་་ others, under the title of Weekly Currantoes; that, in the civil wars, the Diurnal, and various Mercuries came forth; that thefe were increased in number, during the reigns of Charles and James. the 2d; that in February 1696, the coffee-houfes of London, exclufive of the votes of parliament every day, had nine news-papers every week; that, in the reign of Queen Anne, London first " enjoyed the luxury of a news-paper every day;" that, in 1709 there was one daily paper, and feventeen other papers; that, in 1724 three daily papers were published, and eighteen other papers; that, in 1753 the number of news-papers fold in all England, according to an average of three years preceding, was 7,411,757; that, at the clofe of the late reign in 1760, it was 9,404,798; that, in 1790, it was 14,035,639; in 1791, was 14,794,153; and in 1792, was 15,005,760. This forms fuch a phoenomenon of curiofity political and literary, of riches univerfally diffused. and of enquiry univerfally awake, as has not been paralelled in any other part of the world. We cannot follow Mr. Chalmers through a variety of other notices, equally new and pleafing, concerning Anderson,. Goodall, Lauder, Benfon, Mr. Bofwell, &c. For the fake of our readers, we wish we could. But we must turn to his conclufion, and fee what are promifed in the title page, "New Anecdotes of Buchanan." Mr. Chalmers was called upon in Lord Gardenftone's Mifcellanies, 1792, in a manner peculiarly injudicious, to remember in his future publication the behaviour of Ruddiman towards Buchanan. Mr. Chalmers replies in a ftrong manner, and fhows Ruddiman's cenfure of Buchanan to have been rather below, than above, the line of truth. "Ruddiman, in 1749, fays Mr. Chalmers, published the "Letter of Privy Seal, whereby Queen Mary conferred on " Maister George Buchquhanan, for all the dayis of his liffe, an zeirlie penfioune of five hundred pundis, ufual money of this realme."" Yet our writer of Memoirs now comes forward with a happy mixture of ignorance and fophiftry, to infift that Mary never granted a penfion to Buchanan; that it was impoffible the fuperftitious Mary ever would prefer an apoftle of rebellion as a penfioner; that, of confequence, the charge of perfonal ingratitude to his Sovereign is unfounded. The fophifter defignedly turns his face from the Letter of Privy Seal, which demonftrates that the Queen gave the apofile a penfion on the 9th of October, 1564: He therefore, argues against the fact; and he attempts to lead his readers into a wildernefs of fophifms, that they may not behold the RECORD of BuchaDan's CONVICTION. The apoftle did not apoftatize till Mary had no longer any pension to give. With genuine confiftency our Memoir-writer nevertheless infifts that Murray may have advised this act of munificence, though Mary Mary conferred it. We have however, the evidence of a record that the Queen gave the penfion; but there is no proof that the Minister advised it. Randolph, the friend of Buchanan, and the enemy of Mary, who was a witness of her bounty, informed Cecil; that the Queen had given Buchanan the temporalities of Corfragwell. If then the requital of evil for good be the definition of ingratitude, it is demonftrated, that Buchanan, who wrote the Detection of Mary's Doings, was guilty of perfonal ingratitude to his beneficent Sovereign. I have ftated all these points in direct anfwer to the before-mentioned call; in order to fhew that Ruddiman was right, and that his detractor is wrong. P. 297. To what extreme this ingratitude extended, is the next point. Ruddiman had objected, under the provocation of repeated attacks, what every honeft and knowing man must object, that Buchanan had united with others at York in December, 1568, to declare upon his and their honours and conscience, not that they believed the letters to Bothwell to be her hand-writing, but that the letters undoubtedly were. Some of them fware to this, and Buchanan juftified what they had fworn. "When, we recollect," fays Mr. Chalmers," how clearly thofe letters and fonnets have been proved to be forgeries, it is impoffible to read that affidavit without abhorrence.-Yet the Memoir-writer feels no indignation at the perjury, which had provoked the contemptuous cenfure of Ruddiman. He fays with great coolness that the ground of objection to fuch fwearing is ridiculous. He tells truly, that the evidence arifing ex comparatione literarum, is known to every mortal. And he afferts hiftorically what is not to be credited, that fuch oaths are adminiftered every day in our Courts of Justice. But, Judicium reddit verum narratio vera." The objection is not to the legality or to the mode of the proof; the objection is not to Murray and his colleagues as competent witneffes, to prove the fimilarity of Mary's writing: but the objection is; that when the witneffes gave their teftimony, they were pofitive that the letters were undoubtedly Mary's, though they had not feen her write them, though they could not know the had written them: they fwear pofitively that to be true which they knew to be abfolutely falfe. Thus have Í once more fhewn, that Ruddiman was right, and that his detractor is wrong." "But," fays the writer of his Memoirs, " Buchanan did not forge the letters, for the fabrication of them was the fole contrivance of Maitland, as Mr. Whitaker has fhewn. He might have also added that Mr. Whitaker has equally proved, by ftrong circumstances, that Buchanan forged the ballads. Now, according to the legal reafoner, Buchanan was not guilty of forgery, for he did not forge the bond, he only forged the bank-note.-Mr. Whitaker has evinced, that Buchanan published a fabricated, in place of a genuine F BRIT. CRIT. VOL. IV. JULY 1794. letter letter of the Earl of Lenox, the father of Darnley. By contrasting the real with the fictitious letter, Mr. Whitaker made the fabrication apparent to the dimmeft eye and in this fatisfactory manner was the forgery fixed upon Buchanan, fo as to strike the dulleft understanding." P. 302. We fhould thus take our leave of the work, but think it requifite to quote one point more in Mr. Chalmers's vindication of Ruddiman. "It was, perhaps, Ruddiman's reputation for Jacobitifm, which ❝nduced Mr. John Pinkerton to publish in one of his books the following charge of uncommon Jacobitism." The tale is too ridiculous in itself, and too plainly refuted by Mr. Chalmers, to be repeated here. Nor would it have been thought worthy of any refutation, we fuppofe, against Mr. Pinkerton, who has confefled himfelf guilty of a fraud upon the public, in publishing profeffedly as an ancient poem, as a poem popular and familiar in a part of the Scotch Lowlands, what he has fince owned he wrote himself; had he not alledged the authority of Dr. Stuart for the tale. But "fuch was Gilbert Stuart's laxity of principle, as a man, that he confidered ingratitude as one of the moft venial of fins.-Such was his conceit as a writer, that he regarded no one's merits but his own. Such were his disappointments, both as a writer and as a man, that he allowed his peevishness to four into malice, and indulged his malevolence till it fettled in corruption. Forgetting that his family owed favours to Ruddiman, Gilbert Stuart became habitually active in repaying obligations with injuries. He first attempted to detract from Ruddiman's reputation as a scholar, and afterwards laboured to ruin his character as a man. With the mean defign of gaining thefe malicious objects, he made Mr. Pinkerton the dupe of his profligacy, who listened with open ears to the improbable falfehood, which with ready pen he haftened to divulge to the world, without enquiring much about its origin, or caring little about its end." P. 290. But we must now withdraw our hand from this article; nor need we to add more to what we have faid, than what the extracts themselves, thofe beft witneffes of merit or demerit in every work, have already spoken (we are fure) with a loud voice to our readers; that the whole work is fingularly replete with intelligence of an uncommon kind, is judiciously planned, and is ably executed. BRITISH BRITISH CATALOGUE. POETRY. ART. 13. The Village Rambler, a Topographical and Sentimental Excurfion, defcriptive of the Town and Vicinity of Gainsborough, fituate on the Banks of the River Trent, in the parts of Lindfey and County of Lincoln. 8vo. 6d. Gainsborough: Printed by Mofley and Co. for the Author. 1794. There are writers who think that lines printed of a certain length, as they look like poetry, must be poetical, and if they are not profes muft be received as verfe. Of this clafs is the Village Rambler. What does the reader think of the following? "Good water there is by an engine thrown ART. 14. The Poetical Farrago; being a Mifcellaneous Assemblage of Epigrams and other Jeux d'Efprits felected from the most approved Writers. 12mo. 2 vol. 75. 6d. Deighton. 1794. These are very elegant and very entertaining volumes. The felection is made with judgment, and though the whole have probably in various publications been already printed, many are new, to us.~~ We were amufed by the following: ROCHESTER'S GRACE AT A MISER'S TABLE. "Thanks for this miracle-it is no lefs Than manna dropping in the Wilderness. Chimnies have fmok'd that never fmok'd before, BY MR, POPE. "My Lord complains that Pope, ftark mad with gardens, Has lopped three trees the value of three farthings. F 2 ** But "But he's my neighhour," cries the Peer polite, "A Lord's acquaintance!-let him file his bill." ART. 15. The Solitary Frenchman, on the Banks of the Thames, to a Friend in Switzerland. Franflated by the Reverend John Gregg. 8vo. Is. 6d. London: Debrett. 1794. A whimfical preface apologizes to many Subfcribers for the delay of publishing this little work. Our readers will probably think, from the following fpecimen, that the delay was of no great injury to the Said fubfcribers: "There, O my King, thy lowly eyes behold Torn from thy front, e'en mourn'd at thy fon's feet," &c. ART. 16. The Sweets and Sorrows of Love. 4to. 2s. 6d. Lackington. 1794. We cannot refift the inclination we have to treat our readers with the Preface to the Sweets and Sorrows of Love, and the rather, as it superfedes the neceffity of criticifm. "Buy then, ye Critics, and tear them in pieces.-I'll smile and fupply you with more.-For not the head, but the heart; not the ftern folidity of the hiftorian, but the artless fimplicity of the lover, do I flatter myself by any of the following unlaboured verses to please.-Alas! how few fuch readers they can have !" Readers, will you have any of the poetry?-You shall. EXCUSE FOR NOT SPEAKING. "I'm dumb before thee from excess of love, The crowd of thoughts that from my heart upmove, ART. 17. Poete Sententiofi Latini, Publius Syrus, C. D. Laberius, L. A. Seneca, Dionyfius, Cato, nec non ex Aufonio dicta Sapientum Septem Græcorum inftruente Jacobo Elphinftonio Britanno. 12mo. Londini : Richardfon. Mr. Elphinston, who is already well known to the public, has added to this edition of the Latin Sententious Poets, a tranflation in his own peculiar mode of writing English, that is, according to its familiar pronunciation. Perhaps we fufficiently difcharge our duty by fubjoining the following fpecimens of Mr. Elphinfton's manner: SYRUS DE TEMPERANTIA. Bis vincit, qui fe vincit in victoriâ, 5 MR. |