ludicra," I am called, by the evo- perfect, and cumbrous machines, for others more fimple, elegant, and useful? and why should we be deemed culpable, or be convicted of ftupidity, because we did not invent them ourselves? These remarks are offered fimply in oppofition to reafons that have been frequently urged in my prefence, that it would be impolitic for any of our Monthly Mifcellanies to adopt the general plan of the Monthly Magazine. What a bar is this to all improvement! like the fhallow advice of Pope, which I have alfo heard quoted as a wonderful inftance of penetration: "Be not the first by whom new rules are tried", &c. lution of time, to the The next, I believe, is the Monthly Magazine, a work which was conceived with great judgement and fkill, and is conducted with uniform vigor, zeal, and liberality. But, oh, thou! whoe'er thou art, that readeft this paragraph, remember that I feparate, for ever and for ever, the bookfeller from the book! Imitation, fince the days of Horace, has been ftigmatifed as fervile and derogatory to the genuine characteristic of man. But fhould this ideal profcription impede us from adopting that which is good, merely because it was difcovered by another? Why do we avail ourselves of any of the discoveries of fcience? why do we difcard antiquated, im If all waited for a precedent, a precedent would never be found; but why it would be impolitic to adopt the leading features of the Monthly Magazine, which are confeffedly excellent (I mean those divifions of the work after the poetry), I will thank any original gentleman to inform me. Perhaps it will be faid, the Monthly Mirror deferves fome notice. Why? because it is fo neatly printed, and the plates are so elegant! and—Well, I'll allow it neatnefs of typography, and elegance of engraving; but thefe are merely fplendid veftibules which lead to dirty, mud-walled rooms; a gorgeous drapery which covers a crooked, fqualid, and deceitful form. plain words, the Monthly Mirror muft e'en confefs its inferiority to the verieft of newspaper theatrical critics. In their pretended monthly biography, they are fawning, fupple, and venal; and in their literary criti-cifms---Phaw! why should I dignify their bad grammar, bad language, and worfe fenfe, with the name of criticism? In Here, then, I clofe my Bruyerean labours, for the prefent. You, I am fure, Mr. Editor, do not wish to have a character of the other ephemeral productions which week ly and monthly iffue from the prefs; but if you do require one, permit me to fend you to their publishers, where I am fure you'll have a good one. Let it not, however, be fuppofed, that among thefe I rank the valuable journal published by Mr. Nicholson, or the Philofophi cal Magazine of Mr. Tilloch: they are fixed on the firm rock of public approbation and fupport, and feek to preserve their eminence by fhedding around the light of philofophy and fcience. But, foft !---only half my tafk is completed: I had forgotten Mr. Jeffray, Mr. Thelwall, and the Edinburgh Reviewers. They fhall not elude my grafp! I have read the accufer, and the accufed; I have weighed their arguments, and have contrafted the allegations of the one, and the defence of the other. Through the medium of your Magazine, Sir, allow me to ftate my opinion. Mr. Thelwall fets out with a whole tirade of questions of dreadful import, but capable, from their indefinite nature, of being put to any other man, as well as to Mr. Jeffray. In this respect, he reminded me ftrongly of Sir William Draper, and Junius; not that I am difpofed to accede to the inference deduced by that mystic but nervous writer. The declamatory ftyle of our author likewife makes a very different impreffion on the reader from what he probably wished: to be fure, it is by no means difficult to conceive that a father and a husband will feel the most latent energies of his nature called into action when he detects an infidious villain endeavouring to destroy the fource of his and his family's fupport; that he will feek *to counteract the bafe attempt; and that, in expreffing his indignation, his language will affume the style of invective and bitterness. But the grief and paffion of a wife man, and thofe of a filly, conceited witling, will always be different the one vents his feelings in the calm language of confcious innocence, and with dignified forbearance; he reafons, he expoftulates, he cenfures; but his cenfures are thofe of his readers, because they are irrefragable, and not declamatory, coarfe, and often unauthorised: he appeals to the heart through the medium of the judgement. The other, on the contrary, immediately adopts the language either of unqualified abufe or of whining forrow: he muft either fly to Billingfgate and St. Giles's, or he muft import wholefale the turgid nonfenfe and unmeaning fentimentality of infane novel writers: he muft talk of "defamation that ftrikes at the hopes of a rifing family," of the "emotions" of the "paternal heart," "ftrains of indignant pathos;" he muft introduce pathetic apoftrophes to deceased children, run into the extreme of metaphorical confufion and inanity and inftead of adhering to the proper object of the work, the "heart-broken father" indulges himself in asking his "first offspring of love," whether the "turf" ought not to "lie peaceful upon her breast;" and then wallows in a chaos of "inveterate malignity" and "tears"--that watered an "early grave," "bitter poifon," and "triumphant defamation." It will be needlefs to fay to which clafs of querulous complainants Mr. Thelwall belongs; but as there are one or two parts of his letter and the Reviewers' reply that deferve fome notice, I will venture to offer my opinions upon them. In the first place, I think Mr. Jeffray has acted either with confummate meannefs or with great ftupidity. I will explain this afsertion. Mr. Jeffray either was or was not guilty of that indecorous conduct with which he is charged. If he were guilty, he has acted meanly, because he has forborne to offer even a fhadow of juftification, except through the medium of the twopenny halfpenny anfwer in the name of the Reviewers in general; but be it remembered, that he was accufed perfonally, and perfonally he ought to have repelled the accufation. The very circumftance of his thus fkulking behind a convenient shade, ftrongly tends to corroborate the allegations of Mr. Thelwall. Secondly, if he be innocent, he has acted with great ftupidity, in refufing to affert his innocence; charged as he is, publicly, with having departed from the conduct of a gentleman, and defcending to the vileft practices; with having become the organ of a mob, to infult and injure the public avocations of a man of talents; with having been even unjust, becaufe his disapprobation was premature: charged, I fay, with fuch conduct, it behoved Mr. Jeffray to clear his character, if he could; or if he could not, he might at least, in the language of Junius, have fat down "intamous and contented." Perhaps it will be faid, that he has vindicated himself, becaufe the Edinburgh Reviewers have denied, and merely denied, the facts in general. But who are the Edinburgh Reviewers? Who knows any thing of them perfonally or nominally? Certainly not myfelf, nor, I dare fay, Mr. Editor, any of your readers. But the cafe is not thus with Mr. Jeffray; and I'll venture to affirm, that no individual (Mr. J. excepted), being charged publicly with fuch vile proceedings as he is, would have reverted to fuch a fhuffling and ambiguous mode of juftification. But the facts are upon record; every man can make his own comments: mine certainly are harfh, enough: they may be wrong, and I defift. In my opinion, the only invulnerable part of Mr. Thelwall's pamphlet is that which relates to the fracas at his lectures. With regard to the charges he brings forward refpecting the impropriety of reviewing his book, because, forfooth, it had not been regularly announced in the London papers, they are to the last degree futile and ridiculous. Will Mr. Thelwall, or will any man, prefume to say, that when a book is printed with the names of four book fellers, and with the price annexed, and when it is entered at Stationers' Hall, and has even paffed through two editions, it is not regularly published? Such were the decifive circumstances attending Mr. Thelwall's publication, and yet one of his heaviest charges against the Reviewers is that of having "made a pretended review of a book, which (in the reviewers' acceptation of the term) has never yet been published." Such nonfenfe is beneath ferious confideration. I must beg leave also to fay, with all due deference to Mr. Thelwall's indefatigable studies, that had he been my clerk, and had he, instead of tranfacting my bufinefs, passed his time in reading poetry, novels, and plays, and writing nonfenfical verfes, I fhould have been strongly tempted to use the seasonable "vibrations of a cane!" and certainly fhould have confidered him as culpably idle. Thus far, therefore, the Edinburgh Reviewers are right, and are juftified in their affertion, that he " paffed a very idle period of three years and a half." Equally correct, too, are they in having ufed thofe expreffions as Mr. Thelwall's, which gave him fo great umbrage; I fay correct, because they have clearly fhewn (p. 13, of the Reply) that fuch cant does, in fact, abound in Mr. Thelwall's work. I have never had the felicity of reading the book in queftion; but Ex pede Herculem if I may be allowed to form an opinion from the letter now under confideration, I think his ftyle is peculiarly difgufting, from the fuperabundance of affectation that is every where visible. How far his oral communications may partake of the fame depravity, unfortunately, I am unable to judge. The Edinburgh Reviewers, however, are not right when they fay, and endeavour to maintain, that inverted commas are not indicatory of quotations. The experience of every one is adequate to the confutation of this affertion; indeed, their own journal neceffarily prefents, in almost every page, a flat contradiction to it. What could induce them to adopt fuch a paltry fubterfuge (for it was unneceffary) I know not; but we muft either admit that they have been guilty of mendacity in the prefent inftance, or that all former inftances, where those distinctive marks occur, are merely convenient plans for the purposes of evasion, contradiction, and shuffling. On the whole, I really think that Mr. Thelwall would have evinced his prudence in fuppreffing the letter altogether, and more particularly that part of it which relates to his poems; for he has only dragged into additional notoriety events of his life which every wife man would regret, and endeavour to conceal. In being himself the harbinger of them at first, he difplayed a great want of common fenfe in making them more public by a weak defence of them afterwards, he fhewed a lamentable deficiency of modefty, if not of fomething else more important. Excufe the length of this letter, Mr. Editor, and permit me to conclude by fubfcribing myfelf, your very good friend Cambridge, April 12, 1804. D. performance were certainly calculated to produce the most irreparable mifchiefs to mankind; but, luckily, I have heard of no converts which it has produced, if we except a few philofophic miffes at boarding-fchools, who, probably ambitious of Wolftoncraftian heroifm, were willing likewife to embrace Godwinian philofophy. But I believe even thofe, as they arrived at maturity, penetrated the flimfy veil which envelopes this author's dogmas, and, feeing the atrocity of his principles, difcarded them with contempt and abhorrence. It has, indeed, already funk into merited oblivion, or, if it be at all remembered, it is only to ftigmatize with greater vehemence its mifguided author, to fpeak in the fofteft terms. But there is another work which, Mr. Godwin fome time fince obtruded upon the public, and which, though deficient in magnitude to his Political Juftice, yet contains principles equally abfurd and dangerous; I mean his "" Reflections on Education, Manners, Enquirer. and Literature, in a Series of EДays." This production has, indeed, created little emotion in the public mind, and it may therefore be hoped that a few years will fee it quietly depofited, by the fide of its political brother, on the top shelf of a book. feller's fhop, or in the more venerable archives of a circulating library. Yet as the principles contained in it appear to me to be highly immoral and dangerous, I intend, with your permiffion, to confider them with fome degree of attention. In doing this I fhall avail myself of as much brevity as the fubject will admit, though I fhall unavoidably extend my remarks beyond the limits of a single letter. Therefore, to commence : In his preface, Mr. Godwin obferves, that "the Effays are principally the refult of converfations," though we are informed they were newly dreffed for printing. In the fame paragraph is a remark, which ftands like an oafis amid furrounding deferts offalfehood,impiety,and atrocity. "There is a vivacity, and, if he may be permitted to fay it, a richnefs in the hints ftruck out in converfation that are with difficulty attained in any other method." The truth of this you will doubtlefs confefs, though I apprehend you will find fome difficulty in difcovering the truth of the following fage remark: "An opinion peculiar to a fingle individual must be expected to that individual to appear pregnant with diffatisfaction and uncertainty."-Pray, is this logic? It is confidered as unlucky to ftumble on the threshold. But Mr. Godwin in his firft effay, which is on awakening the mind, has delivered an axiom fraught with recondite truth, and depth of penetration. He fays, and who fhall dare difpute it? that," If individuals were universally happy, the Species would be happy." Should we not laugh, were a man to tell us, gravely, that "if four balls move they all four move."!!! But had Mr. Godwin been content with being the retailer of fuch fooleries as thefe, he might have paffed unnoticed as a quiet, fimple, but ridiculous animal. Nay, we might have fmiled and pardoned him the following more ftupid effufion. "If any man were to tell me, that if I pull the trigger of my gun, a fwift and beautiful horfe will immediately appear starting from the mouth of the tube; I can only anfæer, that I do not expect it, and that it is contrary to the tenor of my former experience. But I can align no reafon why this is an event intrinfically more abfurd, or less likely, than the event I have been accustomed to witness." It is difficult to believe that our wife author is in earneft in this moft laughable fentence. But as I perceive no intimation that it is meant as a jeft, I will fimply obferve, that, as events are generally proportionate to their caufes, we may in all cafes decide from experience alone what will be the refult of fuch or fuch an action. This may be done, even when we have no influence over the caufe which produces any event. We may reafon with fufficient certainty on any event of nature from obfervation only, unaffifted by minute deductions or extenfive analogies. When the caufes and conftituent parts of thofe caufes are open to our infpection, we may then attain the higheft degree of argumental evidence. The inftance alluded to by our fage philofopher is almost too abfurd to merit a ferious reply. We expect the one event from caufes which we have concurred to produce, but the other is altogether impoffible and unnatural. Perfuaded as Mr. Godwin no doubt is of the cogency of this axiom, he would, I dare fay, give his immediate affent to the follow. ing, which has certainly more truth in it. "If a bookfeller (Mr. Phillips, for example) were to tell me, that if I open a book written by Mr. Godwin, elegance of language, ftrength of reafoning, rectitude of principle, and unity of defign, would immediately appear in every page, I could only anfwer, that I did not expect it, and that it was contrary to the tenor of my former experience." Though certainly I could affign a reafon "why this would be an event intrinfically more abfurd, and less likely than the event I have been accustomed to witness.” But it would be an endless tafk to felect all the incongruities and rifible abfurdities with which this work abounds. One more I will point out to you, which may be found at page 27, where our author fuppofes that a man writing a book of methodical inveftigation does not understand it until he has |