individual, who is perhaps too much of a Philosopher to be pleased with Dramatic Entertainments.

The spleen of the Reviewer, having increased by indulgence, attains its acme of virulence at the close of the article: "In his 12th Chapter Mr. M. professes to exhibit a Sketch of the present State of Society in London; in which we do not meet with much sagacity of remark, or novelty of information. Take an instance of his common-place details: The reader must recollect, that when a family is without visitors, it is governed by greater regularity. Many Merchants and rich Tradesmen pass much of their leisure time at Coffee-houses; and dinners are commonly given at those places"."

Now, what but blind and indiscriminating acrimony could dictate the above remarks? What sagacity was required to narrate facts as clear as noon-day? Or, what novelty of information could arise from describing the domestic occurrences of families in general? The Reviewer dared not say I have falsified a single arti cle; perhaps he would rather I had drawn a fancied picture of present customs, that he might have added a charge of deeper dye against me. The Review of my performance, which has enabled him to earn a dinuer, could not have been written if similar common-place details had not appeared during the last century. Good Sir, because you know how we all live at present, are we not to inform those who succeed us How we have lived? Taking the conclusion of sentences as a specimen of the whole, is peculiar to a certain description of Reviewers. Now, by referring to the page whence the extract is taken, it will be found I b

VOL. I.

had

had been describing a family as entertaining their visitors, and naturally concluded by saying, "when alone, it was governed with greater regularity." For once we have an attempt at wit, which originates from my having asserted that the dissipation common in high life, and late hours, rendered eating of breakfast a" languid operation."-" We do not believe that there is, in general, so much languor in this operation of eating, as Mr. M. seems to suppose. But, perhaps, Mr. M. will think that we judge of the morning appetite of others by our own; and that we Reviewers have appetites like wolves, and are ready to devour mountains of toast, when they come in our way." Mountains of toast-admirable metaphor! Surely this cannot be called affected, stiff, starched, verbose, or elevated language; it is familiar enough, and will be understood perfectly by the cook or house-maid, when the article which contains it reaches the Kitchen as waste paper.

"The author ends his smooth-papered volume (a fault I must transfer to the paper-maker, as I have not had it hot-pressed) with the following sentence:

Such are the follies of many; but, thanks to Heaven! there are numbers of our nobility and gentry. who live and act for the general benefit of mankind. And now, Vale Londinium !'-We will add, Vale Mr. M. We have been indebted to you for some information and amusement; but should have been more gratified with the perusal of your work, if you had exhibited more judgment in the selection of the ma-, terials, and had not swelled the bulk by a number of futile, irrelevant, and incongruous details.”

The

The readers of the first edition of this work, amounting perhaps to some thousands, have completely and decidedly contradicted the objections brought by the Reviewer in general terms, and supported by cavils upon four or six sentences selected from 490 pages. The readers of the present are offered all those cavils for their consideration, and will judge for themselves of their justice.

With due allowance for a small degree of asperity, for which the writer can have no good excuse, the Anti-Jacobin Review of December last contains some argumentative strictures on the arrangement of this work, as it appeared in the first edition. When a book is offered to the world, it cannot be expected that every fact in it, and the method, should meet the approbation of all descriptions of persons; as taste and opinions are acknowledged to be as various as the features of the face. That the publick at large have not disapproved of the progressive chronological manner adopted, I have the most positive evidence by the rapid sale of the work; and this I shall retain. However, as objections have been raised by individuals who act as Public Censors, I have adopted their suggestions in part, and given the Anecdotes a more connected form, by removing the breaks between each. But, while I submit to their decision in the above instance, I beg leave to deny that any of the materials are too trivial for insertion. I was to give the habits and manners of the Londoners as I found them. If their conduct was even infantile in some cases, the fault lay with them, not with me; if part

of their conduct resembles that of all the rest of the world, it is still a part of their conduct, and requires notice as much as their pecularities; and it is mere wanton contradiction to assert the contrary.

The Reviewer next discovers, that periodical publications are not the best authorities for ascertaining the manners of the times. This I utterly deny; and I challenge the Reviewer to point out the cases where falsehood and inaccuracy are discoverable, in the use I have made of them. In truth, they are almost the only vehicles by which we obtain any thing like a correct account of the foibles of the day-nay, any, account at all. What does he say to the Spectator, the Tatler, the World, the Rambler, the Guardian,, the Observator, the Female Tatler? Were they not periodical publications? Do they abound in "shameful lies" (the gross words of the Reviewer)? or are they not considered as faithful sketches of those customs which escape the notice of the Historian?

Every Newspaper may contain misrepresentations and falsehoods; but those are generally confined to politics and artifices of trade: when any indifferent circumstance is to be related, there is no inducement to wilful falsehood. Besides, our ingenuous Reviewer must have allowed me to have had sufficient discernment to reject articles of that description.-Were I to act with the same candour towards him as he has. evinced towards "Newspapers, Intelligencers, and Magazines" (observe, Reviews are omitted) in his rejection of them as authorities, I should charge him, with declaring a deliberate falsehood in informing his readers that my excellent friend Mr. Nichols had lost

we

his matchless collection of periodical publications in the late burning of his warehouse and printing-office. A statement of this nature need not rest upon believe:" London is extensive, but surely within the compass of a Reviewer's walk, who dogmatically substitutes we believe for the simple question at Mr. Nichols's door, "Have you lost your collection?"

I shall now follow this candid gentleman's example -he damns in the Theatrical term the whole of my book, by endeavouring to mislead the publick into a belief that it contains not a word of truth; and then a high-sounding apology in these words; "That Mr. M. would intentionally pervert a single fact, or make one statement that he believed to be erroneous, we certainly have not the most distant idea of intimating; he possesses too high a sense of honour, too great a feeling of manly integrity, even to permit the supposition." Pray, good Sir, who would willingly consider me rather as a fool than as a liar, apply your own words to yourself; and let me add, I am convinced you believed Mr. Nichols's collection to have been consumed by fire, though it certainly was not.

---

Further let me repeat your words, "Thus have I done, and I challenge contradiction: mine are the best authorities."-Yes, they are the best authorities; such as the Journals of the House of Commons, the Gentleman's Magazine, official publications of Charities, and various institutions, under the signatures of their Secretaries, Reports of Coroners on Inquests, the Statements of G. A. Wachsel, Sir John Fielding's official reports, Mr. Howard's letters, Acts of Parliament, Dr. Hawes's information to the Author, Adver

tisements