estate, which his grandfather actually enjoyed; nor that he had himself sunk a handsome competency, in his adherence to his party. Once, and but once, in debate he was provoked to declare his private circumstances. He said that by the death of a brother whom he loved and lamented, he had succeeded to upwards of 20,000l.; part of which he had spent, and the rest then remained to be spent in the independent support of his principles."

Mr. Macknight* considers that in Burke's pecuniary affairs, a mystery has been made of what was, after all, most proper, natural, and creditable, both to the Marquis of Rockingham and Burke. He appears to have received from his Lordship ten thousand pounds, advanced on a bond, which, it was understood, would never be reclaimed. With those 10,0007., five thousand raised on mortgage from a Dr. Saunders, in Spring Gardens, and other eight, doubtless obtained from the successful speculations of William and Richard Burke, in Indian Stock, Burke purchased the estate of Gregories. After the reverses of his relatives, in the year 1769, all the money they had advanced to him was required. Lord Rockingham again came forward, and assisted Burke with frequent loans, which, extending over fourteen years, probably amounted to 30,000l., on Burke's bonds, which were never formally required. This statement Mr. Macknight gives on the authority of a friend to whom the late Lord Fitzwilliam communicated the particulars, from his private sources of information. (See also pp. 217 and 218.)

Burke is said to have expected a legacy from the Marquis. In the House of Commons he distinctly intimated that it was not on his most faithful follower that the virtuous nobleman had lavished the riches of the State. "Among all the encomiums made on the character of the noble Marquis lately deceased, this," said Burke, was one: He left his dearest and best friends with the simple reward of his own individual intimacy. This singular test of their sincerity he asked

*Of Mr. Macknight's able work, vols. 1 and 2 were published in 1858, bringing the narrative to 1782.

while living, and it was a tax that he left on their regard for his memory when dead."

In the interesting series of papers in the Athenæum, 1853, which we have already quoted, appeared the following queries as to the "patrimonial estates that came into possession of Edmund Burke, on the death of his elder brother Garret. Is it quite certain that they were patrimonial estates ?—that is, estates of inheritance, which had descended from father to son until they vested in Edmund Burke's father, and, through Garret, in Edmund Burke. Were they ever possessed by his father? It appears from Edmund Burke's letter of the 9th of December, 1777, that property bequeathed to him by Garret, had been litigated by some of his relations with his elder brother'-and that the question of right had something to do with the infamous penal laws. Burke's account is this: 'In 1765, my brother died and left me his interest in Colhir.' He adds that 'During my brother's lifetime, whilst the transaction was recent, and all the parties and witnesses living, the affair was litigated; that the litigation had proved unsuecessful; and that a decree of a Court of equity had established him in peaceable possession. I suppose that nobody will think me unjust in supposing that I had a fair title to what was so left and so confirmed.' In conclusion, Burke says: 'I could not admit his [Mr. R. Nagle's] claim, made, as he made it, without affecting my brother's memory.' Why not explain this, instead of mystifying the subject by talk about his great-great-grandfather and the patrimonial estates? It is a curious circumstance that this question was raised eighty years since, and that after all the words and volumes of his biographers, we are as much in the dark as ever. In 1773, a satirical poem was published called The Rape of Pomona,said to have been written by Mr. Coventry, subsequently a member of Parliament: in that work, the writer incidentally alludes to this very question:

Who, like Ned B-ke, from Liffey's bogs depart,

(Brogue on each tongue, and mischief in each heart,)

That moral Teague, who in religious cause

Wrote his famed treatise on the penal laws."

The meaning of which is thus explained in a note:

"Mr. Burke some years ago composed an elaborate Essay, pointing out with great elegance and strength of reason, the injustice and bad policy of the penal laws in force against the Roman Catholics in Ireland as incompatible with the principles of toleration and the right of mankind. Just as his treatise was ready for the press, a renegade relation of his died who had acquired an estate by turning an informer, which he bequeathed to the conscientious Edmund. The piece was instantly suppressed, as Mr. Burke was suddenly convinced that the penal laws are beneficial to society, and the bulwark of the Protestant religion."

The assertions here made as to the motives and feelings of Edmund Burke are, of course, false and libellous,—he never did change his opinions in respect to the Penal Laws; but it is a fact, and a curious fact, that Burke about the time referred to, and just before he came into possession of the estate in question, was preparing an elaborate Essay on the Penal Laws in Ireland, which was found in MS. amongst his papers, after his death, and then first published. Now Burke may have felt that, under circumstances, it would have been neither wise nor decent, with reference to his brother's memory and character, to publish this essay at that particular period,―he may, therefore, have suppressed it when he came into possession of the estate;—but be the facts what they may, while persons persevere in writing biographies, the public have some right to know what are the facts.

How Burke obtained the funds necessary for the purchase of Gregories has been the subject of much question and surmise. That Edmund Burke was deep in the mystery or iniquity of stock-jobbing was asserted over and over again in the contemporary journals, one of which is quoted in the Athenæum, from the Public Advertiser, October, 1771: "He, (Edmund Burke,) is engaged in a scheme, or rather conspiracy, with the old fat cub S, in buying up land at the Grenades, in order by chicane and tricks to get the lands from the present legal possessors and proprietors. Pl, Lord Hol

land's man, and by his directions, assisted the brothers and their cousin, and the rest of the knot of knaves, in their deeplaid schemes to raise the India Stock. This is a history too well known to be entered into." "The brothers and their cousin"—that is, Edmund, and Richard, and William Burke; "the fat cub S may have been Stuart, Macleane's Philadelphia partner, his intimate friend for life. Now, Macleane did buy up land at the Grenades, to the extent, by contemporary assertion, of 200,000l.; and Stuart and the Burkes may have been all joined in the speculation. "P-ll, Lord Holland's man," according to reasonable probability, was Powell, the cashier in the Paymaster-General's office, who was some years later dismissed for malpractices, and who gave some evasive and unsatisfactory evidence as to Lord Holland's accounts, and the balance in his own hands. Now it is an astonishing fact, that no sooner was Lord Rockingham in office, in 1772, and Burke appointed Paymaster-General, than in defiance of the open remonstrance of personal and political friends, Burke restored this man Powell to his former situation! (See note, p. 247, of the present volume.)

The writer in the Athenæum then adduces a variety of evidence as to the frightful extent of these speculations; among which the extracts from unpublished letters are most important. The Burkes, Richard and William at least, never recovered their losses. Lord Verney, too, the friend and patron of the Burkes, was also ruined. The exact relation of these parties came to issue in the Courts of Equity. About 1778, or 1779, Lord Verney filed a bill in Chancery against Edmund Burke. "It was alleged (says Bisset) by Lord Verney, that Burke, his brother, and cousin, had been engaged with him in a stock-jobbing speculation, by which very great loss had been incurred; that Lord Verney was the ostensible man, and had been obliged to make out the engagements; that Edmund Burke, being the only one of the rest who had any property, Verney had applied to him to defray his share of the debt. On refusal, he filed a bill against him in Chancery, claiming Burke as his partner.

Burke making affidavit that he was not, the matter was of course concluded in Burke's favour. Nevertheless," Bisset admits, "a great clamour arose against Burke for clearing himself in this manner."

BUST AND PORTRAITS.

The finest bust of Burke is that by a young sculptor named Hickey, who came over to England, and was patronized by Burke as Barry had formerly been. The original bust is in the Medal-room of the British Museum, and has been engraved. Mr. Macknight says: "This is almost the only authentic image of Burke, so strange has been his fate, while so many monuments have been erected to contemporaries infinitely his inferiors in genius and virtue.”

Of this bust a curious story is related. Queen Caroline, when Princess of Wales, professing great admiration of Mr. Burke, wrote to Mrs. Burke at Butler's Court, requesting permission for a cast to be taken from Hickey's bust.* Mrs. Burke, pleased at having due honour paid to her husband, requested the Princess' acceptance of the original bust, to which she consented. At the sale of Her Royal Highness' effects at Connaught House, the bust was found among some lumber, and was purchased by Mrs. Thomas Haviland.

Sir Joshua Reynolds painted, between 1771 and 1781, five portraits of Burke: which have been engraved by J. Watson, J. Hardy (2), Benedetti, and C. Knight. Sir Joshua also painted the portraits of three of the Burkes,-Edmund, Richard the younger, and William,-which were bequeathed to the Earl Fitzwilliam, and are now at Milton.

But the most celebrated portrait of Burke is that painted by Reynolds for Mrs. Thrale, and which, after Mrs. Piozzi's death, was purchased by Mr. Richard Sharpe for two hundred and forty guineas. It subsequently became the property of Sir Robert Peel, and is now at Drayton Manor. Cotton, in

*Mr. Prior mentions a good likeness, modelled in wax, and finely finished, by T. R. Poole, but taken at a later period of life than any of the pictures.