This ftatement, fo very adverfe to the credit of Mr. Bel fham as an hiftorian, has called forth an anfwer from that author, which we shall take occafion to confider. In the mean time, we fhall lay before our readers, from different parts of thefe Memoirs, fome of the inftances in which Mr. Coxe directly specifies the most glaring defects both of his history and that of Smollett. In his account of his authorities, he thus proceeds

"The Hiftory of England I have principally confulted is the continuation of Rapin, published under the name of Tindal, but princi pally written by Dr. Birch. His papers in the Museum, and in the Hardwicke collection, which I have examined with fcrupulous atten tion, and various other documents which were fubmitted to his infpection, and to which I have had accefs, prove great accuracy of refearch, judgment in felection, and fidelity in narration. He derived confiderable affittance from perfons of political eminence, particularly the late Lord Walpole, the late Earl of Hardwicke, and the Ho nourable Charles Yorke". Birch was a ftaunch whig, but his political opinions have never led him to forget his duty as an hiftorian. He has not gabled or falfified debates, or mistated facts; he has not wan tonly traduced characters, or acrimoniously reviled individuals, becaufe they efpoufed the caufe which he difapproved; but in his whole work, whether he praises or blames, there is a manly integrity and candid temperance, which must recommend him to the difcerning reader." Ibid.

Among thefe printed authorities are mentioned Chandler's Parliamentary Proceedings, the name of which often appears in the notes. Their accuracy is confirmed by several strong reasons; the most important is this.

"2. There are among the Walpole and Oxford papers minutes of Sir Robert Walpole's fpeeches, and occafional notes taken by him in the Houfe of Commons, of thofe of other members. In comparing thefe minutes and notes with the fpeeches in Chandler, I generally find the leading expreffions preferved in the debates; which proves the authenticity of those particular speeches, and furnishes a strong pre fumption in favour of the reft." ́ P. xxi.

Of the fpeeches drawn up by Dr. Johnfon for the Gentleman's Magazine, we are here affured, contrary to the affertion

"The account of the partition treaty was written by the late Earl of Hardwicke. The account of Lord Somers's argument in Barker's cafe, was written by his great nephew, the late Mr. C. Yorke. 1 can also trace numercus communications by Horace Walpole, though they cannot be fo eafily specified." Here is a very remarkable erratum, not noticed in the lift, nor easily detected by the common reader, It should be," in the Banker's case," not Barker's. Rev.

of

of fome of his biographers, that "Johnson conftantly received notes and heads of the fpeeches from perfons employed by Cave, and particularly from Guthrie. The Bishop of Salifbury recollects to have feen feveral of these notes which Guthrie communicated to him on the very day on which he obtained them, which were regularly transmitted to Johnson, and formed the basis of his orations."

Mr. Coxe then proceeds to give a copious account of his Oral and Manufcript Information, which we may abridge in the following manner. Walpole papers. With many inte refting anecdotes and explanations given by Lord Walpole, which he had from his father. Orford papers. These, though far from entire, are faid to be important, and, as well as many anecdotes, were communicated by the late Lord Orford. Townfend papers; communicated by Lord Townfend. Hardwicke, Sydney, Wald grave, and Harrington papers. Grantham papers; being thofe of Sir Thomas Robinfon, first Lord Grantham, communicated by Lady Grantham. Poyntz, Keene, Campbell, and Devonshire papers. The papers of the Rev. Henry Etough, Rector of Therfield, Hertfordshire, containing a valuable mafs of intelligence, obtained from the minifter himself, from his brother, and Mr. Scrope, fecretary to the treafury; befides correfpondence. Wefton, Onflow, Aftle, Stanhope, Midleton, Egremont, Pultney, and Melcome papers. Of each of thefe fources fome account is given, fhowing what kind of information it fupplied; the whole making undoubtedly a very extenfive and valuable collection of original authorities.

The Memoirs are divided into eight periods; correfponding to which, the papers printed in the fecond and third volume are divided into a fimilar number, for facility of reference. They comprehend a term of 69 years; from the birth of Sir Robert Walpole in 1676, to his death in 1745*. On what confiderations the divifions of the period was made, does not appear to the reader; for they neither divide the time nor the correspondence with any degree of equality, nor do they all terminate at any remarkable epoch. The acceffion of a new fovereign forms indeed a natural break in three of the inftances, but the periods that occur within a reign are not always marked by any peculiar propriety.

It is shown in a note at p. 3, that there has been much confufion with regard to the age of Sir Robert. But the difpute is fettled by a regifter kept by his mother, and communicated to Mr. Coxe, in which the exactly records the birth of every child, in all nineteen,

The

The two mottos, printed at the back of the title, feem both intended to defend the pacific fyftem of Sir Robert. In his praifes on this fubject, confidering the circumstances of Europe during his adminiftration, we very cordially unite; but we cannot for that reafon approve the first motto. It is printed as profe," Omnia prius experiri verbis quam armis fapientem decet." But Terence, from whom it is quoted, wrote it as verfe, thus,

Omnia prius experiri quam armis fapientem decet,

or Arma, as Bentley contends it thould be, both for the fenfe and the measure. If armis remains, it is a licence, for which the rhetoricians are to account. But the infertion of verbis, befides being an interpolation, deftroys all hope of verfification, and yet worfe, annihilates the fenfe. For the fentence means, that every expedient fhould be tried before we have recourfe to arms; but to try by words only is to limit the attempt to one fpecies of experiment, and therefore not only contradicts the meaning of the author, but deftroys the comprehensiveness, and, in fome degree, the propriety of the quotation. The Provoft, Fellows, and Scholars of King's, to whom the oppofite page is, with very honourable feeling, infcribed, certainly cannot approve this violence offered to a claffical author, who, though more revered at Westminster than Eton, is not without the pale of their critical protection. Deleatur ergo verbis, in cæteris quotquot erunt Edd.

We do not object to this quotation as being taken from the fpeech of a ridiculous character; because the ridicule intended by the author, was undoubtedly that of making a foolish man abfurdly and pompously apply a fentence really wife.

From our making this halt, in limine, let it not be fuppofed that our intention is to cavil. That a work fo extenfive is not without blemishes, muft very naturally be fuppofed; and though fome of thefe have fallen under our obfervation, we neither think them fo numerous as to injure the work, nor fo important as to difgrace the author. But having mentioned the subject of blemishes, we will here point out a few remarkable errata, which have efcaped the eye which collected thofe at the beginning and end of the first volume. In p. 315, for Scylla read Sylla; and, in the fame fentence, Alberonis and Mariufes, fhould be written without any elifion; as it is not the culton of our language to put the apostrophe, except to genitive cafes. In p. 673, we have Albion Hall, for Alban Hall, in Oxford; and, in 708, the borough of Breachley, is put for Brackley, in Northamptonshire. An omiffion very important to the reader is corrected in the lift of errata, at p. 82, where we are told,

that

that the Baronefs Schulenburg was created "Marchionefs of Dungannon, and Dutchefs of Munfier, in the kingdom of Ireland," without which infertion, the mention of the Dutchefs of Munfter a few pages afterwards, would be an enigma. But, on the fame fubject, there is ftill an omiffion in the narrative. For we are told, in p. 84, that the King's miftreffes and favourites afpired to the peerage; but that "to thefe pretenfions which the conduct of William had fauctioned, the act of fettlement prefented an infuperable barrier;" forbidding any foreigners to be created Peers of Great-Britain. Intereft," the author proceeds, "foon enabled them to difcover, that the regulations of that act did not extend to Ireland; the Baronefs of Schulenburg was gratified with the title of Dutchefs of Munster, and the Irith effablishment loaded with penfions." This was in 1716: and in 1718, we are told (p. 82) the was made a Peerefs of Great-Britain, by the title of Baronefs of Glaftonbury, Countefs of Fevertham, and Dutchefs of Kendal;" but how the impediment raifed by the act of fettlement, was removed, and what part the Minifters or Walpole took in it, we are not here informed.

The ftyle of thefe Memoirs in general is equable and clear: feldom rifing to peculiar elegance, but still more rarely deviating into impropriety. Some expreffions which are fingular, and fome incorrect, will probably difcover themselves on fubfequent revifion, or will be pointed out by friends. We thall for the prefent difmifs the fubject..

We shall now, as we promifed, give fome of the instances in which Mr. Coxe cenfures the partiality of Smollett, and his fucceffor Mr. Belfham. On the debate upon the repeal of the Septennial Bill, March 13, 1734, he has thefe remarks.

"The fpeech of Sir William Wyndham on this occafion (for the repeal) is triumphantly quoted by the modern writers, who uniformly figmatize the Walpole adminiftration, as a masterpiece of eloquence and energy; they ftate his arguments as unanswerable. At the fame time, thefe partial reporters never advert to the reply of Sir Robert Walpole, but leave the reader to fuppofe that fcarcely any answer was made, and that the whole ftrength of the argument lay on the fide of oppofition. To abridge or detail printed debates, without illuftrating them by any new documents, is not the general purport of this work. But on this occafion, where there has been fuch a wilful fuppreffion of the argument on one fide, and fuch an affected display of the reafoning on the other, it will be almost as great a novelty to give the fpeech of the minifter, as if it had never been in print, I have therefore inferted the Philippic of Sir William Wyndham, and Walpole's reply, verbatim, from contemporary narratives." P. 412.

The note fubjoined to this paffage more particularly specifes the faults of the hiftorians.

"Smollett

"Smollett in recording this tranfaction, has characterized Sir William Wyndham, by faying, that his fpeech spoke him the unri valled orator, the uncorrupted Briton, and the unfhaken patriot." He gives only that part of the fpeech which relates to the character of Walpole, and concludes, "Notwithstanding the most warm, the most nervous, the most pathetic remonstrances in favour of the motion, the question was put, and it was fuppressed by mere dint of numbers." Vol. ii, p. 495. If Smollett means any thing by this relation, it muft be that no reply was made to the argument of his admired orator, but that the business was got rid of by the cry of Queftion! Question! Belfham bas thus related the tranfaction." The minifter having defied the oppofition to adduce a fingle inftance in which the interefts of the nation had been injured by the operation of this bill, or by any undue exercife of the royal prerogative connected with it, Sir William Wyndham obferved," &c. After quoting Sir William Wyndham's speech, he adds, without taking the fmalleft notice of Sir Robert Walpole's reply, "Notwithstanding the admiration excited by this fudden burft of eloquence, and the ability with which the motion of appeal was fupported by various other speakers, it was negatived on the divifion, though not by the accustomed minifterial majority, the numbers being 247 against 184."

The next inftance we shall introduce cccurs in the account of Sir John Barnard's motion for the abolition of taxes, in 1737. After giving the fpeech of Walpole, and Sir John's reply, Mr. Coxe fubjoins in a note.

"I have dwelt thus particularly on the confideration of Sir John Barnard's fcheme, becaufe the accounts given by most writers who have fallen under my obfervation, are fuperficial and inaccurate. Even Tindal is unufually fhort and barren of information (vol. xx, p. 348) Smollett, excepting a good abftract of Sir John Barnard's fpeech, which I have adopted in the text, is extremely deficient. He fays it produced other debates, and was at laft poftponed by dint of minifte rial influence. The falfity of this account is evident. Belfham obferves," a bill was, however, ordered upon the bafis of Winnington's propofition, which being in the fequel warmly attacked, and faintly defended, was finally poftponed to a diftant day, by a motion of the minifter. In this fhort account there are three errors. It was warmly attacked, but by no means faintly defended. It was not finally poftponed to a diftant day, but the fecond reading was only put off for feven days; and it was then negatived, but not on the motion of the minifter." P. 508.

In the next inftance, which is the debate on the reduction of the army, Mr. Coxe gives, in a note, the parallel paffages from the two hiftorians in question, to fhow "how Smollett has mifrepresented the debate, and how carelessly Mr. Belsham has copied his narrative, and added his own errors," (p. 568.) The debate on the Austrian fubfidy, in confequence of the King's Speech in 1741, is ftated to be altogether omitted by both

thofe