are 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N your Magazine for April laft, in the 
account of the lives and writings of 
eminent. foreign literati, you have ob- 
ferved, that Archenholz’s “* Pifure of Eng- 
land’.is “ highly complimentary to the 
genius and manners of Great Britain.” 
It certainly is fo; but though the work 
is not whoily deftitute of merit, it con- 
tains many miftakes in- point of fa, 
which might eafily be pointed out, and 
which are calculated to miflead foreigners. 
About fix years ago, a “¢ View of Exgland, 
_ towards the Clofe of the Eighteenth Cen 
tury,” was publifhed, in two volumes, by 
Dr. Wendeborn. That work is-not fo 
complimentary to the Enolifh, as the 
publication of Archenholz ; but it is a- 
bundantly more accurate, and contains 
much more valuable information. Dr. 
Wendeborn was twenty years minifter of 
the German chapel on Ludgate-hill ; and 
his work is the refult of much ftudy, ob- 
fervation, and reflection. Joe? 
4 ee 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SER, 
T has frequently been obferved, that 
no people, generally fpeaking, live {fo 
ill together as relations. If this remark 
be true (and that it is, experience too of- 
ten teaches us), it will furely be worth 
while to inveftigate the caufe of the com- 
plaint; for, upon the face of things, it 
thould appear, as if no people ought to 
live fo well together. Frequent inter- 
courfe has generally been held effential to 
friendthip ; and, it may fairly be prefum- 
ed, that no. people have fuch opportuni- 
ties of feeing each other, as relations; 
but frequency of intercourfe, though it 
be neceffary to cement friendfhip, is no 
abfolute proof of its exiftence; any more 
than firong profeflions are, of the exift- 
ence of fizcere regard. Similarity of fen- 
timent wiil naturally draw men together, 
and excite attachment; but there may be 
many c4cumftances, befides fimilarity of 
fentiment, which will promote the union 
of men, without fecuring their attach- 
ment. Attention to the decencies and 
proprieties of life; refpeét, mixed with 
reverence for the opinions, and, fometimes, 
even for the prejudices of mankind, which 
few are courageous enough wholly to de- 
fpite, will often bring relatioes together 
in appearance, when, in reality, there is 
but littl genuine efteem. Indeed both 
policy and morality fhould point out to 
them the neceflity of attaching themfelves 
On the Tie of Relationfhip. 
firmly to one another; but, unfortunate- 
ly, both policy and morality will fome- 
times lofe their hold upen the mind, when 
oppofed to prejudice and paffion. Mo- 
rality teaches us ‘* to do unto others, as 
we would they fhould do unto us:” and 
policy fhews us, how ferviceable it is to 
our interefts to cultivate the efteem of 
thofe amongit whom we are placed. In 
fa&, to him who has obferved how often 
the moft valuable ends are brought about 
in life, by the moft fubordinate agents, it 
will’ be fuperfluous to urge this remark. 
Neceffity, or mutual want, appears to 
have been the foundation of moft of the 
public and private relations of fociety ; 
upon which was afterwards gradually 
raifed a fuperftru€ture, ef fentiment, co- 
operation, and attachment, conftituting 
the, fineft pleafures of life. Men finding 
how weak and infecure they were in their 
individual capacities; and how incom- 
p:tent to their: own happinefs ;—frt 
tormed themfeives into the more nacural and 
obvious focieties of families, bound to- 
gether by the varying ties of confangui- 
nity, and common intereft ;—next, into 
the more refined ones, of ftates, and poli- 
tical bodiés. It is not, therefore, with- 
out a juft knowledge of our-nature, I con- 
ceive, that fome moral writers have laid 
down ‘intereft as the principal {pring of - 
human aétions: for, if we look into the 
caufes of action, as far as they are dif- 
cernible by us, we fhall generally find in- 
tereft to be the foundation on which they 
act. But felf-intereft may be-of various 
defcriptions; and, im fome cafes, fo re- 
fined, and delicate, that it is no diferace 
for an honeft man to acknowledge himfelf 
influenced by it. There is fuch a thing, 
as the intereft which a man takes in the 
good opinion of the world, as well as the © 
intereft he takes in his pecuniary con-- 
cerns. And hence it may poflibly arife, 
that the opulent, and great, who have 
reached the top branches of fociety, and 
have little lett to wifh for, may fome- 
times be more indifferent to the ties of 
relationfhip, at leaft in its remote parts, 
than the dependant members of the com- 
munity, to whom the good opinion of 
mankind is indif{penfably requifite to fuc- 
cefs in their undertakings.. Among the 
opulent, and luxurious, money creates a 
kind of factitious independence, It con- 
fers almoft every thing that induftry and 
talents can beftow. ‘They who poffefs it 
in any eminent degree, feel how little 
they want fupport, compared with the 
reft of fociety: and this fenfation alone 
will have a tendency to produce: indif- 
ference - 
