abused Hunt to Byron at the same time,-called him a stupid cockney, and swore that Byron was ruining himself by associating with him. This was kind and liberal, and justifies what Douglas Kinnaird, and everybody else indeed, say of Moore just now. Byron would not have liked Moore the better for this. Poor Hunt had a wife and children, and was in needy circumstances, and Byron did them great service; and what harm could Hunt do Byron, or anybody else?

"The Greeks think Byron will come to life again after awhile; and one poet in the Chronicle,' probably Moore, talks of having seen his manes in George Street, Westminster, and of the possibility of his yet wandering about Greece in a white dressing-gown, singing Liberty Hall;' but I, who know Byron well, and all his expectations, doubt the fact. I was surprised to find, considering how right and fashionable it is to praise my departed friend, that his wife declined seeing his body, and all his family declined attending his funeral.

"He told me one night that

told

that if

and

that she never

without any compunction; for her

an excellent man, was no

Lady

; and this she told

herself. Byron told me this in confi

dence, and I may be blamed for repeating it; but can corroborate it if he happens not to be gone

to

PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCE OF PUBLIC MEN.

WITH Considerable exertion, and at a great expense of capital and research, we have been fortunately enabled to gratify the prevalent taste for diaries and correspondence; a gentleman of the highest literary character, moving in the first circles as well of the political as fashionable world, has been kind enough to furnish us with no less than twenty-four volumes of MS. letters and memoranda, the production of all the leading personages of the last and present century. It is from the unreserved communication of their thoughts and feelings that the characters of great men are to be justly appreciated; and with the addition of the notes, explanatory and critical, of our highly gifted friend, we think we shall do the world a service, and our readers a pleasure, by submitting portions of the great collection entrusted to our care.

It must be observed that the whole of the correspondence of which we are possessed is strictly of a private nature, and certainly has never appeared in print before. We give a few specimens:

No. I.

FROM THE RIGHT HON. WILLIAM PITT TO MR. SMITH,

MR. PITT will be glad to see Mr. Smith to-morrow at 12. Downing Street, April 4, 1800.

I have not been able to ascertain precisely who this Mr. Smith was, and the envelope, which possibly

might have shewn the address, has been unfortunately lost; the name of Smith is by no means an uncommon one; it is possible that this note might have been written to a relation of Lord Carrington, who was created a Baron on the 16th of July, 1796. His lordship married a Miss Bernard, by whom he has had one son and eleven daughters.

No. II.

FROM DAVID GARRICK, ESQ. TO DR. GOLDSMITH.

Southampton Street, April 9, 1775.

DEAR GOLDSMITH,

MRS. GARRICK will be glad to see you here at dinner to-day, at three o'clock.

Yours,

D. G.

The authenticity of this short letter is unquestionable; for although the initials of the British Roscius only are affixed to it, the date and the known intimacy which existed between Garrick and Goldsmith, put all doubt at rest as to the real writer. It is a curious transcript of the times, as it marks the hour of dining in the year 1775, in what may be considered the best authority. Garrick retired from the stage in 1777, and died in 1779; his widow survived him nearly half a century. The house at Hampton was purchased by a Mr. Carr, Solicitor, as I believe, to the Excise, one of whose daughters was married to Dr. Lushington.

No. III.

FROM MRS. LETITIA BARBAULD TO MISS HIGGINBOTHAM.

MRS. BARBAULD will thank Miss Higginbotham to let her have the silk gown home by Saturday night at latest.

Thursday evening.

This interesting remain is without date, but it bears the evidence of truth on its face. Mrs. Barbauld, who was the daughter of Dr. Aikin, was a highly talented lady; her "Beggar's Petition" itself is enough to immortalize her. The desire to have home a new gown on Saturday night in order that she might wear it at church the next day, has a naturalness in it which is quite refreshing—a feminine anxiety operating upon a masculine mind.

I have endeavoured by every possible means to ascertain who the Miss Higginbotham was, to whom the letter is addressed, but hitherto in vain. By reference to the files of newspapers kept at the Chapter Coffee House, in St. Paul's Church-yard, I see that in the year 1780, a Mrs. Hickenbotham kept a milliner's shop in Hanway-yard as it was then called; but I can hardly fancy it the same person, because, in the first place, Mrs. Barbauld distinctly calls her Miss, whereas the person in question was married; and secondly, because, the name of the milliner to whom the newspaper refers, is spelt Hickenbotham, whereas Mrs. Barbauld makes the Hick, Hig, and spells the bottom, botham, after the manner of the landlord of the Windmill Inn, at Salt-hill, near Eton, in Buckinghamshire.

No. IV.

FROM THE RIGHT HON. EDMUND BURKE TO MR. BURNS.

BURNS-Get something for dinner by four o'clock to-morrow, and tell Simmons to have a fire lighted in my bedroom early in the day.

E. B.

The Right Hon. Edmund Burke, one of the most distinguished of our British worthies, was born at Limerick, on New Year's Day, 1730; he was educated by a Quaker, got into Parliament in 1765, and died at Beaconsfield, July 8, 1797. Burns, I imagine to have been a servant of his, but I have no particular reason for believing it, beyond the evidence of the letter before us. The direction to get dinner ready, comes evidently in the way of a command; and the unadorned style of address quite justifies my suspicions. Simmons is unquestionably a domestic servant, and a female. In the registry of marriages in Beaconsfield church, I find an entry of a marriage between Thomas Hopkins and Mary Anne Simmons, spinster; which Mary Anne I take to be the individual referred to by Burke. The date of that marriage is June 15, 1792. Now, although this letter is without date, it is fair to infer from the reference to "making a fire in his bed-room," that it was written much. earlier in the year than the month of June; so that even if we were able to fix the date of the letter in the same year, it is quite within the range of possibility that the marriage did not take place till several months after the servant was spoken of, by her

VOL. II.

N