gratifying to a mind fond of distinction. In fact, the vanity of our poet was greatly excited by the honour of the interview with his lordship and, for a considerable time after, it was much the subject of allusion and reference in his conversation. One of those ingenious executors of the law, a bailif, having come to the knowledge of this circumstance, determined to turn it to his advantage in the execution of a writ which he had against the poet for a small debt. He wrote Goldsmith a letter, stating that he was steward to a nobleman who was charmed with reading his last production, and had ordered him to desire the doctor to appoint a place where he might have the honour of meeting him, to conduct him to his lordship. Goldsmith swallowed the bait without hesitation; he appointed the British Coffee-house, to which he was accompanied by his friend Mr Hamilton, the proprietor and printer of the Critical Review, who in vain remonstrated on the singularity of the application. On entering the coffee-room, the bailif paid his respects to the poet, and desired that he might have the honour of immediately attending him. They had scarcely entered Pall-Mall, on their way to his lordship, when the bailif produced his writ, to the infinite astonishment and chagrin of our author. Mr Hamilton, however, immediately interfered, generously paid the money, and redeemed the poet from captivity.

Soon after the publication of the «Traveller," Goldsmith appears to have fixed his abode in the Temple, where he ever afterwards resided. His apartments were first in the library staircase, next in the King's-Bench-walk, and ultimately at No 2, in Brick-court. Here he had chambers in the first floor, elegantly furnished, and here he was often visited by literary friends, distinguished alike by their rank, talents, and acquirements. In the number of those with whom he now associated, and could rank among his friends, he was able to exhibit a list of the most eminent and conspicuous men of the time, among whom may be particularized the names of Burke, Fox, Johnson, Percy, Reynolds, Garrick, Colman, Dyer, Jones, Boswell, and Beauclerk, with the Lords Nugent and Charlemont. The mention of

these names naturally calls up the recollection of the famous Literary Club of which Goldsmith was one of the earliest members, and of which the conversational anecdotes, reported by Mr Boswell, have contributed to give so much interest to the pages of that gentleman's biography of Johnson. As our author continued a member of this select society from its foundation till his death, and shone as one of its most conspicuous ornaments, some account of its institution, and a notice of the names of its members till the present time, all of whom have more or less figured in the literary or political world, may not be unacceptable to many of our readers.

This literary association is said by Mr Boswell to have been founded in 1764, but Dr Percy is of opinion that its institution was not so early. Sir Joshua Reynolds had the merit of being the first to suggest it to Dr Johnson and Mr Burke; and they having acceded to the proposal, the respective friends of these three were invited to join them. The original members, therefore, as they stand on the records of the society, were Sir Joshua Reynolds,' Dr Johnson, Mr Edmund Burke, Dr Nugent, Mr Beauclerk, Mr Langton, Dr Goldsmith, Mr Chamier, and Sir John Hawkins; and to this number there was added soon afterwards Mr Samuel Dyer.3 It existed long without a name, but at the funeral of Mr Garrick became distinguished by the title of the Literary Club. The members met and supped together one evening in every week, at the Turk's Head, in Gerrard-street, Soho. Their meetings commenced at seven; and by means of

' Neither Sir Joshua nor Sir John Hawkins had then been knighted, nor had Johnson been presented with his diploma of LL. D.; but both here and on other occasions the parties are noticed by their most common appellations.

2 This gentleman was a physician, father of Mr Burke's wife; not the Dr Nugent who published some volumes of travels, and several philosophical works, for whom he has been sometimes mistaken. The above Dr Nugent was a very amiable man, and highly respected by his contemporaries.

3 This gentleman was one of the intimate friends of Mr Burke, who inserted in the public papers the following character of him at the time of his death, which happened on Monday, September 14, 1772:

« On Monday morning died at his lodgings in Castle-street, Leicester Fields, Samuel Dyer, Esq. Fellow of the Royal Society. He was a man of profound and

the inexhaustible conversational powers of Johnson, Burke, and Beauclerk, their sittings were generally protracted till a pretty late hour. It was originally intended that the number of members should be made up to twelve, but for the first three or four years it never exceeded nine or ten; and it was understood that if even only two of these should chance to meet, they would be able to entertain one another for the evening.

About the beginning of 1768, the attending or efficient members were reduced to eight; first by the secession of Mr Beauclerk, who became estranged by the gayer attractions of more fashionable clubs; and next by the retirement of Sir John Hawkins.

Soon after this it was proposed by Dr Johnson to elect a supply of new members, and to make up their number to twelve, the election to be made by ballot, and one black ball to be sufficient for the exclusion of a candidate. The doctor's proposal was immediately carried into effect by the election of Sir Robert Chambers, Dr Percy, and the late George Colman; and these three were introduced as new members on Monday evening, February 15, 1768. Mr Beauclerk having desired to be restored to the society, was re-elected about the same time.

From this period till 1772 the club consisted of the same members, and its weekly meetings were regularly continued every Monday evening till December that year, when the night of meeting was altered to Friday. Shortly afterwards there were no less than four vacancies occasioned by death. These were supplied, first by the Earl of Charlemont and David Garrick, who were elected on the 12th of March, 1773; and next by Mr

general erudition; and his sagacity and judgment were fully equal to the extent of his learning. His mind was candid, sincere, benevolent; his friendship disinterested and unalterable. The modesty, simplicity, and sweetness of his manners, rendered his conversation as amiable as it was instructive, and endeared him to those few who had the happiness of knowing intimately that valuable unostentatious man; and his death is to them a loss irreparable.»

Mr Dyer was held in high estimation for his erudition by Dr Johnson, but we know not of any literary work in which he was concerned, except that he corrected and improved the translation of Plutarch's Lives, by Dryden and others, when it was revived by Tonson.

(afterwards Sir William) Jones and Mr Boswell, the former of whom was elected on the 2d, and the latter on the 30th of April following. In adverting to the election of Mr Garrick, it may not be deemed impertinent to notice an error on the part of Sir John Hawkins, in his « Life of Johnson." Speaking of that gentleman's wish to become a member of the club, « Garrick,» says the knight, « trusted that the least intimation of a desire to come among us would procure him a ready admission; but in this he was mistaken. Johnson consulted me upon it; and when I could find no objection to receiving him, exclaimed, « he will disturb us by his buffoonery!» and afterwards so managed matters, that he was never formally proposed, and by consequence never admitted.

In justice both to Mr Garrick and Dr Johnson, Mr Boswell has rectified this mis-statement. «The truth is," says he, «< that not very long after the institution of our club, Sir Joshua Reynolds was speaking of it to Garrick: 'I like it much (said the latter); I think I shall be of you.' When Sir Joshua mentioned this to Dr Johnson, he was much displeased with the actor's conceit. 'He'll be of us (said Johnson), how does he know we will permit him? The first duke in England has no right to hold such language.' However, when Garrick was regularly proposed some time afterwards, Johnson, though he had taken a momentary offence at his arrogance, warmly and kindly supported him; and he was accordingly elected, was a most agreeable member, and continued to attend our meetings to the time of his death.» This statement, while it corrects the inaccuracy of Sir John, affords also a proof of the estimation in which the Literary Club was held by its own members, and the nicety that might be opposed to the admission of a candidate. The founders appear to have been somewhat vain of the institution, both as unique in its kind, and as distinguished by the learning and talent of its members. Dr Johnson, in particular, seems to have had a sort of paternal anxiety for its prosperity and perpetuation, and on many occasions exhibited almost as jealous a care of its purity and reputation as of his own. Talking of a certain lord one day, a man of coarse manners, but a man of abilities and information,

<< I don't say," continued Johnson, «he is a man I would set at the head of a nation, though perhaps he may be as good as the next prime minister that comes: but he is a man to be at the head of a club, I don't say our club, for there is no such club. On another occasion, when it was mentioned to him by Mr Beauclerk that Dr Dodd had once wished to be a member of the club, Johnson observed, « I should be sorry indeed if any of our club were hanged;" and added, jocularly, "I will not say but some of them deserve it,» alluding to their politics and religion, which were frequently in opposition to his own. But the high regard in which the doctor held this association was most strikingly evinced in the election of Mr Sheridan. In return for some literary civilities received from that gentleman while he had as yet only figured as a dramatist, Johnson thought the finest compliment he could bestow would be to procure his election to the Literary Club. When the ballot was proposed, therefore, he exerted his influence, and concluded his recommendation of the candidate by remarking, that «he who has written the two best comedies of his age, is surely a considerable man.” Sheridan had accordingly the honour to be elected. The importance thus attached by its members to this celebrated club, seems justified by time and public opinion. No association of a like kind has existed, and retained its original high character, for so long a period; and none has ever been composed of men so remarkable for extraordinary talent.

In 1774, an accession of new members was added by the election of the Hon. Charles James Fox, Sir Charles Bunbury, Dr George Fordyce, and George Steevens, Esq.; and this brings the annals of the club down to the death of Goldsmith. Either then, or soon after, the number of the members was increased to thirty; and, in 1776, instead of supping once a-week, they resolved to dine together once a-fortnight during the sitting of Parliament; and now the meetings take place every other Tuesday at Parsloe's, in St James's-street. It is believed, that this increase in the number of the members, originally limited to twelve, took place in consequence of a suggestion on the part of our author. Conversing with Johnson and Sir Joshua Reynolds