dishonesty in a man's using a faculty imparted to him by his Creator, the use of which, in the case in question, cau only operate advantageously to the community.

The power of working the rod was inherent in my brother's constitutionthe knowledge of that power he accidentally derived from Rankin, without any sinister design on either side. I shall pass by the illiberal attempt to insinuate that the forks of the rod were designedly broken, because, as they are held, the thing is impossible to be done without immediate detection--and pass on to answer the only part of Mr.Farey's letter that possesses the least shadow of reasoning-which shadow vanishes the instant a definition of the terms made use of, is given. Mr. F. asks, What but an absurd and impossible cause can be said at one time to draw or attract, and at another, and under the very same circumstances, to press or repel?" Surely Mr. F. does not mean gravely to argue, that to press and repel are synonymous terms. Bailey defines 66 press, to squeeze close together;" to repel, "to beat or drive back." If Mr. Farey ever urged successful love, and squeezed the hand of his fair one in the moment of soft dalliance, he doubtless felt what it was to press by attraction. A repelling squeeze is a new discovery in the art of love unsung by Ovid-and a repelling press is an unheard of invention in the science of mechanics.

to

I am sorry, Mr. Editor, I cannot conclude without attributing some blame to you or your printer, for suffering several errors of the press to pass uncorrected, two of which Mr. Farey's critical acumen has fastened upon; but the mystery he complains of will be dissipated by a reference to my brother's manuscripts. In speaking of a well dug on my premises, the printed copy says, "if means had not been used to prevent the water running off through the wall, there is little doubt but it would have risen to, and run over the top of the well." Now, Sir, the word not, is not in the manuscript, and by striking it out, the sense of the passage is quite clear and consistent; and instead of "proper lines for divining," read 66 proper lines for draining," which will make this paragraph also perfectly intelligible.

The question as to the cause of the working of the divining rod still remains unanswered, and is, I think, worthy the

attention of men of real science; and I am not without hope that some of your valued correspondents will investigate the subject with more candour and patience than has been evinced by Mr. Farey. JOHN PARTRIDGE. Spring Cottage, near Stroud, Gloucestershire, Aug. 14, 1821.

P. S. Having noticed in your Number for August a table shewing the relative levels of canals, I should feel obliged if any of your correspondents could state, through the medium of your Magazine, what is the actual tonnage paid on each canal, and also the number of locks, and the exact length of each canal?

For the Monthly Magazine. THE PHILOSOPHY OF CONTEMPORARY CRITICISM. No. XVI.

THE

Edinburgh Review, No. 70. HE first article of this Number is apparently by the editor, but not one of his best. Mr. Jeffrey's prose has all the richness, flow, and elasticity of the finest poetry. His judgment on the unfortunate" Doge of Venice," coincides with that already pronounced by a much higher tribunal; though it is not easy to see how a play, which the established reputation of BYRON was unable to support, would have made the fortune of any young aspirant after fame." Even the "puffing manager " could make nothing of a drama containing five prosing dialogues in place of five acts, and a plot turning on the irritable and ludicrous jealousy of an amorous swain of fourscore-with a few incidents stolen from Pizarro, the incomparable tragedy of Otway, and Hume's history of the gunpowder treason. Nevertheless, Marino Faliero possesses beauties which render it worthy to be bound up with Cato and Irene, a fate which many might envy and no one disgrace.

Article second, on the "State of Prisons," is judicious enough. Rump steaks and veal cutlets are far too good for any inmates of a prison. But after all, there is not much hope of reclaiming old offenders. Punishments, framed with a design to deter the innocent, rather than reformn the guilty, seem likely to be of the greatest practical utility. With this view, jails and houses of correction ought to be kept as much as possible under the public eye, and all reasonable opportunity afforded for exposing their miserable inhabitants in that state of misery and destitution to

which their crimes have reduced them. A classification of prisoners, according to age and turpitude, is the greatest improvement in prison discipline; it prevents the bad being made worse, and our places of confinement becoming seminaries for the direct inculcation of villainy.

"Classical Education" is only a blustering sort of essay, and partly a compromise of former opinions. The editor is not always careful to preserve consistency in his journal-nor, indeed, in the same number; for sometimes it happens (oddly enough), that two articles appear under the same cover, holding directly opposite principles, which shows great indolence in the manager, As to the utility of classical learning, it is certainly a great error to make the study of the dead languages an object of primary importance with those who hereafter are to have the management of public affairs. It is due, however, to the English universities to state, that the discipline of them has considerably improved since Dr. Knox wrote his Essays but they must still be considered greatly defective, while there remains no provision for teaching a sound system of either metaphysical, ethical, or political philosophy; and it cannot be forgotten, as a lasting reproach to these places, that the most distinguished ornaments of our national literature --Dryden, Locke, Johnson, and Gibbon, were refused the honours of the universities.

"Capital Punishments," on the whole, is good. It contains many just observations in favour of those classes of society, whose interests are too frequently sacrificed, and their motives calumniated, in the cant of religion and aristocracy. An analysis of parliamentary reports, however, it must be observed, is not exactly appropriate to a popular journal. Besides in this instance, the quotations are immeasurably long, and the reasoning, in some places, diffuse and metaphysical.

Melmoth the Wanderer." A merited castigation of the preposterous horrors of the Radcliffe school of romance, which have been lately revived by the author of Bertram. It is not very creditable to the vigilance of periodical criticism, that the literature of the country never exhibited so many examples of bad taste, both in style and sentiment. We are completely overwhelmed with Gothic and Moorish barbarities. And what renders our situaMONTHLY MAG. No. 361.

tion more hopeless, is, that those who ought to have guarded the portals of literature from such rude invaders, have been the principal means of introducing them, by their intemperate praise of particular writers. How can either the Edinburgh or the Quarterly set about abating this nonsense, after uniting to laud that absurd demoniacal ruffian, Anastasius?

The sixth article we do not like. Mr. Godwin may be wrong, but the reviewer ought not to have exemplified the vices in his own temper, of which he complains in that individual.

"The Art of War" we read with loathing and abhorrence. It is a tumid, bombastical essay, of thirty pages, on the most effective mode of destroying mankind, and wasting the earth. When the reviewer talks about the "sublime" art of murder being treated “philosophically," we are at a loss to conceive whether he be in jest or earnest. Yet, we are not conters, nor of that godly sort, "who deplore the crime of war so deeply, that they can hardly pardon themselves for having zealously voted for it on all occasions."

"Men Traps and Spring Guns" repeated, is rather too much, especially as the second edition does not contain any important novelty. Nearly two thirds of the article are occupied in collating from the newspapers and Term reports, a speech of one of the judges. Formerly an explanatory note or addenda, of a few lines, would have been deemed a great condescension, even to a man of such high standing as Mr. Justice Best. But the Edinburgh is now only an ordinary commodity, in the manufacture of which, paste and scissars are the chief implements employed.

The "Laureate's Hexameters," form the ninth article. Our flashy reviewers frequently remind one of those ingenious contrivances, with which we are sometimes ensnared in the daily papers; when on gravely entering a paragraph, containing apparently important news of Bonaparte, the Russians, or the Spanish patriots, we suddenly drop on a wretched lottery puff. Thus our fancy critics usually set out like young steeds, full of life and vivacity-then, before the end of the race, fall into a languid, critical essay, with which they eke out the requisite number of pages. Now, who could have expected, after the felicitous observation on the " poetical decomposition" of our effete Laureate, to be 3 F drawn

66

drawn into a tedious discussion on the fitness of the hexameter measure to English versification. And after all it does not appear that the reviewer has made out a satisfactory negative of this proposition. If versification consist, as it undoubtedly does, in the recurrence of certain marked and conspicuous sounds, at regular intervals, it is not easy to conceive, why a line of poetry may not be of six, as well as of five feet. The length of the line is as indeterminate as the length of a stanza, and, in the structure of both, so as to obtain all the advantages of a metrical arrangement, it is only necessary to dispose the accented and unaccented syllables, so that the pauses return at the expected places, and at such a distance as not to be disagreeable to the organs of speech. The greatest objection to the hexameter measure is, that it is unusual, so that neither the eye nor the ear is accustomed to it; but this argument applies to the usage, not to the nature of the verse itself. In short, we think the "Laureate's Hexameters" quiet defensible; and farther, we think, that the Doctor has acted with peculiarly courtier-like feeling in adopting it in his “Vision of Judgment," for we think no measure so worthy of celebrating the glories of the "Georgian Age," as the heroic measure, nor no man so worthy to celebrate them, as the author of Wat Tyler and Joan of Arc.

The reviewer of the "Life of Mr. Pitt," and the Right Reverend compiler, are pretty well met. They are both as stately, prolix, and dull as possible. In an article of 30 pages, one scarcely meets an idea which has not been repeated a hundred times. All that is remarked on Mr. Pitt entering prematurely into public life-his great powers as a debater-his merits as a financier, and his mistakes on the French revolution-had been remarked by Coleridge twenty years ago-and with far more eloquence. Indeed, neither this minister nor Mr. Fox is a fair subject for the aristocratical journals. Were they to write impartially, few, considering how much present interests and former opinions rewards and disappointmentsare at issue, would believe them.

"Mr. Mushet's Tables" form the eleventh article. There is a good deal of common-place remark on the pernicious effect of degrading the currency, and a show of argument against reducing the interest of the public debt; but there is nothing very new nor very sa

tisfactory on either topics. As to the last of these questions, it does not embrace any thing very peculiar. Like every measure of general policy, it involves a contingency of advantages and disadvantages. If the public creditor were injured by a reduction of the interest, the public debtor would be benefited, so that some good, as well as evil, would attend it; and the question is, can the former, on any fair principles of justice and policy, be deemed an equivalent for the latter?

For the reduction of the debt to be wise, it ought also to be just; but to be just it must be unavoidable. It is obvious that the public, no more than an individual, can be compelled to pay beyond its ability. Now, what can be fairly considered the limit of public ability to pay the interest in full?— Clearly when the payment of it destroys the sources of productive industry. To exact payment beyond this limit, would be injurious to both creditor and debtor, and ultimately involve both parties in ruin. When the nation, therefore, arrives at this crisis, justice, no less than expediency, would direct a compromise.

But the land and chattels of the community, it is said, are mortgaged to the public creditor, and unless the interest be paid in full, he has a claim on them for the principal?-How so? We find no such thing in the bond, Neither loan-lender nor loan-borrower contemplated such a condition when the bargain was made-how, then, can it be exacted? Real property, even among individuals, is only liable in particular cases for debt; but surely the commonwealth has a higher privilege— surely it is preposterous to contend, that a power, which is paramount to every other, the sole arbiter of right and wrong, the owner of all property-which it had at all times a right to command -can never be pledged to its own ruin to a part of itself!

When money was borrowed by government, the re-payment obviously depended on various contingencies, of which the Crown must have been aware at the time. First, the conquest of the country by a foreign enemy; secondly, a revolution in the government itself; and, lastly, inability to raise taxes to pay the interest. Of all these contingencies the loan-lender was apprised, and he exacted terms accordingly. The last contingency may probably happen, but he cannot justly complain of an evil he foresaw.

Another

Another consideration seems to call for some regulation of the public debt. Owing to the alteration in the value of the currency, all former contracts appear to be undergoing a revision. The landlord is making a new agreement with his tenants, the workman with his employer, and government with its servants. Why, then, should not a new arrangement be made with the public creditor?

To return to our subject. Sismondi's "History of France" forms the twelfth article. There are a few observations on particular portions of French history; but the learning, eloquence, and industry of the distinguished continental writers, hardly receive the praise they deserve.

"High Church National Education" is the finish. It is very tame; but, as the poet says, there was a time when an offender like Mr. Lloyd against reason, humanity and common sense, would not have escaped so easily.

To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. SIR,

THE story of Hannah Lightfoot has long been partly known; but anecdotes of that kind, plentiful enough in every court, necessarily get abroad, become general table talk for a while; are forgotten; after a revolution of time are revived as novelties, and then, being ripe for such purpose, attempts for their suppression are made by the pious. I have no doubt but that your last correspondent, Inquirer's account, is generally correct; but, if there be any inaccuracy, it is, that the lady was not taken into keeping by the Prince, until nearly three years subsequently to the period stated. An eminent surgeon, equally eminent in another far more lucrative profession, had the honour, in the upper circles, of being named as the minister plenipotentiary, on this occasion.

There is a singularity attached to these Quaker anecdotes. Half a century since, when the King's penchant for Quaker beauty was a somewhat fresh topic of conversation, Hannah Lightfoot's name was scarcely ever mentioned, and always with a degree of uncertainty, as to whether that were or not, the right name. Another name was far more generally quoted, that of a very respectable family, which I need not now repeat. His Majesty, on one or two occasions, paid a distinguished attention to that family, which was

partly Quaker and partly Church of England. A lady, the daughter of the Quaker branch, of great beauty and accomplishments, is said to have attracted the royal attention, somewhere about, or more probably before, the year 1760. Of this there was no doubt; but it has never been equally well ascertained, whether the royal George was, on that occasion, successful. Lady Sarah Lennox, also, was universally supposed to have been a royal favourite. In the year 1773, I became acquainted with a young gentleman of the family above alluded to. He was of the Church of England branch, and frequently visited an aunt in Berkeley-square. I mentioned to him the report respecting his relative, of which he said he was well aware; but appeared to be either unapprized of the circumstances, or to decline committing himself on the subject. It is propable that his late Majesty, whom nature had endowed with super-eminent qualifications, left a very numerous left-handed issue, in the upper ranks, of which may be placed a late Austrian prince and general, and a count, not only in present existence, but in the enjoyment of high and distinguished honours and confidence.

Who was the lady by whom the King had five children, and to whom his attachment was so strong, that he is said to have conceived the strange idea of espousing her, when he succeeded to the crown; and that it was with the utmost difficulty that his ministry could divert his mind from a project so truly insane? It was, indeed, formerly reported, but I know not with what degree of authenticity, that the pressure occasioned by this subject, and the necessity, as it was represented to him, of contracting an immediate suitable marriage, were the real cause of the first alienation of mind which appeared in the young King, and the account of which, in Smollett's first edition of the History of England, was suppressed in consequence of an application to the author by the Earl of ANOTHER ENQUIRER.

Bute.

have I understood to have offered very material benefit.

I beg to suggest a plan that would, in my estimation, be of best advantage to the country at large, give employment to a great number of hands, and operate in some measure, as a spur tó trade, if acted upon. The plan I have to propose is that of making rail roads for the use of stage coaches throughout the kingdom; and in order to show the utility of the undertaking at large, I will specify one instance in fact, by which to illustrate the whole.

From Southampton to London there start daily (say for example at least) 8 coaches. Allowing 12 miles for each stage, the number of stages will be 6. and allowing 8 horses to cach coach (going and coming) for every such stage, the number of horses employed daily for each of the S coaches from Southampton to London, is 48. Multiply 48 (number of horses) by 8 (number of coaches,) and the whole will amount to 384 horses.

Now, observe the saving of horse-labour by means of rail-ways. It is well known that, on a rail-road, one horse has more than the power of four; so that where four horses are used, one would do the work with greater ease to the animal, (no trifling consideration), greater expedition to the traveller, and greater safety to the passenger, besides the saving in the wear and tear of coaches. Thus 12 horses would supply the place of 48, required for each coach, making a reduction in the whole of 288; and this, too, from one small town to the metropolis, the distance of only 72 miles. What the reduction would prove in the aggregate on all the roads to London throughout the kingdom, may easily be conjectured from this single specimen.

The keep of a coach horse, at the very lowest, may be fixed at £50. £50., multiplied by 288 (reduction in number of horses), is £14,400.; so that, in this one instance, a saving would be effected annually of £14,400.; and 288 horses, which are now a burden on the community, would be rendered no longer necessary. A labouring man can, and does keep himself, his wife, and six children, on a less sum than £50. ayear-a less sum than is required to keep one coach-horse. Thus eight people might be maintained with what is requisite only to keep one horse: 8 (number of souls) multiplied by 288, (reduction in number of horses), is

2304 souls, which might be kept in the room of such a useless number of animals, that are now such a tax upon the community. Here on one road, the distance of only 72 miles, is a saving of the labour of 288 horses, which would be rendered useless by means of this plan, and thereby an addition made to the population, and consequently to the strength of the country, of 2304 people.

From this solitary instance, we may judge what advantages would be derived from the making of rail-ways throughout the kingdom, by at once adding to the comfort of the labouring classes, and strengthening the country against a foreign enemy. For surely it is no good policy in time of peace, more than in time of war, to diminish the population of any country, as it is always uncertain when a reverse of fortune may occur. The rendering useless such a vast number of animals, I consider the chief advantage of this plan; for a horse, if not absolutely required, is the least profitable of all animals, and the expense of keeping him will maintain in comfort eight people. Though this be the primary consideration, that of giving employment to a great number of idle hands, is, at these times, of no very inferior import. And the benefit to trade arising from the demand of iron, would not be inconsiderable.

But the oppositionist, (for there must be opposition to every new plan, whether good or bad-'tis the infirmity of human nature), will object to this plan on the ground of its impracticability, owing to the uneven state of the country. To this objection I answer, that in making of rail-roads some hills may be avoided, and others cut through, and even vallies may be a little elevated; but a very gentle declivity would be no impediment. The same objections lie against canals, as they are precisely on the same principle. Whoever considers this undertaking impracticable, has only to cast his eye on Chinathere he will see roads cut through immense mountains, and carried over stupendous vallies-and his objections will immediately vanish. I will venture to say, that government would find its account in laying out money on railroads, and the principal returned with interest; and I would recommend that a road be made first somewhere near the metropolis, by way of experiment. The expence of making a rail-road of course must vary according to the na

ture