As

ness as a Counsellor. Still, however, he was esteemed by professional men as a lawyer of great knowledge and talents. such he was entitled to employment. On the impeachment of Hastings he was recommended by his brother to be one of the Counsel. Is a man blameable for endeavouring to promote a person to an employment, for which he is fit, because that person is ́ his brother? If he is, Burke deserves cen

Burke also proposed Dr. Lawrence to be one of the Counsellors. Dr. Lawrence had displayed great literary talents, both in humorous and serious productions. In addition to his general talents, he was known to be a man of professional industry and ability. Was it a reason, that a person should not be proposed by another to fill an office for which he was fit, because he was the proposer's friend? If that was the case, Burke was to blame. Speaking farther of the Counsel in the prosecution of Hastings, Mr. McCormick says, Mr. Burke also took care to introduce his own son into this profitable job, as soon as he was called to the

bar. The answer to this assertion is very short:-Mr. Burke's son was NOT introduced to this profitable job. The proof that he was not is the RECORD OF THE TRIAL.

Mr. McCormick mentions a report that Burke was a marriage-broker, and received a considerable sum of money for effecting an union between the Earl of Inchiquin and Miss Palmer, the niece and heiress of Sir Joshua Reynolds. Although he declares his disbelief of this rumour, he speaks of it in such a way as tends rather to accredit it, to those at least, who should take assertion or insinuation for proof. A report (if such a report existed, which I do not know, as I never heard of it) totally inconsistent with the character of its subject, and supported by no evidence, requires no discussion. Most of these reports and insinuations are associated with the straitened circumstances of Burke; as if it were a necessary consequence, that, because a man is not rich, he will therefore be guilty of roguery.

ر

Burke certainly was far from being attentive to pecuniary concerns: although totally free from the extravagance of profligacy, he was habitually liable to the waste of inattention. He neither gamed, nor indulged in debauchery; yet he spent a great deal of money, and was often embarrassed. His great mind did not value riches, which he saw could be acquired by the meanest talents and qualities. Judging rightly in not considering money as a constituent of excellence, he acted wrongly in not sufficiently valuing it as an article of use. As a wise man, thinking the possession of money to be no proof of merit, he too much neglected it as an instrument of convenience. He had not a practical impression of the very plain and obvious truth, that, though a weak and ignorant man is not one whit less weak and ignorant for his possessions, a wise and learned man may render his wisdom and learning still more pleasing and useful to others, and himself, with, than without a competent fortune; that although wealth

ought not to add to the importance of any individual with others deriving no good from it, it is very comfortable to the possessor. Besides, even if he had valued money as much as prudence required, his generosity was so great, that it would most powerfully have counteracted the effects of this valuation. His detractors say that he did not patronize indigent merit: numberless instances might be adduced to prove the contrary. He not only patronized merit, and sheltered it from those attacks which it might otherwise from the unworthy take; but he relieved distress wherever he found it, even although in objects not peculiarly meritorious. His political connections, besides, led to very great expences, both in his general mode of living and in special contributions. There have been several imputations of unjustifiable means used by him to recruit his frequently exhausted finances but there is no evidence of either the truth of such assertions, or the justness of such suspicions. Wanting probability in his general character, and proof as to particular

acts, they will be more or less readily believed by different persons, according to their consciousness of what they have done themselves, or conception of what they would do in such a situation.

Occasional difficulties in his affairs did not prevent his philosophic mind from enjoying very great happiness in the exercise of the kindest affections to his friends and family. No man, indeed, could be a warmer friend, a more indulgent master, a more affectionate father, and a fonder husband; no one was, in all his actions, more influenced by his private connections, unless duty interfered.

His desire of extending the means of beneficial conduct made him bestow attention on practical medicine, and he frequently made up prescriptions. He once, in an attempt of this sort, involved himself in very great unhappiness for several hours. Mrs. Burke having been indisposed, her husband undertook to make up a draught ordered by the physician; but unfortunately mis