1

not for himself, but for a friend, one Mr. HUGHES, who was accordingly appointed by Mr. GRENVILLE. Now in confequence of this information, I omitted in the next edition, the whole paragraph, and faid nothing, either pro or con, particularly relative to Dr. FRANKLIN. And furely, every thing confidered, and the faux pas of Dr. FRANKLIN concerning the Stolen papers of Mr. WHEATLY duly weighed, one would have thought, that I had made fatisfaction fully fufficient to almost any man in fuch a cafe, whofe pretenfions to nice honour might have been much better founded than those of Dr. FRANKLIN. But it seems, I was mistaken: For before he left England, I was called on in print, to make reparation to his much injured character: And in his abfence, his agents and confederates, the Monthly Reviewers, have done the fame.'

Upon this curious Extract, it is proper we fhould offer fome remarks:

From the ufual inaccuracy of our Author's ftyle, we are fometimes unable to afcertain his meaning. He fays, the minutes which I took at that time relative, &c. were the following.' But the particular time which is the object of this allufion, cannot be difcovered from any antecedent circumftance, unless we may be allowed to fuppofe, that whilst the Dean with one hand wrote the "note at the bottom of page 52," he with the other took the minutes' in question. We should however have been contented to remain ignorant of the time at which thefe falfehoods were committed to writing, if the Author had but condefcended to inform us of the fource from which they were derived. That they are falsehoods, cannot be doubted by any man who confiders how impoffible it must have been that any important malpractices in the adminiftration of public affairs' fhould have really happened, and have continued more than thirty years unknown to the inhabitants of the province where they are faid to have happened, as well as to the people of Great Britain. Whether the charge has been invented by the Dean himfelf, or whether that enmity toward the Colonifts, which he frequently betrays, has led him to feek for flander in its fouleft receptacles, we know not. This however may be prefumed, that a man not partially and malevolently credulous, would have unhefitatingly rejected this vague, imperfect, contemptible fiction; deftitute as it is of any intimation refpecting the nature of these malpractices,' and the names of thefe Leading Men,' who were guilty' of them*; both of which

We are given to understand, that the ftory in queftion is delivered in its prefent imperfect form, because the Dean has been hurried by the early meeting of Parliament, to publish the present

Treatife

which must have been generally notorious, or otherwise the culprits would not have been" in danger of being called to an account."

Indeed our Author appears to have been confcious of the falfity of this charge, and fearful of being reprehended for publishing it; to prevent which, he cautioufly fays, I cannot at prefent authenticate facts and dates, in the manner I would WISH to do, in an affair of such importance.' Therefore (continues he) 1 give this public notice that I build nothing on the prefent narration; and I only offer it (because not corroborated by fufficient evidence) as a probable cafe, and as my own opinion.' How, under fuch defects this fhould be a probable cafe, and become our Author's own opinion,' we leave for his own explanation. To us it appears, that in an affair of fuch importance, a man imprefled with a becoming regard for Truth, and a proper abhorrence of Slander, would, until he had obtained • Jufficient evidence' to 'build' fomething upon, have at least delayed to publish an accufation which thus criminates the motives, and detracts from the merits, of an atchievement fo beneficial to the nation, and fo honourable to the promoters of it. Very different, however, has been the Dean's conduct; for though a dread of correction has led him to fay, that he builds nothing on the tale in queftion, because it is deftitute of evidence, yet he appears very folicitous that this his confeffion fhould not prevent others from building upon it; and therefore he declares the charge to be what he believes in his own mind will be found very true when it can be very thoroughly examined into.'

In what follows, the Dean acknowledges himself to have been deficient in regard to Truth; for though in confeffing that his accufation is deftitute of fufficient evidence,' he has only confeffed that which it would have been wicked to conceal; yet he plainly intimates, that he would have omitted this confeffion, or in other words, that he would have publifhed as true, what he had fo much cause to think falfe, had he not had a particular reason for acting in this cautious manner,' and had he not fuffered already by making a flip in an affair of this nature.' He then proceeds to give an account of one of the untruths which we formerly noticed; and in doing it, a defire, to recover from one flip,' feems to have led him to make another; for he afferts, that Dr. Franklin, in the letters that paffed between

Treatife at least three months fooner than intended.' So that the Dean or his worthy informer, had they been allowed three other months, would have furnished and ferved up thofe very material circumftances which are now wanting. Such length of time might indeed be necessary to invent pretended facts; but how it should be wanted to relate them, we do not comprehend.

B 4

them,

them, acknowledged, that he had asked and made interest for a place in the Stamp-Office, not for himself, but for one Mr. Hughes. Here then we defire to join iffue with Dr. Tucker, and bring his veracity to a fair and decifive trial. Of the contents of thefe letters he cannot have been ignorant, and if (as we contend), they do not contain an acknowledgment from Dr. Franklin, of his having ever afked or made intereft for that or any other place, to be given to Mr. Hughes or any other man, the Dean must be guilty of a wilful and deliberate violation of truth, to the injury of an abfent man. The trial on this fact will be very fhort and eafy if the Dean be not guilty, a fair publication of Dr. Franklin's letters will manifeft his innocence; and in right of that agency from Dr. Franklin, with which the Dean of Gloucefter has kindly invefted us, we call on him either to publish the letters in queftion, and to do it faithfully, or to take to himself the fhame of detected intentional Falfehood.

When our author had been informed of the injuftice of his accufation, we are told that he omitted, in the next edition, the whole paragraph, and faid nothing either pro or con particuJarly relative to Dr. Franklin;' and by this he pretends to think he had made fatisfaction fully fufficient.'-From hence therefore we may judge of the rectitude of his moral fentiments, and of the kind of reparation which he thinks fufficient for those who may have fuffered by fuch detraction.-A man guided by vulgar notions of right and wrong, would, in this cafe, think it reafonable to retract his falfe accufations: the Dean however would by no means confent to do this; but leaving the impreffions of his calumny to operate with their full force, he would only ceafe to republifh it in his next edition.' But perhaps the Dean would have us believe lefs juftice to be due to Dr. Franklin than to other men, on account of a pretended faux pas, concerning the ftolen papers of Mr. Whately. We confefs, however, that we do not comprehend how this faux pas' can be applied to our Author's juftification, unless it be true, that a man who is fufpected of having broken one part of the decalogue, may be juftly and properly accused of a breach of the whole. But even this, if admitted, will not be fufficient, as it does not appear that Dr. Franklin 'has ever deviated from the exacteft line of right. That the papers in question were stolen' by any body, is far from being evident; as it is not yet known. or made probable, that they ever came into the poffeffion of Mr. W-y, from whom they are faid to have been ftolen.-Suppofing, however, that a theft was committed, Dr. Franklin cannot be fufpected of it: we are well informed that he never entered the houfe of Mr. W-y, until long after the ' ftolen papers' had been fent to America, and that then he did it for the fingle purpofe of acquainting that gentleman of the fuccefs of an im

portant

portant commiffion, which he had undertaken, and had most beneficially executed for him in America. Of this fervice Mr. W-y then profeffed a grateful fenfe, and we are forry to say, that, a few weeks after, he demonftrated the nature and extent of his gratitude, by lending his name to fupport a vexatious chancery fuit against Dr. F. refpecting the ftolen papers.' It is, indeed, true, that Dr. Franklin did tranfmit to the fpeaker of the affembly who were his conftituents, certain letters written by men in public offices, on public affairs, particularly refpecting those to whom they were fent. And as Governor Hutchinfon has fuffered by this proceeding, he has naturally complained of it. But we have fufficient reafon from his own history of the Massachusetts Bay, to conclude that the fame conduct towards any other perfon would not have been disapproved even by Governor Hutchinfon bimfelf. We here allude to the inftance of Sir Henry Afhhurft, who was formerly agent while Mr. Dudley was Governor of Maffachufett's Bay, and who, as Mr. Hutchinfon tells us, "procured an original letter wrote by the Governor's fon Paul (then Attorney-General) to Mr. Floyd, and fent it to New England." This letter contained expreflions very inimical to the people, and to the charter of that province; and though Mr. Hutchinfon tells us afterwards, that "Mr. Dudley had no reft the first feven years," and though he is in no degree fparing of his reflections on other occafions, yet in relating the particulars of this tranfaction, he expreffes no difapprobation of the conduct of Sir Henry Afhurft, but on the contrary peaks of him every where as being (what he truly was) a man of the ftrictest integrity and honour.

Refpecting the remaining part of our Author's postscript, which mentions the Monthly Reviewers', as 6 agents and confederates' of Dr. Franklin, we fhall only observe that the Dean knows that the Monthly Reviewers' were not formerly Dr. Franklin's agents and confederates,-and he alfo knows, that his only reafon for now mentioning them as fuch, is that they have refuted fome of his flanderous accufations against that gentleman; an act of juftice which we fhould have rendered to any man, and more especially to any abfent man:-and Dr. Tucker has of all others the leaft caufe of complaint against us. We did not even notice his fcandalous, imputation, until we found him perfevering in calumny, after a knowledge of the truth had been privately forced upon him.

The Dean now pretends to have fuffered much from the flip which we formerly expofed, and to have been thereby induced to act in a more cautious manner.' We are forry that he is not yet become fo cautious,' as to avoid indulging his maleyolence at the expence of truth and juftice. We hope, how

ever, that the fufferings which muft refult from our prefent remarks, (if he yet retains any portion of virtuous fenfibility) will fo far increafe his caution, as to render this kind of reprehenfion hereafter unneceffary. But fhould this hope prove fallacious; fhould he perfift in tranfgreffion; let him expect to receive from us that severity of chastisement, which is suited not only to reform but to punish.

It is juft, however, to declare, that we have been led to a more particular examination of the Dean's Poftfcript, by the reflection which it contains on our felves. Culprits under the fmart of merited cenfure from us, fometimes attempt to recriminate; but thefe literary infurgents have feldom been confiderable enough to deferve our farther notice; and like infects have been permitted to derive impunity from their minuteness. -But the Dean of Gloucester is a more bulky, though not a more complacent animal; and feeding as he does, in a rich ecclefiaftical pafture, we have thought it proper to bestow on him this particular animadverfion.

I

ART. II. Elements of Anatomy and the Animal Oeconomy. From the French of M. Perfon. Corrected and confiderably augmented: with Notes. By Samuel Foart Simmons. 8vo. 5 s. fewed. Wilkie. 1775. N the preface to this work we are informed that the Editor is indebted for the plan, and a great part of the materials of it, to the Elemens D'Anatomie, written by Monf. Perfon, a very ingenious French phyfician; that it was originally published at Paris, in 1748; and that it was republished, with corrections, by Monf. Bruny, in 1763.

As the plan of this performance,' adds the Editor, seemed to be perfectly new, and promifed to be useful to ftudents in ana. tomy; it was at firk intended to give only a literal translation of it: but on examining it more attentively, many alterations and additions, and fome few omiffions were found to be required, to make it adequate to the purpose for which it was intended. It appeared that M. Perfon was at first induced to undertake it for the ufe of a young gentleman who was ftudying phyfics: and his motive for publishing it feems to have been to convey an idea of the human anatomy, and of the principal functions of the animal economy, to gentlemen, who without being educated to the profeffions of phyfic or furgery, might wish to study anatomy as a branch of philofophy. It will be eafy to conceive, that a work profeffedly written on this principle, was not perfectly calculated for the ufe of the ftudent; and every perfon who is at all converfant with these matters, cannot but be fenfible that within the last twenty years, our ideas on the fubject of anatomy have undergone very confiderable changes. It is now more than twenty years fince M. Perfon's work first made its appearance; and a ftill greater fpace of time has elapfed, fince any well received compendium of anatomy has been published in this country; fo that

an