Mild Solitude, in veil of ruffet die,

Her fylvan fpear with mofs-grown ivy bound; And Indolence, with fweetly languid eye,

And zoneless robe that trails along the ground.

But chiefly Love-O Thou, whofe gentle mind
Each foft indulgence nature framed to share ;
Pomp, wealth, renown, dominion, all refign'd,
O hafte to Pleafure's bower; for Love is there.

Love, the defire of Gods! the feaft of heaven!
Yet to earth's favour'd offspring not deny'd!
Ah, let not thankless man the bleffing given
Enslave to fame, or facrifice to pride.

Nor I from Virtue's call decoy thine ear;
Friendly to Pleasure are ber facred laws.
Let Temperance' fmile the cup of gladness chear,
That cup is death, if he with-hold applause.
Far from thy haunt be Envy's baneful sway,

And Hate that works the harrafs'd foul to florm;
But woo Content to breathe her foothing lay,
And charm from Fancy's view each angry form.

No favage joy th' harmonious hours profane!
Whom love refines can barbarous tumult please?
Shall rage of blood pollute the fylvan reign?
Shall leifu:e wanton in the spoils of Peace?
Free let the feathery race indulge the fong,
Inhale the liberal beam and melt in love;
Free let the fleet hind bound her hills along,
And in pure freams the watery nations rove.

To joy in Nature's univerfal fimile,

Well fuits, O Man, thy pleasurable sphere;
But why should Virtue doom thy years to toil!
Ah, why thould Virtue's law be deem'd fevere!
What meed, Beneficence, thy care repays?
What, Sympathy, thy ftill returning pang?
And why his generous arm thould juftice raile,
To dare the vengeance of a tyrant's fang ?
From thanklefs fpite no bounty can fecure;
Or froward wifh of difcontent fulfil,
That knows not to regret thy bounded power.
But blames with keen reproach thy partial wil.
To check th' impetuous all-involving tide

Of human woes, how impotent thy ftrife!
High o'er thy mounds devouring furges ride,
Nor reck thy baffled toils, or lavish'd life.

The

The bower of blifs, the fmile of love be thine,

Unlabour'd eafe, and leifures careless dream.
Such be their joys, who bend at VENUS' fhrine,

And own her charms beyond compare fuprea e!"

Mr. Beattie fometime ago published a volume of poems which were, or at least deserved to have been, favourably received. See Review, Vol. XXIV. p. 393. We with this Writer would, for the future, be more attentive to his rhymes, nor fuffer his ear to be milled by the northern pronunciation: Iide the inftances printed in Italics.

The Laws against Ingreffing, Foreftalling, Regrating, and monopolizing. Containing all the Statutes and adjudged Cafes concerning them. Compiled by Defire of a Great Perfonage, for the Uje of the Magiftrates in Town and Country; in order to point out the Defects in the Law, as it now ftands, relative to thefe Offences; and, to propofe fuch Expedients for remedying them as they fhall think neceffary. By Stephen Browne, Efq; Formerly Judge of his Majefty's Court of Admiralty, and one of the Juftices of the Grand Court in Jamaica, 8vo. 2 S. 6d. Withy, &c.

TH

HE laws against the above-mentioned offences are here ftated in a very full and accurate manner and notwithstanding they may, in fome particulars, be deemed defective, yet. fuch as they are, were they but vigorously put in force, there would not be fo many grievances refulting from the pernicious practices, which have lately more than ever been the fubject of univerfal complaint.

The policy of all well-governed ftates has ever been directed to check the rapacity of tradefinen, whofe felf-intereft prompts them to ufe every artifice for obtaining inordinate profit: and the Athenian laws were fo ftrict in this refpect, that they even made it penal in a trader to fell a commodity at a less price than was at firft offered him.

With regard to our laws refpecting the above offences, they labour under one difadvantage which is common to all laws, that is, the odium attending the character of an informer. But instead of punishing the breach of the law, the butt poler would be, if poffible, to prevent the offence: and pnops i would 'contribute greatly to this end, if farm, &c. ww-put under an obligation of bringing their goods to an open m ket: which might be done by abolishing the others of facia factors, and all intermediate agents, who only five to enhe the price of commodities; for the greater number of hands

pafs through, the dearer they must come to the consumer, as a profit must be made by every one concerned.

We are fenfible, however, that this would be a nice experiment to make, and fuch a one as should not be attempted per faltum.

Letters, on the Force of Imagination in Pregnant Women. Wherein it is proved, by inconteftible Arguments, drawn both from Reason and Experience, that it is a ridiculous Prejudice to fuppofe it poffible for a pregnant Woman to mark her Child with the Figure of any Object he has longed for. 12mo. 2 s. Griffin.

TH

HE academy of sciences at Petersburg proposed, among their prize-queftions a few years ago, the following query; Whether the imagination of pregnant women did really affect the foetus; if fo, how far, and what were the phyfical caufes of fuch affection?' Whether the letters before us were written in confequence of this academical prize, we know not; but we are much mistaken if they were penned originally in English; the philofophy of them being evidently much fuperior to their style.

Many perfons of learning, fays the Writer, have endeavoured to overturn the common prejudice of the force of imagination in pregnant women, but with little fucce's; fome of them denying or concealing the facts which feem to authorize it; while others have treated the fubject in too abstruse a manner, and in too technical a ftile to inftruct or convince those who are principally interested in its inveftigation. Whether our Author hath fucceeded better than his predeceffors, the effect his letters may have on the fair fex will probably foon determine.

The propofitions, which the Letter-writer undertakes to prove, are, that pregnant women cannot mark the infant in the womb, with the figure of thofe things which particularly affect them, or for which they are faid to long; because the mother cannot communicate her ideas, her apprehenfions, or fears, to the infant; and that even if this communication were poffible, and the infant fenfible of the mother's paffions, yet the child could not experience any other effects therefrom, than those which the mother herfelf experienced; and fince there never was an inftance of the mother's being marked herself with the figure of what the longed for, or was particularly affected by, it is equally impoffible for the child to be marked with thofe objects: all the external marks, which have been ridiculously afcribed to the force of imagination, being the confequences of the mechanifm, which fecundates the egg, that inclofes the first rudiments of the infant.

In regard to the communication of ideas between the mother and child; the Writer enters into metaphyfical arguments a priori, in order to difprove the fuppofition of Malbranche on this head. We conceive, however, that not only the principles he advances, are juftly controvertible; but that even his reafonings are fometimes falfe. Not that we mean to fay, they affect the main design of the Author's argument; which is fufficiently fupported by practical reafons deduced more certainly a pofteriori. We judged it not amifs, however, to put him in mind, that the poftulata he affumes refpecting the foul, the animal fpirits and the mechanifm of thought, are by no means univerfally allowable; fo that his deductions from fuch principles have not that demonftrative force he pretends. But, be this as it may, we conceive the Writer hath undertaken a very superfluous and unneceffary tafk, in endeavouring to disprove the communication of ideas to the mind, or as he calls it, the foul of the fœtus. It had been excufable to have difputed this point with Malbranche before the days of Mr. Locke; but the abfurdity of the fuppofition is fufficiently obvious to all, who have learned any thing from that great philofopher, of the nature of our ideas, and the manner of acquiring them.

Admitting, however, that a child in the womb has not, nor can acquire any ideas, by communication from thofe of the mother, it does not, in our opinion, neceffarily follow, that it cannot be affected by her paffions. Our philofopher fays every paffion fuppofes an idea; fo that if the mother cannot communicate her paffions fhe cannot communicate her ideas.' We are afraid there is fome want of accuracy in this reafoning; as there is a very wide difference betweeen paffion and intellect, nor do our affections and our ideas proceed from the fame fource. But even this point is not altogether neceflary to be infifted on. may be admitted that the paffions and affections of the mother have an influence on her child, without concluding that the body of an infant must be marked with the determinate figure of the object, which might excite fuch paffion or affection. We need not go fo far as to affert with our Author, that the union betwixt the mother and child is entirely corporeal, in which the foul has not the leaft fhare; the arguments he adduces in fupport of his main point, are fufficiently cogent without it. The imagination of the mother, fays he, could not mark the child with the figure of any object but through the means of the blood or animal fpirits; to mark the child by means of the blood, the general movement of the mafs of blood, and the particular mo tion of its component particles, muft be entirely fubfervient to the influence of the foul. Reafon and experience convince us of Contrary, the blood circulates, the particles of the blood are divided, are reunited, and diftributed to different parts, th

the

bod

body receives its nourishment and growth from it: different parts of the body are deprived of it and perifh, independent of our will. The imagination of the mother is equally weak with regard to the blood which paffes to the body of the child, fhe can neither regulate the motion or quantity of it, the cannot ftop thofe particles from paffing, which occafion difeafes or death to the infant. Every thing is according to the laws of circulation entirely mechanical: hence it appears that the imagination of pregnant women cannot by means of the blood mark the bodies of their infants with the figures of thofe things which they longed for.'

As a farther confirmation of the mere corporeal and mechanical connection between the mother and child, the Author enters into an examination of the power of the mother's imagination over the body of the infant, in regard to the addition of any new parts, or the deftruction of thofe already formed. It hath been advanced, he fays, that the mother's being frightened at the fight of the claw of a lobfter is the reafon of an infant's being born wanting fome of its fingers, that the meeting a maimed perfon is the cause of an infant's being born without an hand; by having heard fpeak of a monster with many heads, the imagination of the mother has occafioned another head to grow on the neck of the child; in fhort the unexpected meeting of an animal which has furprized and frighted the pregnant woman, has occafioned the child to refemble that animal. But, fuppofe the imagination of the mother can mark the infant with the refemblance of what particularly affected her, its power must be confequently confined to reprefent thofe objects only of which fhe can have an idea: I obferved in the preceeding letter, that the mother can have a knowlege of the external furfaces of objects only, that the neither has nor can have any knowlege of their internal ftructure, their connexions, nor proportions. The parts added to the body of the infant have an internal arrangement which the mother cannot be acquainted with. imagination of the mother then produce that which he is ignoCan the rant of, which never ftruck her fancy, and which the cannot have any idea of? This is certainly impoffible. These parts are organized, have a form and internal difpofition of parts like the other parts of the infant; they muft then have the fame origin. The mother who cannot by the force of her imagination create an infant, cannot by the fame effort create the leaft part of one: but can the efface and deftroy thofe parts which are already formed? If the mother could by the force of imagination defroy a part of an infant, fhe could by the fame effort of her imagination destroy an whole infant. efficacious then would remoife and fhame be to preferve female Were this the cafe how honour.'

Our