426 
tion of words, yet the old: books would 
preferve all neceflary information on that 
fabject. But, is it not’to be feared that 
they would foon become obfolete, and be 
unintelligible without great labour and 
application : ? Who would not oppote any 
plan for a mode of fpelling, that would 
be the means of configning to oblivion» 
the works of our bef authors? Who, 
that has the leat regard for literature, 
would not ftrugele with all his ftrength 
againft him, who, with rafh and bar- 
barous hand, would plunge into darknetfs 
and difficulty, Dryden and Pope, Addi- 
fon’and Bolingbroke? §. M. fays, “If 
We are not agreed upon our pronuncia- 
tion, the fixing of it by an exaét ortho- 
graphy is a defirable object.” Be it fo. 
But let us confider the price we are to 
to pay for this defirable object. Weare 
to give up no lefs than the means of dif 
covering the derivation of words. This 
would be too much, if the defign fhould 
fucceed in its fullet extent. Who then 
would pay this price, when it is manifeft 
that it can fucceed only in part —TI am 
afraid, fir, that I have exceeded the limits 
cae, ought to confine me: 
fore, fay a word on S. M.’s laft obferva- 
tion, and conclude... I did not urge 
sc That we underftand each other fuffici- 
_ently for all the purpofes of common 
life,’ as abfolutely conclufive. What I 
meant, is thig: that the inequality be- 
tween the neceffity of alteration, and the 
facrifices that mutt be made, if it take 
place, is fo great, that oa rey 
Ly t ere 1s No necefiity at all. 
Y cur’s, WV O”7 Ve 
March 15, 3798. | 

No reafonable man will feel bimfeif indifferent to 
the charatter he bears. To be in want a the 
fontiion derived from the good opinion of others, 
is an evil gr aD) to be deprecated. 
Vide Gepwin’s Inquirer, Efiay vii. 
To the Editor of the 
Prefume, fir, there are not many of 
-4l your readers who will difpute the juft- 
nefs of that fentiment which is contained 
in the motto to my letter. We all of us 
know the value of a good reputation, To 
entertain any doubt on tha t fubject, wows 
betray the indecifion of an idiot. It has 
hit herto been confidered as an a& illibe- 
ral, if not bate, to attempt to deftroy, by 
Paani furmifes, the advantages ‘to be 
derived from fo ineftimable a bkedin 
Other lofles may be repaired by ind uftry Yo 
and other misfor ‘tones alleviated by time ; 
but the lofs of charaSter can never be fup- 
feet. 1 
Monthly Magazine. 
4 ua 
I will, there-/ 
Charatter of a Trade{man defended againf? Mr. Godwin. 
plied ; becaufe confidence, from which it 
is falpended, when once broken, continues 
fo for ever. 
Such being my fentiments, it was with 
much regret I oblerved the tendency of a 
modern effay, in which trades and pro- 
feffions are reprefented in the moft dif 
gutting light. Some remarks feem ne= 
ceffary to countera&t the injury of fuch 
ideas, which I think are unjuft and inju- 
dicieus. 
Fo Mr. Gopwin, the author of that 
effay (fee Inquirer,” Effay v.), Lam fure 
T have no perfonal diflike. I confider his 
attempt as dangerous ; and no other apo- 
logy for oppofing him, in this inftance; is 
neceflary. If I were of his opinion, I 
fhould no longer defire to live in this 
world. Exiftence for me would have no 
charm; life would have no enjoyment. 
Who would defire to act in a feene 
<¢ ewhere all is blank, repulfive, odious ; 
where every bufinels aud employment <% 
Jound contagious and fatal to all the beft 
charaéteriftics of man, and proves the fruzt- 
ful parent of a thoufand hateful vices *.”” 
The ground upon which this accufa- 
tion is made, appears ta be this: that 
felfiifhnefs is a hateful vice; that trades, 
as at prefent conduéted, engender felfith- 
nefs; ergo, no liberal man can follow a 
trade. Such hafty conclufions are furely 
very inconfiftent with the caution of a 
philofophical ‘¢ Inquirer.”’ They impeach 
his liberality equally with his knowledge. 
They bring inquiry itfelf into difrepute. 
‘Lhat avarice is a vice, and that its m- 
fluence is to eradicate every generous and 
humane fentiment, is readily admitted. 
hat mankind are too often infenfible to 
the duties of humanity, is generally juft, 
That the acquirement of wealth by no 
means confers generofity, the experience 
of every day too clearly demonftrates. 
But it would have been confiftent with 
the ufual praétice of Mr. GODWIN’s in- 
veftigation, to have entered more fully 
upon the fubjeét. He has quoted, but 
emitted to follow, the advice of Cato; 
“¢ De Carthagine fatuts eff flere quam par- 
cius dicere.”’ If trades and profeffions be 
injurious to the moral character and in- 
tellectual ace Mit enaaete of thoefe who fol- 
low them, why did he not furnifh us with 
the contraft of thefe who do zot follow 
them ? We fhould then have had an op-~ 
portunity of comparifon; but the com- 
pat on, Lam fure, would not have been 
favourable to his opinion. 
IT confider a tradefman as as refpectable 


Effay v. 
. characters 
ee 
