ART. VI. Remarks on the Voyages of John Meares, Efq. in a Letter to that Gentleman, by George Dixon, late Commander of the Queen Charlotte, in a Voyage round the World. 4to. PP. 37. 2s. 6d. Stockdale. 1790.

ART. VII. An Anfewer to Mr. George Dixon, late Commander of the Queen Charlotte, in the Service of Meffrs. Etches and Company. By John Meares, Efq. In which the Remarks of Mr. Dixon on the Voyages to the North-west Coast of America, &c. lately published, are fully confidered and refuted. 4to. PP. 32. 2 S. Walter. Piccadilly. 1791.

ART. VIII. Farther Remarks on the Voyages of John Meares, Efq; in which several important Facts, mifreprefented in the faid Voyages, relative to Geography and Commerce, are fully fubftantiated. To which is added, a Letter from Captain Duncan, containing a decifive Refutation of feveral unfounded Affertions of Mr. Meares; and a final Reply to his Anfwer. By George Dixon, late Commander of the Queen Charlotte in a Voyage round the World. 4to. pp. 80. 35. 6d. Stockdale. 1791. 'HE best review that we can poffibly give of this controversy, will be to ftate, in as few words as poffible, the grounds. of it; and to give the leading points on which it was turned; occafionally adding our opinion of the real state of the matters in difpute.

T

It may be remembered, that in our review of Captain Dixon's voyage (vol. 80. p. 505.), we mentioned his meeting with Captain Meares in Prince William's Sound, and the deplorable ftate of his crew, from the ravages which the fcurvy had made among them. It was faid, by the relater of that voyage, (though, as far as we can perceive, without any appearance of malignity, or ill-defign,) that he was informed, that the effects of that cruel diforder had been greatly augmented by the people being allowed a free and unreftrained ufe of fpirits, during the cold weather, which they had drank to great excess ; and that he thought, if it was fo, it was ill judged in Captain M. to fuffer it. Admitting this circumftance to be true, the writer, we apprehend, was perfectly juftified in mentioning it; because feamen, and particularly commanders of fhips on fuch voyages as thefe, cannot be too often cautioned against admitting their crews to a free ufe of ardent fpirits; and more efpecially under circumftances fimilar to thofe in which Captain M. was then: but, on the other hand, unlefs the authority was undeniable, he fhould certainly have fuppressed it, out of regard to Captain M.'s feelings as a man, and to his character as a fea-commander. It seems neceflary to ftate this circumftance, as it evidently gave rife to the whole controversy: for, notwithstanding Captain D. was not the writer of the account

in question, he undoubtedly had it in his power to have caused this part to be left out, if he thought the omiflion proper; and his not doing it, has evidently been the reafon why Captain M. has treated him fo harfhly in feveral parts of his account of "Voyages from China to the North-weft Coast of America,' lately published (see our Review for February laft, p. 182, and for March, p. 249.) and where, befides retaliating (p. xxxviii.) for this charge, which he pofitively aflerts is without foundation, and giving him many fly wipes, en paffant, he has made open and active war on his borders :-for, p. 201. of "Voyages to the North-west Coaft of America," he fays, "Captain Duncan told me that he met Captain Dixon in the Queen Charlotte; and though that ship was on her return to China, and abundantly stocked with every thing; and even though fhe belonged to the fame owners with the Princefs-Royal, the provident commander thought it much better to carry all his ftores back to China, than to fpare any of them to the latter veffel, though they would have been fo great an alleviation to the hardships of her voyage." Again, p. 354. “ Taheo had been furnished by the Captains Portlock, Dixon, &c. with a quantity of arms and ammunition, on the exprefs condition that he would not afford any fupplics whatever to Captain Meares

and his affociates."

66

Though Captain D. difclaims the idea of having been actuated by any private pique in making remarks on Captain M.'s Voyages, it will be no breach of candour to suppose that, being accused of fuch crimes as thefe, (for which, if he were guilty of them, he deferved to be hunted out of fociety,) did not render him lefs willing to begin; or that they might, without his being fenfible of it, be, in fome meafure, the occafion of thofe dry farcaftic ftrokes, which are not thinly strewn through almost every page of his two pamphlets; and the rather, as they add no weight to his arguments, which are brought to prove that Captain M. has, in the language of a late celebrated author, been abundantly complaifant to the critics, in leaving a fufficient number of holes in his work, at which they might creep in. Indeed, much deep reasoning was not required to prove this: Captain M. has carried his complaifance in this refpect fo far, that even we (though critics by occupation,) moft fincerely wifh, that one of our profeffion had food at his elbow, who would kindly have told him when he had done enough.

All that Captain D. fays, relative to the original ground of complaint, viz. Captain M.'s too liberal allowance of fpirits, is to ftate the authority on which it was admitted into the account of his voyage; and we find that Captain M.'s own peo

ple

ple were the authors of the report. In reply to the charge of his want of humanity to Captain Duncan, Captain Dixon ftates what ftores he had not on board when he met the Princess-Royal, and the ftores with which he did fupply her; and he stakes his word and credit, that they were all that he had in his power to spare her. He does this with an apparent openness and honefty, that will, we think, have great weight with moft readers who have no concern in the bufinefs. In refpect to the charge of fupplying the King of Atooi with arms and ammunition, on the cxprefs condition that he would not afford any fupplies to Captain M. he fhews that it must be unfounded, by the ftrongeft of all arguments; namely, that it would have been highly abfurd and ridiculous, under the circumftances in which he then was; and he declares, with that ingenuous boldnefs which feems void of all referve, that he "never either traded in, or gave to an Indian, either mufket, pistol, or grain of powder, in his life."

Captain D.'s remarks extended to a great variety of points, both geographical and commercial; in every one of which, as far as we are able to judge, he is perfectly right; and, confequently, to the fubftance of them we can have no objection: but we freely confefs, that in our opinion, the manner in which they are delivered, might have been much amended.

However, in the Reply of John Meares, Efq. to Mr. George Dixon, the language of the Squire is not a tittle fofter than that of the Mafter. The words feem here to fall from such a height, and with fuch an accumulated weight of contempt, as would crush any antagonist to atoms, whofe "bones were not like iron;" and, in fome fituations, it is amazing what effect this mode of treating an adverfary will have: but it does not appear to us, that the prefent fituation of Captain M. is one of them. His vindication of the geographical part of his performance is puerile beyond imagination; and, in his defence of the commercial part, he appears to be continually hampered in the trammels, which, as agent for "The affociated Merchants of London and India," he has woven for himself, in the "Statement of their real and probable loffes," to the Houfe of Commons; a leading feature of which, we fear, is exaggeration. He, however, perfifts in his affertion of Captain Dixon's inhumanity to Captain Duncan; and he adds, "Captain Duncan is now in London, and I am moft willing to reft my credit with the public on his teftimony, refpecting all I have faid concerning this tranfaction."

In answer to this ferious charge, now fo forcibly urged home, we were rather furprized to find a letter from Captain Duncan, in Captain Dixon's "Farther Remarks," where,

5

after

after quoting the paffage, which relates to this affair, from p. 201 of Captain M.'s Voyages, he adds, "The foregoing affertion I avow to be without foundation." Surely this is a coup-de-grace to Captain M.!

Captain D. adds a number of inftances, where Captain M. has committed very unaccountable mistakes; and he fully (in our opinion,) defends thofe criticifms that he had brought forward in his former pamphlet; many of which perfectly coincide with the remarks that we made in our account of Captain M.'s work.

W.

ART. IX. The Hiftory and Antiquities of the City of Bristol; compiled from Original Records and Authentic Manufcripts, in Public Offices, or Private Hands; illuftrated with Copper plate Prints. By William Barrett, Surgeon, F. S. A. 4to. pp. 704. 11. 11s. 6d. unbound. Robinsons. 1790.

T

'HE name of the author of this work is not unknown to those who have attended to the ftrange hiftory of the illfated Chatterton, who was perfonally known to and patronized by Mr. Barrett; fully perfuaded, as he was, of the veracity of the literary pretenfions of that most extraordinary youth.

The prefent work called more for labour and perfeverance, than for genius; and the author (who is fince dead) informs us in the preface, that he had been, for twenty years, making collections for it; and had even engraved plates for it in folio; when a neceffary attention to his own bufinefs, and a failure of encouragement to the undertaking, occafioned him to relinquish it. It was refumed, however, on his retiring from bufinefs, under confinement by the gout; and if we may judge from a refpectable table of fubfcribers, he at length received that patronage which did not crown his former intentions.

The annals of a city, especially of one which cannot boast of metropolitan diftinction, whatever commercial confequence it may claim, are not very favourable to a display of literary abilities. Accordingly, the ftyle of this compilation, like the fubjects treated, is homely and dry; and the frequent quotations interfperfed, from old records and deeds, which may give it merit in the eye of a Briftol antiquary, but which might as well have been configned to an appendix, do not contribute to enlighten it: nor can a municipal hiftory, confined to local events within walls and ftreets, that concern only the neighbourhood, be made to read fo agreeably as national history; unless the author, like Mr. Whitaker, in his hiftory of ManREV. MAY 1791. chefter,

E

chefter, takes a wider range than his profeffed fubject will perhaps warrant.

A writer, however, on any fubject, firft endeavours to give all the importance which he can to that fubject; in order that, by a reflected light, the work in hand, and of course the author, may appear of fome confequence. Thus Mr. Barrett, not contented with taking the earlieft notices that he could find in our old writers, of the city of Bristol, is much diffatisfied with Camden, because he does not reprefent that city as fufficiently eminent before the decline of the Saxon government in this country; and he labours, long and earnestly, to raise its importance beyond the conftruction of any expreffions applied to it by our early hiftorians.

So far as may be judged from the general complexion of the work, it has been executed with careful attention; and we doubt not that it will give all the fatisfaction which the citizens of Bristol can expect from it. After the general, civil, commercial, and ecclefiaftical hiftory, Mr. Barrett takes a parochial furvey of the city, defcribes all its public buildings, and gives particular details of the charitable legacies left to the poor in every parish; the memory of which certainly ought not to fink in oblivion, nor the money into improper hands. He concludes with biographical anecdotes of all the Briftol worthies whom he can collect; among which, it may be fuppofed, the Canynges, Rowley, and Chatterton, occupy diftinguished places. Mr. Barrett quotes his authorities every where throughout; a duty indifpenfable in an hiftorical compilation. Among the reft, indeed, we frequently meet with the name of Rowley, whofe authenticity refts on the veracity of Chatterton; and that, on a difpute, beyond the walls of Bristol, whatever credit may be given to it within. Of this, indeed, the author appears fenfible, and therefore produces the teftimony of Rowley, with a falvo as to the degree of credit which the reader may think due to it.

When the antiquary is giving hiftorical accounts of religious foundations, and is tracing the ruins of ecclefiaftical buildings, it may be natural for him to contract a veneration for pious inftitutions, and to deplore their dilapidation; it is thus we account for the harfh cenfures which Mr. Barrett bestows on Henry VIII. for the fuppreffion of monafteries; and for the correfponding applaufe with which he mentions the pious Charles I. defender of the faith, and of the church of England, by law established therein;' for the great care that monarch had for the good of the church, and its right government by bishops' (p. 325.) but, as we can make nothing of the two following