112 
of Stafford, obtained the King’s pardon 
for being concerned in the murder of 
Piers Gaveston, the insolent and worth- 
less favourite of Edward II. 
———aa 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sir: 
A NOTE upon the article Philosophy 
of Contemporary Criticism, in 
your Magazine for the preceding month 
(p. 14), brings to my recollection a con- 
versational anecdote, illustrative of the 
kind of philosophy by which the criti- 
cisms of reviewers are sometimes in- 
spired ; and, as I had it from pretty good 
authority, I offer it to you for insertion, 
if it be sufficiently important or inte- 
resting for such distinction. 7 
Several years ago, in a mixed com- 
pany, as it is called—that is to say, at a 
social dinner-party, where ladies and 
gentlemen (or, in other words, wit and 
beauty) were cheerfully mingled, and 
where champagne and claret gave zest 
to the bloom of the former and the in- 
tellects of the latter, the late Mr. Dallas 
(of reviewing memory), who happened 
to be one of the brilliant assemblage, 
warmed and inspired—more, of course, 
by the bright eyes of the ladies, than 
the sparkling contents of the occasion- 
ally-circling glass, began to be beauti- 
fully eloquent upon the subject of his 
own works; and, among other wonder- 
ful productions of his genius, was expa- 
tiating, in delightful anticipations, on 
the approaching publication of some 
novel, I believe it was, which he had, at 
that time, in the press. The subject, of 
course, was exceedingly interesting to 
all around: and one of the ladies pre- 
sent, who happened to have a very 
amiable facility in that most poignant of 
female accomplishments ‘called banter- 
ing, desirous that an eloquence so agree- 
able should not flag for lack of excite- 
ment, somewhat archly interrupted him, 
by asking, whether he was not a little 
afraid of the envious ill-nature of Re- 
views ?—*“ Reviews!” replied Mr. D. 
“Oh! not at all! my friend, Mr. Pratt, 
will review it for me.”—“ Your friend 
Mr. P.!” said the lady, smiling; “ but 
will he review it impartially ?”—“ Oh! 
as for that,” rejoined Mr. D., “he will 
review my book for me, as I shall re- 
view one for him !” 
Such, Sir, is a part at least of the 
Philosophy of Contemporary Criticism. 
And who shall find fault with it? Ts 
not “ Tack about is fair play,” an excel- 
lent proverb? Is not “ One good turn 
deserves another,” admirable.morality ? 
Critical Reciprocity, an Anecdote. 
[{ Mar. I, 
Is not “ Do unto others as you would 
they should do unto you,’ the very 
essence of religious duty ? pid 
Such, at least, they must ever be re- 
garded by yours, &c. 
You scratcu-me, 1 scratcu you! 
—_——— 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Sir: 
HAT the features: which charac- 
terize actions and persons as amia- 
ble or odious, praiseworthy ‘or blame- 
able,—which cast upon them the marks 
of honour or disgrace, applause or cen- 
sure, depend, for their effect, on some 
internal sense or principle which so 
generally prevails in human nature, 
that education seldom fails to awaken 
and bring it forth, cannot, I think, be 
reasonably doubted. Yet has it been 
disputed by several eminent moral wri- 
ters, whether virtue and vice have, in 
themselves, any actual existence; or, at 
least, whether there is any further dis- 
tinction between wrong and rightful 
conduct, than what resides in their ef- 
fects upon those on whom their agency 
is exercised... Treating crime and mo- 
ral merit as they would the properties 
of inanimate objects—as forms or co- 
lours—as voices or musical instruments 
—or as the various qualities of herbs 
or minerals — they acknowledge the 
faults and perfections of the human’ 
heart to be the sources of dissimilar 
and adverse impressions, but insist that, 
accuratély speaking, they are not. pro- 
per objects of either blame or commen- 
dation. This is so completely releasing 
passion from the controul of reason— 
so entirely subjecting the sovereignty 
of conscience to the dominion of un- 
reflecting sensation and selfish propen- 
sity, that, in my opinion, no error more 
imperiously calls for correction. Con- 
scious of the importance of a question 
that involves in its ample circle the 
very foundations, or immediate causes 
of terrestrial happiness and misery, I 
generally embrace whatever opportu- 
nity offers for its discussion;. and by 
introducing it among my philosophical 
friends, as a subject of conversation and 
inquiry, have, I am certain, effected 
much of the good I designed. Sensible 
of the utility of this and all ethical in- 
vestigations, I have ever been an adyo- 
cate for public debate; convinced of. 
the benefit derivable from the collision 
of mind with mind, in familiar converse, 
I have constantly made this question 
a topic in private socicty. Introduced 
by myself, it was, a few evenings since, 
canvassed 
