An Essay on the Nature and Method of afcertaining the fpecifick Shares of Proprietors, upon the Inclosure of Common Fields. With Obfervations upon the Inconveniences of Open Fields, and upon the Objections to their Inclofure, particularly as far as they relate to the Public and the Poor. 8vo. Is. 6d. T. Payne.

IN

N this age, abounding with inclofures, the Writer of this pamphlet thinks it cannot be uninteresting, either to individuals, or the public, to canvafs the principles upon which the determinations of commiffioners are ufually founded: and if what he has offered, upon a fubject entirely new, may be conducive to the better difcharge of this bufinefs, he flatters himself that his labour will not appear ufelefs.

After a general idea of the nature of open fields, and the inconveniences attending them, the Author confiders the objections usually made against inclosures.

Obj. 1. Inclofures are faid to diminish the number of inhabitants, and occafion a national depopulation.-To this he replies, that the money expended about inclofutes, and the repair of roads, prevents any remarkable decrease of inhabitants; and though fome decrease should be allowed to have followed, yet the increase in many trading towns has, within a fhort fpace of time, been prodigious fo that whatever depopulation has happened, muft have been merely local, and not national. For there is a natural tranfition of the youth of villages, where agriculture is leffened, into places of trade, where our naval fuperiority will furnish fources of perpetual employment.

Obj. 2. Inclofures convert tillage land into pasture, and thereby leffen the quantity of corn.The first part of this objection is allowed, but the latter denied :-and feveral plaufible reafons alledged in fupport of the denial.

Obj. 3. Inclofures deprive the poor of several privileges, heretofore enjoyed by them; and alfo of their labour, which is the means of their fubfiftence. As to their privileges, (though perhaps built chiefly upon indulgence or connivance) our Author advises the proprietors to make a fmall facrifice to humanity, by giving the poor a trifling fhare of property, in lieu of those privileges which they must no longer enjoy.-[This we have known fometimes done, and could wifh to Tee it provided for in every act of parliament, paffed upon fuch occafions; and then the strongest objection against inclofures would be entirely removed at once.]

As to the diminution of labour, he feems to think it not quite fo evident, as commonly imagined; and alledges the advance of wages as a proof of his opinion.

Obj: 4. Inclofures render a country lefs commodious both for travelling and sporting.-The latter part of this allegation he does not undertake to answer, as thinking it infignificant, when fet in competition with the right of improvement, which every proREV. May, 1766. prietor

Bb

prietor has over his own eftate: but as good roads are of public utility, the law will compel the repair of them. He wishes, however, that fome new regulations, in that respect, were introduced into every bill of inclosure; and points out several very judicious ones.

Another material objection, though not mentioned by our Author, is that inclosures diminish the number of fheep ufually kept upon heaths and commons; or at leaft introduce a larger breed, whofe wool (being of a longer ftaple) is not fo proper for the manufacture of English broad cloth.-If this objection has any real foundation, it certainly merits fome regard, in a commercial view.

With refpect to the advantages refulting from inclosures, this Writer refers for fatisfaction, upon that point, to a pamphlet published in the year 1723, entitled, Propofals for the Improvement of Common and Waffe Lands:-and contents himself with just remarking, that-whatever is a fource of greater wealth to individuals, muft alfo add to the riches of the public;-that whatever enlarges the quantity of provifions, &c. must contribute to the better fubfiftence of the inhabitants of any country, and confequently to augment their number;-that the fewer hands are wanted for the occupation of land, the more will be to be had for the enlargement of manufacture, commerce, and navigation: and all thefe advantages (he thinks) either directly or confequentially flow from inclosures.

The remainder of the pamphlet is chiefly taken up in offering a variety of hints proper to be obferved by the commiffioners, and others concerned, in allotting the specific shares of proprietors, upon an inclofure; and afcertaining the comparative value of lands and tythes. What he advances upon thefe points, well deferves the attention of all perfons more immediately interested therein; as the Author appears to have treated his fubject with great accuracy and precifion :-allowance being made for a few provincial expreffions, fuch as balks, leys, hades, open-tide, &c. which, however, are fufficiently common to be understood, in the midland counties, which he feems to have more peculiarly in his view. Miis hast was written

Ne rev. M? Homer, of Birding bury in waswier

Remarks on Dr. Lowth's Letter to the Bishop of Gloucefter. With the Bishop's Appendix, and the fecond epiftolary Correspondence between his Lordship and the Doctor, annexed. 8vo. Is. 6d. Davis and Reymers.

HESE Remarks, which are generally fuppofed to be written by the CANDID EXAMINER, are introduced with

▾ Vid. Free and Candid Examination of the Bp. of London's [Sherlock':] Sermons: fee Rev, Vol. XX. p. 114.

the

the following fhort preface. If (amidst the ribaldry of these times, when the public tafte feems capable of being gratified by nothing but abufe, whether in literary or political debates) a little fair reafoning may be heard, the following fheets, which only aim at vindicating the principle of toleration against an Oxford doctor, will have fome claim to the Reader's attention; if for nothing elfe, yet for this, that it may poffibly produce another letter from the Doctor, well feafoned, like the firft, to the public taste.'

What meckness and modefty appears in this learned Author at his first fetting out! Surely, the Reader will be apt to say, this is not the language of the Warburtonian school! Do not, however, determine too haftily: It must be owned, continues he, that the confutation of a man's principles, especially if accompanied with any degree of raillery, is enough to put him out of humour. But fuch a one would do well to have reafon in his rage; and, when he anfwers, to diftinguish between the abuse of an adverfary's writings and of his perfon. Had the doctor been either fo wife or fo honeft, as to have done this, he had not been troubled with these sheets: which yet (with all the right of retaliation) are confined folely to his argument.-To conclude. As keen and fatirical as the doctor reprefents the bifhop to have been in his controverfial writings, in which he was only on the defenfive against aggreffors like the doctor, yet he never left the argument to fall upon the moral character of any man, not even within the limits and bounds of truth; much lefs did he ever, like one enraged, attack it with atrocious falfhoods, as the doctor hath done: for which, at a proper time, he may be brought to account.'

What now, gentle Reader, thinkeft thou of this humble inoffenfive Writer, this fair reafoner, this enemy to ribaldry and abuse?—But he proceeds:

Before I enter on the argument, it may be expedient that the reader fhould know what high injury it was, which provoked Dr. Lowth to all his Billingsgate against the author of the Divine Legation.The offence given by his lordship is an Appendix, repelling Dr. Lowth's attack upon him; which therefore I fhall give in his lordship's own words at large.'

After copying the bishop's Appendix, the Remarker goes on thus: Thefe are the words of the Appendix*, as they are found at the end of the fifth volume of the Divine Legation. Let the reader judge of the reproof, by the provocation; and then compare both with the doctor's libellous letter to his lordship.My part fhall be to pick up as carefully as I can, from under

*The particulars here referred to, are to be found in our Review for September last.

Bb 2

his

his opprobrious and ribauld language, the little of argument fo be found; and give it a fair and impartial examination.

The two points, to which I fhall at prefent confine myself, are the punishment of idolatry by the patriarchs; and the punishment of children for the fins of their parents.

In handling the firft, I shall begin with the article of moft confequence; To convict the doctor of arguing on the principles of intolerance, and fhew that his complaints of being falsly and injuriously accufed on this head, are groundless and impertinent. I fhall then confider the arguments he brings, to prove that the patriarchs were impowered to punifh idolatry; and detect and expofe the fophiftry, by which he has endeavoured to load and blacken the system of his learned adverfary, and to hide and palliate the nakednefs and deformity of his own. Laftly, I fhall examine his objection to the bishop's defence of the Jewish laws in punishing idolaters with death; and fhew his inability to vindicate this part of the Mofaic conftitution, without having recourfe to the principle of the theocracy.'

To such of our Readers as are acquainted with the character and writings of Dr. Lowth, which we cannot fuppofe to be a minority of them, the profeffed defign of thefe Remarks muft certainly appear fomewhat extraordinary; the attempt being nothing less than to prove the doctor an advocate for perfecution and intolerance! The zeal of the learned Bishop of Gloucester, and of his difciples, to vindicate the juft and generous principle of toleration, is, no doubt, highly commendable; but their undertaking to vindicate this principle against Dr. L. feems an effort as needlefs as it would be to fet about proving Locke a philofopher, or Tillotson a Chriftian.-We fhall, therefore, Ipare ourselves the trouble of reciting the particulars of fo ftrange a charge against the worthy profeffor; and proceed to the supplemental part of this publication: viz.

The fecond part of an epiftol.ry correspondence between the Bishop of Gloucefler and the late Profeffor of Oxford, without an imprimatur, i.e. without a cover to the violated laws of honour and fociety.-This Correfpondence the Author of the Remarks tells us, he has the bifhop's leave to annex. It fhews, fays he, by the unerring evidence of dates, that the doctor was the aggreffor, and began the quarrel. With what fpirit he began it, appears from his infolent and injurious comparison to Father Harduin. Yet this grofs and glaring indignity extorted nothing more from his lordhip than a little raillery. He preferred this gentler mark of fenfibility to ferious expoftulation, when he was expofing arguments that tended to establish intolerance and civil flavery. Serions expoftulation might have had confequences, which the bishop is the laft man to countenance or approve.'

We

We have seen a printed copy of this Correfpondence, with Notes and Remarks by Dr. Lowth. As, in all probability, it will never be published, our Readers, we are perfuaded, will be pleased with fome extracts from it.-The title is-The fecond part of a literary correfpondence, between the Bishop of Gloucester and a late profeffor of Oxford: accurately printed from an authentic copy. To which are added, the notes of the firft editor; with notes upon netes and remarks on the letters.

The Bishop of Gloucester and his friends exclaim loudly against Dr. Lowth, and charge him with a grofs violation of the most respected laws of fociety, in publishing his lordship's private letters, without his knowledge or confent.

If the publication of letters, fays Dr. Lowth, concerning a mere literary difpute already become public, in vindication of the perfon to whom they were written, against an injurious attack of the writer of them, be a violation of the laws of honour and fociety; what fhall we fay of the publication of the late Dr. M.'s letters to Mr. W.? letters of a perfon, then deceased, to his friend; letters of a private and confidential nature; treating characters and perfons, both living and dead, with the utmost freedom; difclofing opinions and fentiments without referve, and fuch opinions and fentiments as have fubjected the deceased author to very fevere cenfure; in fhort, fuch letters, as neither the deceased, nor those that were most near to him, would probably by any means have fuffered to be published? By whom, and by what right, were they publifhed? Had the publisher any plea of felf-vindication, any kind of juftifiable pretence for making them public? Was it done by the direction, or the confent, of the deceased; with the permition, or even the knowledge, of his widow and executrix? Was it not managed in an underhand way, by a private dealing with the printer; inducing him to falfify the edition of the works of the deceased, by foifting in the faid letters, without proper authority; and in fuch a manper, that they muft appear to have been published by order of the deceased author himself, or that of his executrix? Till fatisfactory answers can be given to thefe queries; it is imagined we shall hear no more, upon this occafion, of the violation of the laws of honour and fociety; of morality, and the law of nature; and of the fuperlative facredness of the trust of a private Letter?

We have the following note on the word dates in the bishop's first letter to the profeffor. The conciliating letters, fays his lordship, paffed in the year 1756.-Dr. Lowth's injurious note, reflecting on the bishop, was printed in the year 1764,-and the bishop's poftfcript, in answer to it, in 1765.This is a clear

*

Biographia Britannica. Art. Middleton.
Bb3

and