110 



^'ery relative to jijhlng anjwered. 



[Sept. I J 



lies, I doubt not, in ihe impofition of lan- 

 guage. Becaufe peiTons know the meaning 

 of general and abftrafl propnfitions, they 

 coticlude that they are pofTefTttl of general 

 and abltraft ideas. But on examination 

 1 believe it will be found, that, " to know 

 the meaning of a general propofition,** 

 nothing more is neceffary than to know 

 that we poflefs the power of tefolving the 

 abftrafl and general terms of the propofi- 

 tion in'.o others more particular and cuf- 

 tomary \ and if this he not fufficient, that 

 we can have recourle to fome of the parti- 

 cular ideas that are included in the gene- 

 ral propofition. Indeed this procefs is 

 iinivcrfally praftifed when general propo- 

 litions are propofed to us, the meaning of 

 which is obfcure. 



Cn examining different parts of the 

 writings on this fubje(5l, it appears, that 

 the authors frequently have not fo much 

 niiftaken the fubjcit itfelf as the mode of 

 expreflion that ought to be ufed in it ; 

 and it is on this account that Mr. Home 

 Tooke recommends, in the perufal of 

 Locke, the fubftiiution of the terms 

 *' abftraft, or general, or complex term," 

 inftead of " ablhnft, general, or complex 

 idea.'* To which may be added, that we 

 may, with ftili more propriety, ufe the 

 terms, " a coileftion of ideas," inftead of 

 a " complex idea ;" for the fame reafon 

 that feven houfes is a colleiSion of houfe?, 

 and not a compltx houfe. But I believe 

 more contradiction is to be found in any 

 writer upon this fubjeiSl than upon any 

 other. 



I will merely add, thit the doflrine cf 

 ablfrail and general ideas was a fubjedt of 

 warm dilpute feveral centuries ago, and 

 three pnrties were formed upon it. The 

 Realilis held, that there were abflra£l and 

 general effences really exifting, as well as 

 abftraft and general ideas. The Conc<;p- 

 tualifts maintained ths exigence of thcfe 

 ablliail and geners! ideas, but difcarded 

 their airhetypts : and the Nominalifts re- 

 ji-^ed both. I need not fay, that among 

 the Noniinalids is, Sir, your's, &c. 



Wclvirha mptan, A B E L a R D . 



July s, 1805. 



Tfl the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 



SIR, 



INanfwertoyour Ccrrcfpondent Pifcator, 

 (vol. xix. p. 536), I beg leave to inform 

 him, that every navigable river, fo far as 

 It ebbs and flows, is corifidered as a branch 

 of the fea, belonging to the Crown ; and 

 the right of fifhing tiierein is, prima facie, 

 common to &11 the King's fubjecls. — • 



There m»y, however, be a private right, 

 which deftroys ths general right. Thus, 

 if the lord of the manor have a free-fjhery 

 (which is an exclufive right of fidiing in a 

 navigable river or arm of the fea) or a 

 fe'veral-fjhcry in the river Dart, by pre- 

 fcripiioii or giant from the Crown, he 

 may maintain trefpafs for taking the fiHi, 

 even if done without trclpafs on the adjoin- 

 ing land i for he has a property in them 

 before they are caught : and I take it for 

 granted, from Pifcator's ftatement, that 

 he has one of thefe rights. But the fran- 

 chife of fice-fifliery ought now to be at 

 Jeaft as old as the reign of H-nry II. for 

 the charters of King John and Henry III. 

 avoid all fuch grants from the beginning 

 of the reign of Richard I. 



h.feveral-fijhery does not ind.^ed necef- 

 farily imply exclufive right ; it is fulB- 

 cient that no perfon (hall have a co-exten- 

 five right. But neither the fubjeft's ge- 

 neral right, nor a cultcm for perfons of 

 io vague and uncertain a defcription as 

 "lovers of angling," can juftify fifhing 

 in it againft the confentof the owner : It 

 muft be a right referved out of the origi- 

 nal grant. I prefume, from Pifcator's 

 ftatement, that he is not entitled to, nor 

 does he claim, common of pifcary. And 

 it feems to me, that the pradlice of ang- 

 ling in the river Dart has hitherto been 

 permitted as an indulgence, rather than as 

 a right of taking fidi ; the exercife of 

 whicn, in the manner alked by Pilcator, 

 could not fail to be of real injury to the 

 owner of the fifnery. I am, &c. 



July s, 1805- P. H. F. 



¥or the Monthly Magazine. 



CONTRIBUTIONS tO ENGLISH SYNO- 

 NYMY. — NO. If. {Continued from p. 

 20 of lafi Number.') 



6. J-\ESERT. From the "L^^Un ferere, 

 ■'-^ to fow, to plant, to till, comes the 

 the participle ^f/ir/«^, unlown, unplanted, 

 uniilled, cultivated no longer. Todefert, 

 then, is to leave off cultivating ; and as 

 there is fomethiiig of idlenefs and impro- 

 vidence in ceafing to render the foil pro- 

 du£tive, ideas of difapprobation accom- 

 pany this word in all its metaphorical ap- 

 plications. He who leaves off cufivat- 

 ing a farm, ufually removes from it j 

 hence the idea of removal, and of blame. 

 worthy removal, has become attached to 

 the term : not aK-. avs, however ; for the 

 author of the " Decay of Piety" wiites : 

 " They are the fame delerters, whether 

 they ftay in our own camp, or run over to 

 the enemies." 



7. T» 



