754 
naged, and what is the average amount 
of it. But if it 1s objeGled to the pro- 
pofed plan, that the {um fubfcribed is 
inadequate to any extention of the cha- 
rity, does it not feem infinitely better, 
to limit for a time the application of it 
to fewer objeéts, for the fake of the fu- 
ture advantage to be derived from this? 
-If the number partaking of it was re- 
duced to feven, at leaft two guineas a 
week would be faved, which, J] fhould 
imagine, would foon produce a fund fuf- 
ficient to defray the propoles expence. 
Or, if objeétion is made to this plan, 
there are, I believe, few of the -vifitors 
to Buxton, who would be unwilling to 
add another thilling tg the one now fub- 
{cribed, till rhe inconvenience above men- 
tioned jhas had a remedy provided for it. 
If any of your readers fhould enter- 
tain the fame opinion with myfelf on this 
fubjeét, they may pofhbly think. their 
time ufefuily employed on their next 
vifit to Buxton, in endeavouring to pro- 
cure fome addition to the comfort of 
the poor objects of this charity. 
Tam, your's, &c. 
Oct, 15¢b, 1796. 
{ 
The Talents 
HP. 
- 

Yo the Editor of the Monthly eee 
«STR, : 
ETE love of diftin&tion i is genera ily, 
believe, allowed to be the prédomi- 
nant paffion of the human minds 
the {pecimen which your correfpondent, 
~~ C.D. has given us of his intellectual 
powers, which do not feem to be of that 
_ dangerous order, as to make the worfe 
appear the better reafon—it is little won- 
| derful, that he fhould fo vehemently 
\ contend for fexual superiority. Ulurped 
\ privileges are at once toc flattering. to 
our inddlence and to our peace to be rea- 
dily relinquithed. The manly aflumption 
and arrogance of this efiayift, are equalled 
only by the imbecility of his arguments. 
‘The refpedtable author, and Ane Writer, 
of the celebrated work from whence abe 
quotation was extraéted, which C. D. 
aiteCting to explain, has, by circumvolu- 
_ tion and pervertion, laboured to darken 
_ and diftort, will affuredly feel himfelf 
'| much indebted to this profowzd philolo- 
| gift! That man is originally created with 
no other power, or faculty, than that of 
receiving impreflions by means of the 
fenfes—or, more concifely, in the jargon 
of modern philofophy, is fimply a fenfi- 
tive or perceptive being (the doétrine of 
Locke, of Hume, of Hartley, names 
that will be refpeétable in the annals of 
T 






From: 
ideot, who is incarcerated im 
of Womens Nets 
ag: 
fcience, when fuperficial effayifts arc fant 
in oblivion) implies not, mere dy that. 
the degree of wifdom, or genius, which — 
he acquires, willbe i in proportion to, the 
greater number or accumulation of thefe 
impretlions, but mut lkewife depend 
on their nature and force, and en the dif- 
politions genexated and modified by prea. 
vious circumftances. Much lefs is it 
meant to be afferted, thatthe faculties of © 
a Newton, and thofe of a poor. ideot, ate 
perfeétly equal 5 an. opinion fo prepof- 
terous (adds this donghty champion, whe 
raifes phantoms for the pleafure of com- 
bating them) that. it would be childifh 
to controvert it.. Your correfpondent 
does not appear clearly to comprehend » 
the terms he makes ufe of.*~ The diffe=. 
rence between the faculftes of a Newton, 
| 
z 
i 
fe 
4 
‘at the inftant ef his birth; and at they’ deed 
period when he diftinguithed himfelf 
from other men, was far greater, itis... 
more than probable, than that betweem ~ 
the facuizies of the infant Newton, and ~ 
thofe of the poor ideot. He goes on 
‘rium phan: ‘ly to infer, that this ** poor 
a work- 
houfe, or ia any charitable receptacle for 
thole who labour under a defed? of the 
mental faculties,’ according to the réa~ 
fonings of modern philofopbers (all philofo- 
phy, and every truth, was at one period 
modern, and reprozehed with its novelry) 
> 
~ is not inferior in origimal genius (words 
which we leave to be defined by the az- 
‘cient advocates for innate ideas) to the 
Catherines, the Daciers, the Macauley’ Sy 
&e. or the moft 11! ees heroines, of 
ancient and modern ftory: nay, farther, 
-that.an ox or an afs, or even an oyfier, 
as perceptive beings, might, in favourable 
fituations, have compofed poetry like 
Sappho, or commentated upon Newton 
with Madame de Chatelet. Would 
controverfialifts agree to difeufs their fe- 
veral. opinions with candour and per{pi- 
cuity, to contend only for iruib, and not 
for wdéfory, patiently to examine, and 
fairly to ftate, the arguments of their 
adverfaries, to avoid intemperate, zeal, 
odious imputations, and forced conftruce 
tiens, what an abundant harveit of know- 
ledge and benevolence might be expeé- 
ed! But the-moment we allow ourfelves 
in miflatement, we tacitly acknowledge 
the weaknefs of our caufe, or our own 
inability to defend it, and afford our 
opponents a real triumph. C. D. per- 
havs, intended to give a proof of hts 
contempt for a female adveriary, by fub- 
ftituting bzgfoouery for argument. ‘That 
beings /azlarly and commonly well or- 
ganifed, 
ad 
ae 
i 
“1 
