STUART, Gilbert, an eminent jurist and historian, was born at Edinburgh in the year 1742. His father, George Stuart, LL. D., had succeeded John Ker as professor of humanity during the preceding year. According to the tradition of the university, he was an excellent Latinist, but of his proficiency he has left no public proofs. He had prepared an amended and enlarged edition of Ainsworth’s Latin Dictionary; but it was never committed to the press, and its suppression may perhaps have been occasioned by the too high estimate which the professor had formed of its pecuniary value.

The son was educated in the public school and in the university of his native city. Of his proficiency in several branches of study, his various works afford a sufficient criterion. To the pursuit of jurisprudence he devoted himself with uncommon ardour; but although he had a strong relish for law as a science, he anticipated no delight from its practice, and he was never called to the bar. Of his early progress in this study he exhibited a very conspicuous specimen in a work published without his name; “An Historical Dissertation concerning the Antiquity of the English Constitution.” Edinb. 1768, 8vo. It has been asserted that when he produced this work, he was little more than twenty years of age; but the statement is not sufficiently accurate, for he had then attained his twenty-sixth year. For a writer of that age, or indeed of any age, it is an ingenious and able performance. His chief favourites and models are Tacitus and Montesquieu. With no mean talents for research and disquisition, he has endeavoured to evince that “the parts which compose our constitution arose more immediately from the forests of Germany.” The same ground had recently been occupied by the learned Dr Squire, bishop of St David’s; of whose Inquiry into the Foundation of the English Constitution a second edition appeared in the year 1753. Stuart’s Dissertation, distinguished by so much vigour of intellect and maturity of juridical learning, procured him from the university the degree of LL. D., which is very rarely bestowed upon so young a scholar. A second edition, bearing the author’s name, was published at London in the year 1771, and he then prefixed a dedication to the earl of Mansfield.

The dedication is dated at London in the month of January 1770; and before this period he had become a regular contributor to the Monthly Review, with which he continued his connexion from 1768 to 1774. We likewise find him employed as the editor of “An Historical Treatise on the Feudal Law, and the Constitution and Laws of England; with a Commentary on Magna Charta, and necessary Illustrations of many of the English Statutes; in a[7:20:781] Course of Lectures read in the University of Dublin, by the late Francis Stoughton Sullivan, LL. D., Royal Professor of the Common Law in that University.” Lond. 1772, 4to. Dr Sullivan had obtained a fellowship at the early age of nineteen; and, as his editor informs us, he “was not less remarkable for his knowledge in history and chronology than for his skill in his profession as a barrister and civilian.” Towards the close of his life, he was engaged in preparing a History of Ireland; but this task was reserved for Dr Leland, another distinguished fellow of Trinity College. The editor, whose name does not appear, has prefixed a preface of four pages, and has particularly extolled the author for his “admirable vindication of the original freedom of our constitution, and his excellent commentary on Mayna Charta”

A pseudonymous work, of a very different denomination, has been ascribed to Dr Stuart. It bears the title of “Animadversions on Mr Adam’s Latin and English Grammar; being an Exhibition of its Defects, and an Illustration of the Danger of Introducing it into Schools. By John Richard Busby, Master of Arts.” Edinb. 1773, 8vo. This grammar, at its first appearance, was doomed to encounter a very fierce and general opposition. The other four masters of the school to which the author belonged, presented to the town-council a remonstrance against it; and the use of it in that seminary was formally prohibited.^[1. Henderson’s Account of the Life and Character of Alexander Adam, LL. D. Rector of the High School of Edinburgh, p. 42. Edinb. 1810, 8vo. ] Stuart’s zeal might be excited by his relationship to Ruddiman, whose elementary works, both excellent in their kind, had for half a century retained their place in the grammar schools. That the writer has detected and specified errors and omissions, it would not be safe to deny; but the spirit as well as the style of his animadversions is such as no unprejudiced reader could approve. They conclude with the subsequent passage: “These strictures will, it is thought, be sufficient to evince the entire frivolity of Mr Adam’s grammar, and the danger that must attend its adoption into our schools. To point out all the errors of his performance, would require several volumes; and I am not ambitious of performing a task that would vie with any of the labours of Hercules. It is the peculiar infelicity of this grammarian, that he exhibits every defect which it is possible for an author to possess; a sterile invention, an unhappy method, a cold and inauspicious manner, an inaccurate and nerveless expression, a perverted judgment, a defective understanding, a corrupted taste.—Education is -not a matter to be trifled with. The mistakes and miscarriage of our most generous youth have too frequently their rise in the negligence with which they have been treated in schools, where they have been sent to be initiated in the first principles of knowledge. It is also no groundless complaint, that the teacher often adds incapacity to neglect. And if this is, in general, a just representation of the matter, how must we pity, in particular, the pupils of Mr Adam! To disadvantages common to other boys, they must join the cruel and insuperable one of studying a work that advances in an unvaried progress from blunder to blunder, and from absurdity to absurdity.” The merits and demerits of this grammar, which in spite of all opposition became very popular, were discussed in various articles of the Weckly Magazine. Here we find two Latin lucubrations on the subject, one of which was known to be the production of Stuart, and the other might perhaps be written by the same satirical pen. In the form of a description of a Roman funeral, he records the interment of Adam’s Latin Grammar; nor does he neglect to introduce the well-known Jamie Duff, an idiot whose supreme delight was to place himself, an unhired attendant, at the head of a funeral procession: “Imus ad hortos scholastico, praceunte Jacobo Duff, solita sua gravitate, densissimo ac laetissimo puerorum agmine cincto.” The narrative closes with this monumental inscription:

In hac urna jacet quod reliquum est

Libelli inauspicati, nunquam resurrecturi, invita et irata Minerva editi; qui miserabiliter in tenera actate raptus, triste praebet exemplum fragilitatis humanae, nec non vanitatis auctorum, qui Musis non rite litantes longiorem expectant vitam. Siste viator; et, si meliorem animae partem velis esse superstitem, fatum meum tecum reputo. Festina lentius, et vale.^[2. Weckly Magazine, vol. xix. p 245. See likewise p. 53. ] *

Dr Stuart now undertook the management of “The Edinburgh Magazine and Review,” of which the first number bears the date of November 1773. In the commercial part of this enterprise his partners were Alexander Kincaid, his majesty’s printer, William Creech, bookseller, William Smellie, printer, and William Kerr, surveyor of the postoffice. The work was printed by Smellie, who was likewise to manage the business details of the concern, to furnish the last half-sheet of every number, and to review such books as the editor and he should select. The profits were to lie distributed into six shares; one of which was allotted to Kincaid and Creech conjunctly; one each to Stuart, Smellie, and Kerr; and the remaining two to the editor and the printer, to be divided between them as they should mutually agree. Stuart was himself the principal writer. Various essays and reviews were furnished by Smellie. Lord Hailes, Dr Blacklock, Professor Richardson of Glasgow, and Professor Barron of St Andrews, were among the number of the contributors. The name of Dr Moor appears in the poetical department. An extraordinary lucubration, entitled “A modest Defence of the Accomplishment of Blasphemy,” was written by the Rev. A. Gillies. The Rev. Mr Nimmo of Bothkennar wrote the Essay on the Antiquities of Stirlingshire, which he afterwards enlarged to the size of an octavo volume.^[3. ’ Kerr’s Memoirs of Smellie, vol. i. p. 401. ]

A periodical work, supported by such contributors, might have run a long and prosperous career, if its success had not been marred by the editor’s want of temper and discretion. At that period, the population of Edinburgh probably did not amount to one third of its present number; and the freedom of public discussion was circumscribed in at least an equal proportion. Dr Henry was one of those who had most reason to complain of injurious treatment. A single sermon of his was very unfavourably noticed by Smellie; and on the second volume of his History of Great Britain two articles were written by Stuart, in a style of unmitigated sarcasm and contempt; nor does it appear that there was any original ground of personal offence. In some fragments of his letters which have been published by D’Israeli, he speaks of this historian with a strange mixture of levity and virulence. Lord Monboddo did not experience better treatment. On the second volume of his Origin and Progress of Language they inserted two, and on the third volume three articles, each of them more offensive than another. These articles were written by Stuart, Smellie, and Gillies, but the greater portion of them by the latter. The editor lent his aid in the review of the third[7:20:782] volume, and in the art of vituperation he greatly excelled his coadjutors. It is scarcely to be supposed that any of the disparaging expressions were attributable to Smellie. This attack on the learned judge gave great offence to him and his friends, and indeed it had a visible effect in precipitating the failure of the work. Of Lord Karnes’s Sketches of the History of Man the editor had prepared a very severe review; but when it was sent to the printer, he “counteracted the intentions of his colleague, by altering the whole into a totally opposite tendency, converting the far greater part from harsh invective into reasonable and merited panegyric.” On discovering that the venom had thus been extracted, the writer was moved with violent anger; but he speedily moderated his feelings so far as to admit that his friend had acted rightly. Smellie, though he generally exercised a sounder discretion, could himself display a strong vein of satire. This remark was sufficiently verified in his controversy with Dr Nisbet, then minister of Montrose, and afterwards president of Dickinson College at Carlisle in Pennsylvania.^[4. See Dr Allen’s American Biographical and Historical Dictionary, p. 449. ] The controversy was occasioned by the mode of reporting a certain debate in the General Assembly. Nisbet printed two letters in a newspaper, and Smellie replied in the magazine. This publication was continued till the month of August 1776, when it terminated with tb.e fifth volume. A closing notice informed the “numerous and respectable encouragera of this work,” that its publication was only interrupted for some months, and that it would afterwards appear in an improved form. But the promise was never fulfilled, nor is it very probable that many readers expected its fulfilment.

Notwithstanding the failure of this project, Dr Stuart had displayed so much talent in his principal articles, that his reputation as a man of letters suffered no diminution. He however felt a very painful mortification at the unsuccessful result of his labours; and his mind was so badly regulated that, instead of reflecting on the natural tendency of his own conduct, he continued to cherish a most bitter and indiscriminate resentment. In a letter, dated on the 17th of June 1774, and probably addressed to his London publisher, he expresses himself in these unseemly terms: “It is an infinite disappointment to me, that the Magazine does not grow in London; I thought the soil had been richer. But it is my constant fate to be disappointed in every thing I attempt; I do not think I ever had a wish that was gratified, and never dreaded an event that did not come. With this felicity of fate, I wonder how the devil I could turn projector. I am now sorry that I left London; and the moment that I have money enough to carry me back to it, 1 shall get off. I mortally detest and abhor this place, and every body in it. Never was there a city where there was so much pretension to knowledge, and that had so little of it. The solemn foppery, and the gross stupidity of the Scottish literati, are perfectly insupportable. I shall drop my idea of a Scots newspaper. Nothing will do in this country that has common sense in it; only cant, hypocrisy, and superstition, will flourish here. A curse on the country, and all the men, women, and children of it.... The publication is too good for the country. There are very few men of taste or erudition on this side the Tweed; yet every idiot one meets with lays claim to both. Yet the success of the Magazine is in reality greater than we could expect, considering that we have every clergyman in the kingdom to oppose it; and that the magistracy of the place are every moment threatening its destruction.” All this exhibits a melancholy picture of a man of superior talents and attainments, deriving no wisdom from experience, but still indulging those very passions to which his want of success was chiefly to be attributed, and which always bear along with them their own punishment. Before he vented his spleen in terms of such unseemly import, he ought to have recollected, “It is a foul corby that bewrays its own nest.” The fault that he here commits, is not one with which his countrymen are commonly chargeable; and the period which he thus describes as so barren in taste and erudition, was perhaps remarkable for its intellectual eminence beyond any former or succeeding period in the literary annals of Scotland.

Dr Stuart was still in the early vigour of manhood, and he speedily roused himself to new and greater exertions. After an interval of less than two years, he produced what we are disposed to regard as the best of his works, “A View of Society in Europe, in its Progress from Rudeness to Refinement: or, Inquiries concerning the History of Law, Government, and Manners.” Edinb. 1778, 4to. This work, of which there are several other editions, excited much attention on its first appearance. Hayley, who was then a popular writer, described the author as possessing “all the energy of genius.”^[5. Hayley’s Essay on History, p. 157. Lond. 1780, 4to. ] His researches are conducted with judgment and sagacity; he grasps his subject with much vigour, and always expresses himself with boldness and force. In the progress of his discussions, he points out various mistakes of recent writers. One of these was Blackstone, who silently rectified the errors which he detected.^[6. English Review, vol. ii. p. 169. ] The style of this work, though never languid or feeble, may however be considered as deficient in fluency and variety. His periods are too uniformly short, to be altogether pleasing to the ear. Long sentences he has elsewhere denounced in set terms. “This brevity,” he avers, “is a conspicuous part of oratory, and is consistent with the greatest elevation and dignity. Where Cicero himself is most eloquent, and where the tide of his language is most rapid and powerful, his sentences are concise; and he avoids with care the periodic swell, as cold, artificial, and unnatural. And indeed it is to be laid down as a general rule, that where sentences are uniformly long, as in Milton and in Clarendon, there is no eloquence in the composition, and little connection in the argument.”^[7. Edinburgh Magazine and Review, vol. v. p. 250. ] *

The chief value of the work consists in the vivid and striking picture which it exhibits of chivalry and the feudal system. In this respect it possesses some advantages over Dr Robertson’s View of the Progress of Society in Europe, though it is not written with the same degree of classical elegance. “In the courtly and agreeable introduction to the History of Charles the Fifth,” says Dr Stuart, “of which the scheme is so comprehensive, it is remarkable that, amidst a wide variety of other omissions, there is not even the slightest consideration of knight-service, and the knight’s fee. Yet these circumstances were of a most powerful operation, both with respect to government and manners. I make not this remark to detract from the diligence of an author whose laboriousness is acknowledged, and whose total abstinence from all ideas and inventions of his own, permitted him to carry an undivided attention to other men’s thoughts and speculations; but that, resting on these peculiarities, I may draw from them this general and humiliating, yet, I hope, not unuseful conclusion, that the study and knowledge of the dark ages are still in their infancy.” This contemptuous mention of the great historian could scarcely fail to excite resentment, and of this resentment he speedily had occasion to prove the bitter effects.

The professorship of the law of nature and nations was at that period held by James Balfour; and in 1779, being then advanced in years, it was ascertained that he was willing to resign it for a valuable consideration. Here it is necessary to explain the very remarkable fact, that, under the sanction of the secretary of state, this professorship was[7:20:783] regularly bought and sold. The price of his resignation had already been fixed, and the chair, thus to be vacated, had been promised to Dr Stuart, when the negociation was finally interrupted by a strong remonstrance from the principal; who might safely represent to the lord advocate that the habits of the candidate were not sufficiently academical, and that such an appointment would be highly unsatisfactory to himself, as well as to some of his colleagues. “While engaged in some of his studies and projected publications,” we are informed, “he has been known to confine himself for many weeks to solitary literary labour, hardly ever stirring abroad for air and exercise; but he unfortunately indulged in occasional sallies of vastly too great latitude and even licentiousness.”^[8. Kerr’s Memoirs of Smellie, vol. i. p. 500. ]

This professorship was founded by the crown in the year 1707. The salary, payable out of the tithes of the bishopric of Edinburgh, amounted in 1802 to about L.350; but it was then reduced so low as L.80 or L.90, by an augmentation of stipend adjudged to the minister of St Cuthbert’s. As an indemnity for this reduction, the professor obtained in 1806 a pension of E.200, payable during his incumbency. He had “purchased his commission,” and he never read a single lecture. He survived till the year 1831, and no successor has been appointed. A middle way might certainly have been found between the conduct of one administration and that of another. The number of lucrative offices in this university is not superabundant, nor was it necessary to reduce their number by so minute a fragment of public economy. Even on the admission of the chair having been inefficient, this treatment, unless extended to some better-endowed universities, can scarcely be regarded as impartial. The professorship of the civil law at Oxford has long been as inefficient as the professorship of public law at Edinburgh. Why should the one be suppressed, and the other spared?

His qualifications for the office which thus seemed to be within his reach, were very eminent; and this signal disappointment of his hopes proved the greatest misfortune of his life. His resentment against Dr Robertson appears to have suggested all the works in which he afterwards engaged. This spirit is very easily to be discerned in his next publication, “Observations concerning the Public Law and the Constitutional History of Scotland: with occasional Remarks concerning English Antiquity.” Edinb. 1779, 8vo. His extensive researches for the View of Society must evidently have abridged his labour of preparing these Observations, which contain much disquisition of a similar kind. The work is able and elaborate, nor can it be safely overlooked by any student anxious to investigate the constitutional history of our country. His antipathy to Robertson is unequivocally displayed in many passages; and, at the conclusion, he thus concentrates his sentiments of disparagement: “A propensity to embellish other men’s notions, without considering enough on what authority they are founded, how strong they are in themselves, and what inferences are to be deduced from them, is a constant and a teeming source of mistake to this showy and elegant historian. It is thence that he holds out many a frail opinion to glitter and to perish. To collect these cannot be interesting to me. But, though I could not submit to make a chronicle of his errors, I have been induced to wipe away, and to dispel, in part, the stains and the gloom they would fix upon our story, and to illustrate, by examples, the respect which is due to his authority. And, while I perform this service to truth, to liberty, and to our national antiquities, I disdain to be unjust, and am far from being insensible to the peculiarities of his merit. It must be a pain, I know, to many of his readers, that the most widely amusing of all our writers, is not at the same time the best informed, and the most able. They must regret that a work which forms so general, so easy, and so pleasing a pastime, is not also fraught with instruction, and loaded with wisdom; and that the author, who is deservedly so eminent in all the arts of courtly and popular composition, is not likewise remarkable for those superior qualities, which alone can secure and establish admiration, the power of thought, and the originality of sentiment.” It is scarcely necessary for us to subjoin, that we are very far from being disposed to acquiesce in this general estimate.

This publication was speedily followed by “The History of the Establishment of the Reformation of Religion in Scotland.” Loud. 1780, 4to. The work is written with his usual ability, but it cannot be affirmed that such an undertaking was peculiarly adapted to his habits of thinking. He however displays a greater degree of impartiality than could well have been anticipated. He is willing to admit that “a tribute of the highest panegyric and praise is justly to be paid to the actors in the Reformation. They gave way to the movements of a liberal and a resolute spirit. They taught the rulers of nations that the obedience of the subject is the child of justice, and that men must be governed by their opinions and their reason. Their magnanimity is illustrated by great and conspicuous exploits; which, at the same time that they awaken admiration, are an example to support and animate virtue in the hour of trial and peril. The existence of civil liberty was deeply connected with the doctrines for which they contended and fought. While they treated with scorn an abject and cruel superstition, and lifted and sublimed the dignity of man, by catling his attention to a simpler and wiser theology, they were strenuous to give a permanent security to the political constitution of their state.”

Of this work, his next publication may be considered as the sequel: “The History of Scotland, from the Establishment of the Reformation till the Death of Queen Mary.” Lend. 1782, 2 vols. 4to. Here the author has made a great, and indeed a splendid effort, to eclipse the reputation of Robertson, whom he both envied and hated. As the one historian considered Mary guilty of some of the foulest crimes laid to her charge, it was almost an obvious consequence that the other should represent her as innocent. Her innocence, he is willing to believe, has been demonstrated by Goodall and Tytler; but more recent writers, and especially Laing, have sufficiently disposed of their demonstrations; nor is it perhaps to be anticipated that any historian of eminence will hereafter desert the footsteps of Robertson to tread in those of Stuart. His work however displays great vigour of mind, and the style is more easy and flowing than that of his View of Society. Some of his characters are sketched with a powerful pencil. This history attracted no inconsiderable share of public attention on its first appearance, and, like his preceding volume, it reached a second edition, but it made little or no progress in supplanting the rival work; and the story of the ill-fated Mary’s crimes and sufferings still continues to be chiefly read in the elegant and captivating pages of Robertson.

The preface to the History of Scotland is dated at London on the first of March 1782; and soon after this period, he undertook the management of the English Review, the property of the late John Murray, who had been the London publisher of his Magazine. Of “The English Review, or, an Abstract of English and Foreign Literature,” the first number appeared at the commencement of the year 1783. One of his coadjutors was Whitaker, an uncandid and virulent critic, whose chief effort in this journal was a series of articles on Gibbon’s History.^[9. ’ D'Israeli states that “he negociated for Whitaker and himself a doctor of laws degree." (Calamities of Authors, vol. ii. p. 63.) This ] These he reprinted[7:20:784] in a separate form in the year 1791. In this English Review, some Scotish authors do not find much favour. The historical works of Dr Ferguson and Dr Watson receive a liberal portion of praise; but the Lectures of Dr Blair and the Dissertations of Dr Beattie are treated as works of very inferior merit and importance. It is observable that Smellie’s translation of Buffon is not honoured with much commendation. Stuart had dedicated one of his works to the chief justice; but the subsequent passage, which occurs in an article apparently written by him, affords a sufficient indication of his altered sentiments: “Lord Mansfield, during the course of his long life, has been uniformly the zealous champion of prerogative; and has exerted and prostituted his abilities to undermine the trial by jury, and the liberty of the press, those sacred and formidable bulwarks which support the glorious fabric of the English government.”

How long he continued to conduct the English Review, we are not informed. In 1785 he became the editor of “The Political Herald and Review; or a Survey of domestic and foreign Politics, and a critical Account of political and historical Publications.” This work, it is believed, only reached a second volume. One of his coadjutors, in this as well as the English Review, was Dr Thomson, who, like himself, was too great a lover of Burton ale. Their favourite haunt was the Peacock in Gray’s Inn Lane.^[10. ‘ Annual Obituary, vol. ii. p. 101. ] It is too well known that Stuart’s mode of life had been such as to impair his health and strength. With a constitution undermined by disease, and a mind soured by disappointment, he embarked for Leith, and sought a place of rest under the roof of his father, who having become emeritus professor in 1775, was then residing at Musselburgh. The son was labouring under a dropsy, from which the usual operation afforded him a temporary relief; but all medical aid was ineffectual, and he descended to bis grave at the premature age of forty-four. He died on the 13th of August 1786, and his father survived till the 18th of June 1793.

Gilbert Stuart is thus described by a writer who seems to have had some personal knowledge of him: He “was about the middle size, and justly proportioned. His countenance was modest and expressive, sometimes announcing sentiments of glowing friendship, of which he is said to have been truly susceptible; at others, displaying strong indignation against folly and vice, which he had also shewn in his writings. With all his ardour for study, he yielded to the love of intemperance, to which, notwithstanding a strong constitution, be fell an early sacrifice.”^[11. General Biographical Dictionary. vol. xxviii p. 474. ] (X.)