ART. 16. The Hermit, with other Poems. By Richard Hatt. Izme. Vernor and Hood. 5s. 1810. Why will young men wafte their time, money, pen, ink, and paper, in writing and printing fuch verfes as thefe which follow. It were abfurd to call them poetry. SONG. 44TO THE NEW YEAR, (1810.) Doubly welcome doth appear." Has this youth no parent, no tutor, no friend? The following is intended for wit alas!! alas!! With a head on her bofom to lie.” The young gentleman's name, forfooth, is Hat.-Where is the Head? DRAMATIC. ART. 17. The World! a Comedy, in Five Acts, as performed at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane, By James Kenney, 8vo. 94 PP. 2s. 6d. Longman and Co. 1808. Exaggerated characters, abruptly developed, improbable fituations, with much of the jargon of modern fashion, which if at all like its reprefentations on the ftage, is wretched enough, make Mr. Kenney's World by no means a delightful one to dwell in. But the moral, fuch as it is, must be approved, and the conclufion is what the reader wishes to have it. The romantic character of Mr. Cheviot may perhaps have its original among poets, but it is quite out of the probabilities of the World we live in. ART. 18. Venoni; or the Novice of St. Marks, a Drama, in three Aas. By M. G. Lewis. 8vo. 103 PP. 35. Longman. 1809. The author's own account of this Drama contains almost every thing that is neceffary to be faid. "This drama is in a great measure N 4 meafure tranflated from a French Play in four Acts called Les Victimes Cloitrées :- —on the first night of reprefentation; the two first acts were well received; the laft was by no means equally fuccefsful, and the concluding fcene operated fo ftrongly on the rifible mufcles of the audience, as to make it evident to me on the third night, that, unless I could invent an entirely new laft act, the piece must be given up altogether. Under this perfuafion I fet my brain to work, and in four and twenty hours I compofed the laft Act as it now ftands, both plot and dialogue. With this alteration the Drama was received with unqualified applaufe, and it had already gone through eighteen reprefentations, when a ftop was put to it by the burning down of Drury-Lane Theatre." In the fame fhort preface the author takes leave of the public as a dramatic writer." The act of compofing," he fays, "has ceafed to amufe me; I feel that I am not likely to write better that I have done already; and, though the public have received my plays, certainly with an indulgence quite equal to their merits; thofe merits even to myfelf appear fo trifling, that it cannot be worth my while to make any further attempts at dramatic fame." P. vi. Though this modefty is very engaging, we cannot go fo far as to attempt a contradiction of it. A tranflated tragedy in profe is very like a laft effort. The Author has printed both the third acts, that the public may compare. He has the candour to prefer the original. Here we differ from him. Both are full of improbabilities, but the abfurdity of the first is intolerable. NOVELS. ART. 19. Tales, Original and Tranflated, from the Spanish. By a Lady, embellished with, eight Engravings on Wood. 8vo. 125. J. Stockdale. 1810. This volume confifts of eight tales, to each of which an engrav ing in wood is prefixed, but thefe can hardly be called embellishments, The tales are on the whole pleafing enough, fome are original, others profeffedly are tranflated from the Spanish. It might have been as well to have added from what Spanish authors, Twelve fhillings is a large fum to give for eight tales, but of courfe there is a market for this fort of ware, or it would not be manufactured. ART. 20. The Officer's Daughter, or a Vifit to Ireland, in 1790. By the Daughter of a Captain in the Navy, deceafed. 4 Vols. Il. 15. No publisher's name. I 2mo. 1810. As we find no publifher's name in the title page of thefe volumes, and as there is a very refpectable, indeed honourable, catalogue of fubfcribers, fubfcribers, the work is perhaps intended to be confined in its circulation. It is certainly, confidered as a first effort, entitled to much commendation. There is no violation of propriety, either with refpect to compofition, fentiment or merit. Things go on in the cuftomary way, love, entanglements, hair-breadth escapes, and a happy termination of all difficulties. The lady has talents which we think might be more creditably and advantageously employed, but if the still chooses to perfevere in the line which fhe has chofen for her firft adventure, fhe may eafily excel moft of her competitors in the fecond class. The first clafs in this as well as in every other branch of literary competition, requires no ordinary degree of talent and of diligence. POLITICS. ART. 21. A Letter from John Bull to his Brother Thomas. 12mo. 25 pp. 4d. or 3s. per Dozen. Hatchard. 1810. The prefent times, it must be admitted, are far from being free from danger, though apparently lefs "full of it" than thofe which immediately followed the French Revolution. But if the more modern reformers are lefs daring in their language, they are, we think, more artful and more hypocritical than their Jacobin predeceffors. The profeffed object of thofe perfons was a revolution, on the model of that which had taken place in France, and their proposed measure for effecting it was a convention, on the model of that affembly by which the French monarchy was overturned, and the unhappy fovereign murdered. Our prefent revolutionary demagogues, warned by the failure of that attempt in Britain, are far more guarded in their expreffions, and profefs more moderation in the object of their purfuit. Reform and refloration, not revolution, is, we are told, the only motive of their exertions, nay the fole wifh of their hearts. They, if we believe their affurances, "hold to the lars," and would by legal means alone carry a laudable and conftitutional object into effect. Unfortunately however, the measures of thefe innocent reformers, of thefe enemies to all revolutions, appear, (we believe) to all moderate and reafonable men, of the most revolutionary and mif chievous tendency. For what can be more revolutionary than the attempt, by falfehoods and mifréprefentations, by clamour and violence, by the refolutions of turbulent affemblies, by infolent and dictatorial petitions or remonftrances, to overawe the govern ment and legiflature of the kingdom? What can be more mif. chievous, than to inflame the minds of the people by exaggerated, and often false statements, of errors or abufes in public departments of the ftate? What more dangerous than to inftil into the public mind a diftruft of all public men of rank, talent, and real confequence, and to infpire a hatred and contempt of all 2 but but the low and infignificant leaders of a democratic faction? men whom nothing short of a revolution could place at the helm of government. In this point of view we cannot but approve this addrefs of John Bull to his brother: though we do not think it equal in energy with that which the former occafion produced. ART. 22. American Candour, in a Tract lately published at Bofton, entitled, An Analyfis of the late Correspondence between our Adminiftration, and Great Britain and France. With an Attempt to fhew what are the real Caufes of the Failure of the Negociation. Svo. 106 pp. 33. 6d. Richardfon. 1809. The partiality flown to our enemy by the prefent government of the American States, has been, in our opinion, fully proved in feveral able tracts; but in none more perfpicuously or forcibly than in the work before us, which firft appeared in detached numbers in a Boston newspaper. Our limits will not permit us to detail all the circumstances brought forward by this fpirited writer to fupport the opinion which he maintains, refpecting the American rulers. A few of the leading topics fhall however be given, as specimens of a publication, which, together with others, that we have had occafion to notice, has, we hope, by this time, opened the eyes of all, but the most prejudiced perfons, both in that country and our own. The author's first charge against the court of Washington, as he terms it, is, that, while it professed to remove the veil of fecrecy from the negociations of America, with the two great bel ligerent powers of Europe, its affected franknefs was a mere illu fion; for that many important documents, and portions of docu ments, (by no means of a more fecret nature than thofe made public) had been fuppreffed. Charges of this nature have often been brought, and, we have no doubt, in many inftances unjustly, against minifters. But here fome of the documents themselves are pro duced by the author, and inferted in an Appendix, with remarks. In our opinion, they clearly prove his allegation that the omiffions are calculated to veil, as much as poffible, the atrocious conduct of France, and to fupprefs every circumftance favourable to Britain. He infers, however, even from the papers produced by that govern ment, that the members of it have a private understanding with the former power, and are determined to refift all the honourable and amicable proposals of the latter. -At first, the author obferves, the American adminiftration affected to confider the Berlin decree as vague and uncertain in its intentions, though America was, in effect, the only neutral power against whom it could operate. They then appeared delighted with the explanations, given by decrces to the minifter of Ma. rine; though every man of fenfe perfectly understood their dupli city. Thefe circumstances are ftrongly urged as proofs of the infincerity 6 incerity of the American cabinet. Purfuing the fubject further, the author fhows, from a letter of Mr. Madison (then Secretary of State) to General Armstrong, the American minifter at Paris, that the American government could not believe the interpretation then given to the Berlin decree to be fincere, fince this very Jetter of Mr. M. contains an admiffion that the French cruizers in the Weft-Indies had enforced the decree by depredations on American commerce; and none of thofe captured fhips have been fince reftored. The writer alfo reprobates, we think justly, the admiffion of Mr. M. in a fecond letter, that the Berlin decree was lawful, as a municipal regulation, if net enforced on the high feas; and fhows it to be a violation of the law of nations, and also a direct breach of the convention between America and France. That it was in any degree juftifiable, as a retaliation on the preceding conduct of Great Britain, the author proceeds to difprove; but he premises, that if it had been true that the decrees of both nations ftood, in this refpect, in pari delicto, ftill the circumftances under which they were refpectively iffued, ought to have excited ten times more indignation againft France, than against Great Britain: first, because America had a commercial treaty with France, exprefsly forbidding this very injury; whereas fhe had rejected an advantageous treaty with Britain, and done every thing to provoke her government to war: fecondly, because France not only gave no notice of her decrees to the Americans, but actually allured them into her ports, by a falfe pretence, and then seized their perfons and property; but the government of Great Britain gave ample notification, that unlefs the decrees of her enemy were refifted, she must retaliate; waited a confiderable period for fome movement on the part of America; and at laft gave full time and notice of her orders to neutrals, to prevent their falling within the purview and effects of them. Thirdly, because the decrees of France were unlimited in their extent; but those of Britain opened to the Americans the extenfive colonies of her enemies, and indeed every fource of trade effential to their comfort and profperity. Fourthly, because France disfranchises for ever all American fhips which fhall vifit a British port; whereas Great Britain had made no fuch arbitrary difqualifications. Laftly, becaufe the French had no power of enforcing their blockade, and "were therefore obliged," fays the author, "to refort to cunning to draw the Americans within their fangs," but Great Britain had the means of enforcing a strict and rigorous blockade; "and the very men," the obferves)" who brand this blockade as illegal, because nominal, have the shameless inconfiftency of defending the Embargo, because not one of their fhips would have efcaped capture by Great Britain!". "If fuch," (he adds) "be the power of Bri tain to enforce her orders, to coerce her enemy, to execute her blockade, the perfect juftification of them may be grounded on that |