To this pamphlet, a reply was written by an anonymous author, who has fince avowed the publication in his treatife on the Art of floating Land, and whofe name, by a strange coincidence is likewife Thomas Wright, fo that we have Thomas Wright verfus Thomas Wright. This anfwer the Critical Reviewers denominate a "dogmatical and illiberal attack" replete with "hauteur and perfonality;" on the contrary, we find him arguing with candour, and affigning ftrong reafons for his inferences, at the fame time that he detects the fophifms and mifreprefentations of his opponent. T. Wright, of Mark Lane, wished to form a fociety at the London Tavern, to purchase large farms, and let them out to tenants in portions of fifty acres. These objections "floatingland Wright" oppofes to fuch plan. "The small farmer, in many inftances, falls under the fame expences with the large farmer. In many inftances, he is fubject to inconveniences, which the large farmer does not experience. He is fubject to the fame expence of attending the market, if he wants to purchase only one beaft, as the large farmer who buys twenty; and having but little business there, he has more time to spend in the alehoufe; the confequence of which I need not mention. The farmer. who occupies only fifty acres, and a part of it arable, is under the neceffity of keeping a team of three or four horfes; (oxen unfortunately do not fuit him); but this number of horses is fufficient for a farm of one hundred acres. If, therefore, the farmer on fifty acres gives a full rent for his land, and labours not only under the inconvenience of an overstock of horfes, but many others, he, of courfe, becomes poor; and then what good can he do to his land, to himfelf, the proprietor, or the public? The poor farmer does every thing in fetters. He is under the neceffity of purchafing ftock, bus it must be low-priced; it must be inferior ftock, which is generally unproductive. To buy fresh feed for his land is too expenfive, and therefore he fows his own degenerated grain year after year. By this means he frequently lofes one half of his crop. When his rent day is approaching, (I grant Mr. W.) he muft then thrash out his corn, whether it is in thrashing order or not; whether he can ufe his ftraw or not; whether he neglects his other business or not; and muft fell it, whether the market wants it or not. This neceffity is one of the rotten ftones, on which Mr. W. has founded his attack on the large farmers, and on which he is about to erect his novel institution."-Pp. 6-8. One fallacy of the advocate for small farms is the fubftitution of flock for provifions in general, and he deceives the unguarded reader by confounding all stock, and reasoning as if the production of an ox or a duck were of equal confequence to the public. The "middling and poor farmer" are the objects of the attention of Mark Lane Wright, because "his I i NO. XIV. VOL. III. needs needs compel him to carry to market as foon and as often as poffible" all his produce. Such are the obfervations in this ftatement.. "This is the farmer that Mr. W. delights in, only keep him poor enough, and he will keep his land poor enough, and the little that he does produce, will generally be brought forward to deprefs a falling market, feldom to check a rifing one. This farmer will make only half as much, per acre, of his land, as the wealthy farmer. He cannot flock his land; confequently cannot be a good farmer. Therefore, if the whole kingdom was in the hands of fuch farmers, we fhould never know a permanent plenty. For let us fuppofe all the farmers in the kingdom poor, and under the neceffity of bringing their produce to market, immediately after harveft. At this time we fhould have abundance, we fhould wafte. But where should we look for a fupply at Midfummer? We should then be entirely in the power of merchants and importers, whom we fhould find equally "hardhearted" with "the monopolizing farmer." The advocate for large farms thus concludes his reply: "Mr. W. talks much of the industry of the little farmers, but for this talent they are not remarkably confpicuous. I have seen them 'much more ftrongly attached to the chinney-corner, than the large farmer, who, though he does not join in the manual part of hufbardry, yet takes care that others labour, and does not let flip times and feafons. I know feveral parishes in different counties, the greater parts of which are in farms of between forty and a hundred acres ; and thefe farmers though in general they keep four, fome five horfes (enough to devour half the produce of their land) are almost always late and flovenly, feldom catch the critical feafon of either ploughing or fowing, on which almoft every thing depends. And in harvett the fall farmer is very unfortunately fituated for the large farmer has the command of all the labourers, because he employs them in the winter. "Page 15, Mark Lane Wright obferves that inclofures have been injurious to the peafantry. In this, as in most other points, Mr. Wright and I are perfectly at iffue. I fay, that the ftock, now kept upon the wafte, confifts of ufelefs horfes and diminutive cattle. Thefe indeed are kept alive during fummer, but in winter bring an expence upon their owners generally equal, fometimes greater than their worth. A fmall allotment to the poor for garden-ground, will be of much more real use to them than the great privilege they now claim of turning or rather starving cattle on the waite. "Mr. W. and I are fpeaking of farming in an extended, public, national view, and on this ground, I fay, that no farm should be lefs than three hundred acres, nor more in good inclofed land than fix hundred, in poor land or part uninclofed, eight hundred acres. "I can affure Mr. W. that I am totally impartial in what I have written, that I am no farmer monopolizer or jobber, but speak from facts," facts,' as he fays he does in general' and fuch circunftances as "come within my knowledge,' and from obfervations, not of a particular district in Hertfordihire, or in the neighbourhood of the poultry-loving metropolis, but from obfervation of the beft corn counties in the kingdom, beft cultivated, and from obfervation of the poverty of the people and the country, where small pittances are portioned out to the farmer." MISCELLANIES. SIR, THE TO THE EDITOR. HE attempt to refute or convince Examiner, or any of the Friends, by dint of facts or arguments, would be as effectual as the endeavour, by flagellation, to draw blood out of a whipping poft. They are, indeed, out of the reach of argument, as flippery as eels, ever eluding its grafp. Examiner may well fay, that fuch and fuch paffages are not to be found in his books, and for a very good reafon, becaufe thofe and others have been left out purpofely, or moft materially altered. The real fact is, that there are not ninety-nine out of a hundred Quakers have ever feen the originals. Leflie I never faw till I fent my last letter, fo that what was adduced there could not be derived from him. Examiner thinks that no one has the original papers and writings of George Fox, &c. except the members of his fraternity, and points out to your correspondents, the best clue to originals edited by themselves, which, by the by, is the fame as, in the old adage, to "afk my mother whether I am a thief.” With fuch men it would be lofs of time to enter into argument. Ifhall only inform you, Sir, that there is no affinity betwixt the writings of the old fchool of quakery and the modern one, except in the feniclefs cant. With regard to abufe, Examiner does not feem to understand the term. To call perfons names, unappropriated to their character, or paint them in fuch colours as do not belong to their complexion, I conceive to be abufe. To call Buonaparte, Taleyrand-Perigord, &c. honest men, would be to abuse them, but not fo to call Arthur O'Connor, Dr. M Nevin, &c. traitors, or Mahomet, George Fox, &c. impoftors and blafphemers. But this is all out of the question; I infilt upon it, that G. Fox was an abettor of war. If the modern quakers follow his opinions, they muft allow of war, or they depart fo far from the principle of their firft founder, whom they deem infpired, and confequently infallible. But, to have done with their nonfenfe, I again affert that, any perfon refufing to contribute to the defence of his country, is not entitled to its protection, and it would be no perfe cution, but (a very juft fuffering for him,) to oblige him to come foraward in one way or another. I am I am exceedingly pleafed to fee that your excellent Review is fpreading far and wide. The Jacobin Reviews are finking faft into the fhades of night. Permit me to fay that, I am, with heart-felt gratitude for your honourable labours, August 5, 1799. Your well-wisher, TOM COUNTERMINE. N. B. My name is Tom, a defcendant of a Mr. Countermine, whom the Diffenters of the last century knew very well. [We fuppofe our correfpondent alludes to a work published in 1677, entitled, "The COUNTERMINE; or, a fhort Difcovery of the Dangerous Principles and Secret Practices of the Diffenting Party. Shew ing that Religion is pretended, but Rebellion intended. And, in order thereto, the Foundation of MONARCHY in the STATE, and EPISCOPACY in the CHURCH, are undermined."-EDITOR.] SIR, TO THE EDITOR. ERCEIVING that you admit into your repofitory, papers on PERCEIVING that you ading, in particular, obferved of laft number, fome extracts from a fermon fent by a correfpondent, figning himself Fatidicus I am encouraged to hope that you will not deny a place to a few remarks on a fubject nearly connected with that, on which Fatidicus has written. Among the numerous departures from the opinions of our anceftors, prevalent in the prefent day, it seems to be a very encreafing one, that the papal is not the anti-chriftian power predicted in the apocalypfe. Not only writers, who appear to endeavour to thake the foundations of chriftianity, affect to treat the ancient opinion on this head, as groundlefs, but men of unfeigned faith and confiderable attainments, hefitate not to maintain interpretations contradictory of it. But the author, with whofe denial of it I am most ftricken, becaufe his authority, from his learning, ability, and zealous defence of fome of the most important doctrines of the church, carries with it fo great weight, is the Bishop of Rochefter, who, in his Letter to Mr. King, affirms, that Anti-Chrift in his laft ftate, will be neither papilt nor proteftant, adorer of the living God, nor worthipper of idols. (I do not exactly quote the learned prelates words, as I have not his work by me, but fuch is the true purport of them.) Now, Sir, fhould this opinion be so far falfe, that the papal power is, and will to the end, (though undergoing, as it already has done, much alteration in doctrines and tenets,) continue the Anti-Chrift fpoken of in the revelation, of what pernicious confequences will be the prevalence of a nation, that the ideas which proteftants have hitherto been taught to entertain, on this point are groundlefs! With how great advantage may the adherents of the papacy come forward, and urge that the opponents of Rome having now given up one of their heaviest and most favourite charge, it may be prefumed that their others are no be ter founded, and ought to be again reviewed with great caution; and if they get any unwary and ill-informed proteftants to enter on fuch a review with them, how eafy will crafty priefts, verfed in controversy, triumph over plain chriftians unaccustomed to the detection of fophistry! And thus will be forwarded that very advancement of the papal power of which we are told, from fo many pens, we need be in no dread. While there are not wanting other fymptoms of its recovering its former vigour, vifible to every eye which steadily contemplates the prefent ftate of things. Here in England, through that want of zeal for the truth, that indifference which falfely affumes the name of liberality of mind, a door has been thrown open, of which the Papiíts have not failed to make an important ufe. Schools are opened in various parts of the kingdom, nunneries established, and even the habit of the profeffed worn, and, under the foftering hand of noble patronage, the errors of Popery are diffeminated among the poor and the ignorant. Abroad the fyftem of politics will lead naturally, as it were, to the re-establishment of that which was a potent inftrument of abfolute government; and the very horror of a renewal of democratic miferies lead the powers of the continent to favour the recovery of superRition and monkith influence; while, if it be true, that the revival of the Jefuits is in contemplation, the restoration of the avowed partizans of the papal empire muft contribute to the advancement of it. But to come to the ground on which I venture to controvert the opinion fupported by learning fo deep, and abilities fo eminent. It is not merely on the authority of abilities equally great, and learning no lefs profound, that of all our leading divines for two centuries, that I prefume to doubt the venerable prelate's affertion, but on that of the Apocalypfe itself. We are all, I conceive, agreed, that the power which, it is faid, fhall fo far carry its triumph over the gospel as to destroy the two witneffes, is that to which the title of Anti-Chrift is particularly appropriate. Now this, in ver. 7, chap. xi, of the Revelation, is declared to be "the beat that afcendeth out of the bottomlefs pit;" a characteristic not before mentioned in the courfe of the Vifion, but afterwards in ver. 8, chap. xvii, it is applied to that beaft which is reprefented as carrying that great city, which, at the time of the Vifion, reigned over the kings of the earth; and which, in ver. 12, of that chapter, we are informed was to receive power one hour with the ten kings, among whom the Roman Empire was (by Dan. vii. 24.) to be divided. But of what ftate has Rome the city that then reigned over the earth, been the capital fince the fall of the Roman Empire, and its divifion into fo many different kingdoms, but the Papal? the beaft, therefore, reprefented as carrying Rome, muft be the Papal power; but this is the beaft characterized as rifing out of the bottomlefs pit; and the beaft fo characterized is declared to be that which fhall deftroy the two witnelles; and, therefore, that which Ii3 hall |