tisements from different Speculators, the official statements of the Society for Reformation of Manners, Report of the Committee of Magistrates 1725, Letter from Secretary of State 1728, Proclamations by the King and the Lord Mayor, original Letters of Richard Smith 1732, the Police Act, Evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons 1750, Address from Justice Fielding 1759, Narrative relating to the Cock-lane Ghost, Evidence of Physicians relating to Mad-houses 1762, Examinations before Committee of Commons respecting Robberies 1770, Sir J. Fielding's Address to Grand Jury 1773, official statement of Society for suppressing Vice; Quacks' own advertisements; Addison, from the Lover; London Gazette, ceremonial for receiving George I.; Royal Proclamation, 1721, confirming the existence of scan, dalous Clubs, Mackay's Journey through England 1724, Switterda's Advertisements, Act for suppressing Private Balls, Report of Committee of Common Council 1761, Charge by Sir J. Fielding respecting Profane Swearing 1763, original letters between the Bishop of Bristol and his Parishioners 1768, Grosley's Tour to London, Advertisements by C. Weedon, Esq. Life of Sacheverell, Henley's Advertisements, presentment of the Grand Jury relating to him 1728, Lady E. Hamilton's advertisements, Lord Viscount Vane's advertisement, original advertisements of Lotteries and Benefit Societies, Queen Anne's communication to the Lord Mayor respecting Riots 1709, Abstract of Wild's indictment 1725, official parish letter of Christ-church Surrey 1757, Minutes of Coroners Inquest 1763, Wilkes's letter 1768, Trial of

Donald

Donald M'Lane, King's Proclamation 1768, that of Harley, Mayor, same period, Trial of J. Grainger, &c. 1768, Petition of W. Allen 1768, Presentment of Grand Jury 1701, that of Middlesex 1703; London Gazette, reformation of the Stage; the Presentment of Middlesex Grand Jury 1723, Advertisements of Figg and others, masters of defence, Notice from Wilks, &c. and Cibber's answer 1733, Notice from the Proprietor of Vauxhall-gardens, proposal from same 1738, Life of Handel, original letter from Mrs. Clive, Statements by Mr. Garrick and Mr. Beard, Letters of Messrs. Harris and Colman, Macklin's narrative, Plan of the Regatta 1775, Foote's letter to the Lord Chamberlain, Advertisements of Clothing lost, Peruke-makers' petition 1763, Sir William Davenant, original docquet to Mr. Cole for globė lamps, Act for improving London 1760, Notice from Commissioners for paving,-AND, LASTLY, PERIODICAL

PUBLICATIONS.

My words in the Introduction are: "It gives me pleasure to acknowledge I have been indebted to my worthy friend Mr. Nichols for the inspection of his matchless collection of periodical publications, from which great part of my materials have been selected." Whether they were the sole sources of my Anecdotes let the above list of authorities testify, which the reader may verify by turning over the following pages. If the Reviewer has read this work, I charge him on his conscience to say why he asserts my information depends wholly upon lying newspapers, &c. Where, alas! has the "full spirit of moral honesty" evaporated which he so calmly professes ?

Two

Two sentences more, and I have done with the Anti-Jacobin. I am treated with the utmost superciJiousness for attempting to prove that many male and female figures are to be found in London equal to the celebrated statues of the Venus de Medicis and the Apollo Belvidere, which were alluded to by the words Grecian Apollos and Venuses.- What, am I to be told that my powers of discrimination" are far above par," because I assert the British human form is equal to the conceptions of the antient Grecians? This "Grey-beard," as he calls himself, must have studied the Arts in a Mercantile way indeed, or he would have pronounced my powers were below par in saying they were only equal, as, upon a moment's consideration, I am convinced there are hundreds of persons in London whose forms in general, and the swells of their muscles, as far sur pass the statues in question, excellent as they may be, as the works of God ever did and ever must exceed those of man. Indeed, the best Artists invariably acknowledge with humility and regret how very inferior their works are to the common productions of Nature. Then how extremely ridiculous are these words of the Reviewer: "That the Metropolis can furnish many beautiful figures both male and female, from the millions of its inhabitants, we readily allow; but that perfection of form and character which characterises an Apollo and a Venus, has but few, very few resemblances." I am almost tempted to say the latter part of this paragraph is impious: The most complicated, wonderful, and beautiful specimen of the powers of the Creator, exceeded by the works of the

created;

created; nay, so far exceeded as to leave but few even of resemblances!!! Has the Reviewer read that indefatigable and accurate author Keysler? Hear what he says of the Venus de Medicis, after paying it the just tribute due to superior excellence: "The head is by most Connoisseurs considered as too small in proportion to the rest of the body, particularly the hips; some censure the nose as too large; and possibly the furrow along the vertebræ of the back is something too deep, especially as the object represents a soft plump female; and both the bend of the arins and inclination of the body jointly conspire to lessen the depth of this furrow, if not totally to obliterate it. The fingers are remarkably long, and all, except the little finger of the left hand, destitute of joints; but this should not affect the reputation of the Artist, as it is sufficiently evident, that the hands had not received his last touches." It has often been asserted that the English Jacobin cordially hates his own countrymen, and endeavours to exalt the perfections of their enemies; the above fact seems to prove decidedly that an Anti-Jacobin treats an author with contempt, because he wished to say the truth of the Reviewer's countrymen. If the reverse was the case, and the British form was less perfect, I ought to have escaped censure merely for my amor patriæ.

It was to deprecate such criticism as the preceding, which I expected, through the experience of others, that I prescribed an Antidote in the Preface of the first edition.

And now I shall leave these two wise Review"to chew the cud in their own way," according to the elegant expression of the Anti-Jacobin.

ers

The

The Eclectic Review, in noticing this work, has confined itself to such observations as were highly proper, supposing the volume intended to form a complete history of the century. I have already explained the reasons why I offered it to the publick as it appeared, and shall not therefore repeat them; but I cannot avoid adding, I feel myself indebted for the offered suggestions, though they were anticipated. When gentlemanly reproof is tempered with praise, he must be an arrogant and presumptuous writer indeed who feels offended at the recital of his real or supposed errors. I shall give some commendatory extracts, and the Reviewer will permit me to refute one of his suppositions.

"We certainly approve Mr. M's choice of a subject; and highly should we have congratulated ourselves if collectors of equal diligence had performed the same task for the 17th and many preceding centuries which he has undertaken for the last."-" Mr. M. with equal modesty and prudence, intitles his volume Anecdotes."-" It presents some of the principal features of the times, and will afford amusement and knowledge to the present generation, and still more to future generations, who cannot by recollection compare the portrait with the original."-"Whoever desires to form a just estimate of the manners of the English in the 18th century will derive great assistance from Mr. M's collections."

After what has been said, I am sorry to be obliged to censure any part of this Review of my Anecdotes. Speaking of my prints of Dress, the Reviewer says, I should have consulted several works which he has

named,