Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1818-09-01

q,
And all who follow, soon must scorn thee.
------1Ezznt = Hnz.-
Il Second Letter from Charles PAilips, ESQ. TO the
Editor Of the Edinburgh Rerier.
oceasioned by an Articlc in his last Number.
Lay M Nacdnf,
<i',d ddmn'd be he Upho first cries hoiS-enourb~
SIR-The assertion i'm your last review. that
, ,nis Is the second time within two years, that
have been honored by Your enmitv, is quite
correct; and begin by acknowledging this
soitary truth III your entire article 1 arpea,.
cd to the public in the first instance do 80
n s.n,o dgais, quite csntent, even though the
same decision should provoke the third inypc-
i've of mortified sufI;ciency. You have
Comotned with mine, in this renewed attack
tne name OF Mr.. Finiay-a man. above both my
"e'ence ahu yonr accusation. BE assured his
Character stands much too hgh 10 hr attnc,eJ
ny tue sheer OF an habitual iibeIier In the
contest between us you have a great advan-
aagemtne conceatment of yonr name gives
currency TO the scandal which might he depriy-
I'd OF all credit by it's disclosure IL is said in
deed, that you are member of the Scottish
nar, Dst Cannot believe il {; if YOU were. Won
womb Know too well, and hope estimate toe
generously, the diSpriting difficulties of that
profession, 10 attempt to crush Young man inst
struggling upon its threshold. Nou would have
elttSat no adventitiuus discouragements we're
nsoessafy-'nat competition, envy, and the alb
sttmseuesS OF tie Science, were in themselves
sunicteht and you would not have disgraced
your Nigh profession, by soliciting the wares
ofmercenary defamation.
III disappointment even did sOnr you into a
cync, anu that You questioned the talents
winch you could not emulate, Your education
would have taught y0u at least the principles
OF gentleman and You would have disdained
10 suDsutnte 's'sehood for facts, and personali-
TIES tor criticism. However, your name or
your profession are OF little consequence-you
have surrendered the one for The mean trade
OF wholesale calnmny, and you are very right
not TO conslgn the other to infamy by its publ.
cation.
shall row, Sir, just examine a passage or
TWO In the article before me, that the public
may see how admirably the spirit in which it
originated, has been follow ed mp by its veraci-
~. You first accused me of having pnHed nv
. speeches-Iou then affected satisfaction uiat
your faisehood was exposed and immediately
after tins extorted retraction, you reiierate on
me the refuted charge Ofprofe ssonal - empi.
ricism." 6 The confidence" you say, " wiIicl,
dictated this publication, was plant Of 40 sick
q growih." What right the man who pro
dnced TINS snb'ime and novel image has TO &C
cnse me OF metaphor!
;, Now let MS see what it was which really did
dictate this publication" Early in nv pro-
fession had made IA Speech which very soon
after It's delivery was reported in the newspa-
pers. The publication was in many respects
mntil>ted and incorrect one ; but had gain
ed very ample verdict for my client aud was
itappesrs, too cuIpably negligent Of my per-
sonal reputation. The speech, such as it was,
was instantly printed by 10 less than threes
different uncOnnected booksellers in London,
and by the provincial printers in almost every
town IN England. appeal to each of those
gentlemen, whether L made TO him the slight
estprevlous personal commnnication-wleth Their
The publication was not an experiment. for tie
purpose of his own individual profit-wietlier
ne had ever seen my face, or submitted a
proof sheet for my correction whether, in
snort, TO use your own phrase, ii was nv
confidence" or his own unsolicited enterprise,
which dictated the proc eedings To say was
not gratified by this, as it was singular distinc-
ton, would be adopting yonr own example,
anu saying what was not true. IT did give me
great qualification, feeling no way diminish
ed by the reflection, that the moral of that
speech at least, more than equalled its in,agi-
nary merit. even submitted silently OH that
account, to the additional piracy of an Edin-
bnrgh publisher, and as lnever blame any thing
that rs ndtiORdt, forgave him lis rapaciiy.
But though submitted TO Scotch piracy, /
had no idea OF countenancing Scotch misrepre-
sentation. You instantly bounced OH the lit
tie pamphlet, attacked it viruienily, az an an.
thofized publication, aRd visited upon me the
consequences of your cOuntry's avaTicc.-With
CHARACTERISTIC venom you announced Your de-
termination to watch my entire professional
HE, and never omit an opportunity Of reVilints
me. III was malignant promise, and there,
lore you have kept IL. Thus menaced, Twas
compelled TO collect those fugitive triiles, and
incur at least, the ceusure of no errors butmy
own.
Now, Sir, with ,he knowledge of those facts
confessed by y1u-with The full conviction on
your mind. that the publication Was forced
from me by The anonymous SANDER ofperhaps
some batled rival-hOw can Won expect credit
for the re-pubIishsd lalsehoOd that IL original
ed Iva my own empiTiciSm = SO muciI tor The
truth OF your very first ASSERTION. Is u follow
Ell mp by literary criticism, or personal at
tack " Mr.. Finiay," you say, " must know
that it the speech Of a person Of Hifit
"Ho practice f; and who prObabiy, made no othet
speech tor long before md after ii was deliver.
3D. Tie latter part OF this sentence is rot
trNp. But Won Neig uufte ready TO take for
gianted, and argue away mans professional
Character on mere =" probabilities"
1T may be as veil here Just TO remark, eRpr..
SAINT, in proof OF your Incredible CarelessnesS
of every thing but abuse, that after "a labored
criticism upon this speech, sou have tile i'm
pudence to declare, that 1t is mol in the 20.
.sme" In the very outset confessed, that
had never before spoken hi a court of justice
Indeed, how could | | was but year cali
ed 10 the bar, and will venture to say, it was
never before known Ia the profession, that so
young man had suci case committed 10 his
inexpeTience. But my client was my own per-
sonal friend, aud, thank God, as far at least
rs depended on bis barristers, he did not sui.
Ter by his generous confidence in their eXeT-
lions. The juTy awarded hiui SOJOi.
But this with you Is no criterion, though in
tlle very neat page you most consistently rely
upon lesser verdict as au argument Tor my
condemnation. Behold tie log C of tie Scotch
Reviewer lie charges me with not attempt
lug 10 convince or persuade and when
produce the Instances where | have both
. convinced aad persuaded" be will acknow.
isdge no test bnt OF his own Creation.--An
Irish jury, il seems, are bad Iad GEES no worse
ts~t can be cCnceiyed'--ihat is, unless they
mud against the, and thea their Judgment - as
The wi.dom Of Dariei Oh most notable Afis-
issei,us OF che Highlands! Whes succeed, ia