_critiques_;
and Robertson, Blair, and Kaimes, with others he assailed, have all
taken their due ranks in public esteem. What niche does Stuart occupy?
His historical works possess the show, without the solidity, of
research; hardy paradoxes, and an artificial style of momentary
brilliancy, are none of the lasting materials of history. This shadow
of "Montesquieu," for he conceived him only to be his fit rival,
derived the last consolations of life from an obscure corner of a
Burton ale-house--there, in rival potations, with two or three other
disappointed authors, they regaled themselves on ale they could not
always pay for, and recorded their own literary celebrity, which had
never taken place. Some time before his death, his asperity was almost
softened by melancholy; with a broken spirit, he reviewed himself; a
victim to that unrighteous ambition which sought to build up its
greatness with the ruins of his fellow-countrymen; prematurely wasting
talents which might have been directed to literary eminence. And
Gilbert Stuart died as he had lived, a victim to intemperance,
physical and moral!

FOOTNOTES:

[97] It may be curious to present Stuart's idea of the literary
talents of Henry. Henry's unhappy turn for humour, and a style
little accordant with historical dignity, lie fairly open to
the critic's animadversion. But the research and application
of the writer, for that day, were considerable, and are still
appreciated. But we are told that "he neither furnishes
entertainment nor instruction. Diffuse, vulgar, and
ungrammatical, he strips history of all her ornaments. As an
antiquary, he wants accuracy and knowledge; and, as an
historian, he is destitute of fire, taste, and sentiment. His
work is a gazette, in which we find actions and events,
without their causes; and in which we meet with the names,
without the characters of personages. He has amassed all the
refuse and lumber of the times he would record." Stuart never
imagined that the time would arrive when the name of Henry
would be familiar to English readers, and by many that of
Stuart would not be recollected.

[98] The critique on Henry, in the _Monthly Review_, was written by
Hume--and, because the philosopher was candid, he is here said
to have doted.

UNDUE SEVERITY OF CRITICISM.

DR. KENRIC