after, Mrs. Gibbons wanting a candle-box, the doctor called on his cabinet-maker(Wollaston, inLong Acre) to make him one of some wood that lay in his garden. Wollaston also complained that it was too hard but the doctor insisted on having it done; and, when finished, it was so much liked, that the doctor ordered a bureau to be made of the same wood, which was accordingly done; and the fine colour, polish, &c. were so pleasing, that he invited all his friends to see it. Among them was the duchess of Buckingham: her grace begged some of the same wood of Dr. Gibbons, and employed Wollaston to make her a bureau also. On this the fame of mahogany and Mr. Wollaston was much raised; and furniture made of this wood became general." CHAP. CHAPTER V. PERIODICAL LITERATURE. N no Britain de Of the daily morning Inde respect is Bheir mother papers, the Times, Neng news countries, or Britain at the commencement of the 19th century more decidedly distinguished from Britain at any former period, than by the copiousness and variety of its periodical literature. This circumstance alone would give it a claim to our notice; but when we moreover consider the influence it possesses on the politics, the literature, the taste and the opinions of the age, to pass it over in silence would be unpardonable. And yet our notice of it must necessarily be short and general. The periodical literature of Britain may be classed thus: newspapers-reviews-magazines and journals principally confined, to some branches of science,or the arts. 1. Newspapers may be said to be the daily food of our countrymen; and to many they are as regularly served up as their breakfast. An English newspaper presents a striking contrast to a foreign one; while the latter is jejune, tame and barren, the former comprises within its range a vast variety of subjects, of lasting importance as well as ephemeral. The establishment necessary to conduct an English daily newspaper, must be on a very great scale, as well as expensive; and the profits, when it succeeds, are equally surprising. and Chronicle, chiefly deserve notice. The principle on which the Times is conducted seems to be, to watch the direction of public opinion, feeling, or prejudice, and, when ascertained, to guide and stimulate, and thus to take advantage of it. The Times therefore is no party paper; yet when it warmly takes up an opinion, it is more violent and dogmatical than the most decided party paper. As soon as the public mind becomes cool and indif ferent, it also deserts the cause which it had so strenuously espoused. So far, with regard to the principle on which it is conducted: its great merit consists in its early and accurate intelligence; in its occasionally well written articles; and in valuable contributions on politics or political economy, with which its correspon dents not unfrequently favour it. The New Times is rising into notice: it is conducted on high monarchical principles by a gentleman who formerly edited the old Times, when it was so effi cient in exciting hatred and indignation against the tyranny, the measures and the character of Bonaparte. The editor of the New Times pushes his principles to an extreme, not palatable to the admirers of the British revolution, and and we think not easily reconcile able to the grounds on which alone that measure can be defended. But the fact seems to be, that his dread of innovation, and of any change, even for the better, unless (what it is vain to expect) produced by men in power, is so great and so constantly agitating his mind, that he prefers the stag. nant and pestiferous, but tranquil air of despotism, to those storms which, though they spread temporary destruction, yet are useful and even necessary to restore or preserve the sound and vigorous health of the human mind Inde pendently of these prejudices, the New Times is a well conducted paper: its increased reputation and sale may be partly ascribed to this circumstance; but we are also afraid it arises in part from a growing adoption of sentiments respecting the comparative evils of present abuses and innovations, similar to those of its editor. The Morning Chronicle is avowedly and decidedly a party paper. The unfounded assertions which it not unfrequently makes, and the contradictions in circumstances, in reasoning, and even in principles, to which a party support of the whigs, and a party opposition to ministers, necessarily give rise, are its great blot; otherwise it is well conducted; and contains a greater number of literary papers, especially of a witty and humorous cast, than any other newspaper. The principal evening papers are the Courier, the Star, and the Traveller. The Courier is as decidedly ministerial as the Chronicle is antiministerial: formerly it used to be better written than any other newspaper; there was more power of thought as well as of style: but latterly it has been conducted (except occasionally) in a feebler manner. It is very bigoted in religious subjects. The Star is what may be deemed an impartial paper: but whatever praises may be bestowed on such a paper, newspaper readers do not like it. Even if it were possible to infuse into an impartial paper, that pungency, vivacity and spirit which party creates, yet it would not be popular. The most impartial men have their partialities, and will read newspapers which side with them. The Star, however, occasionally bursts forth into a more bold strain, and then it becomes a very interesting paper, in spite of its violence. Most of the articles it contained on the Manchester business, and some of its articles on the queen's case, proved that its generally tameness did not arise from any feebleness or want of talent in the editor. The Traveller, though it has existed several years, did not start into general notice or extensive sale till 1820. It is understood that it then became the property of the particular friends and zealous advocates of the queen; and it certainly espoused her cause with all the zeal, and with much more judgement, good sense, and discretion than the Times, the most outrageous and extravagant of her defenders. But we notice the Traveller chiefly on account of some excellent articles on political economy, which have appeared in it. We cannot help thinking that if plain and practical essays on political economy were given occasionally in the newspapers, and if they were short, and thus adapted which for talent and information, and above all for condensation of thought, and sterling purity and compactness of style, are in our opinion superior to any articles either in the Edinburgh or Quar. terly Reviews. The Monthly Re adapted to the usual readers of newspapers, much benefit would be done. In the present circumstances of the country, nothing is more desirable, and will ultimately be more useful, than a thorough understanding of the fundamental principles and practical applica- view, though conducted during tion of this science; for by a steady its long existence with various deand persevering recurrence to what grees of ability, has (with a very it teaches, can we alone expect short exception) uniformly esto extricate our trade, and conse- poused and defended the same quently our finances, from their principles in politics and religion. present alarming embarrassment. Its politics are those of Mr. Fox: In the Times there appear occa- its religious doctrines border, on sionally articles on this subject; but unitarianism; and its church they are much too long, and discipline and government, are though ingenious, and in many those of the dissenters. It cerrespects solid, too far removed tainly has had great influence in from what alone can be reduced giving a sound direction to the li to practice. terature, politics and general opinions of the age; and, we believe, possesses the merit of having directed the studies of our countrymen to German literature, by some elaborate and well written articles on works in that language, which appeared at a time when German literature was almost utterly unknown in this country. The Sunday newspapers have a stronger hold over the mind, feelings and opinions of the great mass of the community, than the daily newspapers. We cannot enter into a character or discussion of them individually; generally speaking they are very violent in their opposition to government, some even to the whole system as it at present exists. But they are more distinguished for violence, dogmatism, or smartness little connected with good taste, than for talent or information. 2. The Reviews. The oldest English review is the Monthly: it has been published nearly a century; and of course, during that time, it has been conducted with various degrees of ability and information. Perhaps it displayed the greatest talent about 30 years since; its sale and reputation were much injured by the introduction of quarterly reviews, though there appear occasionally even now articles in the Monthly Review, 1820. The Critical Review appeared shortly after the Monthly; it was at first under the management of Dr. Smollet; and was directly opposed in its politics and religion to the Monthly. It never rose to much celebrity for talent; and even Dr. Johnson, whose strong prejudices were all decidedly with it, acknowledged, in his celebrated conversation with the king, that it was much inferior to the Monthly. In one respect it formed a striking contrast with the latter; the same person who set on foot the Monthly continued its proprietor and manager for upwards of half a century, indeed till his death; and his son succeeded him, F and and at present holds it; whereas the Critical Review passed through the hands of many proprietors, within these few years, very rapidly; and we believe no longer exists. In some part of its progress the Critical Review adopted and defended the liberal principles of its rival, and even went beyond it. This induced some literary gentlemen connected with the church of England, and of politics such as are generally held along with high church doctrines, to set on foot a new Review, which they called the British Critic. It espoused the cause of church and state, for which it was established, with considerable learning and information, with more of these indeed than talent, but with a good deal of the illiberal haughtiness and contempt, with which the very zealous adherents of high church politics and religion usually treat their opponents. Its classical articles, which were furnished by one of the most distinguished classical scholars of the age, were of great merit, and almost rivalled, as we have no doubt they were meant to rival, the classical articles of the Monthly Review, which were written by another classical scholar, at least equally distinguished for classical literature, and whose English style was more genuine, and in better taste, Within these few years the British Critic has changed editors more than once; at present it seems disposed to rival the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, in elaborate dissertation, and it occasionally contains some good articles on political economy. The Eclectic Review belongs to the evangelical party among the dissenters: this will at once explain the great object it has în view, and its religious principles. We are sorry to say, that though uncommonly liberal with regard to church government, it is often very illiberal and even disingenuous towards those who differ from it in religious doctrines. Its articles not unfrequently are written with very considerable elo. quence, which however would be much improved if they were not so discursive and prolix; and if the discursions and illustrations which it produces, did not entangle the readers of the Review, as we rather imagine they do even the writers, in a tiresome and perplexing labyrinth. The Edinburgh Monthly Review has not been published above three years; its object and plan was to unite the discussion of the quarterly reviews with the analysis and extracts of the monthly reviews: it is conducted with great care, tolerable impartiality, some talent and learning, but written in a ponderous and lagging style. In a former volume we noticed the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews; and of the character there given of each, we do not see any thing to alter. The Edinburgh Review, however, latterly is certainly falling behind its rival in the interest of its articles, in the ability with which they are written, and in taste. There is a heaviness about it, not redeemed by any profound or original discussion, and not relieved, as formerly, by any wit or smartness, or even poignancy of satire. In respect of taste, it has certainly fallen, though in this respect its merits, especially in poetry, were always very questionable. In its early |