A part

sinful nation, it behoves us to submit without murmurings or repinings, &c." will be found pretty much to the purpose. ing Word of Admonition to the Poor," as announced in the title page, implies, it must be confessed, some such recommendation; and, Mr. Editor, if you will take the trouble just to turn towards the end of the pamphlet, you will find this address to the poor, concluding with the following appropriate passage from holy writ, which is adduced in corroboration of the antecedent exhortation; "Behold, the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth; and hath long patience for it: Be ye also patient; stablish your hearts." The Critic is of opinion that "the author comes to a just conclusion, when he asserts, that there must exist some hidden and weighty reasons, which deter his Majesty's councils from interposing their authority between the monopolist and the people ;" and adds, in a delicate strain of irony, well becoming the office and character he assumes, that "the true lover of his country" must be aware, that so long as corn shall be property, there will be very weighty difficulties in saying how the possessor shall dispose of it. True. And, we may add, that, so long as money is property, and the purchased commodity property, there exist very weighty difficulties in putting a stop to forestalling, &c. &c. And yet the laws have entered a caveat against this and like misdemeanors; and in the same spirit, and with the same beneficial tendency, the Legislature might pro ceed still farther, and enact, for instance, such prohibitory regulations, as should restrain the farmer from vending his grain to any but the consumer in the public market. A step like this would probably go a good way to obviate the evil complained of. But it has not been taken, nor any other that seems to hold out a sufficient remedy; and this, doubtless, for very substantial reasons; because of weighty objections, which (the author must take leave to repeat it) have not occurred to him.

"The Word for the Poor," says the Critic, "is a sort of Sermon from the text-" He that withholdeth corn the people shall curse him." Why not? the subject is serious enough even for a Sermon. But enough of this. If the author, by adding his wish to that of this Reviewer, could procure this proverb a place in some conspicuous part of every public market, that like a tempus fugit it must meet the eye of every visitor, he should think the time bestowed on this short tract well employed; and he should not have the least difficulty in acknowledging his obligation to the critic for suggesting the idea. Neither the pamphlet, nor the strictures upon it, would then have been written in vain.

The author here takes leave of his Reviewer, referring him, with much cordiality, to the second paragraph in the second page of the Prospectus of the New London Review, which he appears either not to have seen, or to have forgotten, It certainly conveys excellent instructions to all critics, and is well worthy his particular consideration,

WEST RIDING.

ART.

A

ART. XXXII. Thoughts, on the English Government.

(Concluded from Vol. V. P. 295.)

T the conclusion of our review of this valuable tract, in our Number for March last, we promised to suffer the author to speak for himself, in exposing the falshoods of the Jacobin Critics. This promise we have been hitherto prevented from fulfilling, by the constant intervention of temporary matter; but the author will have lost nothing by the delay; his is no ephemeral production; it will live when the spirit of party-contention shall have died away, and be received as a political text-book, on the constitution of our Government, as a standard of political truth, and a model of political wisdom. We shall now lay before our readers the Postscript to the fourth letter, containing the author's comments on his critics.

February 24, 1800.

"When I thought, I might breathe a little from a controversy, that, according to my persuasion, contained nothing in it on my side to be controverted, there was put into my hand the CRITICAL REVIEW for this month; a periodical work, which was once a respectable appendage to the literature of the country; but which of late, especially since it has been under its present controul, has allied itself more closely to politics, and those of the worst stamp. In this work, there is a Review of my Second and Third Letters, and of Mr. Wooddeson's pamphlet; which I cannot pass over, without a little animadversion. I do not mean to complain of a Critic's opinion, when given fairly, after an actual examination; we must all judge according to our faculty; and if a Reviewer has neither taste or judgment it is the fault of none but his employer; I shall not complain of such invincible disabilities as these: my complaint is this, that instead of a fair examination and critique, upon what I have urged, either in point of authority or argument, the Reviewer has given his reader nothing but gross misrepresentations, and he appears not even to have read, what he pretends to pass a judgement

upon.

"And here I am sorry again to recur to my friend Mr. Wooddeson; but this Reviewer seems to make common cause with him, urging the same charges, repeating, without scruple, what I had already answered, and proceeding in the very spirit and temper of Mr. W.'s publication. There is, I must confess, this gradation between them, suitable to their different situations; Mr. W. contented himself with insinuating, what this writer alledges in plain terms.

"This shameless writer charges me with inferring, that, as in all pleadings, the two Houses of Parliament are called the King's Parliament, the Parliament depends upon the King; is his creature, and is at his disposal.' Now, I deny that there is any such nonsense in my writings, either expressed or implied. But, on the other hand, there is suc han inference drawn by Mr. W. and imputed to me as my meaning

G g4

meaning, which inference I have ascribed to his ignorance of the na ture of Monarchy, and I have strongly censured him for such a gross conception, as may be seen very fully in the Third Letter, page 40.

"The Reviewer makes some other unfounded charges against me, in the following words. • Our author endeavours to prove, that the English government is a simple monarchy; that the monarch creates the two Houses of Parliament; that the people, destitute of any claim to sovereignty, appoint no part of the legislature; that the King might, as some Kings have done in this country, rule without any Parliament, and yet violate no law; finally, that the King is at once, and solely, the maker and executor of the laws.' Now, in this paragraph, I aver, there are more falshoods than there are sentences; there is hardly a member of a sentence, hardly a combination of noun and verb, that does not convey a gross untruth. Is this a want of intellect or a want of honesty? Can this man comprehend the English language! I challenge him to shew a proposition in my writings to warrant such foolish imputations; on the contrary, the whole tenor of my argument is against such absur dities. This every one must know, who has read my Second and Third Letters; it may at once be seen in the 2d, 11th, and 13th propositions, and in page 89 and 182 of the Second Letter, not to

refer to many other passages, which might be cited to this purpose. I cannot help remarking the want of accuracy in one particular; for he charges me with stating the King to be the sole executor of the laws,' when I have, over and over, censured Blackstone for using so improper an expression, as may be seen in the Second Letter, page 182, and in several places in the Third Letter.

However, if he was determined to write against me, instead of Reviewing me, he had no other way of proceeding than this; it now appears, from two experiments, that there is no way of writing against me, with any semblance of success, but by the suppres sion of Truth, or the fabrication of Falshood. Mr. W. unfortunately for him, tried the first; his wretched follower, the Reviewer, has tried the latter. They have both stepped out of their proper character; the one has made himself too much of the advocate, the other too much of the politician, to discharge their respective duties as they ought,

"I wanted not the example of such feeble assaults, to know how invulnerable these writings are. Men may dislike them according to their judgment, or no judgment; according to their prejudices, their ignorance, or their wishes; but this I know full well, THERE IS NOT THE MAN EXISTING WHO CAN CONFUTE THEM. There is neither law-man, nor lay-man; neither antiquary, or scholar, who can confute the main positions in these writings; and I do hereby challenge to the trial any and every individual of the above descriptions.

"I am thus bold, because I know the sources to which all such inquirers must go, and that they will find nothing, but what makes for me; it is a confidence, that belongs to Truth, a confidence in my authorities, and not in myself; though I will not distrust the

light of my own understanding, as long as Heaven allows me the use of it. Knowing and feeling, as I have just expressed, I own it moves my spleen to be assailed with the arts of suppression, of falsification, and of insinuation, so unworthy of the argument, and of the manner in which, I trust, it has been conducted by me. In this I feel some considerations, that go much beyond my own particular situation; I mean the interests of learning and literature, which, I think, shamefully degraded by such abuse of them.

Ignorance and ill manners commonly go together; this man has, with uncommon assurance, called Mr. Reeves the writer of these letters, as familiarly as if his name was in the title page; and he undertakes to know, that Mr. Reeves likes the constitution, because he possesses some sinecures, and looks for more.' What has this to do with the business in hand! and what, if both suppositions should be shewn to be as false as all his other charges! But this is called reviewing, and thus it is that the Town is insulted by Republican Reviewers. When there is any critique to be made on political works, instead of stating the opinions of the author, they pester the reader with their own; all that is not misrepresentation of the book, is personal abuse upon the author or editor; and the whole is a string of scurrillity, lies, and imposture. Such is the sentence I am compelled to pass upon this shallow Reviewer, with whom I shall give myself no farther trouble, but deliver him over to the secular arm of the Anti-Jacobin Review and Magazine; which is the only publication that has had the courage to review the Reviewers,' and afford some appeal from the ignorance and malice that reign in the Monthly and Critical Reviews.

"I cannot close this letter without congratulating Mr. Wooddeson, on his finding the sort of support, I had predicted, he would have from those, who harbour any malignant or unfriendly thoughts towards our constitution, in Church or State. The Critical Review has already declared for him; G. G. and J. Robinsons, or whoever, or whatever manner of man it is (of the class which dissents from every thing established) that they employ or permit to write down works in favour of Kingly government, and write up those that degrade it, maintains in print (and it will go down to posterity) that Mr. W.'s is a solid' performance, and will convince every one of my errors.' This must be a great encouragement to him, and when to this is added the testimony of THE MONTHLY REVIEW, (of which I may venture to assure him, without much fear of disappointment) he will be set up, in print at least, as high as he can reasonably wish. With such aid from the disaffected, and with the voices of all those who know, or care very little about the matter, (who will not the less, for that reason, take a side, and are more likely to take his than mine) he may feel very strong, and give himself no trouble, about the judicious and well-informed persons, who join in condemning his unnecessary Vindication of the British Legislature,? which none of them can think, has been either attacked by me, or defended by him.

ART,

ART. XXXIII. The History of Devonshire. In three Volumes, Folio. By the Rev. R. Polwhele.

T is remarkable, that the Critical Reviewer, in his Strictures on

which prove the falshood of his representation, when he would insinuate that the author was unequal to the task. The Crit. Rev. probably extracted those parts which, in his opinion, were the least favourable to Mr. P.'s reputation. But even in so detached a state, and mutilated as they are, they certainly shew that Mr. P. was well acquainted with his subject. The same remark may be applied to the C. R. on the Antiquities. Whatever may be said of the hypothesis, which has excited such fierce indignation in the hypercritic, still it must be inferred, from the very excerpts of an enemy, that that hypothesis is not ill-framed, or feebly supported.

In his Historical Views," Mr. P. first exhibited his system at large and in all its parts; not fearful of giving offence to the Antiquary, in a little work which might have been almost termed gratuitous; where a few hypothetical positions might have been risqued, we should conceive, with impunity; though a spirit of conjecture, lawlessly canning through "the history," properly so called, would have exposed, perhaps, the author to just censure. In the history before us, the same facts are produced, but they are stated with brevity, not expatiated upon as in the Historical Views. Nor are the opinions upon these facts expressed with any degree of confidence." The British Period, in truth, is an abridgment of the Historical Views. Yet the Critical Reviewer tells us, that Mr. P.'s "Historical Views" contain the author's "System in Embryo!!"* Surely little credit can be due to the writer of so palpable a falshood! He proceeds to say, "Mr. P. has now drawn in the authority of the late Sir W. Jones and Mr. Pinkerton to his assistance." We consider this as the misrepresentation of conscious guilt. For Mr. P. (he well knew) had not ventured to approach the public, even in the Historical Views, without the support of those very antiquarians; and, shielded as he was, by Sir William and Mr. Pinkerton, he did not "then come forward without an apology for his boldness. The Reviewer is evidently ashamed of his glaring violation of the truth, in accusing Mr. P. of a want of diffidence in an instance where he is so far from trusting to himself, that he takes refuge in the theories of others.

What can be more guardedly, what can be less confidently expressed, than the following paragraph which concludes the first.. section. "On the whole, it may possibly appear, that, while the common ideas of a colony from Gaul MUST be admitted as TRUE, the less popular notion of a prior colonization MAY, at least, be SPECIOUSLY defended,"

Mr. P.'s sketch of the religious architecture of the Danmonians is exhibited by the C. R. as "what many would deem, perhaps, a

See Crit. Rev. for Sept. 1799, P. 47.

just