of the Test Act, and even that against the slave trade, to be ‘utopian’ (Works, i. 346). He first became conspicuous as a political writer in 1787. His friend Henry Homer (1753–1791) [q. v.] had proposed to publish a new edition of three treatises by William Bellenden (d. 1633?) [q. v.] Parr agreed to provide a Latin dedication and preface, and the book appeared, without Parr's name, in 1787. Parr took the opportunity of inserting ‘all the phraseological beauties which he knew in Latin’ (ib. i. 20), especially, he says, a dexterous and witty use of the subjunctive mood. He managed also to insert a political manifesto. Taking a hint from Bellenden's unfinished treatise ‘de tribus luminibus Romanorum,’ he dedicated the three books to the ‘tria lumina Anglorum,’ Burke, North, and Fox, whose coalition he eulogises. He also attacked Pitt, praised Sheridan, and denounced the Duke of Richmond (Themistocles), Shelburne (Doson), Thurlow (Novius), Dundas (Thrasybulus), and Wilkes (Clodius). A pamphlet in difficult though elegant Latin was not likely to have much popular influence, but it commended him to Fox and the other heroes, and gave him a wide reputation for scholarship. It was translated into English by Beloe, who apologised for the liberty (Bibl. Parr. p. 336). Parr's next publication was intended to annoy his diocesan, Hurd, now bishop of Worcester, who had just published Warburton's works. From this collection Hurd had omitted two early tracts, ‘translations,’ and an inquiry into ‘Prodigies and Miracles.’ Hurd had himself published two pamphlets, ‘On the Delicacy of Friendship’ (against Jortin) and ‘A Letter to Dr. Leland,’ in both of which he appeared as an ally of Warburton in some of his multitudinous quarrels. Hurd, it is said, was buying up his own pamphlets in order to suppress them (Field, i. 271). Parr now published the four as ‘Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian,’ with a preface, which is regarded as his best specimen of English, attacking Hurd with great acrimony. That Warburton's youthful performances were crude and Hurd's pamphlets servile and spiteful is undeniable. Parr's conduct, however, in republishing is hard to excuse. D'Israeli, in the ‘Quarrels of Authors,’ and Mathias, in the ‘Pursuits of Literature,’ refer to a story, partly countenanced by a passage in Parr's own dedication, that Hurd had spoken contemptuously of Parr's ‘long vernacular sermon.’ It is also said (Works, i. 396) that Hurd had shown coldness to Parr personally (see Field, i. 377; De Quincey; Parriana, i. 417–18, and ii. 310 seq., where there is a long discussion of the case). Such excuses only make matters worse. Private pique should have been a reason for silence, and Parr's sudden desire to avenge Jortin and Leland betrays a consciousness of the need for apology. A reply was made by Dr. Robert Lucas [q. v.], husband of Hurd's niece, in a ‘Letter to Dr. Parr,’ possibly written with Hurd's concurrence.
Two other literary quarrels made some noise at the time. Parr, who was always ready to help his friends with his pen, was intimate with Dr. Joseph White [q. v.], whose Bampton lectures of 1784 had been very successful. In 1789 White was accused of having employed Samuel Badcock [q. v.], who died 19 May 1788, to write the lectures for him. Parr thereupon stated that the charge could not be true, because he had himself written part of the lectures. This awkward defence complicated the controversy, in which several persons joined; while various other charges arose. A meeting was held at Parr's house, at which White was present; and a ‘statement’ of his obligations to Badcock and Parr was published by White in 1790. Parr is said to have revised tthe book, added notes, and written most of the tenth lecture. His contributions are elsewhere given as about a fifth of the whole (see list of pamphlets in Lowndes's Manual, under ‘Joseph White;’ Correspondence in Parr's Works, i. 226, &c.; and Field, ii. 82–5). Parr was engaged about this time in helping his friend Homer, who had undertaken an edition of Horace in conjunction with Dr. Charles Combe [q. v.] Upon Homer's death in 1791 Parr withdrew; but upon the publication of the book by Combe in 1792–3, he was reported to be responsible. He denied this by an advertisement in the ‘British Critic,’ to which he afterwards sent an unfavourable notice of the edition. Combe, in a reply, charged Parr with ungenerous behaviour to Homer. Parr seems to have vindicated himself satisfactorily in ‘Remarks,’ published in 1795 (extract given in Works, vol. iii.) In 1795 Parr exposed himself by being the first to sign a profession of faith in the Ireland forgeries [see Ireland, Samuel].
Parr, though he afterwards changed his mind (Bibl. Parr. p. 615), had opposed the repeal of the Test Acts which was proposed in 1787, and for two or three years later in the House of Commons, with the support of Fox; and in 1790 had attended a county meeting called at Warwick to counterbalance meetings of the dissenters. In the following July, however, he was present at a dinner given to celebrate the ordination of his friend William Field [q. v.] (afterwards his biographer) to the High Street Chapel in
