traits, we must refer to our author. The ftories of Calliope and Meliffa are amufing; but they confft of little except common fituations, in no unufual style. The ftory of Abdalla and Zarima is lefs trite; and the Diary of Chaubert exhibits a well-drawn picture of a mifanthrope. The account of magic, with the anecdotes of magicians, is written in a lively manner, and is extremely interefting the facts are not common, and the remarks are ingenious,

The great object of the work is to give a compressed and unmixed' account of the Literature of the Greeks, carrying down the hiftory, in a chain of anecdotes, from the earlie poets, to the death of Menander. It is not pretended that this is entirely original: many parts of it are commonly known, and the Twenty-fixth Number on the great Libraries of Antiquity, is nearly the fame with the relation of Mr. Aftle, in his Origin and Progrefs of Writing. The Life of Pythagoras is clear and accurate; but our author has not remarked the very extenfive influence of his opinions, or hinted at the hidden meaning of fome of his peculiar tenets. There is much reafon to think, that a great part of the philofophy of Greece was a tranfcript only from the do&rines of this early and extenfive enquirer, who pierced through the mystery of the pagan theology, and faw, in the opinions of the Egyptians, that trath, which many of the Grecian travellers had mifunderstood and mifreprefented. The Myfteries of numbers, and the Golden thigh, alfo ferved probably to hide fome important doctrines: these have been explained with much plaufibility, though we cannot now fay with how much truth, by Mr. Tucker, under the affumed name of Edward Search. Our author's account of Homer is just and fatisfactory ; but when we read his relation of the manner in which his rhapfodies were probably connected by Pififtratus, we could not refrain from making a modern application, and, for the Gre cian bard and his collector, fubftituting the names of Offian and Macpherson. We fufpect it might then be a true account of the origin of Fingal and Temora.

The Athenian Vifion is well invented, and with one fingle failure, fupported with propriety. The author unfortunately mentions the modern painter Mengs. We were indeed furprifed at his fpeaking of Micon as the rival of Polygnotus, the celebrated Athenian painter, fince we have not been able to find any authority for his exiflence. Ariftotle, in his Poetics, cap. ii. p. 236, oppofes him to Paufon and Dionyfius, in which he holds the first rank, and Dionyfius the second; but probably this fubject may be better elucidated by count Caylus, in his memoire on the Painting of the Ancients,' among the

Mc

Memoirs of the Academy of Belles Lettres *. We have already obferved, that Orpheus probably did not write the trea tife IIɛpt Albay, which the author attributes to him.

The language of this work is very incorrect; and those who examine it will think the Obferver has acted politically, in wishing to avoid comparifons. Peritrelion, volumn,' and fome other words, may be attributed to the printer; but pailing, deterring, vouchfafements, and fimilar ones, must be owing to the author. Reviewers are the guardians of language, and we, cannot fuffer thefe errors to efcape without reprehenfion. The conftruation too is often faulty. This is not the cafe with them who are born.' It is better to make a breach in any thing, rather than good manners. If the obfervations are purfued, fimilar mistakes, for they are numerous, mult be avoided. We cannot forgive the musician, chordâ qui sempér oberrat eadem.'

A Reply to the Treasury Pamphlet, entitled The propofed System of Trade with Ireland explained. 8vo. 25. Debrett.

TH

.

HE propofed fyftem of trade between Great Britain and Ireland being a matter of national importance, ought. to be investigated by the friends of the two countries with the ftricteft impartiality, and by thofe of the former, in particular, with all poffible precifion. In conformity to thefe principles, in our lait Review, we laid before our readers fuch an account of the pamphlet on that fubject, as might afford fuf ficient information with refpect to the arguments which it contained. From the fame regard to free difcuffion, and to the great commercial interests involved in the fyftem now agitated, we fhall likewife exhibit the most effential obfervations which occur in the prefent Reply.

After fome remarks of a general nature, the author examines the validity of the argument relative to the foundation of complaint, on the part of Ireland, in being reftricted from importing into this country the produce of the British colonies. The author's fentiments on this fubject coincide with, thofe of lord Sheffield, which we lately had occafion to mention, and ought certainly to have great weight in the deliberations for compromifing the different claims of Britain and Ireland.

We have fince found Micon, mentioned by Plny; and the followiog paffage is literally copied by our author. Hic Delphis dem pinxit, hie & Athenis porticum, que Pæcile vocatur gratuito, cum partem ejus Micon mercede pingeret.' Lib. xv. cap. 9.

1

In the hour of our liberality, fays, he, we gave her (Ireland) cvery thing, except what we could not have given her, without ruin to ourfelves. We removed every retraint that could fetter her induftry; we opened to her the trade of our colonies with the rest of the world, and bid her go in fearch of wealth in every port that would admit her traders.-We promifed her encouragement; we promifed her protection. All we referved, was the exclufive privilege of fupplying our own markets with the produce of our own colonies, without fufiering the benefits and advantages of that commerce to be intercepted by the way, or diverted into other channels. In other words, we gave liberty and encouragement to our fifter kingdom to get rich at the expence of all the rest of the world, if fhe could, and only provided that the fhould not intercept our wealth, or establish her fortunes at our expence.

In this truly generous and equitable arrangement, Ireland had every caufe to be grateful, and none to complain. We did her no injustice; we withheld from her no right. Our colonies were the purchase of her own blood, the acquisition of our own treasures, and the work of our own induftry. Their fettlement or their maintenance never coft Ireland a farthing-they were our own offspring, and we had entered into fuch a compact with them as that relation fuggelled. We engaged ourselves to purchase their commodities, to the exclufion of all fimilar productions in every other country; and they pledged them.. felves, in return, to carry thole commodities to no other market but ours. We undertook all risks for their protection, and they referved to us all the benefits arifing from that fecurity.

Such is the connection, which, by every principle of juf tice, by the law of nations, and by the custom of all the other powers of Europe, has been univerfally acknowledged to fubfift between the mother country and her colonies. A trade with them of any kind, or of any extent, muit have been, therefore, confidered as a favour granted to Ireland; nor could he have a fhadow of pretext for complaining of any referve, mu.h Jels of a referve which, while it left her in equal poffeflion of every other advantage, merely fecured us againit any future rivalfhip on her part in our own markets.'

In The Propofed Syftem of Trade with Ireland Explained,' it was argued, that the Irish were not likely to fupply England with the commodities of Africa and America, becaufe. it will not be contended that the fhorteft and cheapest way of importing goods from Africa and America to this country is, by carrying them firit into a port of Ireland, and then bringing them from thence to a port here.' On this paffage the auther of the Reply animadverts with his ufual vivacity; but we cannot help thinking that he deviates from the direct line of argument, as if actuated with circuitous reafoning, into

vague declamation. That our readers however may judge for themselves, the following extract is inferted.

But it was upon the very principle of this circuitous commerce thats the whole system of our navigation laws was built. Can the author be so ignorant as to fuppofe that it was the immediate gain upon the commodities that induced our ancestors to confine the colonial and foreign trade? Was this the only benefit they meant to fecure to their defcendants by procuring for them their Great Sea Charter ?-When he and the minifter next read the navigation act together, a ftudy which the latter has condescended to recommend to all the ignorant members of the houfe of commons, I would advise them to confider the preamble of the act which they diftinguish by that name-The. advantages attending the exchange of our colonial commodities, and the vent it occafioned for the native commodities of the kingdom-the rendering this country the ftaple of plant. ation goods as well as of the commodities of other countries for fupplying the plantations; the increafe of thipping and feamen, from the number of hands employed in the carriage," in the landing, in the ftoring, and re-hipping of the colonial produce, as well as of the productions of other countries, importing their merchandize in exchange; the various gradations of industry arifing out of this complicated interchange, and the diffufion of wealth through every clafs of the people, from this felf-multiplying commerce: thefe were the chief among the enlarged objects which the great characters who framed, explained, and methodifed the navigation laws, embraced in their fyftem. It was by having theíe great objects fecured to her, that England became the emporium of Europe; the mart where other nations found the readiet and largeft fupplies, and the cheapest barter, and whence, by circuitous trade, thefe fupplies were conveyed to every part of the globe. It was by

this circuitous commerce that the indemnified herfelf for what nature had denied her, and made the produce of every climate, and every foil, her own. In a word, it was on the foundation of this circuitous commerce that the feated her naval power, and feizing the fceptre of the ocean, extended her conquests and her influence to every quarter of the world.'

Though it should be admitted that the author, of the Reply is fometimes excurfory in his mode of argument, we have fufficient proof that he can keep very clofely to the point, when either the writer on whom he comments, or the minifter, appears to be open to animadverâon. But it is neceflary that we confine ourselves to the essential objects in difpute.

After treating of the propofed fyftem under general heads," he defcends to particulars, and mentions different fpecies of manufactures, in which he contends that Ireland would have greatly the advantage of this country. With respect to that

of

of filk, he affirms that the manufacturers have not hesitated to affert, that the British manufacturer, fuppofing the duties in both countries to be equalized, would have every reafon to dread a competition from the Irish, even in the British market.

In regard to the woollen manufacture, particularly the old draperies, in which are included the fineft cloths, he admits that this branch of the manufacture may not be immediately affected by the new fyftem; but affirms, that the manufacturers have expreffed apprehenfions with refpe&t to the future. He obferves, that one of the principal reafons affigned by the evi dence before the committee, why Ireland does not manufacture a greater quantity of finer cloth is, that they have not at prefent a fufficient number of skilful workmen to engage in it. But he adds, that from the vicinity of the two countries, and from the extraordinary bounties given for the encouragement of the manufacture of fine cloths by the Dublin Society, this circumftance is not likely to operate long in our favour. There would indeed be juft caufe for apprehenfion, if the fecurity of our woollen manufactures depended entirely upon the circumftance here mentioned.

The author afterwards makes fimilar remarks, on the confequences which he alleges would refult to the trade of refined fugars, cotton, leather, foap, and candles, and lafly to that of corn; to all which he fubjoins fome additional confideratione, of which the following is a part.

With refpect to the equivalent that has been ftipulated for all the facrifices which we are to make to Ireland, the author fums it up in a very few lines. It confifts, he fays, in a monopoly of confumption, and an aid towards fupporting the ge neral expence of the empire.

What the monopoly of confumption is, he does not chufe to tell us. I fuppofe he means that monopoly of trade which in the firit pages of his pamphlet Ireland is faid to give Great Britain at this moment. In that cafe there is nothing new given by Ireland-nothing that can be called a return for the intended indulgencies-Or would he infinuate, that the ninth refolution is favourable to Great Britain, and that the preference it ftipulates for articles of her growth, produce, and manufacture, above fimilar articles imported into Ireland from foreign ftates, is amply to indemnity her for the fuperiority which the other refolutions will give to Ireland, as well in the British as in all foreign markets? The whole body of manufacturers throughout Great Britain are of a very different opinion.

What the aid towards the general expences of the empire is to be, he does not tell us. Whatever furplus fhall accumu late to the hereditary revenue from the increafe of trade under the new regulations, above a ftated fum, Ireland is to apply to