"Pluto's dire abodes."

Some readers may not know who or what these Mohocks were. To them it may be proper to state, that, about the beginning of last century, a host of ruffians in London, some of them of the most respectable families, associated under this title, and used to sally out into the streets after dark, cutting, maiming, and disfiguring every, man they met with, and exposing the women in the most scandalous and indecent manner. And all this barbarity was perpetrated, good heavens for mere amusement! What! cut a man's nose or ears off for amusement! Can it be possible? exclaims the reader. It is unfortunately not only possible, but absolutely and awfully certain. They were, at length, but with considerable difficulty, extirpated by the police.

How infinite the diversity of man! On one side you see a M'Intosh, approaching to the nature of the Divinity; while on the other you discover a Mohock, bearing the unerring stamp of all the horrible features of the infernal fiends.

JUGGLERS.

Some of the tricks performed by jugglers are so very extraordina ry as to baffle every attempt to solve the arcana of the performers. Tennent, in his Indian Recreations, informs us, that he saw a small child with its limbs doubled up, which was suspended in the air in a tent. He and other persons, with drawn swords, cut the air above, below, and on every side, suspecting it might be suspended in that position by twine or cords rendered invisible by art. Their attempts to cut the child down were in vain. It remained suspended in the air.

He likewise recounts another feat. A juggler, amidst a very large concourse of people, assembled to behold his performances, brought a child into an open field. He had two large baskets, under one' of which he placed the child, and the other he laid down empty at a considerable distance. After pronouncing various incantations, and making many strange gestures, he raised the baskets, and it appeared that the child had changed his position, and was under the basket which had been empty. Tennent and others made a strict examination, and ascertained that there was no subterraneous communication by which the child might have been conveyed from one basket to the other.

How shall we account for these and many similar things? Shall we ascribe them to the skill or address of the performers? They utterly ́transcend the ordinary physical powers of man. Shall we, then, admit necromancy? If we do in one case, where shall we fix its limits? I cannot reply.

VOL. II.

R

2917

SYNONIMOUS WORDS.

I have been much diverted lately with a recent work, published in 1806, and for sale in London by Vernor and Hood. It is styled “A Dictionary of synonimous words, and technical terms, in the English language, by James Leslie." Some of its explanations are of the most extravagant and pedantic kind, and exceed all the ravings of any former lexicographer. I subjoin a few.

Affectedness, cacozėlia.

Agedness, anosity.

Agitate, to bandy, to betoss, to conquassate.

Admit, to adhibit, to coincide, to homologate.

Aiming, act of collimation, or collineation.

Analysis, principiation, anastoichiasis.

Appendix, parergy.

Argument, elinch.

Astronomer, uranoscopist.

Baldness of the head, madarosis, alopecy, glabrity.

Bang, to lamm, to pommel, to sugillate, to thwack.

Bitch, a dogess.

Bustle, utis, accoil, clutter, coil, fuss, hurly burly, pudder, romage.
Clamour, to brabble, to clapperclaw.

Corpulency, polysarchy.

These are wonderfully lucid explanations, and must greatly accelerate the progress of science. A student who uses Mr. Leslie's dictionary, must make large hourly additions to his stock of knowledge. If he do not perfectly understand what " an appendix" is, on consulting this invaluable work, he finds it is "a parergy;" and with equal advantage and satisfaction he discovers that “an argument" is an elinch," and an astronomer" 66 a uranoscopist." This is luce clarius, and must encourage the inquirer after useful knowledge to dig this valuable mine with increasing assiduity.

I shall add one more example, to prove the fertility of the English language, and the very profound researches of this learned philologist, whose fame must throw that of Bailey, Barclay, Sheridan, and Walker into utter obscurity.

Beat, to pommel, to bang, to sugillate, to thwack, to trounce, to vanquish, to vapulate, to repercuss, to buffet, to curry, to firk, to fease or feaze, to lamm, to bray, to drub, to baste, to batter, to maul, to nubble, to belabour, to bump, to cane.

--

PREMATURE JUDGMENTS.

It is painful to reflect upon the almost universal propensity of mankind, to pass sentence upon their fellow mortals, on the most imperfect

foundation. We spend five minutes in a man's company, and, from his countenance, or the few words he utters, we form an opinion of him with as much confidence as if we had been acquainted with him for years. Nature may have given him a countenance unpromising and perhaps forbidding. He may perhaps be timid; perhaps he has met with a heavy loss; is low spirited or dejected; is out of temper in consequence of gross ill treatment. Perhaps his wife or his child is sick. Perhaps his friend is in distress or danger. Any of these circumstances must exhibit a man to very great disadvantage. We know them not. We never suppose any thing of the extenuating kind; but pronounce the object of our consideration to be distant and unsociable; perhaps proud and arrogant, when his heart may be writhing with torture.

I know no more frequent mistake than charging a person with distance and reserve, who is merely a martyr to the mauvaise honte.

A man has the misfortune to be purblind. He stalks through the streets, passing by his intimate friends and acquaintance unheeded, and as often, through mistake, saluting persons he has never seen before. By the one class he is probably set down as an impertinent upstart coxcomb, and by the other as a forward, presuming, obtrusive puppy. Thus a physical defect gives a totally false character of a man's moral qualities. So sagacious and correct, so benevolent and kind, are human judgments! and such is the miserable animal that pretends to infallibility in his decisions!

STAGE TRAVELLING.

As travelling in stages is carried in this country to a very great extent, and is daily increasing, every idea that has a tendency to add to its comforts or enjoyments, or diminish its irksomeness, is deserving of consideration.

Travellers in stages are too frequently distant, reserved, and unsociable. It often happens that, for miles together, there is as little use made of the tongue, as if the faculty of speech were denied, or were subject to a heavy tax. When one passenger, more disposed to sociability than his companions, makes an effort to force conversation, he is sometimes repelled, and driven for enjoyment to his own cogitations, by a cold freezing no, or yes, to his inquiries, or overtures towards an interchange of sentiment. Some travellers wrap themselves up in a cloak of dignity and importance, and appear to regard it as derogatory to their grandeur to sink down to a level with those whom accident has led to use the same vehicle with themselves. This is egregiously wrong. When decent people meet together in a stage, they ought, by common consent, to banish reserve; and not only encourage, but make every effort to maintain, a rational and interesting conversation.

In a case somewhat analogous, Sterne, in his Sentimental Journey, has given a most elegant and instructive lesson, which is worthy universal attention. It is a whole volume of the essence of politeness in a single page. And although the Journey is in almost every body's hands, I cannot avoid doing myself the pleasure of laying the case before the reader.

Sterne went to the theatre. There was no person in the box but an old French officer, who had his spectacles on, and was employed reading. As soon as our traveller sat beside him, he pulled off his spectacles, and put them and the book into his pocket. Sterne makes him soliloquize thus:

"Here's a poor stranger come into the box. He seems as if he knew nobody; and is never likely, was he to be seven years in Paris, if every man he comes near keeps his spectacles upon his nose. It is shutting the door of conversation absolutely in his face, and using him worse than a German.”

The officer then made advances, which were thankfully met by the author. To our cold, distant, repulsive stage travellers, let me address myself with a "Go, do ye likewise."

There is another error full as frequent as that I have stated. Many passengers are very prone to fastidiousness in taverns, and are disposed to find fault with every thing they have to eat, or to drink, as well as with the beds they lie on, and the whole of the treatment they receive. I have known some persons who imagined that this conduct enhanced their consequence. This is folly in the extreme. It may be almost universally observed, that those who live the most comfortably at home, are most inclined to pass over any small defects at table or elsewhere in travelling. On the contrary, those who are roughly handled by Fortune in their domestic establishment, generally take their revenge when they go abroad.

About twenty or twenty-five years since, there was a book published in London, called Francis the Philanthropist. There was one admirable chapter in it, that applies to the case before us. All the rest of the book was mere trash.

Two travellers, Grumpall and Belcour, set out from London on a tour to the continent. They meet the same people; travel in the same stages; put up at the same houses; pay the same charges; and experience the same adventures precisely: as they never separated from each other. Yet Grumpall has not one moment of enjoyment, nor Belcour one moment of unhappiness in the whole tour. There is no mystery in this. It is all perfectly natural, Grumpall was disposed to render himself miserable by his querulousness; and Belcour was resolved to enjoy as much happiness as Fortune put in his power.

Those who travel much, must meet with many Grumpalls.

It is not, however, my intention to insinuate that all the complaints of travellers partake of the Grumpallian character. By no means. There is vast room for improvement in the management of stages and of taverns. But I believe that more than one half the murmurs are without sufficient foundation.

YANKEE TRICKS.

THIS is a very significant phrase, and one in very general use. It conveys to the mind of the hearer an idea of a high degree of depravity peculiar to the people of New-England, from which their more upright brethren in the middle and southern states claim a total exemption. The latter are pure and immaculate, unstained with any thing in the slightest degree approaching to yankeeism.

Let us examine this point fearlessly. Let us ascertain, as far as we can, on what foundation the charge rests. If that be solid, let it remain unassailed, and be received without controversy. But if it rest upon a sandy and delusive basis, let it be consigned to oblivion, with other prejudices equally untenable.

National prejudices are very easily formed, and nicknames as easily applied. They are, however, eradicated with great difficulty. When once adopted, every day serves to corroborate them; because every little incident that occurs, and affords the smallest countenance to them, or will at all admit of being strained to that effect, is tortured to prop and buttress them up, right or wrong.

It is not difficult to perceive how this prejudice arose. The tide of migration has generally directed its course from New-England to the southern states, and very little from the latter to the former. The reason of this is obvious. The soil of New-England is not as luxuriant as that of some of the other states. The population is much crowded. This state of things naturally produces the effect above stated. As mankind is now, and has always been, made up of good and bad, and a pretty reasonable proportion of the latter every where, it would be wonderful if, among the hosts that swarm out of New-England, there should not be many depraved and worthless characters. Wherever these appear, they are cited as corroborations "strong as proofs from holy writ," to confirm the general character of the whole nation; and thus one or two millions of people bear an opprobrious stigma from the turpitude of a few.

The middle and southern States have never disgorged upon New England the off-scourings of their cities, nor their fugitives from justice, in any very considerable degree. If they had, buckskin tricks might in Boston, or Portsmouth, or Portland, be as proverbial, as