264 
his being elevated to the order of the 
garter, when he was only twenty-five ! 
He was under considerable personal ob. 
ligations to the family of Stuart, for which 
reason he opposed the coming over. of 
William IIT.-at the time of theRevolution, 
His Essay on Poetry is classed with 
the very first compositions of that kind, 
though his poetry, in general, wants fire ; 
for an account of which we beg to refer 
to Johnson’s Lives of the British Poets. 
Your’s, &c. 
AN OLD SUBSCRIBER. 
™ eevee 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
S a friend to the memory and literary 
A merits of the late Thomas Chat- 
terton, I request the insertion of the fol- 
lowing remarks in your excellent and im- 
partial publication, 
Your ingenious correspondent (Mr. G. 
Cumberland) very justly asserts, in your 
Magazine for June, vol. xxvii. p. 436, that 
Dr. Sherwen has erroneously charged the 
Jate Mr. Thomas Chatterton with hayimg 
written the lines to which he objects, as 
an address to his own mistress; and Mr. 
MC. hasvery properly shewn, that they were 
written by that unfortunate. and much- 
lamented young man, fora friend. Dr. 
S. was therefore wrong in asserting, that 
they were composed “under the influ- 
ence of a passion which generally ani- 
mates the most unfeeling, and inspires 
every one with some portion of the spi- 
rit and phrensy of poetry.” . But since 
they were really written by Chatterton, 
although not under the influence of that 
passion, it seems perfectly fair for Dr. S. 
or any other person, to infer that, he 
who, in the year 1768,.at the age of six- 
teen or seventeen, could write so incor- 
rect and puerile a stanza, under any 
influence, cannot, without violating every 
rule of critical probability, be considered 
as the author of some‘of the most highly- 
finished poetry, such as Elinoure and 
Juga, or the song to Ella, in 1764, when 
four years younger. 
Although Ihave advanced thus much 
in vindication of the Doctor, I conceive 
it impossible, Sir, for him to obviate 
altogether the charge of your respectable 
correspendent ;-and he will doubtless be 
under the necessity, in his next publi- 
cation, of correcting himself; which I 
hope he will do with the same temper 
and freedom, that he has corrected so 
many other writers. ; : 
Mr. C. has brought other charges of a 
more serious nature against this writer, 
whose dedication, which he calls an ad- 
yertisement, contains “ petrifying inde- 
Vindication of Dr. Sherwen. 
‘[Oct. 1, 
licacy.” It is a bad work that cannot: 
defend itself. This petrifying indelicacy 
is as follows: 
“ The profits arising from this Es- 
say, were originally intended to have, 
‘been given to the sister of the late 
Thomas Chatterton ; but the benefit she 
derived from the publication of his Mis- 
cellanies, and her subsequent death, de- 
termined the author to adopt the more 
numerous, and more necessitous, class of 
his relatives and representatives ; viz. the 
sons and daughters of literary indigence ; 
who to the honour, the exclusive honour 
of Great Britain, find protection in a 
society established for their peculiar 
support. He 
“To that benevolent society, therefore, 
this Essay, together with the profits 
accruing from its publication, are, with, 
all due respect and esteem, dedicated 
by the author.” 
Such, Sir, according to Mr. C, is the 
-petrifying indelicacy of an advertisement 
in the introduction to.an examination of 
the internal evidence respecting the an- 
tiquity of Rowley’s poems ! 
The splendid tribute to which Dr. S. 
has alluded, in his first paragraph, un- 
doubtedly relates to the three handsome 
octavo-volumes, “ The Works of Thomas 
Chatterton,” edited by Mr. Southey, 
who is richly and fully entitled to all the 
encomiums there bestowed on him, 
The next charge brought forward 
-against the Doctor, by Mr. C. is that by 
his own confession, he has been deeply 
concerned in “ some former attacks on 
the boy anonymously ;” the last words 
are not to be found in the book, al- 
though printed as a quotation from it. 
At page 3, Dr. S. tells his readers, that 
his correspondence on the subject had 
formerly been communicated to Dr. 
Glyn, from whose favourable represen= 
tation he was honoured with the notite . 
of Dr. Milles, “‘and he may truly say, 
(he adds) that although previous to the 
year 1808, he never published a single 
sentence himself on the Rowleian con- 
troversy, and although his name was 
never publicly known as a coadjutor, 
several remarks of his are already before 
the public ;” does this imply that, by his 
own confession, he has been deeply con- 
cerned in some former attacks on the. 
boy anonymously? Will nat every page 
of his present publication vindicate him 
from such a charge? Does he not on 
every occasion speak of Cvatierton with 
praisé and admiration? In his seventh 
page, he candidly declares, that even ad- 
mitting the poems to have been written ~ 
by him, “ there never could have tir 
the 
