1801.] 
This ttatement gives) nearly 36 perfons to 
each houle. Lit becorreét, the houlesin 
Vienna muft.be,on:a very different con- 
ftruétion and much more fully inhabited 
than thofe in this. kingdom ; our author 
would therefore have done well had he re- 
marked a circumftance which would form 
to us a very diftinguifhing peculiarity. 
But I am more difpofed: to think there is 
an arithmetical error in his computation 3 
and the above may ferve to remind your 
correfpondent that {ome explanation onthe 
fubject is due from him, 
Liverpool 125 1801. P.iP 
=i 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SiR, Nov. 10, 1801. 
FIND that a mifreprefentation of Mr, 
Godwin’s Reply to Dr. Parr, has crept 
into your laft’ month’s Magazine. I 
therefore requeft your immediate infertion 
of the following letter from that gentle- 
man, addreffed to a friend, which feems, 
to me, tocontain the only proper an{wer 
that can be given to fuch afperfions, 
ree 
SS DEAR SIR, 
_ AUZ. 29, WB0F- 
©T thank you molt fincerely for the “ 
kindnefs of your letter. Human creatures 
living in the circle of their intimates and 
friends are too apt to remain in ignorance 
of the comments and conftruétions which 
may be made of what they fay and do, in 
‘the world at large. I entertain a great 
horror of this ignorance. Ido not love ta 
-be deceived, and to fpend my days in a 
fcene of delufions and chimera. I feel it 
as anatt of unequivocal friendfhip, that 
you have communicated to me a fact in 
-which ‘I mnft hold myfelf. interefted, 
though you deemed the communication to 
be ungracious. 
«© Good God! and fo you heard me 
gravely reprefentedin a large company yef- 
terday, as an advocate of infanticide! I 
have been fo much accuftomed to be the 
ebject of mifreprefentation in all its forms, 
that I did not think I could be furprifed 
with any thing of that fort, Theadvocates 
of thofeabufes and that oppreffion againft 
which I have declared mylelf, have chofen 
‘it as their favourite revenge to diftort every 
word I have ever written, and every pro- 
pofition I have ever maintained. But there 
‘isa malignity in this accufation, which, 
‘TI confefs, exceeds all my former ‘calcula- 
tions of human perverfenefs. 
‘© They build the accufation, it feems, 
upon afew pages in my Reply to Dr. 
- *Parr, &c. where I am confidering the hy- 
-pothefes of the author ofthe Effay’ on Po- 
‘pulation, “They- eagerly confound two 
Population of Vienna—Letter of Mr. Godwin. 
S87 
things fo utterly diffimilar, as hypothetical 
reafoning upon.a ftate of fociety never yet 
realifed, and the fentiments and feelings 
which I, and every one whom it is poftible 
for me to love or refpeé&t, muft carry with 
us into the fociety and the tranfactions in 
which we are perfonally engaged. Be- 
caufe I have fpoken of a certain practice 
prevailing in diftant ages and countries, 
which I deprecate, and refpecting which 
‘I aver my periuafion, that in no improved 
ftate of fociety will it ever be neceflary to 
have recourfe to it, they reprefent me as. 
the reconsmender and admirer of this prac- 
tice, as a man who is eager to perfuade 
every woman who, under unfortunate and 
opprobious circumftances, becomes a mo- 
ther, to be the murderer of her own child. 
* Really, my friend, I am fomewhat at 
-a lofs whether to laugh at the impudence 
of this accufation, or to be indignant at 
the brutal atro¢ity and outrageous fenti- 
ment of perfecution it argues in the man 
who uttered it. I fee that thereis a fettled 
and fy{tematical plan in certain perfons,to 
render me an object of averfion and horror 
to my fellow-men: they think that when 
they have done this, they will have fuffi- 
ciently overthrown my arguments. Their 
project excites in me no terror. As the 
attack is a perfonal one, it is only by a 
retrofpeét to my individual {elf that it can 
be anfwered. | 
*¢ My character is fufficiently known to 
you and the friends in whofe habitual in- 
tercourfe I live. Am I aman likely to 
be inattentive to the feelings, the plea- 
fures, or the interefts of thofe about me ? 
Do I dwell in that fublime and impafiive 
{phere of philofophy, that thould teach 
me to look down with contempt on the lit- 
tle individual concerns of the meaneft crea= 
ture I behold? To come immediately to 
the point in queftion, am I, or am I not, 
a lover of children? My own domeftic 
{cene is planned and condusted folely with 
a view to the improvement and _gratifica- 
tion of children. Does my charaéter, as 
a father, merit reprehenfions? Are not 
-my children my favourite companions and 
moft chofen friends ? 
In this fenfe the charge is too ridicu- 
lous. How can fuch menas the calumni- 
ator you defcribe, be confident or 
weak enough to flatter themfelves that, 
by their obicure and reptile efforts, they 
can change the character of a:man in the 
apprehenfion of. his contemporaries, inte 
the reverfe of all that itis? What man 
of a foberand decent mind will credit fuch 
accuiations, without firlt endeavouring to 
feek out the truth? What man of a fober 
+ and 
