peal of the Salt Tax in place of the diminution
of the duties on Malt. We cannot help think-
ing that the country would be incomparably more
benefitted by the .former than by the latter. As
a restraint on- industry, the Salt Tax operates,
perhaps, more mischievously than any tax that
ever was devised,—without dwelling on the
im-
morality which it occasions. The oppressive re-
gulations, inseparable from the collection of it,
prevent us from deriving any 'advantage from the
abundance of fish in our seas and friths ; all these
evils have frequently been stated, and are well
understood. It ought to be borne in mind too,
that the repeal of the Salt Tax would put an end
to a whole collection ; whereas the mere reduc-
tion of the Malt Tax will leave the machinery
for its collection untouched. But Mr. Curwen
principally dwelt on the superior advantages
which Agriculture would derive from the repeal
of the Salt Tax. " The diminution of the
Malt Tax (he said) would not increase the
consumption of barley. But relieve the farmer
by a repeal of the Salt Tax, and in addi-
tion to the direct alleviation to the amount of

the million and half, he will possess other corres.
ponding advantages. It will operate as a bounty

PRICE SEVENPENCE

to induce the farmer to change his mode of col-
tivation ; to convert his land from tillage to pas-
ture. He will then apply his land and industry
to the supply of that quantity of butter and
cheese which the country had been importing
from Holland and the Low Countries."—We
cannot now enter into this subject; but if the
effect of the restrictions on the importation of
grain has been to force land into tillage which
is not adapted for it, and if the repeal of the
Salt Tax has a tendency to facilitate the return
to a more natural state of cultivation, that consi-
deration ought to have no small weight with the
Legislature. It has long been the opinion even
of many of our cultivators, that with a view to
deriving the utmost advantage from our own soil,
the importation of foreign grain ought rather to
be encouraged than prohibited. Grain is not
merely an exhausting agricultural production, it
is also far from being the most valuable.—To
suppose that the importation of grain, subject to
a duty equivalent to that imposed on British
Agriculture, could throw our lands out of culti-
vation, is to betray a very imperfect acquaint-
ance with the subject. And there is this also to
be.said, in favour of a countervailing duty, that
it will operate, as far as it goes, to the diminu-
tion of some other tax.