520 
Unlefs when communicated to them, it 
semsined in my own poffeffion till pob- 
lifhed: the librarians aflure me that it 
never was lent or fhewn to any but to 
thefe gentlemen; and no correfpendent in 
Edinburgh, much Jefs a competent judge, 
employed to examine it at the reviewer's 
gecucft, could have been ignorant, or have 
faiied to inform him, thai it was already 
publifhed, and that the book was to be 
procured in every bookfeller’s thop. But 
of thofe gentlemen to whom atone it had 
been commun:cated, the one, whofe opi- 
sion of the manufcript is the very reverie 
of the preceding, yave no mformation 
svhatfoever of its contents. The ocher, 
one of ovr judges, to whom I had leut 
the manufcript for Mr. Whitaker’s in- 
formation, and by whom it was certamly 
examined with fome care, very frankly 
acknowledged to me, that im the interval 
Between the publication of my hiftory, 
and of the manufcript, of which this 
reviewer was ignorant, he had ezther men- 
tioned or tran{mitted by letter, be recollecs 
not which, the precife opinion* quoted 
above from the Britifh Critic to an epif- 
copal clergyman at fome diftance from 
Edinburgh, formerly a nonjuring or jaco- 
bite clergyman, and better known as the 
author of a libel againft the Macgregors, 
under the fictitious fignature of Gregor 
Bacnab. 
As the preceding ftatement has never 
once been contradi¢ted by Mr. N. in our 
correfpondence upon the fubject, and as I 
know for certain that this author has 
been admitted for fome years paft asa 
writer in that journal, it remains for the 
editors to determine whether he is enti- 
tled to a& as a reviewer, and to continue 
as fuch in the Britifh Critic or not. If 
in their opinion he ought not to continue, 
I am perfeétly fatisficd’; and as for the 
infult offered to my character, and to my 
credit as an hiftorian, I afk ro reparation 
or apology whatfoever. If on the con- 
trary it is the opinion of the editors that 
he ovght.to continue as their co-adjutor 
and correfpondent in the Britith Critic, 
it is proper that the public fhould alfo be 
* The words in Italics are his Lordthip’s 
corrections; but the information was un- 
doubtedly tranfmitted by letter. Having 
communicated by Zetter as he fairly ecknow- 
Teéged, his opinion of my Differtatioa, viz. 
That it contained little or nothing but what 
Hume or Robertfon had produced upon the 
fubje&, he would neceffarily add in the fame 
letter his opinion of the manu(cript as the 
enty addition to what was contained in Hume 
and Robestfen. 
Defence of Mr. Fufel??s Pidiure of Count Ugolino. [July 1, 
informed, that their review is to be rens 
dered fubfervient, es formerly, to his 
lurking maiignity, and a vehicle for his 
private, political, or literary animofities, 
and fer the moft perfonal abufe. “A Re- 
view is a fecret felf-created tribunal, to 
which authors of every delcription are 
made amenable; and in proportion to the 
confidence repofed in it by an indulgent 
public, a faithful and confetentious dif- 
charge of the truft is requiftte. But the 
public will be at no lofs to determine, 
whether an suthor, capable and conviéted 
by his owa confeffion, of uttering lidels 
under a fi€iitious fionature, ought to fit 
in Judgment upon men of. letters; or 
what degree of credit is due to a journal 
in which he is fuffered to vent his ma- 
lignity again@t their produétions, under 
the form and difguife of a julf, impar- 
tial, and candid review. The public will 
alfo perceive, that my motive is not to 
enter mto an idle controverfy with an un- 
known reviewer, but to exempt mydelf 
and others from the repetition of fimilar 
infults and abufe: and the editors have’ 
themfelves only to blame if, from their 
connection with this writer, the Biitifh 
Critic fhould fuffer in the public eftima- 
tion. Knowing the advantage that I 
poffeffed, I have acted openly and fairly, 
and £ truft not vindi€tively towards them, 
when the full extent of the cutrage is 
confidered; and as the ftatement con- 
tained in this le:ter has remained in your 
hands uncontradified, fince the arft of 
March, it is not incumbent upon me to 
reply to the Britifh Critic, much lefs to 
the author of the RETRACTION and 
APOLOGY concerning the MACGREGORS. 
Edinburgh, I am, Sir, &c. 
April 25, 1806. MALCOLM Lainc. 
SE 2 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
'Y indignation was exceedingly mov- 
ed at reading a criticifm in Bell's 
Weekly Meflenger (25th May) on the 
picture of Count Ugolino, by Mr. Fufeli, 
in the Royal Academy exhibition; and 
your Magazine being as extenfive in its. 
circulation as that Paper, and as it allo 
muft from its nature be more permanent, 
I take the advantageous opportunity to 
counteract the widely-diffufec malice which 
has fer many years, under the pretence of. 
admiration of the arts, been afliduoufly 
fown and planted among the Englifh pub- 
lic again{t true art, fuch as it exifted in 
the days of Michael Angelo and Raphael. 
Under pretence of fair criticif{m and can= 
dour, the moft wretched tafte ever pro- 
2 duced 
