a 
a8or.] 
The opportunity of procuring from the 
beft authority the following accurate 
ftatement of the fhipping-trade of this port 
during the laft year, and the importance of 
its being!generally known before any further 
parliamentary difcuffion on the fubject of 
the coal-trade, have induced me to fend it 
you without delay. It will be feen from 
hence, that it has not been from any want 
of quantity fent that the prices have been 
fo high in the London market. On this 
fubject I beg leave to recommend Dr. 
Macnab’s Letter to Mr. Whitmore, which 
appears to contain much valuable infor- 
mation on the nature and extent of the 
coal-trade. A more extenfive publication by 
the fame author I] fawadvertifed, but I have 
not had an opportunity of perufing it. 
In fome future Numbers I fhail endea- 
vour to complete the plan I have iketched 
out above, and in the mean time remain, 
Sir, your’s, &c. We: is 
Port of Newwcaftle—Year 1800. 
Ships 
431 
1491 
Entered—from foreign parts - 
Coattwife = = - 
1972 
760 
7080 
Cleared—-for foreign parts 
Coattwite - - 
734.0 
#Exclufive of thofe which arrived and de- 
parted with ballaft only. 
Chaldrons of Coals, Newcaftle Meafure— 
53 cw, each. 
Over fea a 2 46,900 
Coatwife - ~ = 542,700 
589,600 
Weight in tons - 2,562,440 
In London ‘chaldrons =  14,305.500 
——a— 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
«s Magna vis eft CONSCIENTIZ, et magna 
in utramque partem.” 
Cicero pro Milone. 
** Confcience is powerful: it ferves both 
parties !” 
*¢ But confcience ! confcience ! 
O ’tisa tender place !” Shak{peares 
A S I obferve that your Magazine is 
frequently the medium of many va- 
Juable treatifes on fubje&ts of great im- 
portance to life and manners, I have 
~ taken the liberty to fend you a few crude 
Frade of Neweaftle— On ConJcience. 
109 
thoughts ona very familiar fubje&t (which, 
neverthelefs, has not been treated {fo fcien- 
tifically as it deferves), in the humble 
hope that I may be the means of calling 
the attention of fome of your readers, 
whether philofophers, hiftorians, natura- 
lifts, phyficians, or metaphyficians, to a 
difcuffion which feems to require a confe~- 
deracy of great abilities. 
I have looked into a great many books 
on the fubjeét of Conscience, and have 
littened to a great many converfations on 
the fame, but, as yet, without deriving all 
the fatisfaction I expeét, and all the expla- 
nation which my many doubts require. 
You will readily allow tlrat no word is 
more frequently ufed in converfation, in 
parliamentary {peeches (as if it were the 
order of the day), in pamphlets about the 
war and the corn, not to {peak of theolo- 
gical tracts without number and end : yet 
where have we a hiftory, an explanation, 
ora definition of this thing called ¢on- © 
f{cience? One writer, indeed, fays it isa 
rule of life: why fo is fafhion, or the 
Statutes at Large. Another fays, it. is 
that which enables us to diftinguith be- 
tween good and evil; yet I know fome of 
the firfi adepts in diftinguifhing between 
good and evil, who, to my certain knew- 
ledge, are utterly unacquainted with this 
Criterion, and make ule of other rules 
which anfwer their purpofe far’ better. 
I might multiply fuch indefinite definitions 
and inexplicable explanations; fuch in- 
corrigible amendments, and inattentive — 
revifions as thefe, were it neceflary; but — 
the conclufion of the whole matter is, that 
we are left as much in the dark as ever. 
The iearned have long carried on a 
difpute as to the /eat of the foul; and, per- 
haps, had that ever come to a conclufion 
(alas! does any thing come toa conclu- 
fion now-a-days ?), it might have thrown 
fome light upon the other; for, according 
to the beft theories, there is fome con- 
nexion between foul and confcience, and 
we fhould certainly be wifer if we only 
knew the nature of this connexion, whether 
it was a connexion of contiguity or of 
fympathy, or whethér of the mixed and 
heterogeneous kind, like fome political 
unions, confederacies, and combinations; 
er, perhaps, like that of church and ftate. 
Bat unfortunately, our authors have not 
yet agreed on the previous queftion, fome 
contending that the foulis in the brain, 
and in that particular part called the 
pineal gland, and others, that it is fituated 
much lower down; Fielding, if I remem- 
ber right, placing it in the breeches pocket, 
and advancing tome folid arguments in 
. favour 
