fined withing the exceeding narrow compass of only two volumes; others will deem it a defertion of my tenets; and what a curious mode of inference is this! my neither having time nor inclination to read the exceeding narrow compafs of every two volumes that any oppofer of my principles may refer me to, because he has not at hand arguments himself to refute them-if any, with yourfelf, can deem this a desertion of tenet, I muft beg leave to defert all argument with fuch as being deferted by their reafon. The remaining part of the paragraph relating to Dr. Kenrick, not being at all to our purpofe, I think worthy of no other anfwer, than to confefs my furprise at your fuffering matter fo foreign to our difpute, to creep into your epiftles,-unless any thing ferves with you to fill up a barren page. As it may serve however to leffen ufurprife, I will fo far inform you that Dr. Kenrick and myfelt had other avocations to attend, befide entering into the labyrinth of religious difquifitions. "I am forry that the applaufe and pleasure with which you confess to have read my fourth paragraph, had no other effect, than to mislead your judgement. I would attempt to fhew the fallacy of pretending to believe what is in itfelf incomprehenfible*, if it would not lead us into another field of argument before we have properly acquitted ourfelves in the prefent. You are at liberty to make what proper ufe you please, in your anfwers, of what I have faid before on fcripture reference. "As you do not yet understand what I mean by felf-inspired, it may be proper to endeavour to elucidate a matter that, hitherto, you either cannot or will not comprehend. Self inspired may be applied to two forts of perfons. The one, they who are a fufficient hypocrite in principle, and fufficiently prefuming in practice, to affect an infp ration, the better to imprefs the minds of a deluded people with a reverence for their perfons, and a faith of their irreligious doctrines. The other are they, who, from a weakness of intellect, and enthufiafm of temper, do not hypocritically-but really, though vainly imagine themfelves infpired. Now, Sir, I believe you understand what I mean by felf-inspired. "I know not why you fhould fuppofe my patience was exhaufted-waiting for your anfwers; except it were, from the many uninterefting letters having already paffed between us, my feeing an addition to them likely to intrude not on my patience, namely, but on that of our Editor and thofe of our readers. I am, Sir, Your most obedient Servant, W." "Mr. Anderson begs leave to offer his compliments to the writer of the criticism on "The enquiry into the caufes that have retarded the advancement of agriculture in Europe." [London Re * We know that God exifts; but to believe the manner, Sir, is impoffible. view for November laft.] He had not an opportunity of seeing that Review till very lately, which is the reafon he did not fooner pay his refpects to the writer of that article. Nor would he now have done himself that honour, had it not been to refute a ca lumny that is equally unjust and injurious. He therefore relies on the juftice of the Authors of the London Review, for inferting the following remarks in the next number of that work. "The Reviewer, in the article above alluded to, has been pleafed to hold up to the public, The Enquiry, &c." as a plagiariftAs a book in which Mr. A. has taken "Many unac knowledged liberties with the publications of Mr. Ma.fbal." think it proper," says he, "to apprize our readers, that the publication before us is evidently a feion from that recently raised flock." ... We "Few men entertain more refpect for the abilities of Mr. Marfhal, than the writer of this card. He confiders him as a fellow. labourer in the fame ufefui field with himfelf; a field so very extenfive, that there is room enough in it, not only for themselves, but for many fuch to exert their utmost abilties, without interfering with each others province. He is therefore happy to find fuch a useful coadjutor as Mr. M. and is glad to embrace this public opportunity of doing juftice to his talents, and fhall be on all occations ready to forward his purtuits to the utmost of his power. While he thus endeavours to do juftice to Mr. M. he hardly thinks it neceflary to apprife any reader who has perused 'with a moderate degree of attention his own performances, and thofe of Mr. M. that the authors of thefe performances view things ..in a very different light, and differ much in opinion in many im-portant particulars. The leading characters in the works of these two writers, are indeed fo extremely diffimilar, that it was not without fome degree of aftoaif:ment Mr. A. read the charge as - above fet forth. And if the reviewers will take the trouble to compare the work now under confideration with the other writings of Mr. A. that were published several years ago, they will find that his manner of thinking in the laft, is as confonant with that of his former publications, as it is diffimilar to that of Mr. M. This, if no other argument could be adduced, would be a fufficient refutation of the charge. "It happens. however, that the work which the Reviewer has politely denominated a scion, from one that was published in the year 1778 (if I mistake not, Mr. M's. first book on agriculture was then publifhed) was written in a very remote part of the country, as early as 1776, and was perufed very foon after it was written by fome perions in London, to whom it was then fent, who will fatisfy any of the Reviewers as to this particular, if they fhall think it worth while to call for that purpose. Mr. Marthal began to practife agriculture only about that period, fo that if there had been any fimilarity between the two works in question, it would appear much more probable, that he had accidentally seen that Mr. S. had borrowed his ideas from thence than the reverse. But of fuch plagiarifm, Mr. A. for the reafons above given, moft rea dily declares him innocent, nor has he fuch a mean opinion of the ingenuity of Mr. M. as to believe that he would have been capable of taking any unacknowledged freedoms of that kind. Even if the coincidence of their ideas had been very remarkable he, should not have thought himself authorised without very strong proofs to have drawn tuch an injurious inference; for there is furely no impoffibility in two perfons who confider the fame subject with attention, making obfervations fomewhat fimilar, altho' the probability is that they will be in many refpects diffimilar, where the fubject is not fully known. Mr. A. further begs leave to inform the Reviewer, that his work was published at Edinburgh, in January 1779; immediately before which publication, the copy of Mr. Marthal's first book had fallen into his hands, which induced him to add a note (note г, p. 66) recommending that book for one peculiar excellence, which diftinguishes it from all others. This he believes is the only paffage in his book that was either added or altered in confequence of the perufal of that work. Were it not for taking up too much of your room, several other paffages in that Review fhould be here animadverted upon ;but as this would be very little interesting to readers who have no concern in the matter, in compliment to them it is proper to decline it; which Mr. A. does with the lefs reluctance, that he does not feel himself hurt by thefe criticifms. Nothing is more eafy than to give an appearance of abfurdity to propofitions that require much modification, or many illuftrations to render them intelligible. It is but to ftate the propofitions in a ludicrous manner, and take no notice of the modifying expreffions, or keep the illuf trations out of fight. Poffibly fome Reviewers may think it more neceffary to entertain their readers with droll and ludicrous remarks, than to inform their understanding. If this is fo, the most innocent plan for enjoying this amufement, is, to felcet fuch authors for the purpofes as are leaft in danger of being hurt by these witticifms. "For one particular remark, however, Mr. A. finds himself under particular obligations to the Reviewer, to whom on that account he begs leave to return his grateful thanks. In conformity to a common though reprehenfible nomen quendi, he has inadvertently made ufe of the phrafe infinitely diverfified, to denote a diverfity fo great, as that we have not yet been able to form any idea of its extent. This phrafe efcaped him and his friends, but has been properly ftigmatized by the Reviewers. He confeffes it is unphilofophical and improper, and will therefore avoid it in any future edition of that work. "When he has stated this particular, Mr. A. thinks he has difcharged his duty to the Reviewer. He has no pleasure in squabbling or befputtering others. This work is now in the hands of the public, and to the work alone he refers for an answer to all the other criticisms upon it." May 9th, 1780. "The "The Authors of the London Review are never more happy, than when they have an opportunity of evincing their candour; and are always ready to infert the liberal replies of Authors, whose works they have spoken to. We fhould, indeed, have printed Mr. Anderfon's card with peculiar pleasure, had it not been in fome degree illiberalifed by two or three harth and ill-applied expreffions. We can however, readily forgive them, as coming from a man whose feelings we are happy to find are of the more delicate tone; and should we have the honour of reviewing any future work of this grave and fenfible author, we promife to avail ourselves of our three-tailed wigs, and fit in judgement with a becoming folemnity. "On referring to our Regifter of Advertisements, we find that Mr. Marshall's first book was advertised,-that is to say published, -in May 1778. His fecond in May 1779. And Mr. Anderfon's Inquiry, &c. (in the London papers at leaft) not until September 1779. Mr. A's book confifts of only nine fheets; it might therefore, for any thing the public could poffibly know to the contrary, have been printed,-nay, wholly written, after the publication even of Mr. M's. laft book; and whoever will compare the first and fecond pages of Mr. A's Preface with the first note of Mr. M's minutes; and the introductory part of the enquiry itself with various paffages in the digeft of the minutes, will not only find the ideas; but, notwithstanding the great difparity in the ordinary stiles of these two writers, will fee them conveyed in fimilar language. If however, Mr. A's book was wholly written (except not 1. p. 66.) in 1776, we can only fay that men who study the fame fame fubject, may think and write very much alike; and that we congratulate the public on their having two men, who in oppofite extremes of the island, feem equally ftudious to ferve We will venture to flatter ourselves at the fame time that through their united efforts, we fhall fee agriculture brought to the test of rational principles, and that it will no longer be fubject to the mifreprefentations of ignorant, fuperficial or defigning writers. Mr. Marthall, we are informed, is now offering to the public a plan, which bids fair to answer this defireable end, and which is probably alluded to in the above card. We fhall think ourselves obliged to Mr. M. or any of our readers for a copy of it; as we wish with Mr. Anderfon, "To forward Mr. Marshall's purfuits to the utmost of our power." them. Encyclopedia Poetique, &c. Encyclopedia Poetica, or a compleat Collection of the most approved Fugitive Pieces on every poffible Subject. Paris 1780. If our readers can receive as much entertainment, as we muft own we have derived from the perufal of this truly pleafing and entertaining medley, which is the third volume of a collection made with equal tafte and difcernment, they can not but be pleased with the following extract. Whenever a French poet does not attempt to foar above the circumfcribed sphere which the weak expreffion of his language feem to have descried for him; when he does not in his native pride try to emulate the Pindaric ftrain, or the ShakeSpearian fublimity; we readily acknowledge that he may claim a great fhare of merit, and are ready to do him all the juftice he deserves. Among the pleafing trifles contained in the collection, we have thought the following lines addreffed to Beauty, worthy of a place in our review. They are the production of the Abbé now Cardinal de Bernis. VOL. XII. "Quel fpectacle s'offre à ma vue? Mon |