A PERFECTLY satisfactory Vindication; not to the vulgar, indeed, who always embrace the worst opinions because the most familiar, but to all who know what are the operations of the human mind when actuated more by abstract reasoning than by the established customs of society. Let it not be supposed, however, that we mean to approve of such deviations, neither should they all be considered as positive crimes. Mrs. Lee depended on her reasoning powers to persuade the Gordons to abandon their project on her fortune, and even when she discovered their insufficiency she was actuated by a Quixotic humanity to save their lives, at the expense of her own reputation in the world. This is the simple fact; and she has experienced the truth of the proverb, save a thief from the gallows, and he will cut your throat." Had Mrs. L. not been influenced by a superior sentiment of friendship, not love, for both the Gordons, she would have acted very differently, and they would have forfeited their lives, while she would have enjoyed a fair character, and the public would not have been insulted by the circulation of those odious reports, which, even had they been as true as they were false, none but the vilest of the vile would have promulgated under any circumstances. This Vindication every where evinces a disposition to metaphysical reasoning, a self-controul, and a vigour and depth of intellect which are alone sufficient to convince us of the falsehood of the calumnies propagated against the author, whose talents are no less superior than her virtues to those of the Gordons. We could have wished, indeed, that she had more explicitly denied the accusation of scepticism, although that is not so offensive as Lockhart Gordon's prayers: the former partakes of folly, the latter of execrable blasphemy. We are persuaded, however, that Mrs. L, has too much genius to be long duped either by the sophistry of infidelity, or the cant of methodistical hypocrisy. Her true character will doubtless unfold itself, and she will eventually receive from the public that justice of which she has been so artfully and industriously deprived by despicable men.

REVIEWERS REVIEWED.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ANTIJACOBIN REVIEW.
Sir,

IT has always been my opinion, that the friends of order and good government are more indebted to your Review than to any other modern publication whatever. Nor do I think that any department of this truly loyal and independent work has been productive of more extensive good, than that which is entitled "the Reviewers reviewed.” Well do I remember how happily the mischievous efforts of a host of these writers were immediately restrained, when, at an awful crisis of pernicious opinions, with an intrepidity as distinguished as your object was meritorious, you first came forward in defence of your

King, your laws, and your religion. No sooner did you commence your task of reviewing the Monthly, criticising the Critical, and analysing the Analytical reviews, than these oracles of Schism, Jacobinism, and Infidelity, were disgraced, their general tone was lowered, and one of them, at that time the most lying and mischievous, effectually silenced.

As, however, the principles of this class of critics are radically bad, they will only conduct themselves with decency just so long as they are vigilantly watched; and as, some time ago, they were again suffered to proceed with little molestation, they have resumed their old habits, and again " burst forth into all their former virulence and malignity." With great satisfaction, therefore, I observe you recalling your more serious attention to these writers; and pledging yourself, that they shall not any longer" indulge in their licentious ribaldry without restraint;" that they "shall not remain unexposed, nor unconfuted;" but, that you will "perform your duty, by holding up such despicable scribblers to the scorn and contempt of all rational men." (March 1808, p. 295). This pledge, Sir, I earnestly entreat you punctually to redeem. No writer is qualified to execute the task with more effect. Nor can your talents be employed in any way that will more entitle you to the support and gratitude of every genuine friend of your country, and of mankind.

You are not to inform, that, besides the Critical and Monthly, there are now the Edinburgh and Annual Reviews, which systematically and incessantly impugn both the doctrines of our church, and the measures of our government; and, that others of our periodical works are partially unsound, and, when not chargeable with heresy, are highly schismatical. You know how many circumstances concur to give this species of publications an undue influence over the public mind; and how, almost necessarily, the person who is suffered continually to" tell us his story, morning and evening, becomes our mas ter." You know the mystery of iniquity which is practised by the conductors of these journals, and how completely all persons who place the smallest confidence in their decisions are duped: you know the kind of persons who are employed to write for these Reviews, and the kind of instructions which they receive from their employers. You know how frequently authors review their own books, or the books of their personal friends or opponents. You know what unfair methods are resorted to, in order to bring forward, and puff off, works favourable to certain views and objects, and to damn all others, &c. &c. (See Antijacobin for July 1798, Prospectus, and p. 56, &c. January 1808, p. 53; March 1808, p. 291, &c. May 1808, p. 14, &c. &c.) All these circumstances shew the necessity there is for an able Review conducted on honourable, loyal, and orthodox principles: all these considerations will, I trust, Sir, increase your zeal in placing before the public, in their true light, these dishonest, heretical, schismatical, deistical, and jacobinical publications.

To aid your laudable endeavours in this important work, my design is, to exhibit anew to your readers the principles and behaviour of

your old acquaintance, the Critical Review. My critique, I foresee, will be an extended one. For, in depicting a character so radically bad, where can one safely stop? The labour bestowed on this particular Review will not, however, I hope, be lost; because, with some very slight alteration of names and circumstances, from this one, many characteristic features of the whole body may be known.

1

This journal, I am fully persuaded, has, at present, the first claim to your farther notice. For, however contemptible on some other accounts it may have become, it is, beyond all question, pre-emi→ nently distinguished by principles and tempers, at once dangerous to our church establishment, and our common christianity. It is highly worthy of consideration, too, that since your first animadversions on its contents, this Review has affected a reformation; or, at least, has disavowed all responsibility for its former principles. (See their advertisement in 1805) Now if such reformation has not, in fact, taken place, this hypocritical pretension to it will have greatly increased the. work's power of deception, and rendered it more dangerous to the unwary. And, really, Sir, after the most impartial attention to the changes which this publication has undergone, it must be said of it, that it's experience strikingly resembles that of a certain character described by our Lord, "whose last state is worse than the first." (Mat. xii, 45.)

Nor must we here omit to notice the extravagantly high tone in which the conductors of this work trumpet their own praise; because, unhappily, there is always one large class of society upon whom this puffing system has too fatal an influence. If we may credit these Critical Reviewers themselves, their publication is eminently distinguished by " impartial justice," "an elaborate criticism," and the purest principles; and they are continually receiving " numerous testimonies of unsolicited approbation respecting it, from all parts of the country." "Our political and our religious principles are, we trust," say they, "such as will secure us the steady support of the good and wise, of every sect and party in the united Empire. We are the friends of all who are the friends of truth, of their country, and mankind." Every man who is the friend of reason will be our friend; and the Critical Review, in this time of peril and of difficulty, will serve as a light to the ignorant, a stay to the doubtful, and a salutary antidote," &c, &c. What can Dr. Brodum say more? (See August 1807, p. 344, 448). Let us then, Sir, carefully examine how far this boasting is made good. Undismayed by this matchless effrontery, let us examine,

First, whether this publication is not notoriously disgraced by inconsistency of principle and dishonesty of criticism? To exhibit its guilt on these heads fully, and in its true deformity, would indeed be an endless task. This would be to contrast whole series and volumes of it with its other volumes; to quote at large its palpably partial, and party, and opposite decisions and opinions, through all the vi cissitudes of its fortunes and its masters. I will furnish a specimen of this unprincipled inconsistency on subjects of the first importance.

My first instance shall be political, and shall relate to that glory of Britons, our maritime sovereignty and rights. This sovereignty, on some occasions, these Reviewers justly represent as the only ef fectual barrier against the subjugation of the world, and the univer sal tyranny of France; and which, therefore, it is the interest of all other nations, as well as of our own, carefully to preserve. Animadverting, in 1805, on "Latrille's Thoughts on War," they say: “Like a true disciple of Buonaparte, the author of these considerations inveighs most bitterly against the maritime domination of the English." But, what, they proceed to ask, would be the deplorable state of the world, except for such English domination, and if this sovereignty of the seas was obtained by France? And, having described the French nation as displaying in all its public transactions the most unprincipled rapacity, and the English as universally characterized by a respect for justice and humanity; &c. &c. they add: "If other nations understood their own interest so well as they ought, they would not calmly look on and see the sceptre of the ocean wrested from the hands of England and placed in those of France. England is at this moment the only barrier in the world against the encroaching spirit of French ambition. Wherever that ambition can operate upon the continent, there liberty, security, and happiness, have vanished before its grasp, and it is only the navy of England which prevents its incursions upon the ocean, and the extension of its ravages from pole to pole." (Vol. vi, p. 501, 502).

In 1807, however, these Critical gentlemen talk in a directly opposite strain, represent this British maritime sovereignty as downright tyranny and oppression, and the especial means by which it is preserv ed as nothing better than highway robbery. Reviewing a work " on the maritime rights of Great Britain," they remark: "This writer says, we can only counteract Buonaparte's code of continental aggrandizement by a British code of maritime rights. We do not, they proceed, "precisely know what this author means by maritime rights. The ocean is not and cannot be made private property. As far as right is concerned, one nation has as good a right to navigate this liquid road as another. As the ocean is the common property of all who have ships to launch upon its waters, the maritime rights of nations must be reciprocal; but for one nation to declare its maritime rights to be paramount to those of every other nation in the world, is downright tyranny and injustice: it is a right which force only can support: but that which morality disclaims, and which nothing but violence upholds, is, in our vocabulary, not a right but a wrong; it is much the same as if a robber should post himself on the highway, and declare that no passenger, who was weaker than himself, should proceed on his journey without submitting to what he might, in civil, diplomatic language, call his right of search." (December 1807, p. 442)-Thus, himself being the judge, does our reviewer, in his turn, resemble a "true disciple of Buonaparte."

Take another instance of similar inconsistency. Ascribing a su preme importance to literature, and affirming that her heroes" have

weilded the world," this reviewer adduces as a proof of his remarks, "what not long since passed among our neighbours;" and adds: "The strange revolution there achieved was confessedly literary. To the bewitching philosophy of Rousseau, to the impudent infidelity of Voltaire, may be attributed the wild opinions on government and religion, which generated the ferocious manners, and the sanguinary conduct of a people to whom was once given the epithet of polite, as an appropriate appellation." (Vol. iv, p. 372)-Such was this Critic's correct opinion in 1805. In 1807, he says: many writers have concurred in ascribing the revolution to the exertions of the philosophers;" but that "philosophy had no more share in producing the multiplied atrocities of the revolution than Christianity itself. Burke Barruel, and other writers," he adds, "have ascribed to the literati and sages of France a greater degree of concert and influence than they ever possessed." The ancient government of France" was not destroyed by the philosophy of its adversaries, but by the vices and the crimes of those who professed to be its friends." (July 1807, p. 307)

But let us advert to our reviewer's sentiments respecting that momentous event, the French Revolution itself. On this subject, on some occasions, language is exhausted in reprobating its principles and its agents. Speaking of the dramatis persone who appeared in the very first acts of this most horrible tragedy, the Critical Reviewers say: "that these revolutionists had not a single idea of rational liberty, nor the spirit of toleration, appears from their forming black-lists of all those whose opinions were inimical to their desolating views." On the contrary, the most active and distinguished among them, we are informed, were "wretches," who "only in destroying found ease to their relentless thoughts;" "men of the nature of tigers, who had premeditated the revolution;" "cruel ruffuns," "as thirsty of blood as greedy of plunder," who must be delivered up "to the universal execration of posterity;" "a seditious and blood-thirsty faction;" "a most ferocious and avaricious faction, who perpetrated the ruin of their government and country;" "Parisian anarchists, who assumed the appellation of patriots, to destroy not to preserve their country." Even "Necker," for whose behaviour so many apologies have been framed, is charged by this critic, either with being "himself infatuated with the principles" of these wretches, or with the most "deplorable weakness and pusillanimity" with being "blinded" by "vanity" and "popular applause," "to the intrigues and plans of a seditious and blood-thirsty faction, supported by Orleans and Mirabeau." (vol. v, p. 497, 498; vol. vii, p. 273.)

So, at another time, enumerating the incredible enormities of that "great actor in the French revolution, Talleyrand," and "his master's other agents," La Croix, Merlin, Brune, Duroc, Jean de Brie, &c. these reviewers say: "We mean Bonaparte's ministers, although we might naturally enough be mistaken to mean those of the Devil." The depravity of Talleyrand is represented as literally without a parallel: his master is styled the "arch-fiend;" and the "Memoirs"