"Having formed his plan, and collected his materials, for a new tragedy (viz. of Lady Jane Grey) he declared that a few months would complete his defign: and that he might pursue his work with fewer avocations, he was, in June 1710, invited by Mr. George Ducket to his houfe at Gartham in Wiltfhire. Here he found fuch opportunities of indulgence as did not much forward his fludies, and particularly fome ftrong ale, too delicious to be refifted. He ate and drank till he found himself plethoric: and then, refolving to cure himself by evacuation, he wrote to an apothecary in the neighbourhood a prefcription of a purge, fo forcible that the apothecary thought it his duty to delay it till he had given notice of its danger. Smith, not pleased with the contradiction of a fhopman, and boaftful of his own knowledge, treated the notice with rude contempt, and fwallowed his own medicine, which, in July 1710, brought him to the grave. He was buried at Gartham.

"Many years afterwards Ducket communicated to Oldmixon the hiftorian, an account pretended to have been received from Smith, that Clarendon's History was, in its publication, corrupted by Aldrich, Smallridge, and Atterbury, and that Smith was employed to forge and infert the alterations.

"The ftory was published triumphantly by Oldmixon, and may be fuppofed to have been eagerly received: but its progrefs was foon checked; for finding its way into the Journal of Trevoux, it fell under the eye of Atterbury, then an exile in France, who immediately denied the charge, with this remarkable particular, that he never in his whole life had once spoken to Smith:-his company being, as must be inferred (viz. from his abandoned morals, and grofs licentioufnefs) not accepted by those who attended to their characters.

"The charge was afterwards very diligently refuted by Dr. Burton of Eaton; a man eminent for literature, and, though not of the fame party with Aldrich and Atterbury, too ftudious of truth to leave them burthened with a falfe charge. The teftimonies which he hath collected have convinced mankind that either Smith or Ducket were guilty of wilful and malicious falfehood. This controverfy brought into view thofe parts of Smith's life, which, with more honour to his name, might have been concealed."

Let all these circumftances be put together, and, we think, it will appear evident to every candid perfon, that the pretended discovery of which Oldmixon vaunted fo freely, even in the title-page of his hiftory, was, in fact, nothing but an im

Smith died in the year 1710, and Oldmixon's History was pubJifhed in 1730. Rev.

2

posture,

Pofture, invented folely for the purpose of detracting from the credit of Lord Clarendon's Hiftory, and fixing a foul opprobrium on fome diftinguifhed characters of the church, whofe great talents had excited the envy of the adverse party.

As for the ftrefs laid on Smith's dying declaration, it now appears that there was no foundation for the folemnity with which it is introduced. Ducket, in his letter, fimply fays, that

Smith made him a vifit about June 1710, and continued at his houfe about fix weeks, and died there.' One would imagine, from the serious manner in which the writer of this Effay expreffes himself, that Smith had made a formal discovery of the villany in which he had borne a part, with two Bifhops and a Dean, from an honeft impulfe of confcience at the moment when he thought he was foon to appear before the great Judge of all, to give an account of himself and his actions. This was by no means the cafe. There is not the flightest hint of such an awful process of confeffion, even in Ducket's letter; and, from Dr. Johnson's account (which he had from the beft authority) we learn that his death was too fudden and unexpected to admit of thofe particular enumerations of forged and interpolated paffages, which Oldmixon, and this Writer after him, would fain make their readers believe were furreptitiously foifted into Lord Clarendon's Hiftory.

We are obliged, both from truth and candour, to make these free remarks on this flagrant mifrepresentation of a circumftance, that, having undergone the most rigorous fcrutiny, had been long fince brought to a decided iffue, by the mutual suffrages of the most oppofite parties.

The principal defign of this Effay is to fix the blackeft ftigma of guilt and infamy on the character and principles of King Charles. From the cradle to the fcaffold he is exhibited in the moft odious point of view, and loaded with every foul accufation that can difgrace humanity, and bring royalty itself into contempt. The Author endeavours to fupport his allegations by producing a number of extracts from a variety of hiftorians. The defign is invidious, and the execution of it is conducted on a partial and illiberal plan. King Charles is no favourite character of ours :-far, very far from it! But he was not the abhorred tyrant, the merciless perfecutor, the invidious hypocrite, the perjured villain, he is here reported to be. In detached views, and by partial quotations, he may be fo represented; but this is not giving us the TRUE idea of the general character of King Charles.

REV. Apr. 1780.

X

We

We hope the honeft printer t, for whofe benefit this tract is published, will not impute the foregoing ftrictures to any defire in us to hurt his intereft in the publication. Our zeal for the liberty of the prefs will be queftioned by none of our Readers; but we must not permit that zeal to encroach on the regard which is ever due to juftice and truth :— Amicus Plato, &c.

Now fuffering under a fentence of imprisonment in Newgate, for printing fome advertisements in honour of Admiral Keppel, which were deemed feditious.

ART. VIII. Hiftory of the Political Connection between England and Ireland, from the Reign of Henry II. to the prefent Time. 4to. 7 s. 6 d. Cadell. 1780.

TH

HIS ufeful work affords an ample hiftory of one of the moft fingular political connections recorded in the annals of mankind. The judicious and well-informed Author appears to us to be happily exempted from thofe national prejudices which have been difcovered in the party writers of both kingdoms; and he has illuftrated his fubject more fully than is done by any former writer, English or Irifh. To the generality of readers, perhaps, he will appear too minute and circumftantial; but the circumstances which make this work tiresome and difagreeable to the many, will recommend it to the few, who confider the great delicacy of all political connections, and the facility with which they may be mifrepresented by the partisans of either nation.

We find many valuable political obfervations scattered throughout this inftructive performance; but, in general, the Author is fatisfied with relating facts, leaving it to his readers to draw the natural deductions from them. He concludes with an accurate and perfpicuous abridgment of the principal topics that are treated in the work; which we shall infert for the fatisfaction of the Public:

The course of fix hundred years, through which it has been attempted to delineate the political connection between England and Ireland, may be divided into three periods; the firft, containing 200 years, extends from the conqueft to Richard II.; the fecond, 240 years, from Richard II. to James I.; and the third, 160, from James I. to the prefent times. During the first period, ideas of legal government were extremely indiftin&t, even among the English; and, among the Irish, they seem not to have exifted. What would now be called a regular parliament, had not long appeared in the former kingdom; in the latter, it had fcarcely made any appearance. The fame common law fubfifted in both kingdoms; and when any English ftatute was judged ufeful for Ireland, it was tranfmitted un

der the Great Seal of England, and was entitled to every mark of respect and obedience. But the chief ftatute-law of Ireland, in this period, was the ordinations occafionally compofed by the King and his English council.

During the second period, few inftances occur of the interpofition of the parliament of England in the government of Ireland, unlefs in furnishing fmall fupplies of men and money for its fupport. If the act relative to the eftates of abfentees, and a few acts relative to trade and the reformation of religion, are excepted, the English ftatute-book contains no laws which have that kingdom for their object. The English parliament feem to have been difpofed to leave the government of Ireland to the King and its own parliament, with a view to induce them to furnish money fufficient for its fupport. The former, at least, complained of the trouble and expence to which they were fubjected by maintaining the civil conftitution of a country from which they derived no advantage. Toward the end of this period, the English parliament found it requifite to change their fyftem of indifference, because they perceived, that, unless the dependence of Ireland were maintained, that country might be emplayed by their enemies to interrupt the peace, and, perhaps, to destroy the liberties of England. Queen Elizabeth, accordingly, first made effectual provifion for the total fubjugation of it, and may, with much more justice, be entitled its conqueror than Henry II. The civil arrangements of James I. were well calculated to fecure

its obedience.

From the time of James I. no doubt feems to have been entertained in England concerning the fupreme jurifdiction of the English parliament, and the validity of its acts to bind Ireland. The act of adventurers made in the year 1642, and the general act of indemnity paffed at the Restoration, both which difpofed of great part of the property of Ireland; the act 1689, which abrogated the proceedings of the parliament held in Ireland by King James; the act of the fame year, which fuperfeded the Irish act of fupremacy, made in the reign of Elizabeth, and appointed new oaths to be taken by the people, but particularly by the members of the parliament of Ireland; the act 1699, which authorized the fale of forfeited lands in Ireland, and applied the price to the use of the Public, which authorized the mode of conducting the fales, and vacated all grants of land, founded on acts of the Irish parliament; the acts regulating the trade of Ireland, particularly that of linen; and, laftly, the declaratory act of the year 1719, leave no room to doubt concerning the fentiments of the legislature of England.

The Irish, in general, appear to have held fimilar opinions of the fupremacy of the English parliament. The frequent and earnest petitions for redrefs of grievances prefented to the English House of Commons before the commencement of the civil wars; the anxious folicitations prefented by the different parties in Ireland, to both Houfes, concerning the act of indemnity, paffed after the Reitoration; the thanks of the Irish parliament fignified to King William, for the act of the English parliament, which abrogated the statutes of the Irish parliament of James II. concur to prove, either that the Irish acknowledged the jurifdiction of the English parliament, or that

X 2

they

they thought it vain to oppofe it. Even the declaration of the Irifft Houfe of Commons, in the year 1641, relative to the queries which maintained the independence of Ireland, is fcarcely an objection; because it was made in imitation of the encroachments of the Englith Houfe of Commons. It was fuggefted by the embarraffment of affairs in England, and was aimed against the authority of the King, rather than that of parliament. The fame legiflators, who wished to be held the affertors of the liberties of their country, hesitated not to acknowledge virtually the fupremacy of the Commons of England, by fupplicating from that body a redrefs of their grievances.

What reflections the preceding narrative will fuggeft to perfons of different characters, and in different interefts, I prefume not to conjecture. One remark, however, will occur to every reader, that the policy of England, with regard to Ireland, for the laft hundred years, has gradually become more liberal, as commercial and political knowledge have been advanced and extended; but that all the examples of national generofity, which this period can exhibit, difappear, when compared with the magnitude of late acts and refolutions, which are to extend to Ireland the advantages of a free trade. One ftep only remains, perhaps, to fecure the future profperity and happiness of the two kingdoms, to extend the benefits of the British conftitution over the British Isles.'

The above extract affords a fufficient fpecimen of the Author's ftyle, which is fimple, perfpicuous, and manly. His eloquence, we must however acknowledge, is of the austere kind; he endeavours rather to inform the understanding than to please the fancy; the harfhnefs of his periods too often offends the ear; and his performance would have been more agreeable and more popular, if he had fhewn lefs difdain of the graces of compofition.

ART. IX. Confiderations on the Efficacy of Electricity, in removing Female Obftructions; to which are annexed Cafes and Remarks. By John Birch, Surgeon. 8vo. I s. 6d. Cadell. 1779.

Work which announces, on probable grounds, a certain

A remedy for any one diforder with which the human

fpecies is afflicted-efpecially the weaker and better half of it-we confider as deferving particular refpect; and we take pleasure in extending the knowledge of fuch a remedy, to the faculty, and the public at large. Such a one, we are here affured, is electricity, when properly directed, in the removal of certain female obftructions. Its efficacy, however, is by no means limited to this particular fpecies of obftruction; though the Author has chofen, in the prefent pamphlet, to confine his obfervations to this fingle clafs; because the cafes have been numerous, and the fuccefs uniform.'

The happy effects produced by electricity, in the cure of difeafes, of which, we are told, every day has furnished fresh proofs, for two or three years paft, was, fays the Author,

the