much reason to expect that Lady Macclesfield would leave at the time, or supply afterwards, such documentary or other evidence as would enable the child legally to prove his parentage.

Leaving Boswell, let us now turn to Mr. Galt, whose shallow speculations upon Richard Savage have imposed upon a few inconsiderate persons. In the year 1831 Mr. Galt published a work which he called "Lives of the Players." Into this compilation he inserted a life of Savage, the poet having appeared upon the stage three times during his existence, in a play of his own writing. The Life of Savage, by Galt, appears to have been written with the view of superseding Johnson's admirable biography. Towards this end the author did not lay himself out to discover any fresh facts or materials; nay, he appears to have been unaware that Boswell had written a word about "this vagabond," as, by way of showing his impartiality, he calls Savage at the outset. No; by the unassisted force of his reasoning powers he undertook to show that Johnson was a poor credulous creature, and that Johnson's "Life of Savage" contained within itself its own refutation. One or two specimens from this delectable piece of arrogance may be desirable, as showing to what an extent conceit may be carried, and to what a lowness of reasoning capacity a writer may descend, without being detected by the whole of his readers.

About the time that Savage invented his story, says Mr. Galt, "the famous trial of the Annesley family began, and it is curious in how many points the abduction of the heir of that family resembles the pretended machinations of which Savage gives an account of his being himself, both in what was done and intended, the object."

The coincidence is strange, while it would be easy to

show that there must be a general resemblance in all such cases. But we put it to every candid person, whether, if Savage had been an impostor, he would not have invented a story as unlike as possible to this "famous case." His story was believed in spite, not in consequence, of its resemblance to the Annesley case. We scarcely require further proof of the truth of Savage's statement, than that, being so similar to the other, it stood its ground. Mr. Galt asserts that Lady Macclesfield, now become Mrs. Brett, did deny that Savage was her son, and goes on to observe thus :-" In fact, being persuaded that he was an impostor, all the extraordinary antipathy with which she regarded him is explained."

Very good! We beg the reader to mark well what follows. Wilks the player, touched by the misfortune of Savage, and believing his story, waited upon Mrs. Brett, and obtained from her 601. for the use of her son, with a promise of 1507. more. Upon this, Mr. Galt remarks. "This circumstance has been assumed as a proof of the truth of his story; but I think it affords none; because, from the gallant address and eloquence of Wilks, 607. might be obtained from a gay and wealthy lady of damaged quality, to relieve a distressed young man, without being any proof of so close a connexion as Savage had represented existed between them.”

This is a tolerable stretch for a man who sneers at the credulity of Johnson. It is no very likely circumstance that an actor, however gallant and eloquent, would succeed in talking a lady of quality out of 607. for a young gentleman in distress; but it is incredible that he could do so, when the money was to be given to a young fellow who had been persecuting the lady solicited, by a flagrant imposture. Mr. Galt forgot that he had said just before

that Mrs. Brett's "extraordinary antipathy was explained.” How is it possible to reconcile the gift and the antipathy, except by a belief of Savage's story?

To show how little Mr. Galt knew of the subject upon which he undertook to write, I quote the following passage: -"Dr. Johnson says that the Duke of Dorset told Savage that it was just to consider him as an injured nobleman. It is surprising that the Doctor, in repeating this story, was not astonished at its absurdity; it being ridiculous to suppose that his Grace would make use of any such expression, in speaking of one who, by the nature of his birth, was precluded from even pretending to rank."

This comes of writing and reasoning in utter ignorance. The Duke of Dorset might have said, and, I doubt not, did say, what has been attributed to him. The Earl of Macclesfield, instead of suing the Ecclesiastical Court, proceeded at once to Parliament for a divorce. He obtained an act, which, having a retrospective operation, illegitimated Savage, who was already born, an act so unprecedented, that it did not pass without a strong protest being entered on the Journals of the House of Lords by several peers. Hence, the strong expression of the Duke of Dorset.

But enough of this. Richard Savage was the son of Earl Rivers and the Countess of Macclesfield, who, after her divorce, married Colonel Brett. There cannot be a reasonable doubt of the truth of this story. While a youth, he was an associate of the players at Drury Lane Theatre, when Brett was one of the patentees, whose sufferance of him was a tacit concession of his claim. was patronised by Steele, the intimate friend of Brett and his wife. He was on terms of acquaintance with Lady Rochford, a daughter of Lord Rivers. During the space of two years, he lived as a guest in the house of Lord

He

Tyrconnel, the nephew of Mrs. Brett. His story was universally believed. Four times during his life was it made public, and no attempt was ever put forth to contradict its truth, or to invalidate one statement contained in it. The year after his death, the powerful hand of Johnson dispersed the story over the kingdom. Mrs. Brett was yet living. Did she offer a syllable of reply to the tremendous accusations brought against her? Did Lord Tyrconnel advance one word on her behalf? Both were silent. Five and thirty years afterwards, Johnson incorporated, without the alteration of a word, the “Life of Savage" with the "Lives of the Poets." Boswell, some years after Johnson's decease, and fifty years after the death of Savage, originated a doubt of the truth of his story; but even Boswell confesses, "supposing him to be an impostor, it seems strange that Lord Tyrconnel, the nephew of Lady Macclesfield (Mrs. Brett), should patronise him, and admit him as a guest in his family."

For my part, I cannot understand this fond leaning towards Mrs. Brett. This notable lady had a sufficiency of assurance; was possessed of abilities; had money with which she might, in a moment, have secured the services of a hack author of adequate talent; and yet it is reserved for a Boswell and for Galt to convince the world that Mrs. Brett's son died in his infancy, that Savage was the son of the nurse, and that he passed himself off for the child of the lady. A miserable imposture at the best, this clamorous claim of illegitimacy, preferred to one of the most infamous women then living in England. But miserable as it might have been, it required, that it might be successful, something more than a bold face and a strenuous persistance. How came Savage by his education? How did the son of the poor nurse qualify himself

for the assumption of the young gentleman? "Fore God! this is a more excellent tale than the other." He who could believe this, would have sworn allegiance to Lambert Simnel in the very kitchen of Henry VII., and have pronounced his spit a sceptre. There are some people in the world that love truth as a lover his mistress, who dare not look upon her when she is present, but sees her in dreams and everything about him when she is far away.

I am strongly persuaded that Savage devoutly believed he was the son of Lord Rivers and the Countess of Macclesfield. His strong and violent resentments; his insolence, which too often looked like ingratitude; all his faults, his follies, and his vices, were the consequence of that conviction on his part. It is difficult to note the weakness of the man without feeling a contempt for him; but his character is intelligible only on a supposition of the sincerity of his belief. I have drawn his character to the best of my ability, in the following pages, and as I believe he himself would have portrayed it, for Savage was never careful to conceal his faults. To those who have hinted that I drew from myself, I have nothing to say. Words are wanted upon men who from malice will not, or from ignorance cannot, dissociate the author from his subject. The calumny or the dulness, as the case may be, is old, applied to those who write fiction in the first person.