LAUNCH OF SHIP.

Ir must here be observed, that in answer to the first part of my proposition, Mr. CAMPBELL instanced the launch of a ship, as a WORK OF ART, beautifully poetical. My answer, taking his own description, was, that the ship so beautifully described by him was more indebted to nature than art. It was indebted to nature for the winds, that filled the sails; for the sunshine, that touched them with light; for the waves, on which it so triumphantly rode; for the associated ideas of the distant regions of the earth it was to visit, the tempests it was to encounter, and for being, as it were, endued with existence, "a thing of life."

I think what was said was an answer to Mr. CAMPBELL, and I think so still. What other arguments he might advance I know not. His ship, as described by himself, in my opinion

totally

failed; and I believe that the new-launched ship, even if it had braved, for a thousand years,

"The BATTLE and the BREEZE,"

must have surrendered on this account, because, by his own description, NATURE, NOT ART, gave it its most essential poetical beauties. (See the description itself, in the Letter to Mr. CAMPBELL, printed in this volume.)

Mr. CAMPBELL, however, has declined further contest; whether because he would not, or because he thought he could not, is of no consequence. Your Lordship implies that he would not; I am bold to say he could not; and I am bolder to say, I think even your Lordship cannot.

The substance of your arguments, detached from the jokes, I conceive to be as follows.

The ship gives as much beauty to the waters as it receives from them. If the SUN were taken away, what then ? The ship, if I understand your Lordship, would not be seen. If Mr. BoWLES'S pamphlet was not read by the light of the sun, it must be read by candle-light!!

2d. Thousands of people went to see the launch of the ship, who would not look upon the sea, particularly as it was calm, and calm water might be seen in the London Dock, Paddington Canal, a horse-pond, a slop-basin, or in any other vessel!

3d. The wind that filled the sails of the ship, might be heard through the chinks of a PIGSTY; and the sun might shine on a BRASS WARMING-PAN!

This, I conceive, my Lord, is the substance of your argument; which, if it had come from any one but yourself, I should have thought scarcely worth answering: as an argument, the bare statement almost confutes it. The least fair discussion will shatter it to rags, reduce it to the blue bunting of which the streamer of the ship is composed, and I had almost said, make it fit to be consigned to that "other vessel," whatever it be, which has so facetiously entered your Lordship's high poetical imagination. Allow me first to shew what you you have not done, before I examine what you have done, by way of argument.

You have not answered, nor attempted to answer, all the arguments which have been already brought forward on this occasion.

Mr. CAMPBELL, in his description of the ship, spoke not only of the effect of the sun, the seas, and the wind, but added other ideas; its visiting the remote parts of the earth, the tempests it might encounter, and described it, in his poetical vision, "a thing of life."* I said, "the ideas of "its visiting distant regions were ideas from nature, "which conspire to make this sight more interest

* There is no laboured chemical analysis in this, it is obvious.

"ing to the poet's thoughts, and therefore more "poetical."

These you have not touched; and I am sure, if you had, and could bring no arguments but from Paddington Canal, &c. my "fortress" would not have much to fear from your Lordship's somewhat grotesque battery. Whatever motive Mr. CAMPBELL had for not defending his own Seventy-four, I think your Lorship, in argument at least, has not succeeded, however interesting your publication may be in other respects.

And now, my Lord, to point our guns, to open our fire, and endeavour to blow your PIG-STIES, "BRASS WARMING-PANS, and THAT OTHER VES"SEL," into shatters.

But, let me be fair; let the reader compare what you advance with the substance I have given.

"Mr. BOWLES asserts, that CAMPBELL'S " Ship of the line" derives all its poetry not from "art," but from "nature." "" Take away the waves, the winds, the sun, &c. &c. one will become a stripe of blue bunting; and the other a piece of coarse canvass on three tall poles." Very true; take away the "waves," the "winds," and there will be no ship at all, not only for poetical, but for any other purpose; and take away "the sun," and we must read Mr. BOWLES's pamphlet by candle-light. But the "poetry" of the "Ship" does not depend on "the waves," &c.: on the contrary, the "Ship of the "Line" confers its own poetry upon the waters, and

heightens theirs. I do not deny that the "waves and "winds," and above all "the sun," are highly poetical; we know it to our cost, by the many descriptions of them in verse: but if the waves bore only the foam upon their bosoms, if the winds wafted only the sea-weed to the shore, if the sun shone neither upon pyramids, nor fleets, nor fortresses, would its beams be equally poetical? I think not the poetry is at least reciprocal. Take away "the Ship of the Line" "swinging round" the "calm water," and the calm water becomes a somewhat monotonous thing to look at, particularly if not transparently clear; witness the thousands who pass by without looking on it at all. What was it attracted the thousands to the launch? they might have seen the poetical "calm water" at Wapping, or in the "London Dock, or in the Paddington Canal, or in a horsepond, or in a slop-basin, or in any other vase. They might have heard the poetical winds howling through the chinks of a pigsty, or the garret window; they might have seen the sun shining on a footman's livery, or on a brass warming-pan; but could the "calm water," or the

66

wind," or the " sun," make all or any of these "poetical?" I think not. Mr. BOWLES admits "the Ship" to be poetical, but only from those accessaries : uow if they confer poetry so as to make one thing poetical, they would make other things poetical; the more so, as Mr. BOWLES calls a "ship of the line" without them, that is to say, its "masts and sails and streamers," "blue bunting," and coarse canvass," and " tall poles." So they are; and porcelain is clay, and man is dust, and flesh is grass, and yet the two latter at least are the subjects of much poesy."

66