• It was observed in parliament, that the fouthern whale fishs ery might be objected to upon the fame principle, and must be abandoned if the Spanish claim be admitted in its full extent. It was not faid that any obstruction had been given, or any ob jection made to it. The mentioning of it leads us to estimate the value of that fifhery. Our whale fisheries have been long fupported by bounties, and are ftill fo fupported. The propriety of continuing these bounties is queftionable. If the trade will fupport itfelf without them, they are impofitions on the public, and ought to be withdrawn. If the trade, after a long trial, ftill requires the aid of bounties, it is a lofing one to the nation, and ought to be abandoned. The proper object of bounties is to encourage new branches of commerce and manufacture, and to enable the undertakers to furmount the peculiar difficulties which attend adventures not yet fully under flood. The term of their continuance may vary with circumftances, and fometimes it may be jullifiable to prolong the original term; but ftill it ought to have its limit. If after a trial of half a century the trade will not stand without a bounty, it ought to be left to its fate At least when a trade is liable to fuch strong objections, and can be more conveniently profecuted in its nearer branches, we may be indifferent about its more re

mote ones.

Since the objects of conteft are trivial, the only plea for going to war is the point of national honour. Under fuch cir cumstances our conduct ought to be moderate. We should be careful of provoking war by an imperious manner; and we fhould be willing to accommodate differences upon eafy terms.'

The claim of Spain, for an exclufive right of fettling upon a certain part of the coaft, is a proper fubject of negocia tion; and in a matter of fo little value to us, the negociation may be eafy. We need be little fol citous of the precife fituation of the line which bounds their claims, in a country where we never ought to fettle.'

The author of thefe Reflections,' has, we think, treated bis fubject with great moderation and good fenfe. He adduces obfervations fufficient to juftify the conclufion, that war, independently of the calamities of which it is naturally productive, is far from being recommended, by general experience, as a prudent and fuccessful refource in the political differences between nations. It may, however, be queftioned, whether his pacific principles do not lead him too much to facrifice the bonef tum to the utile; and, before he had pofitively decided against the expedience of war in the prefent cafe, it might have been worth while to ascertain likewife, by historical evidence, in what degree the interests of a nation are really involved in fupporting its dignity; and how far public profperity and fafety may be maintained

tained by the practice of political conclufions; a conduct which fcarce ever fails of being afcribed to corruption, weakness, or pufillanimity.

Criticisms on the Diverfions of Purley. In a Letter to Horne Tooke, Efq. By 1. Caffander. 8vo. 25. Cadell.

THE

HE Epea Pteroenta, or the Diverfions of Purley, we noticed in our Review for July 1786. The purpose of the letter now before us is to put Mr. Tooke upon his guard, in his future publication, against a difpofition to inaccuracy, with which he is charged by the prefent author. Caffander begins his remarks with exhibiting this defect in a variety of inftances, chiefly relative to Mr. Tooke's divifion of language, and fome obfervation's made by him on Mr. Locke and Mr. Harris. His explanation of the word That is thus criticised by Caffander.

Except what relates to politics, which, though ever fo found, cannot with any propriety be introduced into a work of this kind, the whole of this chapter deferves attention. The light in which it reprefents the structure of language is curious; and if you go on folving in fo plaufible a manner this intricate bufinefs, you will make ample amends for the little recreation we have met with hitherto in the Diverfions of Purley.

I beg leave, however, to make a few remarks on the word THAT.

There are instances in which it does not feem fufceptible of the fenfe into which you refolve it: fuch are those where it is connected, in one and the fame phrafe, with the pronoun perfonal IT; as for inftance, It is reasonable that we should do by others, as we should be done by ourselves; It is not to be expected that in a ftate of tryal like the prefent, we should meet with no diffi culties; Be it known, that, &c. Again, when it is preceded immediately by the word intent in the dative cafe, as, To the intent, that when they come up, they might teach their children the fame.

It feems as if in the preceding inftances the word THAT could not admit of your refolution, without introducing both redundancy and confufion. Whatever, fay you, be the name which is given to it, whatever be its fituation and appearance, it is one and the fame word, namely, the article, and ftands for THAT THING. But is not the fenfe of this laft expreffion implied already in the pronoun IT, which begins the two first of the preceding phrafes? And if fo, is there not a kind of awkwardnefs and redundancy in the article which follows? It is very poffible, however, that it will admit of your refolution, without my being aware of it. I am far, therefore, from alledging thefe inftances as proofs that you are wrong. I give them only as difficulties which may be thrown in your way??

VOL. LXX. 08. 1790.

E e

Mr.

Mr. Tooke fuppofes the word unless to be the imperative of the Anglo-Saxon verb unleran, to difmifs: but the author of the pamphlet objects to this derivation, as not corsistent with analogy. It must be acknowledged, that the inftances produced by Caffander to expose the impropriety of fuch a conjunctive fignification of the word difmifs, feem fully to authorife the rejection of it, as an aukward expreffion; yet, if we exclude this circumftance, the word appears to correfpond very closely with the sense afcribed to it by Mr. Tooke. In refpect of this word, however, our author makes the following obfervations:

If there be fuch a verb in the Anglo-Saxon, it must be the fame with onleron, a compound of on and leran, and the Dutch ontloffen: but neither leran in the Anglo-Saxon, nor LOSSEN in the Dutch fignifies to difmifs. Leran, in its primary fignification, means to unbind, in its fecondary, to redeem, to unload, to fet at liberty. Solvere, redimere, liberare, fays the dictionary. In the first fenfe it answers to the English, to loosen, i. e. to make loofe; in the fecond, the Dutch ontloffen. Skinner, indeed, tranflates onleran, or rather aleran, to difmifs. But Skinner is often ignorant, fays Dr. Johnfon*; and I reject his tranflation, becaufe I am certain the equivalent in Dutch extlofen is not fufceptible of it.-But further.

As there is an equivalent in the French of the word UNLESS very much refembling it in turn, it is fomewhat extraordinary, that it fhould never have occured to you, that poffibly the one is a tranflation, or at least an imitation of the other. This equivalent is A MOINS QUE. What word more likely to have given birth to unless; if we may fuppofe the latter to be a compound of on and lefs? And if the Anglo-Saxon dialect admits of onleft, at the laft; onbec, at the back; onbutan, externally; on affe, oppofite; why fhould it not alfo admit of onless, for A MOINS QUE? This conjecture is the more probable, as it was not till after the conquest, when the English became a mixture of the French and Anglo-Saxon, that the word UNLESS was introduced into it; the Anglo Saxon having ufed till then, as you yourself have obferved, NEMTHE, OF NYMTHE, instead of it. And yet you never mention A MOINS QUE; no, not even where you name the words correfponding in other languages to the English word UNLESS. The French SINON, unless you add Que to it, which you do not, is by no means of the number. It is fometimes ufed as an adverb in the sense of otherwift, or in default. Faites ce qu'il dit, finon, n'efperez nulle grace de fa part; do what he bids you, elfe expect no favour from him. Sometimes as, venia fit rbo, an exceptive conjunction, when it must be tranflated but. Je n'ai autre chofe a vous dire, finon que vous en uferez comme il vous plaira; I have nothing to tell yox, but that you are at liberty to do what you pleafe. p. 214. Preface to his Dictionary.'

LES

LES. The Imperative of Leran.

The orthography of this word, I prefume to fay, is LESS. It is thus Ben Jonfon fpells it in the paffages you here quote From him; and it fhould feem as if civilized people had no other way of fpelling it. You choose, however, upon the authority of Gawin Douglas, to write it with a fingles; and, truly, I do not wonder at it, as in that garb it will answer your purpofe much better than in the common one. It is poffible that LES hould be the imperative of Leran; but Less can have no pre tensions to it: at least not according to your principles; for, if my memory does not deceive me, you have faid fomewhere, or at least given us to understand, that words may lofe, but not acquire, letters, as they recede from their origin."

Caffander continues his remarks on this word through fe veral pages; adducing, ia fupport of his own opinion, several arguments from Saxon etymology, and endeavouring, by a fimilar refource, to establish a different derivation. A few other words are criticised by the author in the fame manner; and he seems to trace their origin in the Saxon tongue with great probability. But though we would not depreciate the purfuit of fuch philological difquifitions, we should be more pleased to fee Caffander direct his researches towards elucidating the fenfe and grammatical application of words, than exercifing his ingenuity in the conjectural and unprofitable field of enquiries merely etymological.

Before we difmifs this pamphlet, we must take the oppor tunity of making one obfervation on the Diversions of Purley, which was purpofely omitted in our account of that productions Mr. Tooke had mentioned the literary character of Dr. Johnfon in very disrespectful terms, which we thought fo unjustifiable that they seemed to mërit no refutation. But our filence hav ing been conftrued into an acquiefcence with Mr. Tooke's fentiments, we beg leave to disclaim, in the most positive manner, fo injurious an imputation. If, in a work fo arduous as a dictionary of the English language, many impefections fhould occur, we ought rather to applaud the authorfor the extraordinary fuccefs with which he has executed that difficult undertaking, than condemn him for not having performed what will ever exceed the capacity of any one man, however great, in the common extent of human life. abilities of Dr. Johnfon will be acknowledged as long as English literature engages the attention of mankind; and his name, as an author, inftead of being vilified, ought never to be mentioned without the higheft refpect. We with, therefore, that Mr. Tooke, in the next edition of his Epea Pteroenta,' would retract the unbecoming expreflions which he has used in fpeaking of that celebrated writer.

E e 2

The

Travels

Travels to difcover the Source of the Nile. By J. Bruce, Efq. (Continued from p. 266.)

AFTER having visited the head of the Nile, our traveller

remained for fome time at Geefh, in the feat of his newly acquired government; but he digreffes to answer those who fuppofe Egypt was the gift of the Nile, or, in other words, that Lower Egypt was raifed by the accumulated fediment of this river. We formerly faid that we wished, instead of affertions, he had given arguments; but he is contented with prov. ing that no evident increase of the Nile has occurred fince the period of Herodotus. The bafes of the ftatues, and the planes, to receive the gnomonical fhades, are ftill, it feems, uncovered. We may remark, however, that this is only the fecond part of the queftion. If Lower Egypt were once an arm of the sea, or rather a marsh, drained by the industry of an active race, and raised by a gradually accumulating fediment, there must be a period when this augmentation would ceafe, when the refiftance of the furrounding ground bore its due proportion to the expanding force of the river. The neceffity of canals, and these, the works of early ages, fhow that this maximum has been long fince attained; so that, though the ground may not be an inch higher than at that era, Mr. Bruce has not established his pofition. Another view of the subject he has not taken, which is that from all the coaft of Egypt and Syria the fea has certainly retired; and there is not at this time; there has not been since the records of hiftory, fo great an impediment to the courfe of the river. The caufe which occafioned the accumulation is therefore almost at an end; and, with the cause, the effect muft cease. Mr. Bruce allows that the Nile, as it proceeds in its course, is more full of fediment, chiefly from fand; that fand islands are raised from it in the Delta; and that the quantity of water is diminishing. Thefe effects always, perhaps, followed the annual inundation of the river; and, when all the mould within its reach was carried away, fand only remained. Our author's fummary we fhall transcribe.

It is agreed on all hands, that Egypt, in early ages, had water enough to overflow the ground that compoled it. It was then a narrow valley as it is now; having been early the feat of the arts, crowded with a multitude of people, enriched by the most flourishing and profitable trade, and its numbers fupplied and recruited when needful by the immenfe nations to the fouthward of it, having grain and all the neceffaries and luxuries of life (oil excepted) for the great multitude which it fed, Egypt was averfe to any communication with strangers till after the foundation of Alexandria.

The first princes, after the building of Memphis, finding

the