1798.) 
ing. In eloquence, this writer diftin- 
guifhes himfelf by an irrcfiftible energy, 
which he feems to derive from an enthu- 
fiaftic conviétion of the truth and high © 
importance of the doétrines which he — 
If {paring in imagery, if rarely 
teaches. 
fucce(sful in lengthened ratiocination, he 
is eminently excellent in: fentiments, and 
he feems to know all the genuine emotions 
and language of all the higher paffions. 
But Mr. Gopwin’s erudition, and 
even his power of reafoning, in cafes of 
very complex and tedious deduétion, are 
very unequal to the ardent, impaffioned 
force of his geiiius. A remarkable proof 
of this appears in his Effay on Englifh 
Style. He there fuppofes it to be a pre- 
valent Opinion, maintained, in particular, 
by Jobpfon, and other philologitts of high 
authority, that the Englifh fiyle cwritten in 
tbe laft century, and even at atime fo remote 
as in the age of Queen Elizabeth, was, in 
all refpecis, more perfect than that of our 
contemporaries. This opinion he firives to 
combat and deftroy by a long induction of 
paflages from the eminent writers of fix 
different periods, from the reign of Eli- 
zabeth to tne énd of that of George IT. 
Now the opinion againft which he fo 
laborioufly fights, zever was maintained by 
any critic. JOHNSON and LowHu have 
taught only, “that the writings of the 
authors of the laft century, and of the age 
of Elizabeth, contain an ‘mmenfe treafure 
of words and phrajes, fufficient to exprefs, 
in {peech or written compofition, even all, 
or almoft, all our prefent knowledge ; and 
that we fhould do more wifely, to feek our 
terms and phrafes out of that treafure, 
than continually to*debafe our ftyle by 
words and idioms affeétedly introduced 
from other languages, not richer than our 
own.” Mr. Gopwin has certainly not 
refuted this opinion; and I fuppofe it is 
what will not quickly be done by any 
perfon. 
As little do his quotations and his afte- 
rifks appear to me to evince the badnefs of 
thofe fiyles which he condemns; even his 
own admirable ftyle, and thofe of his moft 
eminent cotemporaries, are not much more 
fecure againft fuch minute criticifm, than 
the ftyles of SHAKSPEARE, or our tranf- 
jation of the Bible; befides, the colouring 
of words and phrafes partakes of the 
changing, fugitive nature of that of Rey- 
NOLDS’s portraits. I fhould undertake, 
‘too, to produce, from every one of the 
writers cited by Gowwin, inftances of 
eorre&t and elegant writing, to confront 
his examples of incorreétnefs. 
ie H. R.. 
Jan. 3; 1798, 
On Englifh Weights. 
13 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
ny HE following remarks upon our 
_Englith weights, are fubmitred to 
the confideration of your correfpondent, 
J. R. not under the idea of their convey- 
ing to him that learned and correét in- 
formation which he folicits, but on the 
contingency of their fupplying him with 
fome faéts that may have efcaped his own 
refearches, afd with the additional view 
of contributing to the gratification of fuch 
of your readers as are Jefs acquainted with 
the fubjeét; the great difficulty of which 
will, 1 truft, apologize for the errors that 
I may commit. — - 
It appears to have keen a favourite. 
object with the legiflators of the middle 
ages, to accomplif equality, or unity, in 
weights and meafures. Thus, in the 
laws of the Lombards, we find, * De 
menturis, ut fecundum juffionem noftram 
equates fant.’ In the capitulary of Char- 
lemagne, “‘ Unufquifque habeat quam 
menfuram & equates modios ;" and again, 
“ Ut equales menjuras & reétas & pondera 
jufta S cequatia omnes habeant.” In 
Magna Charta, ‘‘ Una menfura vitis fit 
per totum regnum noftrum & una men-~ 
furd cerevitie 8 una menfura bladi; de 
ponderibus vero fit ficut de menfuris.” 
This claufe, or the fubftance of it, is re~ 
peated in many of our fubfequent ftatutes ; 
but the numerous regulations upon this 
fubjeét, unequivocally prove the impoffi- 
bility of effeéting fo juft and laudable a 
purpofe, and yet leave us quite in the 
dark with refpeét to what had occurred te 
prevent it. The obftruétion may partly 
have arifen from the difficulty of obtaining 
a common medium; and therefore, in all. 
countries, there muft have been a perpe- 
tual variation, both in weights and mea- 
fures. In France, there were fcarcely 
two cities to be found in which they 
agreed, 
The next thing to be examined, is the 
origin and progrefiion of the various 
alterations that have been made in our 
weights. 
Ic has been afferted, but I believe with- 
out any proof, that William I, upon his 
arrival in England, changed the weights 
of his newly-acquired dominions, and 
introduced thofe of Normandy, and par- 
ticularly the troy weight.—Although it is 
not impoffible that the troy weight 
might have been known to the Normans, 
from their anfient connection with Cham- 
pagne, yet this weight does not appear in 
our ftatutes, as will be hereafter fhown, 
until a much later period; befides, it ap- 
peary 
- 
