many remarks, which I suppose are perfectly his own: at least, I never remember to have seen them, in any either ancient or modern Writer. Now when all these things are considered, is it any wonder that he should be received with so high and general applause?

6. "Why then do not you concur with the general voice? Why do not you pay him the same admiration ?" Without any preface or apology, I will tell you my reasons. then let you or any candid man, judge whether they are not sufficient.

And

I do not greatly admire him, 1. Because so large a part of his book, I believe little less than half of it, is dry, dull, unaffecting and unentertaining: at least to all but Frenchmen. What have I, or any Briton to do, with the petty changes in the French government? What have we to do with a long, tedious detail, of the old, obsolete feudal laws? Over and above, that we cannot find any use therein, that the knowledge of these things answers no one reasonable purpose, it touches none of the passions: it gives no pleasure, no entertainment to a thinking mind. It is heavy and tedious to the last degree. It is as insipid as the travels of Thomas Coryatt.

7. I do not admire him, 2. Because I think, he makes very many remarks that are not just, and because he gives us many assertions, which are not true. But all these he pronounces as ex Cathedra, with an air of infallibility: as though he were the dictator not only of France, but of Europe; as though he expected all men to bow before him.

8. But what I least of all admire is, his laying hold on every opportunity to depreciate the inspired WritersMoses in particular. Indeed here his prudence and decency seem to fail him, and he speaks of the Jewish lawgiver with as little respect or reserve, as he would of Lycurgus, Romulus, or Numa Pompilius.

9. These are some of the reflections which readily occurred to me, from a cursory reading of this celebrated Author. I add but one more, What is the meaning of his

title-page? I am afraid of stumbling at the threshold. What does he mean by "The Spirit of Laws?" After reading the whole book, I really do not know. The words give me no idea at all. And the more I study, the less I comprehend them. The Author never defines them at all. I verily believe, he did not comprehend them himself. I believe he had no clear or determinate ideas affixed to those words. And was he not likely, when he set out with his head in a mist, to go on in a wonderful manner? Other talents he undoubtedly had: but two he wanted, Religion and Logic. Therefore he ought to be read warily by those who are not well grounded in both.

10. Upon the whole, I think Baron Montesquieu was wholly unworthy of the violent encomiums which have been bestowed upon him. I think he excelled in imagination, but not in judgment, any more than in solid learning. I think, in a word, that he was a child to Monsieur Pascal, Father Malebranche, or Mr. Locke.

THOUGHTS ON THE CHARACTER AND WRITINGS OF MR. PRIOR.

1. A VERY ingenious Writer has lately given us a particular account of the Character and Works of Mr. Prior. But it was not likely to be a just one, as he formed it chiefly on the testimony of very suspicious witnesses. I mean Mr. Pope, and Mr. Spence: I object both to one and the other. They depreciated him, to exalt themselves. They viewed him with no friendly eye; looking upon him, (particularly Mr. Pope,) as a rival: whom, therefore, they rejoiced to depress.

2. Mr. Pope gives it as his opinion, That "he was fit only to make verses." What can be more unjust? He

was fit for transactions of the most difficult and delicate nature. Accordingly he was entrusted with them at Paris, and acquitted himself to the full satisfaction of his employers. He was really fit for every thing; for writing either in verse or prose; for conversation, and for either public or private business.

3. But Mr. Spence says, "His life was irregular, negligent, and sensual. He descended to the meanest company. The woman with whom he cohabited was a despicable drab of the lowest species. One of his wenches, perhaps Chloe, stole his plate and ran away with it."

I do not believe one word of this: although I was often in his neighbourhood, I never heard a word of it before. It carries no face of probability. Would Bishop Atterbury have kept up an acquaintance with a man of such a character? Would that accomplished nobleman, the then Earl of Oxford, have given him a place even in his friendship? I am well assured, my eldest Brother would have had no acquaintance with him, had he been such a wretch as Mr. Spence describes.

4. Others say, "His Chloe was ideal." I know the contrary. I have heard my eldest Brother say, "Her name was Miss Taylor, that he knew her well and that she once came to him (in Dean's Yard, Westminster,) purposely to ask his advice. She told him, "Sir, I know not what to do. Mr. Prior makes large professions of his love: but he never offers me marriage." My Brother advised her to bring the matter to a point at once. She went directly to Mr. Prior, and asked him plainly, "Do you end to marry me, or not?" He said many soft and pretty things: on which she said, "Sir, in refusing to answer, you do answer. I will see you no more." And she did see him no more to the day of his death. But afterwards she spent many hours, standing and weeping at his tomb in Westminster Abbey.

5. As to his Writings, I cannot but think Mr. Prior had not only more learning, but a stronger natural understanding, than Mr. Pope. But this is the less observable, be

cause Mr. Prior always wrote, currente calamo, having little time to correct any thing. Whereas Mr. Pope laboured every line, and polished it with the utmost exactness. Prior's praise is by no means " that of correctness." He has many unpolished, hasty, half-formed lines, which he would not (or did not) take the pains to correct. I can, therefore, by no means subscribe to that sentence, "What he obtains above mediocrity, seems to be the effort of struggle and travail." Surely not. What he frequently obtains, as far above Pope's Messiah, as that is above Quarle's Emblems, seems to be the effort of a genius not inferior in strength to any beside Milton. But "his words are put by constraint into their places, where they do their duty, but do it sullenly." Nay I reply, most of his words are so natural and unconstrained, as even those of Waller: though they would certainly have done their duty better, had he taken more pains with them. "He extends his sense from one couplet to another; but without success." I think with great success. I will give the first instance

that occurs to my memory:

66 Happiness, object of that waking dream,

Which we call life, mistaking; fugitive theme
Of my pursuing verse ;,
ideal shade,

Notional good, by fancy only made,

And by tradition nurst; fallacious fire

Whose dancing beams mislead our fond desire :
Cause of our care and error of our mind!
O hadst thou ever been by heav'n design'd
For Adam and his mortal race, the boon

Entire had been reserv'd for Solomon."

Were ever lines extended from couplet to couplet with more success than these? Is there any constraint here? What lines can flow more freely? More easily? More naturally?

6. But "his numbers commonly want ease, airiness, lightness, and facility." I cannot possibly be of this opinion. Wherever this is proper, as in all his tales, and in

Alma, his numbers have certainly the greatest airiness, lightness, and facility. Nay, "but even what is smooth is not soft." No? What think you of the Lady's LookingGlass, (to take one instance out of fifty.) Where will you shew me any softer numbers than these?

"Celia and I the other day

Walk'd o'er the sand-hills to the sea:
The setting sun adorn'd the coast,
His beams entire, his fierceness lost;
And on the bosom of the deep
The waves lay only not asleep.
The nymph did like the scene appear,
Serenely pleasant, calmly fair:

Soft fell her words, as flew the air.”

In truth, the general fault of Prior's poetry is this; it is not too much, but too little laboured. Pope filed and polished every line: Prior set his words down as fast as he could write, and scarcely polished any of them, with any accuracy, at least only here and there. And the reason is plain : Pope lived by his writings; Prior did not. And again: Pope was a man of much leisure: Prior a man of much business.

7. But to descend from generals to particulars. His tales are certainly the best told of any in the English tongue. And it matters not, whether they were ever told before or not. They never were in the English language. I instance only in two of them, The Lady's Looking-Glass, (mentioned before,) and The English Padlock. In both, the diction is pure, terse, easy, and elegant, in the highest degree. And the moral, both of one and the other, may be of excellent use: particularly that of the latter :

"Be to her virtues very kind :
Be to her faults a little blind:
Let all her ways be unconfin'd,

And clap your padlock-on her mind."

8. But "his amorous effusions have neither gallantry, nor tenderness. They are the dull exercises of one trying