% 
402 
they pronounced some of them, as a mat- 
ter of curiosity it is unfortunate that we 
do not know how they sounded others of 
the letters of the alphabet, - This much 
is certain, that they sounded some, though 
they did not sound all of them as we do. 
The sound, or pronunciation of the 
names of places, it is well known, often 
remain ‘long after the original spelling 
and meaningis lost, The names of places 
im England, for example, that have the 
word Chester as one of theit component 
parts, are all derived from the Latin word 
Castra. Now, asthe C in Chester, Man- 
chester, IIlchester, Dorchester, Colches- 
ter, Chesterfield, and the like, seems to 
have been sounded CA, and not C, as is 
done by us, when we pronounce the 
word Castra, it appears that the Romans, 
whose pronunciation, as well as the 
names they gave the places, was adopted, 
sounded the c as cé is in chareh, cherub, 
cherry, and the like.- We are led to this 
conclusion not only from the way these 
names have been pranounced ever since 
the days of the Romans in England, but 
also from the way. the best-informed 
among the Italians, at present, pronounce 
the letter ¢, When speaking of Cicero, 
the orator, for instance, they do not pro- 
nounce it Cicero, but Chichero. If you 
think this deserves a place in your useful 
and highly entertaining miscellany, you 
may hear from me again. In the mean 
time, I am, Sir, your most humble ser- 
vant, James Hatt, 
St. Martin’s-lane, 
April 9, 1808. 
a 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
OOKING the other day into the 
Supplement to the Encyclopedia 
Britannica, wader the article “ Guillo- 
tine,” at which one would naturally 
shudder, I was, on the contrary, much 
amused at finding it stated, with an air 
of triumph, that the inventor “ reaped 
all the benefit from it which he so kindly 
intended for the nation!” Now it so 
happens, that the writer of this has per- 
haps to thank the venerable Dr. Guillo- 
tin, who yet lives, for his own life; and 
has heard him say that his days were 
rendered most unhappy upon reflecting 
that a machine, invented purely from 
motives of humanity to the sufferers, 
‘should, from the facility with which it 
operated, become 50 sweeping and mer- 
culess. 
Mistake relative to Dr: Guillotin. 
[June 1, 
Another observation is, that, on the 
coin struck by order of the National As- 
sembly, in 1793, this axe 1s tmmortalized, 
by being bound up in the fasces of an- 
cient Rome! I say nothing of the ma- 
nia which seized the French at that time, 
of adopting whatever was Roman: but 
as well might the writer of that article 
have said that the emblem of Britannia 
on our coin is nothing more or less than 
the Goddess of Reason, and that the 
shield on which she- rests is—what shall 
I say?—the bason which caught the 
blood.of the “ blessed martyr,” King 
Charles. 
If the writer in the Encyclopedia is 
so very anxious to fix the feather in Dr. 
Guillotin’s red cap, I will just remind 
him that, in the reign of Queen Eliza- 
beth, a machine, called a“ maiden,” 
wasin use, in Yorkshire, similar in every 
respect to the French Guillotine. . 
' Your's, &c. 
~ CouPE-GORGE. 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
ACCOUNT of the SILK TRADE in ENGLAND. 
[Translated from Dr. Nemnich’s Tour in 
. Great Britain and. Ireland, lately pub- 
lished at Hamburgh.}| .  ~ 
SHE manofacture of silk furnishes 
employment to a great number of 
families. There wasa time when 200,000 
persons derived their subsistence from it. 
At present, from the great increase of 
luxury, this number would have been 
more than double, had not the cotton | 
manufactures, «the great rival of wool 
and silk, been generally introduced. - 
Previous to the reign of Edward IIT. 
the silk manufactures in England were 
confined merely to ribbands, laces, and 
other trifling articles of haberdashery. 
From the time of Edward II. to Hen- 
ry V. various acts of parliament were 
passed for the security and encourage- 
ment of these manufactures, by prohi- 
biting the importation of the like articles 
from foreign parts. , In 1620, King James 
caused to be brought from abroad throw-’ 
sters, dyers, weavers, and others, for the 
purpose of establishing manufactures of 
broad silk geods in England, where they 
soon flourisiied to such an extent, as to 
afford employment to not fewer in the 
various branches than fifty thousand’ per- 
sons. Tat monarch appears to. haye 
been fully aware, that no manufacttre 
can be considered as truly permanent, 
under a precarious supply of the raw 
iaterial. 
