sketches are added by the pen of Dr Gilbert STUART.

1. Mary Queen of Scots, tolerably copied from an engraving by Vertue, in vol. i. facing p. 57.

2. William Carstairs, S. T. P. Principal of the University of Edinburgh, vol. i. p. 113. 3. Duncan Forbes, of Culloden, Lord President of the Court of Session, vol. i. P. 183. 4. Mr George Buchanan, the celebrated Latin poet and historian, vol. i. p. 245,

5. Alexander Monro, sen. M. D. F. R. S. late Professor of Anatomy in the University of Edinburgh, vol. i. p. 303.

6. Archibald Pitcairne, M. D. vol. i. p. 361. 7. John Arbuthnot, M. D. vol. ii. p. 417. 8. The Admirable Crichton, vol. ii. p. 465. 9. John Knox, the celebrated Reformer, vol. ii. p. 517. 10. George Drummond, Esq. Lord Provost of Edinburgh, vol. ii. p. 580.

DURING the subsistence of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, Dr GILBERT STUART wrote a very severe attack on the Elements of Criticism by Lord KAMES, which he transmitted to Mr SMELLIE for insertion

in the Review. But, in this instance, Mr SMELLIE Successfully counteracted the intentions of his colleague, by altering the whole into a totally opposite tendency, converting the far greater part from harsh invective into reasonable and merited panegyric, in which guise the review was actually printed. On the day of publication, Dr STUART came to inquire at the printing-office "if the

was damned;" using a gross term which he usually indulged in when he had censured an author. Mr SMELLIE told him what he had done; and put a copy of the altered review into his hands. After reading the two or three introductory sentences, he fell down on the floor, apparently in a fit; but on coming to himself again, he good naturedly said, "WILLIAM, after all, I believe you have done right."

A PRINCIPAL cause of the failure of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review was derived from the harsh and unmannerly treatment of a work entitled, Of the Origin and Progress of Language, the favourite employment of the late learned, worthy, and respectable Judge in the Court of Session, JAMES BURNETT, Lord Monboddo; which,

owing to some unfortunately facile deferences to authority, and perhaps to certain mistaken biasses to a favourite theory, Dr STUART and the Reverend A. GILLIES anatomized and tortured without remorse, and perhaps much beyond reason.

THAT we are correct in this idea of the injury sustained by the Edinburgh Magazine and Review by this unprovoked and unnecessary severe attack on Lord MONBODDO, the following extract of a letter from the late respectable and experienced London bookseller, Mr JOHN MURRAY, in Fleet-street, to Mr SMELLIE, is a sufficient proof. Mr MURRAY was London publisher to the Edinburgh Magazine and Review: Perhaps it would have been of material benefit to the success of the concern if he had been a part

ner.

DEAR SMELLIE,

I AM Sorry for the defeat you have met with. Had you praised Lord MONBODDO, instead of damning him, it would not have happened. Yours, &c.

J. MURRAY.

Ir may perhaps appear singular, however, that almost immediately after the failure of the Edinburgh Magazine and Review, Dr GILBERT STUART was invited up to London, and employed by Mr MURRAY as conductor of a new Review at London, called the English Review. Mr MURRRAY, who was himself a very good judge of literary powers, could not be ignorant of those possessed by Dr STUART, which he probably believed himself able to regulate within the bounds of decorous prudence; no very easy task; and he certainly knew that London was a wide field for literary knight-errantry, which could not be then endured in Edinburgh.

FOR the following account of the intimacy between Mr SMELLIE and Lord MONвODdo, we are indebted to a respectable gentleman, long an inmate in the family of that learned Judge. Mr SMELLIE was well known to the late Lord MONBODDO of the Court of Session, and used to be a frequent visitor at what his Lordship, with much propriety, used to call his learned suppers. In imitation of the ancients, for whom he professed an enthusiastic attachment, Lord MONBODDO

always made supper his principal meal, and his regular time of entertaining his friends. These learned suppers used to take place once a fortnight during the sitting of the Courts; and among the usual guests were the late Dr BLACK, Dr HUTTON, Dr HOPE, Dr WALKER, Mr SMELLIE, and other men of science and learning, of whom Edinburgh at that time furnished an ample store. Besides

these set parties, Mr SMELLIE was often invited to a private supper by Lord MoNBODDO; who was always anxious to see him when any part of his Lordships works or studies happened to relate to Natural History, the favourite pursuit of Mr SMELLIE. On these occasions, the conversation was peculiarly interesting; as each expressed his unbiassed sentiments with unreserved freedom. Though nothing but harmony prevailed for the most part, yet a little collision of opinion sometimes occurred, but this was only momentary. The first meeting between Lord MONBODDO and Mr SMELLIE, after the Review of HARRISES Philosophical Arrangements in the Edinburgh Magazine and Review was particularly interesting. How his Lordship felt on this occasion, will appear from the Preface to the third volume of the