498 
intercourse with Mr. Imlay, or the gen- 
tleman to whom she was afterwards le- 
gally united ; but we cannot sit in silence 
when motives are imputed to her which 
would have excited her utmost scorn and 
indignation, This article is already ex- 
tended to a length which we did not 
foresee at the commencement of it, and 
we now feel it necessary to apologize for 
a still further extension of it. 
The little book before ‘us is entitled 
“ A Defence of the Character and Con- 
duct of Mrs. Godwin :” in the course of 
his labour the author seems to have dis- 
covered, that a defence and an apology 
are two distinct things, but he does not 
appear to be sufficiently aware, that the 
conduct which requires an apology can- 
not be defended, and that the conduct 
which is defensible very rarely requires 
an apology. We have more than once 
hinted our suspicion, that the author of 
this defence, or apology—call it which 
you will—is not so sincere in his regard 
for that character which he has sum- 
moned from the grave to stand a second 
time, as it were, before the bar of the 
public, as he affects to be; if, however, 
we are mistaken, if he is really and ho- 
nestly anxious that the sentence which 
has been passed upon that ill-fortuned 
female should be revised and be reversed, 
he wili think that our treatment of him 
requires an apology, although it is per- 
fectly defensible. ‘Lhe feebleness of his 
defence is the strength of ours: it is that, 
connected with some inconsistencies that 
we have noticed, which first excited our 
suspicions ; if we are mistaken, however, 
it is with great pleasure that we acknow- 
ledge and apologize. Let us now return 
from this digression. 
Mrs. Godwin, it is universally allowed, 
we) avery original thinker ; she prided 
herself, foolishly enough perhaps, in 
thinking differently from other people. 
She was not, however, singular in her 
opinion, that those ill-sorted matches of 
convenience, where the heart is not in- 
terested, are so many prostitutions of the 
person, to which the law gives currency. 
Sexual intercourse is common to the birds 
of the air and the beasts of the field : 
in man only is that connexion ennobled 
by the feelings of the heart and the affec- 
tions of the mind, and it is these feel- 
ings alone and these affections which 
distinguish it from mere animal inter- 
course. Where they are wanting the 
parties become: brutified and degrade the 
BIOGRAPHY. 
dignity of their superior nature. To — 
such extravagant and unwarrantable ex- — 
cess did Mrs. Godwin carry this delicacy — 
of sentiment, that as the ceremony of — 
marriage cannot in the eye of reason — 
sanction a mere sensual connexion, so 
neither ‘did she conceive that a connec 
tion refined by sentiment and purified by 
all the affections of the heart, required 
the ceremony of marriage to stamp it 
with the seal ofinnocence. And yet this 
is the lady whois represented dy her apo- 
logist as having deliberately, and after 
mature calculation, ‘* commenced an in- , 
timacy” with Mr. Imlay—not because, 
exquisite as her feelings were, he had ex- 
cited them in his favour, not because she 
experienced any tender emotions, any 
mental attachment towards him—no: 
the connexion preceded the transfer of her 
affections, and was calmly set about with 
a philosophic view to fix them! 
Our author, however, thinks after all, 
that Mrs. Godwin’s best apology for 
neglecting the marriage ceremony mus& 
be sought for in the exercise of her pri- 
vate judgment, and he introduces her as 
pleading her own cause before an ima-. 
ginary Custos Morum, who calls her to’ 
account for having despised the ord» 
nances of the law: A miserable defence’ 
she makes of it. ae 
We had noted down some other cir~ 
cumstances of weakness and inconsist- 
ency in the defence, which tend to corro- 
borate our suspicions, particularly where 
the conduct of Mr. Godwin is censured: 
for some passages in the memoirs of his 
wife. But the article is already long, 
and enough has been said, we trust, to, 
shew the weak and imprudent manner, 
to say the least of it, in which this de-. 
fence isconducted. Our object has been 
not to defend Mrs. Godwin, nor even 
to apologize for her conduct: it has. 
been merely to do her justice, to repel 
the imputation of improbable and dis- 
honourable motives when others are 
to be found, Tess objectionable in their 
nature, and more probable because more 
consonant with her ‘character and senti-, 
ments. ; 
Most true, indeed, it is, that there are 
certain individual pomts in the conduct 
of Mrs. Godwin, * over which every re- 
fiecting and sympathizing heart would. 
desire to throw an oblivious shade for 
ever!” Knowing the generosity of her 
heart, the warmth of her affections, the. 
syperlative ardour and heroism of her, 
~ 
