Of thefe goods, whatever is confumed by him, who cultivates the earth, is fubfiftence, and nothing riches but what he can difpofe of. The man, who cultivates the earth with his hands, can expect no more from it than barely fubfiftence for himself and his family, and that too of the pooreft kind. He must therefore look out for fuch affiftants as may procure him a greater produce, and at the fame time require lefs to maintain them. This affiftance confifts in machines, in cattle, in manures, &c. These things are not to be had without money, and the amount of what they coft is what we fhall call the husbandman's primitive advances. As of these things, fome, viz. the cattle, must have grafs, corn, &c. and all in general are fubject to wear and tear, proper allowances must be made to fupport, repair, and recruit them. Now this allowance, added to the husbandman's fubfiltence, conftitutes what we fhall call the husbandman's annual advances, fince he must every year feed and recruit his live ftock, and till and fow his land, &c. before he can expect any Crop from it. A good crop, fuch as may be expected from a good cultivation, fhould yield, ft. A reimbursement of the annual advances, in order to enable the husbandman to prepare in time for, and lay the foundations, as it were, of the next year's crop. 2dly. The intereft of his primitive and annual advances, that is, a decent profit on the funds employed by him in machines, cattle, manures, &c. 3dly. A further return which the hufbandman may fell or barter. It is this laft portion of the annual produce, which we call income: it is the only portion that can be called riches, the reft being indefpenfably requifite to keep agoing the economi al machine.' Next follows the body of the work, which for the reafon already fpecified, we muft omit; but to give the reader the best idea of it we can, we fhall here prefent him with the conclufion. By recollecting fucceffively all the truths eftablished in the different applications of the Table, and referring them in this place to the article upon the impoft, it will eafily be feen: ift. That every penny attending the perception of impofts, is fo much transferred to the barren clafs; an enormous diforder this in the table! * 2d. What expences of the state are ruinous in their own nature; what likewife are a means of accelerating circulation; and what, in fine, are advantageous, by flowing almost entirely into the productive class. 3d. In what manner the bare mifapplication of useful ex Gg3 pences pences may render them ruinous. For example, regular troops, maintained with the produce of the nation, ftrengthen the productive clafs; whereas, fent abroad, they become ruinous to her, though foreigners were to maintain them, merely in confequence of her lofing the benefit of their confumption. 4th. That thofe, who are always preaching up to their fovéreign a dry and barren œconomy, are unacquainted with the firft principles of true political economy. The government of a nation, bleffed with a fruitful and extenfive territory, should confume a great deal, to make the country produce a great deal; but then the country must not be plundered, because there can be no thief without a receiver, and there fhould be no receivers to lock up any thing in a flourishing state. The state, I say, muft coniume a great deal. But to confume a great deal, it must have a great deal to confume; and to have a great deal to confume, the fubjects must be rich; the lands muft be in full production; the advances of agriculture and manufactures, the husbandman and the manufacturer themfelves, all kinds of commodities, the markets, &c. must be entirely exempt from all burthens. The whole of the impoft muft fall upon the net produce of the earth; pass directly without any round-abouts from the purfes of the fubject into the coffers of the fovereign; and, in the disbursement of it, from the coffers of the fovereign into the purfes of the subjets. But this is the grand ftumbling-block in the way of all attempts to bring about a reformation: 'tis here the best minifters meet with obftacles fuperior to all their courage and virtue. Such, however, was the project of Sully, which Henry IV. tired with feeing his pot empty, and all his doublets worn out at the elbows, laid before his council of finances. But they unanimously anfwered, that it was the project of a mad-man, who thought that the revenues of a great ftate were to be governed like those of a private family; to which this prince, no lefs judicious than frank and open, immediately replied, that "they, who were fuch wife men, having ruined him, he had a mind to fee if mad-men could not make him whole again." A recapitulation of the work follows, but we omit it, because it must be unintelligible to any reader, who is not fully mafter of the preceding tables and their explanation. We cannot deny the authors great merit in their inveftigations; and it is more than probable, that their work may be of great ufe to a government that can carry their principles into execution. An English reader may receive benefit from its theory; but it is the English legislature alone that can carry any part of it into practice, and indeed, we we are of opinion, that the welfare and power of the British nation depends upon principles which the author has left untouched. How well the Marquifs understands our conftitution, appears from what he says of it towards the close of his book, where he tells us, that he is informed, that, by an ancient law, the bare propofal of a farm or monopoly, is feloay in England, and punishable with death." XI. Obfervations and Conjectures upon fome Paffages of Shakespeare. Pr. 1. Rivington. S As this writer propofes his obfervations and conjectures with becoming decency, and without the illiberal taunts, fneers, and abuse, which have become a kind of fashion among the commentators and editors of Shakespeare, we are well difpofed to make a favourable report of his performance. He seems to have been a diligent collator of the old editions of his author, and we shall here prefent our reader with two inftances that prove it: In the celebrated speech of Mercutio, [Romeo and Juliet, a i. fcene 5.] he defcribes queen Mab as galloping, "On Courtier's knees, that dream on curt'fies ftrait; And then goes on, 'Sometimes fhe gallops o'er a Courtier's nose, In the latter lines, Dr. Warburton has very juftly restored the old reading, Courtier's nofe, which had been changed into Lawyer's nofe, by fome editor, who did not know, as it should feem, of any fuits, but law fuits. Dr. Warburton has explained the paffage with his usual learning; but I do not think he is fo happy in his endeavour to juftifie Shakespeare from the charge of a vicious repetition, in introducing the courtier twice. The fecond folio, I obferve, reads, 'On Countries knees: which has led me to conje&ture, that the line ought to be read thus: On Counties knees, that dream on courtfies ftrait; Counties I understand to fignify noblemen, in general. Paris, who, in one place, I think, is called Earl, is most commonly filed the Countie in this play. Shakespearè feems to have pre Gg 4 ferred, lerred, for fome reason or other, the Italian Conte to our Count. It was no permanent reason, for I do not recollect that he uses the title in other plays, where the fcene is in Italy. Perhaps he took it from the old English novel, from which he is faid to have taken his plot, But the old copies do not only affist us to find the true read ing by conjecture. I will give an inftance, from the fecond folio, of a reading (incontestably the true one) which has escaped the laborious researches of the many moft diligent criticks, who have favoured the world with editions of Shakefpeare, from Theobald to Mr. Johnfon. In Titus Andronicus, act iv. fcene 1. Marcus fays, My lord, kneel down with me; Lavinia, kneel; What meaning has hitherto been annexed to the word Peer, in this paffage, I know not. The reading of the fécond folio is fere, which fignifies a companion, and here, metaphorically, a bufband. The proceeding of Brutus, which is alluded to, is defcribed at length in our 'author's Rape of Lucrece, as putting an end to the lamentations of Collatinus and Lucretius, the hufband and father of Lucretia.' We are in fome doubt, whether a feere does not properly fignify an owner or contractor, instead of a companion; but we can have no doubt that peer and companion are the fame. We approve of this author's obfervation upon Shakespeare's peculiar ufe of the word countie, in his Romeo and Juliet; and his difufing it in that fenfe in his other plays. It is entirely agreeable to what we obferved in our laft Number (fee p. 322.) concerning the peculiar caft of Shakespeare, which hinders us often from obFaining a fatisfactory account of the terms he makes use of, even from his own works. We recommend the following pasfage to our readers. The mistake of certure, for coverture, has been made in act iii. fcene 3. of the Third part of Henry VI. at leaft in Mr. Johnfon's edition; and he has well corrected it in a note. To the arguments, which he has there used in fupport of his conjecture, I will add, that coverture is actually the reading of the only two editions, which I have, the fecond folio, and Theobald's. It should feem by this, that only the laborious collafor, as Mr. Johnson expreffes it in his preface, but also the negligent collator at fome unlucky moment frolicks in conjecture. 6 The expreffion is indeed a happy one; for conjectural criti gifm is properly a frolick of the understanding. It is pleasant enough to the critick himself, and may ferve to amuse a few readers; as long as it only profeffes to amufe. When it pretends to any thing higher; when it affumes an air of gravity and importance, a decifive and dictatorial tone; the acute conjecturer becomes an object of pity, the ftupid one of contempt.? Notwithstanding what we have faid of this performance, we cannot encourage conjectural criticism, be it ever fo plaufible. This author has himself given us an inftance of its wanton frailty. Mr. Johnson has bestowed a note, in his appendix, upon a paffage in the First part of Henry the fixth, (act i. fcene 8.) which, he says," he did not know till of late had been thought difficult." The prince's 'fpials have informed me, The English, in the fuburbs clofe intrench'd, I believe the difficulty will be better removed, if, instead of went, we read wont, the third perfon plural of the old verb wont. The English - wont, that is, are accustomed to overpeer the city. The word is ufed moft frequently by Spenfer, and feveral times by Milton' If the author had looked into old hiftories of the fiege of Orleans, he would have feen that Shakespeare, in the paffage before us, has kept literally and clofely to their account, and, indeed, there is no end of fuch emendations, for we will venture fay, that if a critic gives a full fwing to conjecture, we might find fome paffage in every page even of Virgil that may be altered, and fome of them even plaufibly. This Bentleian fpirit is finely ridiculed in the emendations propofed by Martinus Scriblerus, upon that poet. And we make no doubt, that Martinus could have brought many fhrewd reafons to prove, Jam FOECES atque faxa volant, to be the true reading. Inftead of Jam FACES aiqué faxa volant. X. The Feftoon; a Collection of Epigrams, ancient and modern. Panegyrical, Satyrical, Amorous, Moral, Humourous, Monumental, With an Effay on that Species of Compofition. Robinson and : Roberts. Pr. 2s. 6d. i THE HE reader, by the title, may perceive the judicious arrangement of this collection, which is ufhered in by a preface and an effay on the nature of the epigram. In the former, the editor fpeaks very modeftly of himself, and (which |