require 431 plows; D 31; C 2}; B 1}; and A parts of a plow. But as in every one of these cases, excepting that of the clafs F, there are fractions of plows, it follows, he contends, that there muft either be fome part of the ground not completely laboured, according to these claffes of divifions, or a greater wafte of labour must be incurred in cultivating them than if they had been divided. He then, as in clafs F, proceeds downward to the clafs E, fuppofing it to be cultivated with five plows, and tries what would be the proportions required in the claffes D, C, B, and A; all of which he again finds produce fractions as before." Then he tries D, as cultivated by four plows; and fo on downward to B; and, in like manner, he ftill finds fractions of plows inevitable. Hence he concludes, that it is more economical to have the lands divided as in the clafs F, than E; that it is more economical to have them divided as in the clafs E, than D; and fo on downward; fo that invariably the clafs A is the leaft economical of any, and F the moft fo: of courfe, he concludes, Jarge divifions of farms are invariably more profitable for the community than smaller ones.

The inference is here, feemingly, very clear and natural; but if, inftead of beginning with F, he had chofen to begin with A, and fuppofed one plow exactly fufficient for that clafs of divifions; he would then have as neceffarily found that the higher divifions B, C, D, E, and F, would all have been split into fractions, while the clafs A alone remained an entire undivided whole; of course, in that cafe, the divifions according to the class A would have been the best of any; and by proceeding upward to B, and taking it as divided without a fraction, and comparing it with thofe above it, he would have found that these alfo would have been reduced to fractions, while it remained entire; fo that, by following this mode of reafoning, the conclufion would have been directly reversed the clafs A, in this cafe, would have been the most economical of all, and F the leaft fo. The ingenious Author feems to have been fully aware of this inference, and therefore carefully guards againft bringing it under view, by avoiding to compare E, when he confiders it as laboured by an exact number of whole plows, with F, which would have produced a fraction alfo; and fo with refpect to D, C, and B; none of which he ever compares, when he confiders them as a unit, with those above them, but merely with those below them.

We are forry that our duty obliges us to take notice of this mode of reasoning, which we cannot help confidering as fomewhat difingenuous, however ingenious it may be, and as tending to mislead, instead of to inform, the well-intentioned reader. We fhall only repeat, that a man of ingenuity, by an artful choice of the abfolute numbers he has admitted into the elements of this calculation, might easily, at pleasure, make the refult, by purfuing

fuing the fame mode of reasoning, infinitely diverfified, so as to draw whatever conclufion he pleafed. Truth, however, is but one, and will, in all cafes when fully inveftigated, appear to be the fame.

·

M. Herrenschwand will perceive, that we are fo far from admitting that he has demonftrated the advantage of large divifions of land,' as he afferts, p. 111, that we do not confider him, in this fuppofed demonftration, to have faid a single word that can affect the question; and though he afterward feems to point at fome circumftances of real importance, yet it is done in fuch an indirect and indecifive manner, that it deferves no farther notice here. In fhort, we regret that he fhould have undertaken to write on a branch of the subject, which it is evident he fo little underftands, as that of agriculture, and the circumstances that ought to influence the extent of the divifions of land so as moft to benefit the manufacturing system; for thus we would, for brevity, denote that fyftem of political economy of which he here

treats.

His own native good fenfe, however, on many occafions, induces him to make juft conclufions even from fallacious premifes. In this clafs, we include his obfervations on the importance of manufactures for the encouragement of agriculture, and the neceffity of their advancing pari pafu together; as also of the effential utility of promoting the general well-being of the people, if the minifter hopes to augment the revenue of the state; both which pofitions he has illuftrated by fome ftrong and juft remarks. But he is much mistaken, if he fuppofes, as he frequently afferts, that he himself has first discovered these momentous truths. We scarcely know a perfon who has treated that fubject, who has not, more or lefs, admitted them; and we could eafily produce many paffages from modern authors which would fhew that they had admitted them, as of equal importance with what he himself afcribes to them.

It would be easy to fhew that his reafoning on the confequences of men ufing animal food, when compared with that of vegetables, is alfo carried much farther than reafon or experience will allow; but it is time to close our remarks on this performance.

On the whole, though we admire the talents of this Author, and are aftonished at his facility of moulding every fact fo as to fuit his fyftem, yet we have too long accustomed ourselves to a mathematical mode of reasoning to be able to admit his plan of demonstration as conclufive. It is poffible, however, that we have as yet too little knowlege of his fyftem to be able to judge of it with abfolute precifion. He fays himself, that hitherto he has rather endeavoured to point out the errors of others, than to explain his own principles. Perhaps the time may come when he

will be able to do this laft more to our fatisfaction than he has yet done. We are glad, however, to find, that he has at length refolved to abandon the plan he has hitherto purfued, of publishing detached effays on this fubject, and that he has now determined to apply himself to the great work of developing the principles of his fyftem, which he means to offer to the world as foon as it fhall be completed. We heartily applaud this refolution, and fincerely wish him all the success he can defire. The man who appropriates his time and labour to bring to perfection the knowlege of others, deferves every degree of encouragement that is confiftent with the interefts of fociety. Our ftrictures have been intended to improve, and not to difcourage, the Author. When the time arrives, in which we shall be enabled to judge of the whole, it will afford us a very fenfible pleasure if we can atone for our prefent feeming afperity, by being convinced that he has hitherto been obfcure only by reafon of his feeing farther than others, and by alluding to particulars we were not able to understand, because they had not been fully explained. It is our duty to guard as much as poffible againft error. It is our highest pleasure to be enabled, by the labours of those whofe works come before us, to correct the prejudices of our compatriots, by unveiling truth, and exhibiting her to mankind in her native purity.

Our beft bow is due to the Author for the refpe&ful manner in which he has mentioned our former remarks. And it will add much to our fatisfaction if, on a future occafion, he shall put it in our power to pay him the tribute of applause without any degree of abatement.

ART. IX. Original Letters, written during the Reigns of Henry VI. Edward IV. and Richard III. by various Perfons of Rank or Confequence, &c. &c. Digefted in a chronological Order. With Notes, hiftorical and explanatory. By John Fenn, Esq. M. A. and F. A. S. 2 Vols. 4to. 21. 28. Boards. Robinsons. 1787.

THE

HE correfpondence of private individuals affords, in general, little that can intereft or entertain the public; but if the writers have been famous for beauty of ftyle or brilliancy of fentiment, their letters will doubtless attract curiofity. In like manner, the epiftolary correspondence of men who have filled any important office of the ftate, or have been engaged in public affairs, will be eagerly attended to: and fuch communications may likewife furnish materials for the hiftorian, or be the means of elucidating obfcure or ill-authenticated records. The collection before us is of this kind. The letters were written by men of confiderable confequence, who lived during that period of time which was remarkable for the quarrels between the

houfes

houfes of York and Lancafter. Almoft the only registers which we have of these diftracted and turbulent years are written in characters of blood. Battles and executions were the landmarks of the hiftorian, and the epochs of the chronologer. One confufion fucceeding another, the animofity of party zeal, and the general ignorance of the age, all contributed to obfcure the hiftory of thefe difaftrous times. Whatever, therefore,' fays Sir John Fenn *, in his preface, tends to throw a gleam of light on fo clouded an horizon, must be a grateful present to those who would inveftigate their country's ftory; and when we have despaired of recovering any important documents of thole difaftrous times, the flightelt relics of fo obfcure a season may feem almoft as precious as the better preferved remains of periods, fully illuftrated.'

As to the authenticity of the letters, it is fo well established, that there is not the leaft fhadow of a doubt concerning them; for befide the account which the editor gives of his materials †, they have every internal mark of originality. They relate the tydyngs' of the day, or the family affairs of the writers, in a plain but [to us] uncouth phrafeology; they befpeak credit by their total want of ornament. By the artless manner in which they are written, the reader is convinced that they were never meant to serve as records of the times; the events of the moment are told by perfons then living; and the manners and ufages of the age are painted in the most familiar language, undifguifed and unadorned. The characters in Shakespeare's drama are here reprefented free from poetical fiction and in their own drefs. The Lords of York and Canterbury, Salisbury and Warwick, Buckingham, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hastings, speak for themselves.

The method which Sir J. Fenn has obferved in publishing these letters, we fhall abridge, from his preface, firft obferving, that the originals are printed on one fide of the leaf, and the tranfcript, according to the rules of modern orthography, &c. on the oppofite page.

His Majefty was fo pleafed with this publication, that its Author has fince received the honour of Knighthood.

+ These letters were, molt of them, written by, or to, particular perfons of the family of Pafton in Norfolk (who lived in the reigns of Henry VI. Edward IV. and Richard III.), were carefully preferved in that family for feveral defcents, and were finally in the poffeffion of the Earl of Yarmouth; they then became the property of that great collector and antiquary Peter le Neve Efquire, Norroy King at Arms; from him they devolved to Mr. Martin [of Palgrave in Suffolk], by his marriage with Mrs. Le Neve, and were a part of his collections purchased by Mr. Worth [of Difs in Norfolk], from whom, in 1774, they came to the editor.'

The

The contractions, dialects, and modes of fpelling and pointing used in the original letters, are exactly followed in the copy; and wherever capitals appear in the one, they are continued in the other. The thought of tranfcribing each letter, and putting it into a modern drefs, arofe from a hint which the editor received from a refpectable friend and antiquary, who was of opinion, that many perfons would be induced to read thefe letters for the fake of the matter which they contain, but who, not having paid attention to ancient modes of writing and abbreviations, would be deterred from attempting fuch a task, by the uncouth appearance of the original. The obfolete words are continued, but the fenfe is expreffed by modern words or phrases, in Italics, between crotchets. The original letters are frequently without either breaks or ftops; this confufes the sense, and renders it obfcure to perfons unaccustomed to read ancient writings in the tranfcribed letters, the editor has endeavoured to amend these defects. He hath alfo, with great induftry, fupplied the dates of the years when the letters were written, which feldom occur in the originals; the day of the month, or the faint's name to whom the day is dedicated, being generally all the date they have.

With respect to the externals of the MSS. the editor gives a full defcription; and hath always, where it could be afcertained, given the water-mark of the paper on which each letter was written, the fize of the sheet, the feal, and fometimes the manner in which it was folded. Specimens of thefe, of the handwriting and of the autographs, are given in fixteen copperplates.

The family in whofe poffeffion the letters were preserved, from and to different branches of which they were chiefly writ ten, was that of Pafton of Caifter, in Norfolk; they feem to have been wealthy, powerful in the county, and many of them well acquainted with state affairs: Sir John gives a pedigree of the family down to the death of the laft Earl of Yarmouth. As an account of the contents of all the letters in this collection would be tedious, we fhall only offer a few general remarks on their utility, &c. That they will prove very ufeful to the hiftorian is obvious, as in defcribing the manners of the times, they bring us acquainted with the language of the day, and confequently affift us in judging of the authenticity of contemporary writings. But as fome readers may wifh for a fpecimen of these curious originals, we fhall give them the following letter of John de Vere, Earl of Oxford, to his lady, after the unfuccessful battle of Barnet, April 14, 1471, when he retreated with some of his men toward Scotland; but, difcovering a defign to betray him, he privately withdrew into Wales, to join the Earl of Pembroke, with the intention of ftrengthening the Queen's army,

which