To date, there are two fully published reviews for Harriet, or, The Innocent Adultress. The earliest example of critical reception can be seen in Vol. 44 of the Monthly Review, or, Literary Journal, dated for May 1771. Editor Ralph Griffiths received the story warmly, and heaped particular praise towards the anonymous author for exercising a certain conviction in portraying the eponymous protagonist as consistently innocent despite the narrative circumstances, as for the time it remained a stark contrast to textually similar works that would’ve otherwise, strongly condemned a person of her standing for defying the expectations placed on women to conform towards a more passive, domesticated role as understood by the social norms of this period in time. The review describes the author as “sprightly” in his perspective on this otherwise dour situation that should be approached with a more cautious and tempered tone. Griffiths believed that his stark viewpoint on narratives around womanly autonomy and the unjust expectations placed on them to remain obedient to absent husbands, entitled him to some approbation. Despite potentially being at odds with the ideologies concerning female conduct at this time, the review goes as far to even posit a question towards those reading their thoughts on the narrative, asking them to consider whether they would commend such a work that apologizes profusely for a form of crime that especially doesn’t need to be encouraged among “certain ranks of life.” 

A subsequent review of The Innocent Adultress appeared in the pages of Vol. 31 for The Critical Review, or, The Annals of Literature, dated for June 1771. Editor Tobias George Smollett appears to align with Griffiths’ perspective on the novel, commending it highly for offering a nuanced and more sympathetic viewpoint on the situation faced by Harriet in pursuing an affair and feigning commitment to Lord Fillemore, putting the context of lackluster evidence and weighed circumstances over the exercising of any particular narrative that could color her intentions as vagrant. It heaps specific praise at the author’s ability to encourage the prescription of unequivocal proof of wrongdoing in a criminal trial of this nature, prioritizing it over simply condemning the verdict ascribed to Harriet for such an act. Smollett’s opinion on the novel does appear to deviate somewhat from the acclamation given in Ralph Griffiths’ piece for Monthly Review, as the editor still commits to opposing the author’s implied partiality to women facing such a crucial conviction in trials similar to those faced by Harriet, implicitly seeing this bias as a negative of the story that comes at the expense of fully fleshing out or developing any other point of view in this complicated scenario, in favor of creating a situation so specific in nature as to garner sympathy for Harriet’s predicament from readers.