chants, we have butchered, ftarved, plundered and enflaved, the fubjects and provinces of lawful princes; and all the imported diamonds of the eaft cannot out-blaze the crimson that ought to ftain our cheeks, or the indignation that ought to have fired them, when more recent Machiavels have called for applaufe on their de vaftations. But as Cæfar's conquefts lifted the yoke on the neck of Rome, Indian gold has undermined the Englith conftitution; for, when heaven inflicts heroes on mankind, it generally accompanies them with their confequences, the lofs of liberty-to the vanquished, certainly; to the victorious, often! GENEALOGY OF THE ABERCORN FAMILY. From Walpoliana, Vol. II. I HAVE fallen into fome mistakes for want of a proper genealogy of the Abercorn family. [The following little memoir, remitted to the editor by an ingenious correfpondent in Ireland, will ferve to rectify those mistakes, and will at the fame time prove interefting to the admirers of the Memoires de Gram. mont, perhaps the most witty and amufing of literary productions. Mr. Walpole's chief errors occur p. 75 and 273, in which he fuppofes George to be the eldest fon, and thus perplexes feveral of the anecdotes.] "James, fecond Lord Hamilton, married Mary, daughter of James III. and by her had James, third Lord Hamilton, first Earl of Arran. His fon James was fecond Earl of Arran and Duke of Chatelheraut, whofe eldeft fon James became infane, John, the fecond fon, was created Marquis of Hamilton in 1599. “The third_fon, Claud, was, in 1585, created Lord Paisley, and his eldeft fon, James, was made Earl of Abercorn in 1606. By Mariana, daughter of Lord Boyd, he had five fons and three daughters. "The three eldeft fons failing of iffue, the title of Abercorn afterwards fell to the defcendants of Sir George, the fourth fon. (Alexander, the fifth fon, became a count of the empire, and fettled in Germany, where his pofterity ftill remain.) "Sir George Hamilton, fourth fon of James, firft Earl of Abercorn, married Mary *, third fister to James, firft "Her nieces, daughters of James, Duke of Ormond, Lady Mary, wife of the Earl of Devonshire, and Lady Elizabeth, fecond wife of the Earl of Chefterfield, were the reigning beauties of the age. There are pictures of both in the prefent Earl of Ormond's cafile at Kilkenny. Lady Chefterfield was of a delicate form and low ftature; her daughter married John, Earl of Strathmore. "The fcandalous chronicles of thofe times charge her husband, the Earl of Chefterfield, with having caufed her to take the facrament upon her innocence, respecting any intimacy with the Duke of York, and having then bribed his chaplain to put poifon into the facramental cup, of which he died. His fon, Lord Stanhope, by his third wife (father of Lord Chefterfield the author), married Gertrude Saville, daughter of the Marquis of Halifax. The Marquis and Ear! quarrelled, and the latter made his fon bring his wife to Litchfield, breaking off all intercourse between the families. Lady Stanhope had always on her toilette her father's “Advice to a Daughter:" her father-in-law took it up one day, and wrote in the title-page," Labour in vain." On her fide, the lady made her fervant out of livery carry in his pocket a bottle of wine, another of water, and a cup; and whenever the dined or fupped in company with her father-in-law, either at his own houfe or abroad, fhe never would drink but of thofe liquors, from her fervant's hand, as a hint to the Earl, and fociety prefent, of what his lordship was fufpected of having effected by a facred beverage." "2. George, Count Hamilton, a marechal de camp in the French fervice. He married Frances Jennings, fifter to the Duchefs of Marlborough, and left three daughters; Elizabeth, wedded to Viscount Rofs; Frances, to Viscount Dillon; Mary, to Vifcount Kingfland. "(By which laft marriage the pictures I faw at Tarvey, Loid Kingf land's houfe, came to him. I particularly recollect the portraits of Count Hamilton and his brother Antony; and two of Madame Grammont, one taken in her youth, the other in an advanced age.) wife of Henry, Earl of Stafford. Tradition reports that Grammont, having attached, if not engaged, himself to Mifs Hamilton, went off abruptly for France; that Count [George] Hamilton purfued and overtook him at Dover, when he thus addressed him : "My dear friend, I believe you have forgot a circumftance that should take place before your return to France." To which Grammont answered, "True, my dear friend; what a memory I have! I quite forgot that I was to marry your fifter; but L will inftantly accompany you back to London, and rectify that forgetfulnefs." It is hardly requifite to add, that the witty Count de Grammoat is not recorded to have been a man of perfonal courage. 2. Lucy, married to Sir Donogh O'Brien, of Lemineagh. 3. Margaret, to Matthew Forde, Efq. of Coolgraney, Wexford. "(With his defcendant at Seaford, county Down, I faw the picture of Count [George] Hamilton, dreffed in the French uniform; the painting not near fo good as that in the Kingfland family.) Frances Jennings, widow of Count Hamilton, was fecondly married to Richard Talbot, Duke of Tyrconael. She died at his house in "6. John, a colonel, flain at the Paradife-row, Dublin, I think in the battle of Aghrim. "As Sir George Hamilton was governor of the caftle of Ninagh in 1649, from that, and his affinity to the Duke of Ormond, it has been concluded that his children were all born in Ireland*. "He had also three daughters. "1. Elizabeth, wedded to Philibert, Count de Grammont, by whom she had a daughter, who became the year 1736. Her death was occafioned by her falling out of her bed upon the floor, in a winter's night; and being too feeble to rife or to call, was found in the morning fo perished with cold, that he died in a few hours. She was of very low flature, and extremely thin; and had not the leaft trace in her features of having ever been a beauty." REMARKABLE He afterwards went abroad, and did not return till the tefloration, when he was created a baronet. Dongl. Peer. Sir George himself was probably born in Scotland. Any of his children, born between 1949 and 1660, may claim a foreign birth. Edit. I REMARKABLE INSTANCE OF NAIVETE AND IGNORANCE. From the fame. Heard, while in France, a rifible inftance of naiveté and ignorance. Three young ladies, much of an age, were boarded in a convent, where they contracted a moft fond friendfhip for each other, and made up their little refolutions never to part as long as they lived. But how contrive this, when in a few years their parents would take them out of the nunnery, and would marry them to different hufbands? After repeated deliberations, it was difcovered that the only way of remaining in conftant union was, that all the three fhould wed one and the fame hufband. Upon further inquiry and difcuffion this was obferved to be contrary to law; and at length the wifeft head of the three obferved, that they might all marry the Great Turk. A letter was compofed in great form, the refult of the choiceft eloquence of all the three, explaining the tender friendship which united them, and the choice they had made of him for their husband. They added, that as soon as they had received their firft communion, they would fet out for Conftantinople, and begged that all might be prepared for their reception. Delighted with this expedient, the three friends fent off their letter to the poft office with this direction: To Mr Great Turk, at his Seraglio, Conftantinople. By Lyons. The oddity of the direction was the occafion of the letter being opened, and of the discovery of this great plot. LIST OF BOOKS PRINTED AT STRAWBERRY-HILL. From the fame. ODES by Mr Gray, 1757. 1100, Mifcellaneous Antiquities, 4to. 1772. 4to. 500. Mr Fitzpatrick's Dorinda; and Fox's Verfes to Mrs Crew, 1775. 300. The Sleepwalker Com. 1778. 75 copies. Letter to Editor of Chatterton, 1779. 50 We felect the following Article from the First Number of a new Periodical Publication, intitled the "FARMERS MAGAZINE," a work exclusively devoted to Agriculture and Rural Affairs; to be published Quarterly. GENTLENEN, I ON THE SUBSETTING OF LAND. Addressed to the Conductors of the Farmers Magazine. Perufed your profpectus with a great deal of pleasure, and rejoice that the nineteenth century is to be introduced with fuch an useful publication. I truft it is an evidence of the progrefs of knowledge, which is faft fpreading amongst all ranks, and hope that you will experience a liber. ai fupport from the cultivators of the foil, both in this and the fifter kingdom. Among the benefits which our profeffion will receive from a work exclufively devoted to their information and inftruction, is the opportunity it affords of difcuffing every subject connected with rural economy. In Newspapers and Magazines of a mifcellaneous nature, these subjects were formerly overlooked, as people thought it unneceffary to convey their remarks through fuch precarious and neglected channels. Your publication, however, presents a fure road to at tention, a circumftance of particular importance to those whofe intereft is affected by the fubjects difcuffed. - Under this impreffion, 1 beg leave to tranfmit you fome obfervations, upon a question which I confider as materially connected with the profperity of agriculture in this and every other country: Namely, Whether tenants ought to be allowed liberty of fubfetting their farms, where they have not agreed to denude themselves of that liberty. That they have not fuch a right by common law, is a doctrine lately advanced, and I believe partially confirmed by a few decifions of our fupreme court; but taking the matter in the abstract, thefe decifions, unfupported as they are by Statute law, cannot have fur ther weight against the right, than merely what ought to be attached to the collected voice of an equal number of individuals of the fame knowledge and information. In the agricultural furvey of an eaftern county, highly celebrated for fuperiority in rural fcience, the learned and refpectable perfonage employcd to draw up the work, fays, (p. 128 of the Quarto edition,) "it is now an understood principle at common law, that unless the tenant fhall ftipulate this power, and that there fhall be a fpecial covenant to that effect in the leafe, he can neither affign nør subset ; or, in other words, if the leafe fhall be filent upon this point, the tenant has no fnch power :" and he afterwards adds, that "the prin ciples upon which this rule has been eftablished, feems to me to be grounded upon good fenfe and found policy." By the word now in the firft part of the quotation, it appears that this rule has been but lately established, and that the law of Scotland was formerly interpreted in a different manner. But by whom has the alteration been introduced? Was it enacted by the three eftates in parliament affembled? No: but by the will of perfons who are themfelves proprietors of land, and who probably have imbibed old feudal prejudices, which prevents them from obferving that fuch a rule, (for we will not call it a law,) contributes to fink the spirit of the tenantry, and to ftop the progrefs of agricultural improvements. Mr Erskine, in his Inftitutes of the law of Scotland, feems to entertain a different opinion upon this point, and and it is furprising that the jurifdiction act, which abolished the old feudal rule, that a vaffal could not be received on an estate without the confent of the fuperior, did not also a bolish the feudal claufes in leafes, prohibiting a fubfet of land, or in other words, do away the power retained by proprietors, to prevent any perfon from poffeffing land, whether they had their permiffion or not, which is exactly fimilar to the feudal rule, that a vaffal could not be received without the confent of the fuperior. In this refpect the Ruffian boor is fuperior to the British farmer, for, according to the ingenious Mr Tooke, it is perfectly indifferent to the owner of the eftate, in what manner and by what means the boor procures his livelihood, fo he do but regularly pay his obrok, or rent; and that under this adjustment the latter is in fome fort his own master, being free to dispose of his activity, as well as of the fhare of the foil committed to him. Were tenants in this country allowed in like manner to alienate their property, and to change their fituation, they would certainly poffefs no more right than is already enjoyed by the rest of the community. But what injury would the landed intereft fuftain from the exercife of fuch a right? Would the rent be lefs fecured, or the preftations of the leafe more imperfectly implemented, when the tenant alienated and difpofed his leafe in favours of another? An unprejudiced perfon would rather be led to think that additional obligations would create additional fecurity for the faithful difcharge of the burthens originally contracted, than that any injury would be fuftained by the alienation of the leafe, and the change of the tenant. be found. In no refpect can the landlord's intereft be injured; on the contrary, as already faid, it is additionally protected, by two or more perfons being concerned in the tranfaction. The refufal, therefore, is rather an inftance of a lack, than a proof of fenfe, and as for the policy of withholding the right, it is equally undifcoverable. It is obvious that the majority of fubfets would proceed from the inability of the original tenant to keep his poffeffion, or from a defire to change his fituation in life. In the firft cafe, the farm cannot be properly cultivated, and in the other, the tenant may leave the premiffes under the management of a fervant, againft which practice no law has as yet been established. In both cafes the property may be deteriorated, and at any rate it will not be improved; whereas if a subset had been allowed, a fuperior tenant might have been procured, whofe capital was fufficient for the undertaking, and whofe inclinations led him to follow after rural affairs. Again, in the first cafe, a perfon is obliged to continue in poffeffion till his affairs are totally embarraffed; and in the other, he muft abide like a fixture upon the premiffes, or commit his affairs to the direction of others. Let these things be duely confidered, and the impolicy of withholding the right contended for will be clearly difcernible. Under every view of the matter, the landlord cannot be injured by the exercife of this right. It may be faid he is entitled to chufe his tenant, and that by fubfetting he may get a difagreeable perfon upon his eftate. Thefe objections have little weight, for whoever is the tenant in poffeffion, the original Leffee is bound for the faithful obfervance of all the preftations; and if these are performed, the landlord can have but fmall concern with the occupant. Befides, even under the ftri&teft prohibition, the choice of a tenant is not in a landG 2 We come now to the remark, that the withholding a right to fubfet is founded in good fenfe and found policy; and we may enquire where the fenfe or the policy of the refufal is to lord's |