1804.) 
phlet wag printed ; and, although no 
bookfellér would render “himfelf obnox- 
ious to the confederacy, by fuffering his 
name to be announced as publifher and 
vender, it has found its way into tolerably 
extenfive circulation. The charges in 
this Letter, it is well known, are a cata- 
locue of mifreprefentattons, mifquota- 
tions, and untruths ; a hoft of gramma- 
tical inaccuracies, (feventeen of which 
occur in one fingle pafflage, without the 
intervention of one fingle fentence, or 
claufe of a fentence, that is grammatically 
conftru@ed !) and a confederacy to cry 
down, as a public lecturer, the perfon 
whom, as an author and a man, thefe re- 
viewers: had already defamed.” How far 
thefe allegations are proved, itis for the, 
public to decide. Ali I requeft is, that 
po new confpiracy. may be permitted to 
fupprefs the evidence upon the one fide, 
while that upon the other continues to be 
incultrioufly circulated. 
After the delay of ive weeks, an anozy- 
mous pamphlet, entitled ‘* Oofervations 
on Mr. Thelwail’s Letrer to the Editor of 
the Edinburgh Review,” price two-pence 
balfpenny, was fent forth by Mr. Con- 
fiable, the publifher of the Review ; and 
it hag beea circulated with all the induftry 
which numerous agents, and interefts, and 
connections, could promote. All this 
was perfectly fair, if the contents them- 
felves had been fo.. To me, however, it 
appeared, that in affertion, ftatement, 
and quotation, the vindication was ftill 
more faife, and in compofition fill more 
.@bfurd and ungrammatical, than the Re- 
view itfelf. I therefore wrote and printed 
a Reply, of which the following is the 
title entire : 
«© Mr. Thelwall’s Reply to the Ca- 
Inmnies, Mifreprefentations, and Literary 
Forgeries, contained in the. anonymous 
Obdfervations on his Letter to the Editor 
oi the Edinburgh Review ; with a further 
Expofition of the ungrammatical Igno- 
rance of the Writers and Vindicators of 
that defamatory Journal. 
* Alawyer art thou ?—draw not nigh ; 
Go carry tofome other place 
The hardnefs of thy coward eye, 
The falfehcod of thy fallow face.’” _ 
WorRbDSWORTH. 
Glafgow, printed for the Author, by W. 
Lang, 62, Bell-ttreet, and fold by all the 
Bookteilers in Town and Country.” 
This Title was inferted as an adver- 
tifement in all the Glafzow newfpapers 5 
and the name of a ref{pecteble (the mof 
reip.étable,) bookflilkr in that city was 
advertiled as vendsr of the publication 
‘ 
Letter from Mr. Thelwall. 
341 
Not fuch was its- fate in Edinburgh—< 
Still no baokfeller there would hazard the 
difpleafure of the publifher of the Edin- 
burgh Review, and the confederacy of 
reviewing advocates, by lending hig 
name to the publication ; and to complete 
the ftory, the proprietors of the Edin. 
burgh newfpapers were fo far worked up- 
on by fome means or other, as actually to 
refufe the infertion of the advertifement ia 
their journals. Thefe fame proprietors, 
be it remembered, advertife Mr. Con- 
ftable’s Review, in which my name, my 
chayaéter, and my writings, are defamed 5 
and they advertife. for Mr. Conftable the 
anonymous ** Obfervations,” in which I 
am again defamed, again abufively com-~ 
pared to a ftreet-walker, again milquoted 
with aggravated groffnefs, and again mif- 
reprefented as faying the very reverse ot 
what I really have faid ; and yet, when IE 
would reply, with the open refponfibility 
of my name, to the injuftice of my ene- 
mies, they refufe to infert: tne advertife- 
ment of my vindication. If, this is che 
way in which literary war’are is to be 
conducted, how terrible is the lot of that 
man who has a reviewer for his enemy! 
and where is the man whofe character, 
whofe interefts, whole property in his ta- 
lents or his good name, can be regarded 
as fecure? The exiftence of every lite- 
rary man hangs vpon thé ftroke of a re=— 
viewer’s pen, who may calumniate and 
deftroy him with impunity. Defamation 
may be publifhed, but the defam:d muft 
not pubiith his reply. Under thele cir- 
cumitances, Mr. Editor, I appeal to your 
liberality, and, through you, to the libe- 
rality of the numerous readers of your in- 
terefting Mifcellany, that my cafe may, 
at leaft, be made known ; and that fuch 
of the inhabitants of the city of Edin- 
burgh asread your Magazine, may be in- 
duced to reflect, how far it is decorous 
that thofe perions who have chofen to de- 
cide what fhall and what fhall not be 
heard, thould alfo determine, (by their in- 
fluence,) what fhalland what fhall not be 
read, Your’s,. &c. 
Glafgows, Joun TiHeLwalt. 
March 56, 1304. 
— ES ) 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
N the lafi Number of your Magazine, 
Dr. Carey has favoured the public with 
an entertaining and ufeful paper on the 
antiquity of mait-liquors. In that paper, 
however, he feems to be of opinion, that 
leaven and yeaft are fyn-niinous sae 
is 
‘ 
’ 
