his conduct; yet much more decifive in the means of annoying his enemies, than in thofe calculated to gratify his friends. With a facility of temper that could deny no requeft, but with a defect of mind that could beftow nothing with grace, he offended the disappointed, and even loft thofe whom he ferved. The difpofal of offices, which gives influence to other minifters, was a real misfortune to the earl of Oxford. He often promised the fame place to five perfons at once; and created four enemies, without making the fifth his friend.

But if the earl of Oxford was not remarkable for ftriking virtues, he had the good fortune to be free from glaring vices. Though undecifive in the great line of bufinefs, he was not fubject to perfonal fear. Though thoroughly ambitious, he was a ftranger to haughtiness and pride. Though perfevering in his oppofition to his enemies, he was not in his temper revengeful; and though he made no fcruple to tempt the honesty of others, with money, he himself cannot be accufed, with justice, of the leaft tincture of avarice. In his public measures he can never deserve the character of a great minifter. There was a narrownefs of fentiment, a vulgarity of policy, and even a meanness in his conduct, that frequently excited the contempt of his best friends. In his private intrigues for power, in his dextrous management of two parties, by whom he was equally hated, in his tempering the fury of the Jacobites, in his amufing the ve hemence of the whigs, in his advancing the interefts of the house of Hannover, when moft diftrufted by themselves and their adherents, he fhewed a confiderable degree of addrefs and political knowledge. The nation owed to a defect in Oxford's mind, a greater benefit, than they could have derived from a minifter of more splendid talents. Had he been poffeffed of the pride infeparable from great parts, his refentment for the ill ufage, which he experienced from the whigs and the agents of the house of Hannover, might have induced him to defeat the Proteftant fucceffion, and bring about those very evils of which he was unjustly accused.'

If fome of the anecdotes here related, from Mr. Carte's Memorandum-book, be well founded, lord Oxford, and his rival, lord Bolingbroke, differed lefs with refpect to the object of their fecret views, than in their public conduct. For the gratification of our readers we shall extract one of the papers on this fubject.

"L. L. (on the 30th of May, 1726, at fupper with L. S.) told us, that he never believed lord Oxford fincere in his defigns to ferve the king, till one day abbé Gaultier came to him on a very particular occafion.

He had had with lord Oxford a conference about the king's affairs, in which lord Oxford was giving him his fentiments, in relation to the conduct that the king ought to obferve to carry his point. The abbé faid, he might forget, and defired

lord

lord Oxford to put them in writing; he did fo, and gave the paper to the abbé, defiring him to transcribe it and restore it to him, next day. When the abbé came home, though he underftood English pretty well, yet it was fo bad wrote, that the abbe could not read it. In this difficulty, knowing none to truft fo nice an affair with but L. L. he came to him, and told him the case, defired him to transcribe it for him, which he did in fo legible a hand, that the abbé could read it, and transcribed it afterwards himself, time enough to restore it next morning to lord Oxford; (L. L. thought him always fincere afterwards.)

July 9, 1725, dining at lady S's, lord M―r faid, that the night the proclamation was ordered to be iffued out against he was fummoned to the cabinet council at K and it being whispered, that it was in order to fuch an af fair; he meeting lord Oxford, asked him if it was: lord Oxford faid, he knew nothing of it; that he did not meddle in affairs, that he would be against it if propofed. Soon after he met lord B. and afking him about it, and expreffing his wonder, that they should think of fuch a thing after it had been fo carried in the houfe of lords; B. denied that he knew any thing of it. Afterwards they were called into council, where the queen giving no body time to speak, faid she had refolved on a proclamation, which fhe caufed to be read, and then, without staying for, or asking any body's advice, went out fo that it was all her own act. Afking lord Bolingbroke afterwards how it came to be iffued out, in fuch a manner, he said, lord Trevor (who was then neceffary to him) pofitively-infifted on it that it fhould be done, and he was forced to comply.

May 30, 1726, at fupper, at L. S's, L. L. was giving an account of the struggle between lord B. and lord Oxford. The latter was abfolute at firft, and lady Masham hated L. B. who was only kept in, because the peace was tranfacting, and nobody elfe could fpeak French. At laft, lord Oxford, difobliging lady Mafham, in the affair of Quebec, fhe joined L. B. and lord Oxford was turned out a little before the queen died. The defign of L. B. at the time, was to bring about the Hannover fucceffion and two or three days before her death, L. L. and fir W. Windham going in a coach together, the first faid, Now they had got the power entirely into their own hands, they might eafily bring about a reftoration; to which fir W. faid, put that out of your head; that will never be is an im practicable man (i. e. he would not change his religion at that moment) and will never be brought in: and L. L. going on the Saturday evening (before the queen died) to Kennington, met Arthur Moore and John Drummond waiting for L. B. (who dined with Sir W. W, and a great deal of company that day, at Blackheath), who did not come, though John was appointed to attend there for L. B. to receive his laft inftructions, in order to fet out the next day for Hannover, to make up matters with that court. This John Drummond himself told L. L.;

but

but the queen's death did not allow them time to execute their fcheme, and they could never make the court believe they had any fuch fchemes,"

As the last quotation from thefe volumes, we fhall infert the author's character of queen Anne, with which the Hiltory concludes.

Thus died Anne Stuart, queen of Great Britain and Ireland, in the fiftieth year of her age and thirteenth of her reign. In her perfon fhe was of a middle ftature, and before the bore children well made. Her hair was dark, her complexion fanguine, her features ftrong, but not irregular, her whole countenance more dignified than agreeable. In the accomplishments of the mind, as a woman, the was not deficient. She underIftood mufic: the loved painting: the had even fome taste for works of genius. She was always generous, fometimes liberal, but never profufe. Like the reft of her family, fhe was goodnatured, to a degree of weakness. Indolent in her difpofition, timid by nature, devoted to the company of her favourites, eafily led. Se poffeffed all the virtues of her father, except political courage. She was fubject to all his weakneffes except enthufiafm in religion. She was jealous of her authority, and fullenly irreconcileable toward those who treated either herfelf or her prerogative with difrefpect. But, like him alfo, fhe was much better qualified to difcharge the duties of a private life, than to act the part of a fovereign. As a friend, a mother, a wife, the deferved every praife. Her conduct, as a daughter, could fcarcely be excused by a virtue much fuperior to all these. Upon the whole, though her reign was crowded with great events, fhe cannot, with any justice; be called a great princefs, Subject to terror, beyond the conftitutional timidity of her fex, fhe was altogether incapable of decifive councils; and nothing, but her irrefiftible popularity could have fupported her authority, amidst the ferment of thofe diftracted times.'

After the inftances we have produced in the course of our Review, it is unneceffary to obferve that these Original Papers throw confiderable light on the British history in the period to which they relate Many of them, however, are of little importance, and might have been with-held from the eye, of the public, which they neither can gratify nor inform. At the fame time it must be acknowledged, that this is an imputation to which all collections of the kind, that we have feen, are more or less liable, and it can hardly be avoided by the of fcrupulous editor. To develope important facts, it is often prequifite that frivolous, as well as effential circumftances, be ex:pofed to obfervation; and where incredulity might revolt agajnft the conviction of fingle teftimony, we ought not to condemn the recourse to a multiplicity of evidence.Mr. Macpherson's industry and judgment as an editor deferve equal praife with his VOL. XXXIX. May, 1775. fidelity.

D d

fidelity, of which we entertain not the leaft fufpicion. He has arranged the materials according to chronological order, and prefaced the papers of each year with pertinent introductory remarks. In the more eminent capacity of hiftorian, we cannot hesitate to acknowledge that his abilities appear to great advantage. In exhibiting the information which his extenfive researches afforded, he seems to have conducted himself with the impartiality becoming an author whofe reprefentation of tacts differs frequently from that of preceding writers, and who, in fome inftances, reverses characters, which for almost a century had been decided in the eftimation of the public. Through the whole work, the narrative is interfperfed with fentiments, not lefs refined than juft. In fome parts, we think, the expreflion is incorrect, and in others, not fufficiently elevated; but, in general, the style is fuitable to historical dignity, and is equally perfpicuous and animated.

VI. The Poems of Mr. Gray. To which are prefixed Memoirs of bis Life and Writings. By W. Mason, M. A. 410. 1550 in boards. DodЛley.

IN

this volume we have a new fpecies of biography; the Memoirs of Mr. Gray, confifting of his letters, and several pieces of poetry, felected from a large collection of manufcripts, ranged in proper order, and accompanied with occafional obfervations.

The ingenious editor has adopted this plan with great propriety and judgment. For the life of his author did not abound with incidents; he has therefore confidered him in his proper light, that of a scholar and a poet: he has furnished his readers of a claffical turn, with a great variety of literary entertainment; and given them a faithful reprefentation of the genius and virtues of his friend, in the genuine effufions of his heart, his familiar letters.

As the limits of our Review will not allow us to pursue this extensive plan, we shall throw together fome of the most material circumftances of the author's life, and fubjoin three or four of the most entertaining letters in this collection.

Mr. Gray was defcended of a reputable family in the city of London. His grandfather was a confiderable merchant. His father was what was then called a money-scrivener * ; but Being of an unsocial and inactive disposition, he rather diminished than encreased his paternal fortune. He had many children; but all of them died in their infancy, except Thomas, the fubject of thefe Memoirs.

• Milton's father was of the fame profeffion.

Our

Our author was born in Cornhill, Dec. 26, 1716; and was educated at Eton fchool, under the care of Mr. Antrobus, his mother's brother, who was at that time one of the affiftant mafters. At this place he contracted a friendship with the celebrated Mr. Horace Walpole, and Mr. Weft, fon of the right hon. Richard Weft, efq. lord chancellor of Ireland, a young gentleman of extraordinary talents. In 1734, he removed from Eton to St. Peter's College, Cambridge; and his friend, Mr. Weft, to Chrift church, Oxford; where they commenced a correspondence; part of which is included in this collection of letters.

In April 1738, Mr. Weft left Chrift-church for the Inner Temple; and in September following, Mr. Gray returned to London, intending likewife to apply him felf to the ftudy of the law in the fame fociety: for which purpose his father had either hired or bought him a fet of chambers. But, upon an invitation, which Mr. Walpole gave him to be his companion in his travels, this intention was laid aside for the prefent; and never afterwards put in execution.

Accordingly, about the end of March 1739, Mr. Walpole and Mr. Gray fet out for France, vifiting, in the course of their travels through that country, Paris, Chantilly, Rheims, Dijon, Lyons, and other places. In November, they arrived at Turin; from thence they proceeded to Genoa, Bologna, Florence, Rome, Naples, &c. In July 1740, they returned to Florence, where they ftayed till towards the end of April, 1741; and then fet out for Venice.

About this time we find an unfortunate difagreement fubfifting between the two travellers; arifing, we are told, from the difference of their tempers. Mr. Gray being, even from his earliest years, curious, penfive, and philofophical; Mr. Walpole, gay, lively, and confequently inconfiderate. The `latter, however, in juftice to the memory of his respectable friend, has, we find, enjoined the editor of thefe Memoirs to charge him with the chief blame in their quarrel; confeffing that more attention, complaifance, and deference to a warm friendship, fuperior judgment, and prudence, might have prevented a rupture, which gave much uneafinefs to both, and a lasting concern to the survivor; though in the year 1744, a reconciliation was effected between them, by a lady, who wished well to both parties.

This incident occafioned their feparation at Reggio. Mr. Gray therefore went directly to Venice; and having continued there till about the middle of July, he returned home through Padua, Verona, Milan, and Turin; and repaffing the Alps, purfued almoft the fame route through France, by which he had before gone to Italy.

Dd2

When