typer, who making a powerful riliitance, from being the defenfive foon became the offenfive combatant. Dr. Kenrick, who was fitting in a private room of the publisher's hearing a noife in the fhop, came in, put an end to the fight, and conveyed the Doctor to a coach. * The papers inftant

ly

* Dr. Kenrick was faid to be the author of the attack, a writer of abilities, but who from disappointment and unhappiness of temper, feems to have lived defpifing and defpised by all his contemporary writers, and whose base, illiberal and unmanly attack on the late Mr. David Garrick, merited that indignation and difdain of its author, which every person fhewed on that occafion. Mr. Garrick fent him a challenge, which he refufed. He then commenced a profecution against him, but fome perfons interfering, and pleading for his family, Mr. Garrick with too great lenity dropt the law fuit. Dr. Kenrick took fhame to him felf, afked pardon of Mr. Garrick in a public news-paper, and-abused him again.

The

ly teemed with fresh abuse on the impropriety of the Doctor's attempting to beat a person in his own houfe, on which in the Daily Advertiser of Wednesday, March 3, 1773, he inferted the following addrefs:

.

"To the PUBLI C.

"LEST it fhould be fuppofed that I "have been willing to correct in others "an abuse of which I have been guilty "myself, I beg leave to declare, that in "all my life I never wrote, or dictated, "a fingle paragraph, letter, or essay, in "a news-paper, except a few moral effays,

The writer of this note afked Dr. Kenrick how he could bring so infamous a charge against Mr. Garrick, he replied, "he did not believe him guilty, "but he did it to plague the fellow." I defire to add, I never more converfed with fuch a man.

" under

xxviii

MEMOIRS OF

"under the character of a Chinese, about "ten years ago, in the Ledger; and a "letter, to which I figned my name, in "the St. James's Chronicle. If the li"berty of the prefs therefore has been " abused, I have had no hand in it,

"I have always confidered the prefs as "the protector of our freedom, as a watch"ful guardian, capable of uniting the "weak against the encroachments of 66 power. What concerns the public "most properly admits of a public dif "cuffion. But of late, the prefs has "turned from defending public intereft, "to making intoads upon private life: "from combating the ftrong, to over"whelming the feeble. No condition is "now too obfcure for its abuse, and the "protector is become the tyrant of the people. In this manner the freedom

" of

"of the prefs is beginning to fow the "feeds of its own diffolution; the great "muft oppose it from principle, and the "weak from fear; till at last every rank "of mankind fhall be found to give up its benefits, content with fecurity " from its infults.

"How to put a stop to this licenti "oufnefs, by which all are indifcriminately abused, and by which vice con

fequently efcapes in the general cenfure, "I am unable to tell; all I could wish is, that, as the law gives us no protection against the injury, fo it fhould give calumniators no fhelter after having provoked correction. The in "fults which we receive before the pub

lic, by being more open are the more "diftreffing; by treating them with filent " contempt, we do not pay a fufficient

By recurring to legal redress, we too

"often expose the weakness of the law, "which only ferves to increase our morti"fication by failing to relieve us. In "short, every man fhould fingly confider "himself as a guardian of the liberty of "the prefs, and as far as his influence "can extend, fhould endeavour to pre"vent it's licentioufnefs becoming at last "the grave of it's freedom.

"OLIVER GOLDSMITH,"

Notwithstanding the great fuccefs of his pieces, by fome of which, it is afferted, upon good authority, that he cleared 1800l in one year, his circumstances were by no means in a profperous fituation partly owing to the liberality of his difpofition, and partly to an unfortunate