181 ].] Transfportation of Irhh VagrantSn 325 
would be a vain endeavour to try to re¬ 
move them altogether; we ought, how¬ 
ever, to complete the system which has 
been begun, and in so doing to select 
worthy objects. Common Sense. 
ScpL 21 , 1811 . 
Allow me to add, that, since I pub¬ 
lished my speculations on gravitation, I hear 
5t more loudly asserted by tliose who are 
filled with pre-established notions, that Gra¬ 
vitation, PvOtatory Motion, and Centrifugal 
Forces, are immediate and constant emana¬ 
tions of the Deity. In this way the enemies 
of philosophy have always endeavoured to 
stifle enquiry; but on this occasion I shall put 
them down by asking them how they account 
on their hypothesis for the disturbancies and 
*ticmaiies of the planetary motions, regularly 
and mechanically occasioned by their approxl- 
aiating towards each other in their orbits ? 
To the Editor oj the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N answer to Hnmanitas, vagrants are 
not transDorted from Ireland with- 
A 
out a trial by petit jury. The grand- 
jury, under an act of the Irish parlia¬ 
ment, present incorrigible offenders as 
vagi-ants ; these persons are asked, whe¬ 
ther they submit or traverse. In the 
latter case, proofs of their vagrancy, that 
is of their being idle or disorderly per¬ 
sons, and bavins: no visible means of 
procuring an honest livelihood, are ad- 
tluced before the court, and a jury im- 
pannelled for the purpose, who find for or 
against the presentment according to 
circumstances. Like other strong; mea- 
sures which society finds it necessary to 
adopt for protection against notorious 
offenders, it is capable of being abused, 
but under proper caution it is found a 
useful law, by which offenders, whose 
guilt, though obvious, is not easily 
proved, can be removed from the scene 
«f their depredations.^ 
Lisburn. II. 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine* 
SIR, 
HAVE been much interested by the 
perusal of the long extracts in the 
Supplement to your justly popular Ma¬ 
* This explanation is by no means satisfac¬ 
tory to the Editor; and he invites further in¬ 
formation from his Irish readers, presuming 
that the reports of the Irish papers are cor- 
iect, as stated in the work on Juries, and by 
l^umanltas ; nor ought any one to be tra»s~ 
farted whose guilt has not been frewd ! 
R P. 
gazine, from the Letters of Miss Seward, 
Their power to amuse, combined with 
the highly favourable auspices under 
which they are published, will ensure 
them considerable celebritv, and pro¬ 
bably an extensive sale; I am therefore 
rejoiced to find, from the specimen there 
given, for I have not seen the work it¬ 
self, that her sentiments on many impor¬ 
tant subjects are liberal and enliglitened, 
and that she professes to be inimical Ui 
bigotry, intolerance, and fanatical super¬ 
stition. Her strictures on tlie character 
of the late Dr. Johnson are decisive oa 
this point; but how shaU we reconcile 
with this the following passage respecting 
another not less emhicnt, and in the un¬ 
varnished annals of truth and virtue, not 
less distinguished person of the same 
day? Speaking of the writers who re¬ 
plied fo the celebrated work of Mr. 
Burke, on the French revolution. Miss 
Seward rlnis expresses lierseif: “ As to 
the anti-sophist Priestly, I dislike his 
disingenuous rnanoeuvrings about Chris¬ 
tianity too much to respect his opinions 
on any subject, so I did not read his 
reply.’' Who, Mr. Editor, could have 
cunceived it possible that the charge of 
“ disingenuous mantsuvrings," could ever 
have been brought against the memory 
of one, who was uniformly the undaunted 
friend, the avowed champion, the un¬ 
wearied searcher after truth in all its 
bearings, whether on religious, moral,^ 
civil, or political, subjects? Surely if 
there ever lived a man, whatever might 
be his occasional errors or mistakes^ 
wliose conduct was perfectly upright, 
and whose views, principles, and con¬ 
duct, led right onward, it was Dr. 
Priestley ! How then shall we accountj 
for this totally unfounded aspersion? Is 
it not the language of prejudice and 
bigotry? the very failings which the 
lady herself was so quick to discern, and 
so eager to censure, in Dr. Johnson ? 
That bliss Seward knew little or nothing 
of the writings of Dr. Priestley, but 
through the undeserved calumnies of his 
numerous enemies, appears higlily pro¬ 
bable from her frank avowal, that she 
would not even look at any composition 
of his, although it were on that side of a 
much agitated controversy, on winch, in 
her mind, lay the sacred cause of truth 
and iustice. 
it has now ceased, Mr. Editor, to be 
of any moment to the personages alluded 
to in this paper, to tf.e philosophic Dr. 
Priestley, the energetic Dr. Jolmson, the 
eloquent Mr, Burke, or the once-ani- 
rust? 
4 
