public. Let us then see who are the professed enemies of that production: the sage, the patriot, the sedate Dr. Shebbeare: the serene Griffiths and his spouse, proprietors and directors of the Monthly Review: the profound, the candid, the modest Dr. Hill: the wise, the learned, and the temperate Thomas Comber, A. B. whose performance we are at present to consider. This is indeed a formidable group of adversaries, enough to daunt the heart of any young adventurer in the world of letters; but the author of the Complete History of England has been long familiar with such seas of trouble. The = assault, however, which he has sustained from some of those heroes, was not altogether unprovoked. Shebbeare had been chastised in the Critical Review, for his insolent and seditious appeals to the public. He took it for granted, that the lash was exercised by the author of the Complete History of England: therefore he attacked that performance =tooth and nail. He declared that there was neither grammar, meaning, composition, or =reflection, either in the plan or the execution of the work itself. Grithiths was enraged against the same gentleman, because he was supposed to have set up the Critical Review, in opposition to the Monthly, of which he (Griffiths) was proprietor; accordingly he employed an obscure grub, who wrote in his garret, to bespatter the History of England. Hill, for these ten years, has, by turns, praised and abused Dr. Smollett, whom he did not know, without being able to vanquish that silent contempt, in which this gentleman, ever held him and all his productions: piqued at this indifference and disdain, the said Hill has, in a weekly paper, thrown out some dirty insinuations against the author of the Complete History of England. We cannot rank the proprietors of R-n3, and other histories, among the personal enemies of Dr. Smollett; because they were actuated by the dictates of self-interest, to decry his performance. This, however, they have pursued in the most sordid, illiberal, and ridiculous manner: they have caballed: they have slandered: they have vilified: they have prejudiced, misrepresented, and used undue influence among their correspondents in different parts of the kingdom: they have spared neither calumny nor expense, to prejudice the author and his work: they have had the effrontery to insinuate in a public advertisement that he was no better than an inaccurate plagiary from Rapin: and they have had the folly to declare, that Rapin's book was the most valuable performance, just immediately after they had taxed Dr. Smollett with having, by a specious plan, anticipated the judgment of the public. Finally, finding all their endeavours had proved abortive, we have reason to believe they hired the pen of the rev. Thomas Comber, of York, A. B. to stigmatize and blacken the character of the work which has been to them such a source of damage and vexation. Accordingly, this their champion has earned his wages with surprising eagerness and resolution: he has dashed through thick and thin, without fear of repulse; without dread of reputation. Indeed he writes with a degree of acrimony that seems to be personal; perhaps, if the truth was known, he would be found one of those obscure authors, who have occasionally received correction in some number of the Critical Review, and looks upon Dr. Smollett as the administrator of that correction; but this we only mention as a conjecture."-The concluding paragraph of this review of Comber's pamphlet, is not less characteristic of Smollett's temper, and style, when he wished to be thought above all, petty resentments.

-Comber "very modestly says, he hopes he has kept within the bounds of good breeding, and employed none of that virulence which the Critical Reviewers have ever

* Most of the names in this passage are printed only with the initial and final letters, except that of Rapin, which follows. This R-n may mean Robertson, whose first history was then in the press. C.

cised against the most respectable characters. One can hardly refrain from laughing when he reads this declaration. Mr. Comber may always be assured, that it is not in his power to excite the indignation of the Critical Reviewers: there are some objects too contemptible to excite resentment. We should be glad, however, to know what those most respectable characters are, that we have treated with indecency. Those most respectable personages are Drs. Shebbeare and Hill, Griffiths and his spouse; a group, to which the rev. Mr. Comber will make a very proper addition. We think we see this formidable band, forgetting the distinctions of party, sitting in close divan, animated with double pots, encouraged with double pay, by the right worshipful the proprietors of R――n, to renew their attacks against the Complete History of England. We shall prophecy, however, that the author of that work will never deign to take any public notice of what may be advanced against him by writers of their class. He considers them as little inconsiderable curs barking at the Moon. Nevertheless, in order to whet their spleen, we will inform the rev. Mr. Comber, that notwithstanding the uncommon arts, and great expense, with which his honest employers have puffed and advertised his pamphlet, the Complete History of England continues to rise in the estimation of the public; and that above ten thousand numbers of the work are weekly purchased by the subjects of Great Britain, besides those that are sold in Ireland and the plantations.”— During his confinement in the King's Bench for the libel on admiral Knowles, he amused himself in writing the Adventures of Sir Launcelot Greaves, a sort of English Quixote. This he gave in detached parts in the British Magazine, one of those periodical works in which he was induced to engage by the consideration of a regular supply. This novel was afterwards published in two volumes, 12mo. but had not the popularity of his former works of that kind, and as a composition, whether in point of fable, character, or humour, is indeed far inferior to any of them.

The success of his History encouraged him to write a continuation of it, from 1748 to 1764. The volume for 1765, his biographer seems not to have known, was written by Guthrie during Smollett's absence on the continent. By the History and Continuation he is said to have cleared £2000. He is also supposed to have written the accounts of France, Italy, and Germany for the Universal History, when published in octavo volumes. A writer of the Gentleman's Magazine states, that he received fifteen hundred guineas for preparing a new edition of the same History, but this must be a mistake, as he was dead some years before that edition was undertaken.

When lord Bute was promoted to the office of first minister, Smollett's pen was engaged to support him against the popular clamour excited by Wilkes and his partizans. With this view our author commenced a weekly paper, called The Briton, which was answered by Wilkes in his more celebrated North Britain. Had this been a contest of argument, wit, or even mere personal and political recrimination, Smollett would have had little to fear from the talents of Wilkes; but the public mind, inflamed by every species of misrepresentation, was on the side of Wilkes, and the Briton was discontinued, when lord Bute, its supposed patron, could no longer keep his seat. Before this short contest, Smollett had lived on terms of intimacy with Wilkes, who, having no animosities that were not absolutely necessary to serve a temporary interest, probably did not think the worse of Smollett for giving him an opportunity to triumph over the author of the Complete History of England. Smollett, however, was not disposed to view the matter

4 Comber's pamphlet was reviewed in the Monthly in September, and Smollett could not have seen it when he wrote this. C.

with this complacency. He expected a reward for his services, and was disappointed, and his chagrin on this occasion he soon took an opportunity to express.

About the years 1763 and 1761 we find his name to a translation of Voltaire's works, and to a compilation entitled The Present State of all Nations, in eight volumes, 8vo. What he contributed, besides his name, to either of these undertakings cannot now be ascertained. The translation of Voltaire is in all respects beneath his talents.

In the month of June 1763, he went abroad, partly on account of his health, and partly to relieve his and Mrs. Smollett's grief for the loss of their only child, an amiable young lady who died in her fifteenth year. He pursued his journey through France and Italy about two years, and soon after his return in 1766, gave the public the result of his observations, in two volumes, 8vo. entitled, Travels through France and Italy. This work, although it attained no high degree of popularity, was read with sympathetic interest, as exhibiting a melancholy picture of the author's mind, "traduced" as he informs us, "by malice, persecuted by faction, and overwhelmed by the sense of domestic calamity." On this account, the natural and artificial objects which make travelling delightful, had no other effect on him than to excite his spleen, which he has often indulged in representations and opinions unworthy of his taste. These, however, are not unmixed with observations of another kind, acute, just, and useful. It is remarkable that in a subsequent publication (Humphrey Clinker) he makes his principal character, Matthew Bramble, describe what he saw in England in the same unvaried language of spleen and ill-humour.

Soon after his arrival from the continent, his health still decaying, he undertook a journey to Scotland, and renewed his attachment to his relations and friends. During this journey, Dr. Moore informs us, that "he was greatly tormented with rheumatic pains, and afflicted besides with an ulcer on his arm which had been neglected on its first appearance. These disorders confined him much to his chamber, but did not prevent his conversation from being highly entertaining, when the misery of which they were productive, permitted him to associate with his friends." From Scotland he went to Bath, and about the beginning of 1767 had recovered his health and spirits in a very considerable degree.

His next production, which appeared in 1769, proved that he had not forgotten the neglect with which he was treated by that ministry, in whose favour he wrote the Briton. This was entitled the Adventures of an Atom. Under fictitious names, of Japanesc structure, he reviews the conduct of the eminent politicians who had conducted or opposed the measures of government from the year 1754, and retracts the opinion he had given of some of these statesmen in his history, particularly of the earl of Chatham and lord Bute. His biographer allows that many of the characters are grossly misrepresented, for which no other reason can be assigned than his own disappointment. The whole proves, what has often been seen since his time, that the measures which are right and proper when a reward is in view, are wrong and abominable when that reward is withheld.

The publication of this work, while it proclaimed that his sincerity as a political writer was not much to be depended on, afforded another instance of that imprudence which his biographer has ingeniously carried over to the account of independence. His health again requiring the genial influences of a milder climate, the expense of which he was unable to bear, his friends solicited the very persons whom he had just satyrized, to obtain for him the office of consul at Nice, Naples, or Leghorn. Dr. Moore informs us,

with more acrimony than truth, "that these applications were fruitless. Dr. Smollett had never spanielled ministers; he could not endure the insolence of office, or stoop to cultivate the favour of any person merely on account of his power: and besides he was a man of genius."

He set out, however, for Italy early in 1770, with a debilitated body, and a mind probably irritated by his recent disappointment, but not without much of the ease which argues firmness, since during this journey he could so pleasantly divert his serrows by writing The Expedition of Humphrey Clinker. This novel, if it may be so called, for it has no regular fable, in point of genuine humour, knowledge of life and manners, and delineation of character, is inferior only to his Roderick Random and 'Peregrine Pickle. It has already been noticed that Matthew Bramble, the principal character, displays the cynical temper and humane feelings of the author on his tour on the continent; and it may now be added that he has given another sketch of himself in the character of Serle in the first volume. This account of the ingratitude of Paunceford to Smollett is strictly true; and as his biographers seem unacquainted with the circumstances, the following may not be uninteresting, which was related to me by the late intimate friend of Smollett, Mr. Hamilton, the printer and proprietor of the Critical Review.

"Paunceford was a John C-1, who was fed by Smollett when he had not bread to eat, nor clothes to cover him. He was taken out to India as private secretary to a celebrated governor-general, and as essayist; and after only three years absence, returned with forty thousand pounds. From India he sent several letters to Smollett, professing that he was coming over to lay his fortune at the feet of his benefactor. But on his arrival, he treated Smollett, Hamilton, and others, who had befriended him, with the most ungrateful contempt. The person who taught him the art of essaying became reduced in circumstances, and is now (1792) or lately was collector of the toll on carts at Holborn Bars. C--1 never paid him, or any person to whom he was indebted. He died in two or three years after at his house near Hounslow, universally despised. At the request of Smollett, Mr. Hamilton employed him to write in the Critical Review, which, with Smollett's charity, was all his support, previously to his departure for India."

Such kindness and such ingratitude ought not to be concealed, but it is less necessary to point out the very flattering account he has given of his hospitality and patronage of inferior authors, while he resided at Chelsea. While full credit, however, is given for these virtues, it cannot be a disrespectful wish that he had found another panegyrist than himself. There is no instance of any man of Dr. Smollett's rank in the literary world taking so many opportunities to sound his own praises, and that without any of the disguises which are employed by men who wish to acquire a factitious character. At this time, perhaps, he was desirous of recovering the reputation which envy and malice had suppressed or darkened, and might not be without hopes that as he was now approaching the close of life, his enemies would relent, and admit his evidence.

In the neighbourhood of Leghorn, he lingered through the summer of 1771, in the full possession of his faculties, and died on the 21st of October, in the 51st year of his age. Dr. Armstrong, who visited him at Leghorn, honoured his remains with a Latin inscription, elegantly noticing his genius and virtues, and severely reflecting on the " times, in which hardly any literary merit but such as was in the most false or

futile taste, received any encouragement from the mock Mæcenases of Britain." In the year 1774, a column was erected to his memory on the banks of the Leven, near the house in which he was born. The inscription on this was the joint production of lord Kames, professor George Stuart, and John Ramsay, esq. and was revised by Dr. Johnson. It is elegant, affecting and modest.

Dr. Moore's opinion of his personal character is thus given:

"The person of Smollett was stout and well proportioned, his countenance engaging, his manner reserved, with a certain air of dignity that seemed to indicate that he was not unconscious of his own powers. He was of a disposition so humane and generous, that he was ever ready to serve the unfortunate, and on some occasions to assist them beyond what his circumstances could justify. Though few could penetrate with more acuteness into character, yet none was more apt to overlook misconduct when attended with misfortune.

"He lived in an hospitable manner, but he despised that hospitality which is founded on ostentation, which entertains only those whose situation in life flatters the vanity of the entertainer, or such as can make returns of the same kind, that hospitality which keeps a debtor and creditor account of dinners. Smollett invited to his plain but plentiful table the persons whose characters he esteemed, in whose conversation he delighted, and many for no other reason than because they stood in need of his countenance and protection.

"As nothing was more abhorrent to his nature than pertness or intrusion, few things could render him more indignant than a cold reception: to this however he imagined he had sometimes been exposed on his application in favour of others: for himself he never made an application to any great man in his life.

"Free from vanity, Smollett had a considerable share of pride, and great sensibility: his passions were easily moved, and too impetuous when roused: he could not conceal his contempt of folly, his detestation of fraud, nor refrain from proclaiming his indignation against every instance of oppression.

"Though Smollett possessed a versatility of style in writing, which he could accommodate to every character, he had no suppleness in his conduct. His learning, diligence, and natural acuteness would have rendered him eminent in the science of medi cine, had he persevered in that profession; other parts of his character were illsuited for augmenting his practice. He could neither stoop to impose on credulity, nor humour caprice.

"He was of an intrepid, independent, imprudent disposition, equally incapable of deceit and adulation, and more disposed to cultivate the acquaintance of those he could serve, than of those who could serve him. What wonder that a man of his character was not, what is called, successful in life!"

How far this character agrees with the facts detailed in this narrative, and which are principally taken from Dr. Moore, may be now safely left to the determination of the reader.

As an author, Dr. Smollett is universally allowed the praise of original genius displayed with an ease and variety which are rarely found. Yet this character belongs chiefly to his novels. In correct delineation of life and manners, and in drawing characters of the humorous class, he has few equals. But when this praise is bestowed, every critic who values what is more important than genius itself, the interest of morals