ply his cane to the shoulders of the publiber, who making a powerful refiftance, from being the defenfive foon became the offenfive combatant. Dr. Kenrick, who was fitting in a private room of the publisher's, hearing a noise in the fhop, came in, put an end to the fight, and conveyed the Doctor to a coach. * The papers inftant

ly

* Dr. Kenrick was faid to be the author of the attack, a writer of abilities, but who from difappointment and unhappiness of temper, feems to have lived defpifing and defpised by all his contemporary writers, and whofe bafe, illiberal, and unmanly attack on the late Mr. David Garrick, merited that indignation and difdain of its author, which every perfon fhewed on that occafion. Mr. Garrick fent him a challenge, which he refused. He then commenced a profecution against him, but fome perfons interfering, and pleading for his family, Mr. Garrick with too great lenity dropt the law fuit. Dr. Kenrick took shame to himself, asked pardon of Mr. Garrick in a public news paper, and-abused him again.

The

ly teemed with fresh abuse on the impropriety of the Doctor's attempting to beat a perfon in his own houfe, on which in the Daily Advertiser of Wednesday, March 31, 1773, he inferted the following ad'drefs:

"To the PUBLIC.

"LEST it fhould be fuppofed that I "have been willing to correct in others

an abuse of which I have been guilty "myself, I beg leave to declare, that in "all my life I never wrote, or dictated,

a fingle paragraph, letter, or effay, in

a news-paper, except a few moral essays,

The writer of this note afked Dr. Kenrick how he could bring fo infamous a charge against Mr. Garrick, he replied, "he did not believe him guilty, "but he did it to plague the fellow." I defire to add, I never more converfed with fuch a man.

" under

"under the character of a Chinese, about "ten years ago, in the Ledger; and a "letter, to which I figned my name, in "the St. James's Chronicle. If the li"berty of the prefs therefore has been " abused, I have had no hand in it.

"I have always confidered the press as "the protector of our freedom, as a watch"ful guardian, capable of uniting the "weak against the encroachments of 88 power. What concerns the public "most properly admits of a public dif"cuffion. But of late, the prefs has "turned from defending public interest,

to making inroads upon private life: "from combating the ftrong, to over"whelming the feeble. No condition is

now too obfcure for its abufe, and the "protector is become the tyrant of the "people. In this manner the freedom

of

"of the prefs is beginning to fow the "feeds of its own diffolution; the great "muft oppose it from principle, and the "weak from fear; till at last every rank "of mankind fhall be found to give up "its benefits, content with fecurity from << its infults.

"How to put a ftop to this licenti"ousness, by which all are indifcrimi"nately abused, and by which vice con

fequently escapes in the general cenfure, "I am unable to tell; all I could wish "is, that, as the law gives us no protec"tion against the injury, so it should

give calumniators no fhelter after "having provoked correction. The in"fults which we receive before the pub"lic, by being more open are the more diftreffing; by treating them with filent contempt, we do not pay a fufficient

"defe

"deference to the opinion of the world. "By recurring to legal redrefs, we too " often expose the weakness of the law, "which only ferves to increase our mor"tification by failing to relieve us. In "short, every man should fingly confider " himself as a guardian of the liberty of "the prefs, and as far as his influence "can extend, fhould endeavour to pre"vent it's licentioufnefs becoming at last "the grave of it's freedom.

"OLIVER GOLDSMITH."

Notwithstanding the great fuccefs of his pieces, by fome of which, it is afferted, upon good authority, that he cleared 1800l. in one year, his circumstances were by no means in a profperous fituation! partly owing to the liberality of his difpofition, and partly to an unfortunate

habit