Nothing can shew Mr. B.'s complete incapacity both as an orthoëpist and an orthographist, i. e. that he can neither speak nor spell, more strongly than putting causey as the provincial pronunciation of causeway; since the word causey ought to be so spelled and so pronounced, being derived from the French word chaussée: but we suppose the sagacious gentleman supposed it a compound of cause and way.

As Mr. Batchelor professes to pay particular attention to the dialect of the North of Bedfordshire, it is rather surprising that he did not mention one application of a phrase, we believe, peculiar to that part of the country, the using I dare say,' as the strongest degree of asseveration; whereas, in general use, it always implies doubt. 'I dare say you are welcome,' is the expression a Bedfordshire farmer would use when pressing his friend to partake of his dinner. There can be no doubt of the Bedfordshire clown's being in the right here; though if one of them should say to any person of another county, speaking of a ford that he knew was not knee-deep, you may go over in safety, I dare say;' the stranger would hesitate before he ventured, on such an assurance.

Mr. B. is right when he says he believes the word ay, signifying yes, is the only diphthong of the kind in the English language, when spoken correctly: but in such a work as this, it might have been noticed, that in the dialect of `Berkshire, Oxfordshire, and Glocester, the diphthong ai or ay has always this sound; and wherever a Quaker is introduced on the stage, the actor (it does not seem obvious why) always adopts this pronunciation.

We have, on the whole, seldom met with a work in which there is so little to applaud, as in this. We will however conclude our review of it with two positions that do merit our approbation: one is the deprecating the foolish adoption of such words as wheats, barleys, &c. by coxcomical agriculturists; the other, the affected use of sang, sprang, spat, and sank, in the preterite, by coxcomical grammarians.

281

AN ADDRESS ΤΟ THE PUBLIC, UPON THE DANGEROUS

TENDENCY

OF THE LONDON FEMALE PENITENTIARY.

BY WILLIAM HALE.-8vo. pp. 68. London. 1809.

"Ar no period of our History (says Mr. Hale) has the "philanthropy of the British nation shone with that splendour "which characterizes the present day :-the metropolis " abounds with many noble instances of charitable munifi"cence, which, while they reflect the greatest honour upon the "wisdom of the founders, are a refuge for the destitute, and

a happy means of increasing the knowledge, and improving "the morals of the rising generation." We are truly concerned to differ from so redoubted a champion in the very first paragraph of his pamphlet ; but as we shall state our reasons at length for so doing, we trust we shall meet with some pardon for our boldness.

If indeed we were philosophically to examine the different institutions of charity and benevolence, that so highly distinguish modern Europe, we should find them perhaps, in no slight degree, illustrative of the progress of knowledge, and of the moral history of man. The Greeks and Romans, who viewed their situation on the Globe as formed only for conquest and aggrandizement, seem little to have aimed at lessening the sum of human evils, by alleviating the miseries of individuals who groaned beneath them. Whilst they feasted their eyes with the brutality of the Gymnasium, or the cruelty of the Amphitheatre, they dreamt not of institutions that might relieve the indigent, heal the infirm, and succour the distressed. The grand errors of those noble states of antiquity consisted, in their childish admiration of all that is dazzling or theatrical in public character-and in their sordid contempt for those duties of private life, which, extending themselves the most widely in their effects, create so large a proportion of hu

man happiness. It was Christianity alone which gave private morals to nations; it was this only, that, inspiring the social duties of life, gave birth to those nobler sentiments and feelings, which unite all mankind as an individual nation, in the common bonds of harmony and peace.-It must be confessed however, that the first Christians occasionally attempted to exceed the power of effecting good allotted to mortals, and in the mistaken zeal of their piety, even occasioned much mischief to society.

A view of the tendency of several of our most popular institutions in England, might perhaps excite some doubts in the mind of Mr. Hale, whether the " charitable munificence bestowed on them," be really beneficial in "increasing the knowledge and improving the morals of the rising generation.”—Of what use are the hospitals we see established for the reception of foundlings? To save, say their advocates, the lives of many infants, who, but for the humanity of these institutions, had been sacrificed by the poverty of their parents! To save then the offspring of a few monsters of the human race, who deserve our execration rather than our bounty, we erect an institution professing to receive the children of the indigent, in which hundreds perish who had never seen the light, but for the certainty their parents possessed, of by this means providing for them. We say perish, for even in Russia, where the cares of an empress watched over an institution of this kind, many died through want of the fostering anxiety of a mother to nourish and rear them. The licentiousness of manners among the lower orders in St. Petersburg, in consequence of the provision afforded to natural children by the foundling-hospital, is remarked by Mr. Malthus and is known to all travellers.

Of what use are the numerous institutions we every where observe for the relief of the poor, but to countenance idleness, and to produce poverty? It is to the interest of men to labour, in order to avoid the miseries of indigence, and if left to the natural bent of their minds, uncontrouled and unmolested,

they would exert themselves to better their condition in the world. Alms-houses and poor-houses not only then disturb the natural order of society by giving bounties to indigence, but they violate the established laws of the human mind.Not that all the evils of life should be neglected or despised by the legislature, or the body of the people. The maladies of the body, the helplessness of extreme age, the losses of unsuccessful industry, and the general mischances of life, it is expedient to alleviate, as far as by pecuniary contributions we can alleviate, misfortune. Human laws indeed are in their designation intended to guard against human misery:—but surely the worst mode of providing for the poor, is to confine the infecting and the infected by moral turpitude within the walls of a poor-house-to add misery to old age, and guilt to disease to separate those the most tenderly allied to each other, and break the ties of nature-and to draw down the curses of these ill-fated victims of charity, on themselves, and on society.

Of what use are the institutions that seek learning for their end? Intellectual improvement, if it be beneficial to the interests, or necessary to the happiness of individuals, needs no encouragement by means of institutions. It will of itself be pursued, be cherished, be cultivated. In most European countries indeed, the public gives ample encouragement to men of genius and learning: if these countries desire to increase their number, do but let them leave open to such only, the places of honour and emolument in the state, and they will have raised up the most lasting institutions for their production.

On these subjects if we differ from Mr. Hale, much more do we differ from him in his reprobation of the principles on which Penitentiary Houses, for the reception of prostitutes

* Mr. Hale only argues against the London Penitentiary: but for the sake of the argument, we have thought it best to generalize

are founded. Not that we believe, any more than our author, that these houses have any tendency to diminish the sum of prostitution in society, for by what means could they effectuate this blessing? It must be obvious that they are intended only as a refuge for those who have already resigned themselves to prostitution, and could therefore never be designed to prevent their so doing. The numbers of females too that they save, are far too inconsiderable (even suppose the demand for them in the market were by this means to be diminished) to give rise to any well-founded hopes on this head. We admit too, that Penitentiary Houses are an evil: they afford at best but a reception for profligacy. But we shall endeavour to shew that they are less evils than would be endured by any attempt of the vain visionaries of perfection to suppress them, and that they keep a mean course between an open encouragement of prostitution, and what is as bad,-a malignant intolerance of it. We must premise however, that we are not quite so certain as our author, that Magdalenhospitals," in the result of their operations, will never lessen but increase" the number of prostitutes. We can by no means bring ourselves to believe that they altogether produce the effect for which he stigmatizes them, and hold out inducements" to vain curiosity, and vain presumption,” that when tired of a life of guilt, they may resort to the comforts of a Magdalen. The moral purgations to which they have recourse in these institutions-the meanness of dress-the austerity of manners-and the constant labour-render them institutions, which the generality of women, from the temperament of their minds, would rather fly from than enter. The

his doctrines, by which of course they will suffer nothing.-Whilst on this note, we might as well remark, that most of the charitable institutions in London have funds of their own, and are not altogether dependent on voluntary subscription for their support. The precarious nature of the latter mode of subscription, is the strongest argument against it.