Michael D.Heath-Caldwell M.Arch.

1834 - 1835 - 1836

---

 

George Heath Serjeant-at-Law  - aged 55/56                 1779-1852
Anne Raymond Heath (ne Dunbar) - aged 47/48           1787-1842

Julia Anna Heath (later Harrison) - aged 27/28              1807-1879
John Moore Heath - aged 26/27                                     1808-1882
Douglas Denon Heath - aged 25/26                               1811-1897
Dunbar Isidore Heath - age 19/20                                  1816-1888
Leopold G. Heath R.N. - age 17/18                                1817-1907
Emma Jane Heath (later Whatman)    - aged 13/14        1821-1884

---

7 January 1835
The Heath Family Engravers - Volume 3 - by John Heath

Will of Mary Phillipson otherwise Heath

I. Mary Heath of Russell Place, London, do make this my last will and testament. '
I give to my dear children Charles, Caroline, Harriet, Matilda and Amelia my house in Pentonville lately left me by my brother James Phillipson to be sold and the produce to be equally divided between them 

and I leave my son Charles my whole and sole executor. 

Witness my hand this 8 of February 1814 - (signed) Mary Heath

Appeared personally, Charles Heath of Seymour Place in the County of Middlesex, Esquire, George James Corbould of Southgate in the County of Middlesex, Esquire, and James Galletly of Turnham Green in the said County of Middlesex, Gardener, and severally made oath as follows

and first the said Charles Heath for himself made oath that Mary Phillipson otherwise Heath late of Russell Place, Fitzroy Square in the said County of Middlesex Spinster deceased for many year before and up to the time of her death which happened on or about the ninth day of October 1819 lived with James Heath then of Russell Place, Fitzroy Square aforesaid Esquire and passed for and was commonly called his wife and she assumed his name accordingly

and he further made oath that the reason why a probate of her last will and testament bearing date the 8 February 1814 hereunto annexed was not sooner applied for was because the said James Heath with whom the said deceased cohabited and in whose house she lived and died had possession of her said will and that such was not seen by this deponent Charles Heath and did not come into his custody possession of property until after the death of the said James Heath which happened on or about the 15 November 1834 last when the said will was found among his papers, 

and the said George James Corbould and James Galletly for themselves made oath that they knew and were well acquainted with the said deceased for many years before and to the aforesaid time of her death and also with her manner and character of handwriting and of writing and subscribing her name having often seen the said deceased write and also write and subscribe her name 

and having now with care and attention viewed the signature "Mary Heath" set and subscribed to her said annexed will, the said will beginning thus "I, Mary Heath of Russell Place, London" submit this witness  my hand this 8 of February 1814, they those deponents do verify and in their consciences believe that the said recited subscription to the said will to be proper handwriting and subscribing of the said Mary Phillipson otherwise Heath Spinster deceased - 

Charles Heath, George James Corbould, James Galetly on the 19 December 1834, the said Charles Heath, George James Corbould and James Galetly were duly sworn to the truth of the within named affidavit 

Before me J.Phillimore, Surr - Present Off. F. Gostling Notary Public.

Proved - at London on the 7th January 1835 before the Worshipful Joseph Phillimore Doctor of Laws and Surrogate by the oath of Charles Heath esq., the sole executor to whom administration was granted having been first sworn only to administer

---

2 February 1835
Charles Heath, 6 Seymour Place, London to Dawson Turner  (Banker)

My dear Sir,
I enclose the two Bills for £300 at 15 and 18 months drawn up as you requested and likewise a Bill for 60 and 2 months due to go off the old account. I shall shortly have the pleasure of forwarding you some proofs of the "England and Wales," and the large ones I promised. Believe me, Dear Sir, Yours most truly obliged.
Charles Heath

P.S. I beg to acknowledge the receipt of a fine brace of Pheasants. Pray accept my best thanks.
 

---

Wednesday 4 February 1835
Morning Herald (London)

Inner Temple, Tuesday, Feb.3
The undermentioned gentlemen were called to the Bar on Friday, the 30 ult. by the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple - viz; Robert Bayly, jun., Esq.; Graham Francis Moore Esq.; Edward Theophilus Hood Esq.; Henry Strettell Chadwick Esq,; Frederick Woodham Nash Esq.; Calmady Pollesfen Hamlyn Esq.; Douglas Denon Heath Esq.; James William Colvill Esq.; and Edward Turner Boyd Twistleton Esq.
 

---

Thursday 5 February 1835
Public Ledger & Daily Advertiser

Inner Temple, Tuesday
The under-mentioned gentlemen were called to the Bar on Friday, the 30th ultimo, by the Honourable Society of the Inner Temple, viz: - Douglas Denon Heath Esq., - - -

---

13 March 1835
Charles Heath to Dawson Turner

My Dear Sir,
I shall very soon now have the pleasure of sending you the "England Views," and the large prints and the 19th No. of the "England" will shortly be published and the companion to "Blyted [sic] Hope." I can than make one parcel of the whole.

Since I had the pleasure of seeing you I have sold all my back stock of Proofs to Mr.McCormick, Printseller. Shewed for 1500 in bills of £100 each coming due very month commencing three months hence.

I wish to ask you if I allow you the 10 per cent off the old debt you would be inclined to cash or 10 of them. You [may] depend on their being punctually paid. Your answer will very much oblige. Dear Sir, Yours most truly,
Charles Heath.

---

21 March 1835
Charles Heath to Dawson Turner.

My Dear Sir,
I am exceedingly obliged to you for your kind offer respecting the Bills. They are quite sure to be regularly paid. I have done a great deal of business with the Acceptor - about four years since - he was in Difficulties - I was his principal Creditor - he owed 1500 - He have us bills at 12 , 18, 24 months for the whole and paid them all regularly. He is now doing well.

I have received from him in cash since November 1st more than 800 for Book and Proofs of my Annuals. In fact unless I was sure of the money I would not have sold to him as I shall have to pay you the ten per cent besides the interest.

I have taken the liberty of including six Bills instead of five all endorsed by Mrs.Petch and by this days Coach I have the pleasure of sending you the first volume in Boards small paper, to which you refer for the titles, and let me know how many you have seen. There are four more numbers published including the one coming out.

With respects believe me, Dear Sir,
Yours most truly obliged,
Charles Heath

---

Thursday 26 March 1835
The Evening Chronicle

New Windsor Election Committee.

The Committee appointed to decide upon the petition presented against the return of Sir J.de Beauvoir for the above borough, met yesterday, at 12 o'clock, in one of the magistrate's rooms of the Westminster Session House.

The Clerk to the Committee stated that there were two petitions against Sir J. de Beauvoir, one of the sitting members for the borough of New Windsor, in which there were allegations of non-qualification on the part of the sitting Member, of bribery and treating, of pauperism, and of change of occupation after registration, &c., on the part of his supporters. - On the first petition being read, -

Mr.Harrison, on the part of Sir J. de Beauvoir, admitted the non-qualification set up by the first petition, namely, that the sitting Member did not possess a qualification right of lands in the county of Middlesex,  as sworn to by the sitting Member: he therefore objected to the second petition being read in reference to non-qualification, he, as Counsel, having admitted that his client had not the qualification adverted to in the first petition.

Mr.Serjeant Spankie (with whom was Mr.Serjeant Heath) contended, on the part of the petitioner, that it was necessary that the second petition should be read, in order that the Committee might be enabled to understand the nature of the fresh qualifications set up by the sitting Member; which was, that he claimed the right to be elected a knight of the shire, on the ground of his being the eldest son of Sir John Brown, Bart, of Ireland. 

The Learned Serjeant said that he would give an outline of the petitioner's case, in order that the Committee might be enable to understand the nature of the objection raised.  - - -continues - - 
Mr.Harrison objected, on the ground that the non-qualification having been admitted, it was not possible to go into evidence to prove it.

Mr.Serjeant Heath said that the impeachment of the first qualification would show the character of the second.

Mr.Harrison said he now perceived the object of his Learned Friend, which was to prejudice the second qualification set up. He protested against such a proceeding.

The Chairman (Sir James Graham) thought that as Sir J. de Beauvoir had given up his first qualification,it could not well merge into the consideration of the second; however, the Committee would be glad to hear the Learned Counsel argue the question pro and con.
continues - - - -

---

Friday 27 March 1835
Morning Chronicle

City of Canterbury Election Committee

The Committee net yesterday in No.3 Committee Room, when, in consequence of some misunderstanding in respect to the determination of the Committee in reference to the course which they intended to pursue, the Committee came to the decision that they would in the first place consider the objections made by the Assessor to certain votes tendered for the petitioner; and should their decision be that the Assessor was wrong in rejecting those votes, they would then place them on the poll for Mr.Stephen R. Lushington, the petitioner, and declare him to be the sitting member for the City of Canterbury in the room of Mr.Villiers, allowing to that gentleman fifteen days to petition against the return of Mr.Lushington.

The poll-books were then put in and proved by the Sheriff and his deputy.
Mr.Serjeant Merewether then proposed to add to the numbers who had polled for the petitioner a man named Bourne. The objection rasied by the Assessor to the vote of this man was , that his name was spelt with a final 'e' on the registry, whereas upon the poll it was spelt without it; and the name was then placed upon another list as a vote that had been tendered, which list was placed on one of the sheets of the pol-book.

Mr.Serjeant Heath contended that although the poll-book was a good record of the votes given at the election, yes, as there was no provision in the Reform Bill pointing out the necessity of keeping such a list as that now under the consideration of the Committee, that such a list was not a good record, and could not be received in evidence.

Mr.Serjeant Merewether contended, on the other hand, that the list in question as a proper one, that it was a part of the poll, and it having been made out under the sanction of the returning officer, that it was to all intents and purposes a good list, and ought therefore to be received.

The Committee having shortly considered the point, decided the list submitted to them was a valid one, and that the objection raised was not a good one.
continues  - - - - 
 

---

Tuesday 19 May 1835
Kentish Weekly Post or Canterbury Journal.

Canterbury Election

On Friday the committee appointed to try the merit of the petition in this case assembled at half-past 12.  - -  -continues - - -

The case of the petitioner was opened by Mr.Serjeant Heath, who proceeded to inform the committee that other charges against Mr.Lushington, the sitting member, had been abandoned, and would not be persevered in, and that consequently the whole case would resolved itself into a mere scrutiny,and for this purpose the register and poll-books were laid before the committee by a witness, and their safe custody accounted for in the usual way. The vote of John Ellis, whose name appeared on the poll for Mr.Lushington, was then objected to by Mr.Cockburn, upon the ground of his having received frequently parochial relief since the registration and before the polling. The Receiver of the Court of Guardians in Canterbury proved that he had repeatedly relieved this voter before the voting,and since his registration - on the 6th of June, 1834, for the first time,and for the last time on the 26th November 1834.

T.Westwood, a guardian of the poor, also deposed that he saw Ellis frequently relieved, and that he was the same person who voted.

Mr.Serjeant Heath then proceeded to argue, that the apparent right to vote by the registry was destroyed by subsequent disqualifying circumstances,such as in the case of Ellis and all persons similarly circumstanced, by the fact of their having received parochial relief, and relied on the Bedford case, in which the committee decided that the receiving relief between the registration and before voting operated as a disqualification.

Mr.Serjeant Merewether (with whom was Mr.Talbot), for the sitting member, contended at great length, that the register was final and conclusive evidence of the right of voting, and that the only disqualification under the head of parochial relief arose from its having been received within one year to the date of the registration, and unless the elector was then obliged to and his vote disallowed, the was entitled to vote. - - - 

Mr.Serjeant Merewether having concluded, Mr.Walter, the chairman, expressed a wish to see the minutes of the Rochester case, Mr.Serjeant Heath wished to see those of the Windsor case, as they contained several cases of paupers being disqualified by being relieved in alms between the registration and the polling. - -- - continues.

---

Friday 22 May 1835
Evening Mail.

Election Committees
Canterbury, Monday (Third Day)

The committee met this day, pursuant to adjournment, at 11 o'clock.

After remaining in consultation about half an hour, the Chairman announced that the committee had decided that Bligh's vote was good. They had also come to the resolution that they were restricted by the Reform Act from entering into the consideration of the validity of any votes which appeared upon the register, and which were not objected to before the revising barrister.

A long desultory and somewhat animated discussion ensued between several hon. members and the counsel for the petitioner, who insisted that the committee should first hear counsel, before they came to  a resolution so general and extensive in its application, the more particularly as the counsel on the opposite side, who, from the particular attention which they had bestowed upon the Reform Act, must of course be supposed more competent than hon. members to construe its provisions, not only did not raise the objection, but in all their former arguments in former cases contended for the right to reopen the register, and acquiesced in the view now taken of the matter by petitioner's counsel.

An hon. Member (Mr.Iron) thought that the observations of the counsel were disrespectful to the committee; and counsel and the hon. member mutually explained. 

The committee would refuse to hear counsel, and Mr. Serjeant Heath wished that such determination should be entered on the minutes.

The vote of Thomas Eastman was objected to, on the ground of having received parish relief since registration.

Mr.Serjeant Heath said, that in the course which he was about to pursue, he had no intention of giving offence to the committee. As the committee had shut him out from bringing the question before them again directly, he would try to do so in this incidental way, particularly as the committee sat as a court of law constituted by act of Parliament, having a power which the whole House of Commons did not possess - that of administering an oath, and being themselves upon oath.

Mr.Irton - Hon.members are perfectly aware of their being on oath, and need not be reminded of the fact by counsel.

Mr.Serjeant Heath explained that he had no intention whatever of giving offence to hon. members. It was for the reasons he had stated, and the duty he owed his client, that he was thus importunate in his endeavours to procure a revision of a determination, which being in opposition to the decisions of all former committees, he conceived to be erroneous.

The learned serjeant was proceeding to urge his right to be heard before the committee should confirm their decision, when he was interrupted by -

The Committee, who would not allow counsel to impugn in this incidental and collateral manner the resolution which they had come to, unless the case now before the Court was different in its circumstances from those which had already come before it.

Mr.Serjeant Heath seeming inclined to press the matter further - 

Mr.Walter told him, that the committee had already refused to hear counsel in the matter, and he thought the learned serjeant was acting in direct contradiction to the decision of the committee. If counsel persevered in the course he was pursuing, he (Mr.Walter) would have the room cleared, and take the opinion of the committee afresh upon the matter.

Mr.Talbot suggested that the committee should add words to qualify the resolution, and limit its effect to the particular case to which it was intended to apply.

Mr.Serjeant Heath would not persevere: he would merely call witnesses, and let the committee decide upon each particular case.

The consideration of the vote of Thomas Eastman was then resumed. - - -continues - - -
Nothing daunted by the rebuffs he had already received, and the evident and repeatedly-expressed indisposition of the committee to hear him upon the subject, Mr.Serjeant Heath was about to re-argue the matter, till he was informed by the Chairman that it was actually waste of time to do so. After consulting a little while with the agents, he informed the committee that he would not trouble them further upon the point.

The room was then cleared, and after some deliberation.

The Chairman announced the opinion of the committee that the vote of Eastman was good; and as the counsel for the petitioner seemed not to understand the nature of the resolution, they had altered and qualified it thus: - "Resolved, that the committee are of opinion - 1st. that they cannot take into consideration the cases of paupers who appear upon the register, and were not objected to before the revising barrister, and before the completion of the register; 2d, that they will not take into consideration any cases of pauperism which occurred subsequent to the 31st of July, 1834."

Mr.Serjeant Heath stated that the course he intended to pursue was merely to object to voters, and without any further discussion leave the committee to reject or admit them as they thought proper; he did this merely to show the number of paupers and the fair grounds which his clients had for contesting the election.

 - - -continues - - - The Committee allowed the votes to stand, and then adjourned to 12 o'clock on Tuesday, to meet the wishes of petitioner's counsel.

Tuesday (Fourth day)

Mr.Serjeant Merewether, on part of the sitting member, stated to the committee, that as the petitioner had a majority of one upon the scrutiny, he would endeavour to made a similar addition to Mr.Lushington's voters. It gave him great pleasure to perceive that is learned brother (Mr.Serjeant Heath) had abandoned the charge of bribery, thus making the case one of mere scrutiny, as he (Mr.Serjeant Merewether) could most truly declare that upon the part of Mr.Lushington neither bribery nor any corrupt practices whatever had been resorted to. He was sorry that the proceedings of his learned brother, in commenting upon the decision of a former committee, had not given him equal satisfaction, particularly as no case had ever been determined more consistently or more in conformity with precedent.  - - - continues - - - -

---

Saturday 4 July 1835
Huntingdon, Bedford and Peterborough Gazette

Cambridge. University Intelligence
Yesterday the following gentlemen were admitted Incepting Masters of Arts - - - - Douglas Denon Heath, Trinity.

---

Saturday 4 July 1835
Morning Advertiser

Inverness Election Committee

The Committee met at one o'clock. Lord Ashley is the Chair.
Mr.Harrison and Mr.Pollock were Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Grant.
Mr.Serjeant Spankie and Mr.Serjeant Heath for the sitting Member, Mr.Chisholm.

The petition was read, and it complained of the exercise of intimidation on the part of the sitting Member to obtain votes, and also the improper admission of 29 votes from the district of Grantham, which was not in the County of Inverness.

Mr.Harrison argued for the petitioner. He said the district of Grantham was not geographically in Inverness-shire,but was surrounded by Elgin, Nairn, and Banff, and could not be said to be in either. The Learned Counsel then cited the 3rd Wil.V.13 and 14 sections of the Scotch Reform Act, to show how it bore upon the peculiar locality of the place in question, and contended that they could not be legally entitled to vote for Inverness-shire.

Mr.Patrick Grant, Sheriff Deputy of Inverness, was then called in and produced the poll-books, which he had received immediately after the election.  - - -continues  - - - - 
Mr Tytier, Sheriff of the county of Inverness, deposed to the same.

Mr.Serjeant Heath objected to the poll-books being received as evidence, as their continued custody had not been proved. The Learned Counsel called - 

Thomas Granson, who said that he had the poll-books for three hours in his custody, for the purpose of ascertaining the voters on either side.

The Committee adjourned.

---

Monday 13 July 1835
Albion and the Star.

University Intelligencer
On Tuesday last, being Commencement day, the following degrees were conferred:-
Masters of Arts. -  - - -: D.D.Heath  - - - of Trinity College - - -

---

31 August 1835
Charles Heath to Dawson Turner

My dear Sir,
I beg to acknowledge your kind letter - and feel extremely obliged to you for cashing me the three bills on Mr.McCormick. I sent the fourth knowing that in 21 days another would be run off, and at the time I am paying for all my Annual plates and money is an object - particularly as I am the beginning of next week going to Paris to arrange the French Editions of my Books and to endeavour to prevent the piracy, if possible, of Captain Marryat's New Novel.

I shall, when I return have the pleasure of sending you Proofs of all my Annuals and the remainder of the "England and Wales." No.19 was published about 4 weeks since and No.20 will be published in October next and I have just received drawings from Mr.Turner for two more numbers so that I shall get on rapidly.

The Bill can remain with you and whenever it suits you to let me have the money for it I shall feel obliged, believe me my Dear sir,
Yours most respectfully,
Charles Heath

---

6 November 1835
Charles Heath, 6 Seymour Place, London - to Dawson Turner

I have received your very kind note and have deferred answering it under the Idea of sending you Proofs of "England" and the "Annuals" for 1836 but delay upon delay caused by the want of punctuality in the Artists has prevented my publishing so soon as I anticipated. Next week will conclude my Labours at lease I hope so, - when I will forward you a case of Proofs.

I am much obliged by your offer to send me the cash for "McCormics" Bill, there will on the 21st be another run off, making two since I sent my last - I do not wish to trespass on your kindness but as at this period cash is useful, perhaps you would allow me to send you one or two others, but this as you please as I can do without.

Accept my dear Sir my best thanks for all your Friendly acts towards me and,
Believe me most sincerely yours,
Charles Heath
 

---

5. - 7 November 1835 - Letter from Gore to Leopold.

Envelope - Mr L.G.Heath, Midshipman, His Majesty's Ship Nimrod. Devonport.
(July 7th?) Nov 7th 1835

My dear Heath,
Your letter of the 9th reached me only this morning, but I assure you was highly welcome and you judge correctly in supposing that I feel an interest in your welfare and shall always  - - to hear of your health and progress. Indeed the (ignorance?) I have been in of all respecting you since we shook hands on board the (Nectroce?) has (not?) (but day?) on my mind.

Why did (you??) not write to me and how and where you was and what were your prospects? Some one has told me you were on board the Cleopatra! 

(Sharpe, Thorpe?) told me you had called home on your way to (Plymouth?) to join some ship but he did not know the name &c. You are (not with constrain?) this with displeasure - but disappointment! 
She made up for her way and told me all about your health

Now make up for let way and tell me all about health, whether quite (renovated?) - how you got into the Nimrod - who is your captain "(Nozan?)" his (term?) name and your Lieut and how you feel situated in her. Is she the old 16 gun Ninod or a new Experimental ship. In short tell me all about her and yourself. I not ask from mere curiosity for I have something in my eye that I shall (prefer?) for you. And had I not received your letter I should have written to your Father through (Governor Lovisy?) for I do not find Mr Heath's address in any of the guide books.

I am sorry with him seen you for I promised Lady Gore and my daughter that their old ship mate should pay them a visit for 3 or 4 days. 

You will be sorry to learn that your poor old Admiral has suffered great (depression?) of health and strength since my return home. I have sought for both in change of air but at each change have taken fresh cold which has thrown me back, and must nurse myself through the winter in hopes to be a new man in the Spring. 

Captain and Mrs Johnson are to pass the next week with me. Captain and Mrs Hart will follow, when he returns from his tour of (bischto in Eadleshare?)  Accept our (kind?) good  wishes for your health and happiness and remember - - - - the we shall be glad to see our old shipmate of the Melville. And believe me faithfully Your friend 

(J.M.Gore    
If Mr (Goldney?) has not sailed remember me kindly to him. I sent him a letter to (Norwich?) last month through Mr Francis Freeling, and given that we did not see him before his departure. (J.G.)  
(Vice-Admiral Sir John Gore K.C.B., 1772 - 1836)

---

4. - November 1835 - Extract recommending Leopold G. Heath to H.M.S. Victory (?)

Extract from a note addressed to Rear-Admiral Sir William Packer by Vice-Admiral Sir John Gore in November, 1835

"One of my youngsters (L.G.Heath) is a Mid in the Nimrod, his Father and myself are very desirous that he should be under Captain Richards. He is truly a very superior youth, full of talent and very good disposition, and I am anxious for his welfare, and if you can effect this change for him from the Nimrod to the (Volage?, College?), I shall join my thanks to those of his Father (Mr.Serjeant Heath) who is highly esteemed at the Bar." 

---

19 November 1835
Charles Heath, 6 Seymour Place, New Road, St.Pancras.

By this days coach I send you a tin case containing all the Proofs of the "England and Wales" from the No.12. If I have sent any duplicate I shall feel obliged by your returning as it will break a set.

Believe me I feel much obliged by your kindness in doing me the two Bills with one you already have and if I could recover the cash by Monday's Post it would serve.

The Book of Captain Marryat which I shall soon finish shall be forwarded the moment I get it - the large paper "Beauty" and "keepsake" are not ready or [I] would have sent them. In a few days I shall have that pleasure.

Believe me my dear Sir,
Yours most gratefully,
Charles Heath

---

Saturday 26 December 1835
Surrey & Middlesex Standard

The Keepsake
Edited by the Hon.Mrs.Norton
Longman and Co., 39 Paternoster Row.
The dynasty of Frederick Mansell Reynold, the former editor of this work, is at end, and Mr.Heath, being a man of gallantry and a hearty condemner of the Salique law, has invested the Honourable and beautiful Mrs.Norton with the editorial crown. She is a woman not only of exalted genius, but of great taste; and the result of the very judicious deposition of her predecessor in her favour is, that the ninth (we think it is the ninth) volume of the Keepsake is the best that has issued from the press.

It does not contain quite as many fine names, but it contains a much larger proportion of good writing than usual; and, if its articles are fewer in number, they have the advantage of those of preceding volumes in merit and in interest.

Mrs.Norton has been herself a very liberal contributor; and it is no slight compliment to her to say that she never writes positively ill; while most of her productions are of a very superior order to the general average of annual literature. She has, moreover, enlisted several new contributors who have not hitherto written for works of this kind; among others Captain Marryat, Captain Chamier, Thomas Moore, Mr.James; all of whom have given her something better than mere scraps from their portfolios.

Moore's poem is indeed the most charming production of his pen that we have seen for a long time. There is a poem from the pen of L.E.L., without which Mr.Heath's book would have been "damned up hill and down dale" by the Literary Gazette, which adds nothing to the reputation of our "British Sappho."

The verses from the pen of Mr.Rogers appear to be addressed to Lord Grey, Lord Brougham, or Lord Melbourne, which we are unable to say. "Count Rodolph's Heir," by Mrs.Norton, is a very beautiful and touching story; and so it the "Fisherman of Scarphout, by Mr.James. The author of "Andrew Birth" is a humorist, whoever he be, and one of the most valuable contributors to the work.

Mr.Richard Brinsley Sheridan has more skill on running away with an heiress than in writing a story. Mr.Ritchie, like a person fastidiously sick of the vulgarities of London, has given us a sketch of the visit of Mr.Johnson, a cockney, to the continent.

It is a, however, pleasant paper notwithstanding. In a sentence, the Keepsake presents a great improvement on former years, and, in spite of the sneers of some of our would-be-wise contemporaries (although an annual) contains as much sterling matter as any periodical with which we are acquainted which is formed of contribution from various hands.

The book, by some accident, did not reach us until this week, or it would have been notice before.

---

1836

---