I beg leave to return my sincere thanks to the community, for the flattering reception with which this undertaking has been honoured:—A more convincing proof of that approbation which every Author most ardently desires seldom occurs, and still more seldom is expressed in so short a period as between the dates of the first appearance of the book and the present preface (March 1808 and May 1809.)

It had been my intention, from the moment I thought of tracing the habits of the residents of our Metropolis, to give a history of them from the earliest ages to the close of the last century: those early ages should certainly have been noticed first; but the length of time required for collecting materials, and the heavy expences attending printing, made it imperiously necessary that I should offer to the publick the least difficult portion of my labours, in order to ascertain whether I might proceed in safety with the remainder. The result has surpassed my hopes, and roused me to redoubled exertion in preparing for the press a volume including Anecdotes of Manners and Customs from the Roman Invasion to 1700, in which will be found most of the apparent omissions discoverable in this; but I shall ever reserve a right to myself of saying nothing on a subject of which I have an imperfect knowledge, through impediments not always to be explained without a charge of prolixity. This circumstance, and the impossibility of knowing how the work would be received, compelled me to give a retrospective view, at the commencement of some chapters, that should contribute to render them satisfactory, provided the early portion never appeared. The readers of the Quarto edition of the History of the Eighteenth Century will therefore have the goodness to excuse the retrospective sketches in it; and those of the present will perceive the sketches alluded to are omitted, in order to confine each event to its proper Æra in the work when completed.

It will be observed that I address myself in the above sentence solely to the liberal reader for information and amusement, and by no means to the invisible censors of the age, who kindly and charitably supply the place of Inquisitors without receiving their appointment either from the Church, the State, or the Publick. A person who honours this publication with his notice in the Eclectic Review remarks, "We should have thought the progress of learning, and the novelties in the trade of books, during the last century, well intitled to some regard; and, as Mr. M. has 'been indebted to his worthy friend Mr. Nichols for the inspection of his matchless collection of periodical publications, from which great part of his materials have been selected,' we wonder not a little how the very institution of periodical publications could escape his notice." The history of literature did not escape my recollection as connected with that of the manners of the Metropolis; but you, Gentlemen Reviewers, being literary men, ought to have been aware that the very worthy friend you have mentioned had nearly printed his Literary Anecdotes of the same century, which would have appeared at the moment my Anecdotes were published, had not one general conflagration destroyed the whole of the impression, and a considerable number of my own books, and compelled the benevolent sufferer to recommence his labours. "Perhaps," continue the Reviewers, "Mr. M. did not know that the voracity of the publick for scandal demanded four editions, comprising 19,000 copies of the Town and Country Magazine, on its first appearance." I did know the prevailing voracity for scandal, and that it was partly supplied by Reviews. I do not mean by any particular work so termed, but by individual articles in many publications of that description.

Knowing the mischievous consequences to authors, of perversion, misquotation, and misrepresentation, before the nature of Reviews was fully understood, the enlightened and excellent Dr. Blair, whose Sermons do his head and heart so much honour, wrote thus to Mr. Bruce, the celebrated Abyssinian Traveller: "I do not get the Monthly Review, and never saw that article in it which has been so injurious to you. Indeed, I seldom see any Reviews, unless what is called The Analytical one, which a friend of mine takes, and commonly sends to me; and that Review appears abundantly favourable to you. But I entirely agree with Dr. Douglas, that the Reviews are beneath your notice. They are always guided by the interest of some booksellers; and it is not on their opinions that the reputation of books and authors will depend. I am so much of this mind, that though I lately published a volume of Sermons, I never gave myself the smallest trouble to enquire what the several Reviewers said of it, or whether they took any notice of it at all[viii:A]."

It is well known that Dr. Blair had established a reputation which it was impossible to undermine by secret attacks: hence he naturally held those who aimed them at others in sovereign contempt. There are authors, however, who are endeavouring by every laudable exertion in their power to establish a similar reputation; and would frequently accomplish it, did not the secret envious Reviewer annihilate their hopes by exciting terrors in their minds, and by this means destroy all their vigour, substituting hesitation for energy, and trepidation for modest confidence in their abilities. Worthy and enviable pursuit, to wound the feelings of a man we never saw, and rob him not only of fame, but of that remuneration which the risk of his property in some degree demands from the publick he endeavours to please!

When an author so far forgets his moral obligations as to publish to the world sentiments or narratives dangerous to the beautiful order and simplicity of social life, it becomes the province of a Reviewer to expose his intentions, and lash him into a sense of his duty; nor should arrogance and presumptuous folly escape the reprehension of a gentleman from the same source: but, when a work appears which demonstrates great labour and diligence in the compilation or invention, and contains nothing offensive to honour and morality, envy and malice, and the restless spirit termed ill-nature, should really be subdued in the breast of the Censor, so far as to permit him not to expose himself, and the Review his individual article disgraces. Besides, both the writer and publisher should reflect, that when they have almost forgotten the article which leaves a deep and a malignant sting, the party suffering from it lingers in hopeless melancholy; and in more than one instance even life is said to have been wasted in the decay produced by a malicious Review.

I should here apologize to the reader for having omitted the portrait of an incompetent and splenetic Reviewer in the first edition of this work; but, as it is never too late to amend, and I cannot violate my own sense of the injustice of giving information in a new edition withheld in the first, by noticing so common a character, I shall here proceed to shew him in his true colours, as part of the grand aggregate I have attempted to describe; merely observing, as a further excuse, in the words of the Critical Review on these Anecdotes: I am "more pleased with faithful delineations of general nature, than with the account of any anomalous productions." Unfortunately for the majority of authors, and most fortunately for the Reviewer, it too often happens that second editions of works are not called for; through this circumstance Reviews of Reviewers are rarely to be met with, and pamphlets refuting their strictures seldom answer any purpose, owing to their confined sale. Happily for myself, an opportunity offers which must have full effect, as the reader of these pages will judge for himself on their merits, and between the assertions of certain Reviewers, and what I have to offer in opposition to them.

These self-important unknown persons will find me combating on the side of injured authors, not only on my own account, but on that of other individuals severely and unjustly condemned. I certainly despise them with Dr. Blair; that I do not fear them in my literary pursuits, and have no cause for so doing, my own words, and the approbation of the publick, sufficiently demonstrate. I shall be highly gratified if the following investigation leads one man to judge for himself hereafter, when he finds Reviews of a similar description connected with others of liberality and moderation.

We may venture to attribute the introduction of Modern Reviews to Edward Cave eventually; for, although the Gentleman's Magazine never assumed that exclusive character, it certainly suggested the hint of issuing monthly anonymous strictures on new publications[x:A]. All have since professed to commence their career with good humour, talents, liberality, candour, justice, mercy, and, in short, with the exercise of every virtue. Had they all strictly adhered to their professions, Literature would indeed have flourished under the moderate corrections of Criticism, which is necessary to raise a perfect stock for the great demand of England; but, instead of those tempered reproofs, we are often surprised by floods or torrents of censure, which beat to the earth, and completely destroy, every thing within their scope. It is the authors of those torrents that I combat: the impartial and candid Reviewer I honour and admire, in proportion to the dangers and difficulties of his office.

The Critical Review for May 1808—versus "Anecdotes of the Manners and Customs of London." The writer of this article says: "The following sketch of the contents of this performance will convince the reader that he may expect much information and amusement in the perusal." This is extremely well for a preliminary assertion; and yet we shall find him contradicting it almost from page 1 to 15, where the Review terminates. The contents are then given, and the Reviewer continues: "Such is the bill of fare which Mr. M. has prepared: in which, perhaps, the generality will find many agreeable dishes and savoury ingredients. It is, however, rather a confused medley, than a well assorted or nicely selected entertainment." Here we have a simile warm from the Crown and Anchor or London Tavern. "Mr. M. has very industriously perused the public papers, periodical works, &c. of the last century; and from these he has culled as much matter as, with his own head and tail pieces of remark, explanation, and connection, compose an ample quarto of 490 pages."—"In traversing the pages of this bulky volume, we have sometimes been instructed, and often amused; but on the whole we have experienced sensations of tediousness and languor, which the author will perhaps impute to our squeamishness of appetite or apathy of temperament; but which we are more willing to ascribe to the prolixity of the work. When the reader has taken the trouble to go through the book, we shall leave him to determine whether the critic be insensible, or the author occasionally dull." This sneering critic (for he at length appears in the singular case, speaking grammatically) affects to be unwilling to accuse me of practising the art of book-making, and of inserting every piece of information which came in my way relative to the manners of London; but really "we would willingly have dispensed with many of his details, in which there is nothing either to edify or amuse."

The single critic, or congregated critics, which the reader pleases, next introduces the following quotation: "Then, says Mr. Malcolm, (meaning before the invasion of CÆsar) the hardy native stood erect in the full dignity and grace of nature, perfect from the hands of the Creator, and tinted with those pure colours which vary with the internal feelings. CÆsar, doubtless, found the males muscular and full of energy, the females graceful in their forms, and both wild and unrestrained in his estimation of manners; though probably they were such as we now admire in the Savage, sincerity unpolished and kindness roughly demonstrated."

I shall make no comments on this passage, which the reader of the Review is requested by the critic to take as a "specimen of that affected, stiff, and verbose style in which Mr. M. sometimes thinks proper to indulge, and on which the critic or critics would fail in their duty to the publick if they did not fix the seal of their utter reprobation."—"Perspicuity and ease are among those constituent principles of good writing, which we should be unwilling to sacrifice for any of the starched refinements and elaborate perplexities of modern composition."—"When Mr. M. tells us that CÆsar found the Aborigines of Britain 'tinted with those pure colours which vary with the internal feelings,' he seems to have forgotten that CÆsar himself tells us (B. G. lib. v.) that he found these 'hardy natives' bedizened with a coat of paint. And we leave our modern fine ladies to inform Mr. M. whether this artificial discoloration were likely to serve as a mirror for the varying emotions of the breast."

It may be presumed that he who undertakes to criticise the language of another should himself be perfect in the arrangement of his ideas, and of words to express them, and capable of composing similies that shall bear some reference to the subject illustrated. Whether the author of the Review in question is qualified for the employment he has undertaken, will appear in the elegant extracts which follow: "agreeable dishes," "savoury ingredients," "confused medley," "nicely selected," "culled as much matter," "his own head and tail pieces," "traversing the pages," "bulky volume," "squeamishness of appetite," "to go through the book," "affected, stiff," "starched refinements," "elaborate perplexities," "bedizened," and "discoloration were likely to serve as a mirror." Surely, if he asserts my style to be affected, stiff, and starched, I may venture to pronounce his extremely vulgar, incorrect, and confused.

I had not forgotten that CÆsar found the natives of England stained with the juices of plants, and partially covered with coloured earths; still I maintain that Nature had perfected her work, and given the fluids that due circulation, improved by exercise and temperance, which renders the complexion florid and beautiful. Extraneous matter at times defaced her operations; but luxury, disease, and enervation, had not dried the channels of the blood of the Aborigines, as it has those of the fine lady I am referred to, whose discoloration is to serve as a mirror to show my own folly.

"In p. 4. Mr. M. tells us what we suppose he discovered after many nights of sleepless meditation, that, 'There are in every human circle persons whose patriotism may be lulled; [the words between lulled and and, "such may be taught by invaders to execrate their chiefs or governors" are shamefully omitted by the Reviewer as well as the beginning of the first sentence] and glittering ornaments of dress, and indolence, soon produce unfavourable comparison between the former and a naked limb, and the exertions of what is termed savage and the more refined conceptions of quiet life.' Without staying to make any remarks on the phraseology or the structure of this sentence, we shall proceed to shew Mr. M. as a collector of curious anecdotes and amusing details, in which he appears to much more advantage than as a philosopher or a rhetorician."

Is it possible that an author can feel himself injured by such absurd and ridiculous spleen as those four lines and an half produced in the breast of this miserable Reviewer?

Contemptible and futile as my information is considered by the writer, he has deigned to compress nearly the whole matter of my Anecdotes of Charity for his own purposes; and, although he denies me any share of his charity, he is delighted with the instances of it I have introduced to his notice of that of others. For once he agrees with me in opinion as to the general improvement of manners; and occupies from the 3d to the 9th page in contradicting himself in almost all the positions he has endeavoured to establish as to my incompetency for the present undertaking.

"Mr. M's 4th chapter is intituled 'Eccentricity proved to be sometimes injurious, though often inoffensive.' We could willingly have spared Mr. Malcolm the necessity of exhibiting any proofs on this occasion; most of the Anecdotes which he has scraped together are destitute of interest." The writer has been much my friend in this instance, though certainly without intending it; for he could not have more effectually convinced the publick of his incapability. Can he suppose it possible that, in describing the Manners of the Metropolis, the eccentricities of its inhabitants should be omitted? It is as impossible as that any person should agree with him in all his absurdities. As to exciting of interest, the very nature of eccentricity is such, that pity alone must predominate in the breast of the considerate reader. The sneer that my specimens of eccentricity will make the Anecdotes "a favourite of the Circulating Libraries," came from the same hand that could write "a bushel of coals" instead of a chaldron of coals allowed by James Austin to boil his pudding fourteen days.

The loyal reader shall comment for himself on the following extract from this admirable Review: "In 1736, a laudable attempt was made to suppress the excessive use of Gin; and the resentment of the populace became so very turbulent, that they even presumed to exclaim in the streets, 'No Gin, no King.' Whatever respect we may have for the exclamation, 'No Bishop, no King,' we do not think that either monarchy or any other government needs the support of this, pernicious distillation." This is what the Reviewer 'tells us,' and I suppose the discovery was made "after many nights of sleepless meditation;" indeed the same degree of intense thought seems to have produced another sapient piece of philosophy or rhetoric, which is offered to our consideration in p. 11 of the Review. "When a bull gives permission to a greater brute than himself to bait him to death with dogs, we will allow that something like a sanction is given to the sport." Surely these specimens of deep cogitation are almost equal to my "novel observation that 'partnerships too frequently produce dissention and a struggle for individual power';" and the Reviewer's own words, "Mr. M. might have added to the spirit and interest of his work by omitting such superfluous details." These superfluous details, good reader, relate to the disputes between Messrs. Harris and Colman in 1768, which, having excited great interest amongst those who frequented the Theatre, could not, and ought not to be omitted to gratify an invisible individual, who is perhaps too much of a Philosopher to be pleased with Dramatic Entertainments.

The spleen of the Reviewer, having increased by indulgence, attains its acmÈ of virulence at the close of the article: "In his 12th Chapter Mr. M. professes to exhibit a Sketch of the present State of Society in London; in which we do not meet with much sagacity of remark, or novelty of information. Take an instance of his common-place details: 'The reader must recollect, that when a family is without visitors, it is governed by greater regularity. Many Merchants and rich Tradesmen pass much of their leisure time at Coffee-houses; and dinners are commonly given at those places'."

Now, what but blind and indiscriminating acrimony could dictate the above remarks? What sagacity was required to narrate facts as clear as noon-day? Or, what novelty of information could arise from describing the domestic occurrences of families in general? The Reviewer dared not say I have falsified a single article; perhaps he would rather I had drawn a fancied picture of present customs, that he might have added a charge of deeper dye against me. The Review of my performance, which has enabled him to earn a dinner, could not have been written if similar common-place details had not appeared during the last century. Good Sir, because you know how we all live at present, are we not to inform those who succeed us how we have lived? Taking the conclusion of sentences as a specimen of the whole, is peculiar to a certain description of Reviewers. Now, by referring to the page whence the extract is taken, it will be found I had been describing a family as entertaining their visitors, and naturally concluded by saying, "when alone, it was governed with greater regularity." For once we have an attempt at wit, which originates from my having asserted that the dissipation common in high life, and late hours, rendered eating of breakfast a "languid operation."—"We do not believe that there is, in general, so much languor in this operation of eating, as Mr. M. seems to suppose. But, perhaps, Mr. M. will think that we judge of the morning appetite of others by our own; and that we Reviewers have appetites like wolves, and are ready to devour mountains of toast, when they come in our way."—Mountains of toast—admirable metaphor! Surely this cannot be called affected, stiff, starched, verbose, or elevated language; it is familiar enough, and will be understood perfectly by the cook or house-maid, when the article which contains it reaches the Kitchen as waste paper.

"The author ends his smooth-papered volume (a fault I must transfer to the paper-maker, as I have not had it hot-pressed) with the following sentence: 'Such are the follies of many; but, thanks to Heaven! there are numbers of our nobility and gentry who live and act for the general benefit of mankind. And now, Vale Londinium!'—We will add, Vale Mr. M. We have been indebted to you for some information and amusement; but should have been more gratified with the perusal of your work, if you had exhibited more judgment in the selection of the materials, and had not swelled the bulk by a number of futile, irrelevant, and incongruous details."

The readers of the first edition of this work, amounting perhaps to some thousands, have completely and decidedly contradicted the objections brought by the Reviewer in general terms, and supported by cavils upon four or six sentences selected from 490 pages. The readers of the present are offered all those cavils for their consideration, and will judge for themselves of their justice.

With due allowance for a small degree of asperity, for which the writer can have no good excuse, the Anti-Jacobin Review of December last contains some argumentative strictures on the arrangement of this work, as it appeared in the first edition. When a book is offered to the world, it cannot be expected that every fact in it, and the method, should meet the approbation of all descriptions of persons; as taste and opinions are acknowledged to be as various as the features of the face. That the publick at large have not disapproved of the progressive chronological manner adopted, I have the most positive evidence by the rapid sale of the work; and this I shall retain. However, as objections have been raised by individuals who act as Public Censors, I have adopted their suggestions in part, and given the Anecdotes a more connected form, by removing the breaks between each. But, while I submit to their decision in the above instance, I beg leave to deny that any of the materials are too trivial for insertion. I was to give the habits and manners of the Londoners as I found them. If their conduct was even infantile in some cases, the fault lay with them, not with me; if part of their conduct resembles that of all the rest of the world, it is still a part of their conduct, and requires notice as much as their peculiarities; and it is mere wanton contradiction to assert the contrary.

The Reviewer next discovers, that periodical publications are not the best authorities for ascertaining the manners of the times. This I utterly deny; and I challenge the Reviewer to point out the cases where falsehood and inaccuracy are discoverable, in the use I have made of them. In truth, they are almost the only vehicles by which we obtain any thing like a correct account of the foibles of the day—nay, any account at all. What does he say to the Spectator, the Tatler, the World, the Rambler, the Guardian, the Observator, the Female Tatler? Were they not periodical publications? Do they abound in "shameful lies" (the gross words of the Reviewer)? or are they not considered as faithful sketches of those customs which escape the notice of the Historian?

Every Newspaper may contain misrepresentations and falsehoods; but those are generally confined to politics and artifices of trade: when any indifferent circumstance is to be related, there is no inducement to wilful falsehood. Besides, our ingenuous Reviewer must have allowed me to have had sufficient discernment to reject articles of that description.—Were I to act with the same candour towards him as he has evinced towards "Newspapers, Intelligencers, and Magazines" (observe, Reviews are omitted) in his rejection of them as authorities, I should charge him with declaring a deliberate falsehood in informing his readers that my excellent friend Mr. Nichols had lost his matchless collection of periodical publications in the late burning of his warehouse and printing-office. A statement of this nature need not rest upon "we believe:" London is extensive, but surely within the compass of a Reviewer's walk, who dogmatically substitutes we believe for the simple question at Mr. Nichols's door, "Have you lost your collection?"

I shall now follow this candid gentleman's example—he damns in the Theatrical term the whole of my book, by endeavouring to mislead the publick into a belief that it contains not a word of truth; and then a high-sounding apology in these words: "That Mr. M. would intentionally pervert a single fact, or make one statement that he believed to be erroneous, we certainly have not the most distant idea of intimating; he possesses too high a sense of honour, too great a feeling of manly integrity, even to permit the supposition." Pray, good Sir, who would willingly consider me rather as a fool than as a liar, apply your own words to yourself; and let me add, I am convinced you believed Mr. Nichols's collection to have been consumed by fire, though it certainly was not.

Further let me repeat your words, "Thus have I done, and I challenge contradiction:—mine are the best authorities."—Yes, they are the best authorities; such as the Journals of the House of Commons, the Gentleman's Magazine, official publications of Charities, and various institutions, under the signatures of their Secretaries, Reports of Coroners on Inquests, the Statements of G. A. Wachsel, Sir John Fielding's official reports, Mr. Howard's letters, Acts of Parliament, Dr. Hawes's information to the Author, Advertisements from different Speculators, the official statements of the Society for Reformation of Manners, Report of the Committee of Magistrates 1725, Letter from Secretary of State 1728, Proclamations by the King and the Lord Mayor, original Letters of Richard Smith 1732, the Police Act, Evidence before the Committee of the House of Commons 1750, Address from Justice Fielding 1759, Narrative relating to the Cock-lane Ghost, Evidence of Physicians relating to Mad-houses 1762, Examinations before Committee of Commons respecting Robberies 1770, Sir J. Fielding's Address to Grand Jury 1773, official statement of Society for suppressing Vice; Quacks' own advertisements; Addison, from the Lover; London Gazette, ceremonial for receiving George I.; Royal Proclamation, 1721, confirming the existence of scandalous Clubs, Mackay's Journey through England 1724, Switterda's Advertisements, Act for suppressing Private Balls, Report of Committee of Common Council 1761, Charge by Sir J. Fielding respecting Profane Swearing 1763, original letters between the Bishop of Bristol and his Parishioners 1768, Grosley's Tour to London, Advertisements by C. Weedon, Esq. Life of Sacheverell, Henley's Advertisements, presentment of the Grand Jury relating to him 1728, Lady E. Hamilton's advertisements, Lord Viscount Vane's advertisement, original advertisements of Lotteries and Benefit Societies, Queen Anne's communication to the Lord Mayor respecting Riots 1709, Abstract of Wild's indictment 1725, official parish letter of Christ-church Surrey 1757, Minutes of Coroners Inquest 1763, Wilkes's letter 1768, Trial of Donald M'Lane, King's Proclamation 1768, that of Harley, Mayor, same period, Trial of J. Grainger, &c. 1768, Petition of W. Allen 1768, Presentment of Grand Jury 1701, that of Middlesex 1703; London Gazette, reformation of the Stage; the Presentment of Middlesex Grand Jury 1723, Advertisements of Figg and others, masters of defence, Notice from Wilks, &c. and Cibber's answer 1733, Notice from the Proprietor of Vauxhall-gardens, proposal from same 1738, Life of Handel, original letter from Mrs. Clive, Statements by Mr. Garrick and Mr. Beard, Letters of Messrs. Harris and Colman, Macklin's narrative, Plan of the Regatta 1775, Foote's letter to the Lord Chamberlain, Advertisements of Clothing lost, Peruke-makers' petition 1763, Sir William Davenant, original docquet to Mr. Cole for globe lamps, Act for improving London 1760, Notice from Commissioners for paving,—AND, LASTLY, PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS.

My words in the Introduction are: "It gives me pleasure to acknowledge I have been indebted to my worthy friend Mr. Nichols for the inspection of his matchless collection of periodical publications, from which great part of my materials have been selected." Whether they were the sole sources of my Anecdotes let the above list of authorities testify, which the reader may verify by turning over the following pages. If the Reviewer has read this work, I charge him on his conscience to say why he asserts my information depends wholly upon lying newspapers, &c. Where, alas! has the "full spirit of moral honesty" evaporated which he so calmly professes?

Two sentences more, and I have done with the Anti-Jacobin. I am treated with the utmost superciliousness for attempting to prove that many male and female figures are to be found in London equal to the celebrated statues of the Venus de Medicis and the Apollo Belvidere, which were alluded to by the words Grecian Apollos and Venuses.—What, am I to be told that my powers of discrimination "are far above par," because I assert the British human form is equal to the conceptions of the antient Grecians? This "Grey-beard," as he calls himself, must have studied the Arts in a Mercantile way indeed, or he would have pronounced my powers were below par in saying they were only equal, as, upon a moment's consideration, I am convinced there are hundreds of persons in London whose forms in general, and the swells of their muscles, as far surpass the statues in question, excellent as they may be, as the works of God ever did and ever must exceed those of man. Indeed, the best Artists invariably acknowledge with humility and regret how very inferior their works are to the common productions of Nature. Then how extremely ridiculous are these words of the Reviewer: "That the Metropolis can furnish many beautiful figures both male and female, from the millions of its inhabitants, we readily allow; but that perfection of form and character which characterises an Apollo and a Venus, has but few, very few resemblances." I am almost tempted to say the latter part of this paragraph is impious: The most complicated, wonderful, and beautiful specimen of the powers of the Creator, exceeded by the works of the created; nay, so far exceeded as to leave but few even of resemblances!!! Has the Reviewer read that indefatigable and accurate author Keysler? Hear what he says of the Venus de Medicis, after paying it the just tribute due to superior excellence: "The head is by most Connoisseurs considered as too small in proportion to the rest of the body, particularly the hips; some censure the nose as too large; and possibly the furrow along the vertebrÆ of the back is something too deep, especially as the object represents a soft plump female; and both the bend of the arms and inclination of the body jointly conspire to lessen the depth of this furrow, if not totally to obliterate it. The fingers are remarkably long, and all, except the little finger of the left hand, destitute of joints; but this should not affect the reputation of the Artist, as it is sufficiently evident, that the hands had not received his last touches." It has often been asserted that the English Jacobin cordially hates his own countrymen, and endeavours to exalt the perfections of their enemies: the above fact seems to prove decidedly that an Anti-Jacobin treats an author with contempt, because he wished to say the truth of the Reviewer's countrymen. If the reverse was the case, and the British form was less perfect, I ought to have escaped censure merely for my amor patriÆ.

It was to deprecate such criticism as the preceding, which I expected, through the experience of others, that I prescribed an Antidote in the Preface of the first edition.

And now I shall leave these two wise Reviewers "to chew the cud in their own way," according to the elegant expression of the Anti-Jacobin.

The Eclectic Review, in noticing this work, has confined itself to such observations as were highly proper, supposing the volume intended to form a complete history of the century. I have already explained the reasons why I offered it to the publick as it appeared, and shall not therefore repeat them; but I cannot avoid adding, I feel myself indebted for the offered suggestions, though they were anticipated. When gentlemanly reproof is tempered with praise, he must be an arrogant and presumptuous writer indeed who feels offended at the recital of his real or supposed errors. I shall give some commendatory extracts, and the Reviewer will permit me to refute one of his suppositions.

"We certainly approve Mr. M's choice of a subject; and highly should we have congratulated ourselves if collectors of equal diligence had performed the same task for the 17th and many preceding centuries which he has undertaken for the last."—"Mr. M. with equal modesty and prudence, intitles his volume Anecdotes."—"It presents some of the principal features of the times, and will afford amusement and knowledge to the present generation, and still more to future generations, who cannot by recollection compare the portrait with the original."—"Whoever desires to form a just estimate of the manners of the English in the 18th century will derive great assistance from Mr. M's collections."

After what has been said, I am sorry to be obliged to censure any part of this Review of my Anecdotes. Speaking of my prints of Dress, the Reviewer says, I should have consulted several works which he has named, particularly Hogarth's labours, or family pictures, and adds: "We are very much afraid Mr. M's prints on this subject have been made up memoriter." The above sentence must be considered by every impartial person as perfectly unjustifiable, and insulting to my moral character. This instance sufficiently proves that I am personally unknown to the Reviewer, or he would also have known deceit and baseness form no part of my composition. It now remains for me to give my authorities for the sketches of dress, which are full as authentic as any the Reviewer has mentioned; and to his surprize and regret he will learn that the very Hogarth he blames me for neglecting is one of them.

Dress 1690-1715, is from a print published immediately after the coronation of William and Mary representing that event, offered to the world by one of the Heralds at Arms. Dress 1721 is from a wooden cut in a newspaper exhibiting the young beau of the day. Dress 1735 is three figures grouped from Hogarth's plates. Dress 1738 is the old maid in Covent-garden from Hogarth, the position of the figure altered. Dress 1745 from Hogarth, the attitudes different. Dress 1752, attitudes altered from a large print of Vauxhall-gardens. Dress 1766 from Rooker's view of Covent-garden Church. Dress 1773 from a Mezzotinto, figures altered. Dress 1779 the hint taken from Miss Burney's Evelina. Dress 1785 from a large Aquatinta of the interior of the Pantheon, Oxford-street, figures newly grouped. The two last the Reviewer knows to be correct.—In concluding this subject, I cannot do better than quote the words of the Reviewer of my work in the European Magazine for June 1808. Speaking of the Anecdotes of Dress, he could not omit noticing "a Chapter" that "has in a manner fixed these fleeting meteors of public absurdity, by a series of prints, that at once serve as embellishments and elucidations of the work."—"These prints we really wish our readers could see, because they are, in many instances, extremely curious, and also because, on subjects of this nature, an artist with a few strokes of his pencil can convey ideas in a much stronger manner to the mind than an author in pages of laboured description."

As I have candidly given the reader all that the preceding Reviewers have said against me, he will indulge me in adding a few words from those who praise me. Were all Reviews formed on the liberal plan which distinguishes the article concerning my Anecdotes in the European Magazine, every author must be gratified with the prospect of having his work fairly analysed, and receiving explanatory notices for a future edition, and rejoice that Reviews are published. In proceeding through the contents of my book this worthy critic has given explanations of such passages as his knowledge of London enabled him to illustrate, which I have inserted in the form of notes in their proper places in the present edition; and in this pursuit he has, to his great credit, never once indulged in captious exceptions against particular sentences, or spoken of every thing omitted and nothing inserted. The conclusion is extremely grateful to my feelings: "When we consider the labour which Mr. M. must have undergone in collecting such a variety of materials from such a number of volumes, pamphlets, and papers, as he must have perused (some of which are no longer accessible but to the curious) we are of opinion that he deserves great praise for his industry. As a body of information respecting the morals, the manners, the foibles, and follies of our ancestors, we think this work very useful; as a book of reference, still more so. As an amusement, therefore, to the idle, and an assistant to the industrious readers, we unequivocally recommend it to the publick."

It may, perhaps, be said this praise is venal; on the contrary, I most solemnly declare I know neither my bitter Censors nor my Panegyrists. As some other Reviews have praised the work, I shall refer the reader to the Gentleman's Magazine, the Annual Review, &c.

J. P. Malcolm.

May 1809.

FOOTNOTES:

[viii:A] Murray's Life of Bruce, p. 281.