Retrospective Criticism. 85 
same opinion; for he has had the hardihood to reprint the 
passage, word for word, in his second edition. (p. 15, 16.) I 
rejoice that he has done so, as it affords a fair presumption that, 
on mature consideration, he is not conscious that the charge is 
just. The case appears to be this: he is giving us a plain state- 
ment of the employment and occupations of the poor in his dis- 
trict; and after mentioning the demand for labour arising from 
the limekilns, the cultivation of the potato, the teasel, and the 
harvest in general, he concludes with the breaking of the 
limestone for the roads. ‘Then comes our employment for 
this dark season of the year (winter), the breaking of the lime- 
stone for the use of the roads, of which we attord a large 
supply to less favoured districts. ‘This material is not to be 
sought for in distant places, or of difficult attainment, but to 
be found almost at the very doors of the cottages, &c., and 
there is a constant demand for the article.” At this work, he 
tells us, “a man, his wife, and two tolerably sized children, 
can obtain from 2s. 8d. to 3s. per day, the greater part of the 
winter.” Now it appears to me that he is here describing the 
employment and earnings of the poor at the worst of times, 
and under the least favourable circumstances ; and if his ac- 
count be correct (and we have no reason to doubt it), it is clear 
the poor in this district, though not, of course, exempt from 
many of the ordinary and unavoidable evils of poverty, are yet 
better off, having more regular employment and a greater cer- 
tainty of the means of subsistence, than the poor in many 
other parts of the kingdom. From the general picture pre- 
sented to us, they appear to be healthy, contented, and com- 
fortable in their stations. “ Our labourers,” he says, “ their 
children, and cottages, I think, present a testimony of their 
well doing, by the orderly, decent conduct of the former, and 
the comforts of the latter.’ Who can wonder that this ami- 
able man should express some satisfaction at such a state of 
things? The accusation of the reviewer strikes me as so ut- 
terly uncalled for and unwarrantable, that I cannot resist the 
inclination I feel to raise my humble voice in protestation 
against it. Judging of the author from a perusal of his book 
only, every one, I should suppose, must think well of him as 
a naturalist and as a man. Beyond this, I, for my part, have 
no knowledge of him whatever, nor am J certain even of his 
name; haying heard the work attributed to more than one 
person, with all of whom I am totally unacquainted. I have, 
therefore, no private or interested motive for standing forth 
in his defence, but give my testimony simply from honest con- 
viction of the truth, quite unbiassed and unprejudiced. 
Besides visiting the author with unjust censure, and accus- 
G's 
