London, Published 1933 by J Manau, & Sold by Ide Fuct Street

Engraved F

ROBERT SOUTHEY, Esq. LL.D.

From the original Portrait by T. Phillips, R.A.

THOUGH the selection of Mr. Southey's portrait, among others, was considered necessary by the proprietors of the "Illustrations of Lord Byron's Life and Works," it places the author of these observations in a situation of some difficulty.

The portraits which have been introduced are of persons too well known in the world to require any sketches of their biography, beyond an account of their connexion with the noble poet. But in this case, instead of being connected by any ties with the poetlaureate, Lord Byron was ever in opposition to him; and " hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness," were not wanting in either, to vituperate, misrepresent, and dishonour each other. The latter effect, however, most abundantly recoiled upon themselves; for though the talents which this rancour directed were perhaps the greatest of their time, thus exercised they only excited the world's laughter, and its contempt for both.

One of them is now gone to his account; it is to be wished that the other had not forgotten it, when he

exhibited his boldness by kicking a dead lion but that other still lives, and therefore, instead of repeating the history of their mutual abuse, the author refers for such information to Byron's Works and Southey's; and whatever may be the endurance of his own, the laureate is assured of immortality in those of his rival.

66 a

One observation, however, he desires to make, in connexion with this subject and in justice to Byron. No poem of his lordship's ever brought more obloquy upon his character, and the tendency of his writings, than the "Vision of Judgment," a satire written by him in ridicule of that "Vision of Judgment," by the laureate, which the Rev. Robert Hall said, was poem grossly and unpardonably profane;" but nothing was ever more unjust than the charge-a thousand times repeated-of Byron having sought, in his satire, recklessly to bring into contempt things sacred. From its universality, this charge must have been brought by those who, not having read Mr. Southey's "Vision of Judgment," little suspected that such a serious production of" audacious impiety" had preceded Byron's satire. The dishonour, therefore, which ought to have fallen upon that political prostitution of mind, fell upon the agent of its exposure. It is impossible, however, for any unprejudiced human being, possessed of common sense, not to see that Lord Byron's was not an impious attack upon things sacred, but a satire upon a