#796.] 
were the monopolizers. I have fhown, 
that thofe who withheld their ow corn, 
probably, did fo from other caufes than a 
{pirit of monopoly; and, with refpeét to 
fuch es bought the corn of others, they 
could not.be aided, in fo domg, by the ex- 
tent of their farms, but by the unemployed 
furplus of their capital. Now aman of 
an extenfive farm 1s, of all others, the leaft 
likely to have an unemployed furplus to 
{port in fuch fpeculations : the very exteut 
of his farm muft ferve to fix his capital at 
home; and I believe it will be generally 
acknewledged, that the. profefiion of a 
farmer and a cornfactor are feldom, if 
ever, united. That the fmall farmer is 
obliged to “ fell his grain at the ufual 
times, to pay his landiord, and his current 
expence,” ts a truth, which comprifes ‘in 
irfelf a ftrong argument againit the fubdi- 
vifion ef farms; for, in confequence of 
this neceffity, be the other avocations of 
éhis farra ever fo neceffary—be the feafons 
ever fq critical—the farmer is obliged to 
zemploy his labourers to thrafh ‘his corn, 
and to carry 1t to market; and when he 
comes there, the fame necetfity has driven 
fo many of the fame neighbourhood, to the 
fame conduét, that the market is glutted, 
and the price fo low, .as not to yield him 
the reafonable profits of his labour and ca- 
pital employed: and thefe very {mall far- 
mers felling fo low, give the others an ap- 
pearance of felling tco high. 
It is again objected, that large farms 
employ a lefs proportion of labourers.— 
Af my former reafoning, on large farms 
being more highly cultivated, and a 
greater quantity of productive ftock being 
maintained upon them, be admitted ; it 
will fupercede the neceffity of any {peci- 
fic reply to this objeétion, as it would 
imply a greater proportion of produce 
from a lef{s proportion of labour. 
But the proof adduced in fupport of 
the objection, will claim fome attention. 
The confequence of largefar ms, it is 
faid, is the increafe of the poor : and the 
dact is exemplified in inftances of inclo- 
fures, where farms become extended, and 
“‘the poor rates almoft double.”’—Now 
is it not equally notorious, that every pa- 
rith dreads the eftablifhing of a manufac~ 
tory within its limits, becaufe the poor 
Yates are generally almoft doubled ? But 
thall we argue, from thence, that the 
‘number of labourers employed in the pa- 
rith is lefs? So in inclofures and large 
farms, where more ground is more highly 
improved, fhall we fay, that the number 
of labourers is diminifhed ? or that the 
general population is encreafed, and there- 
gore that the poor rates are augmented ? 
On Ecclefiaftical Reform, 
363 
Again, it is alleged, that large farms 
deftroy the gradation of ranks, and that 
there is now a much greater difference 
between a farmer and his labourers, than 
between him and his landlord.—The al- 
teration, then, is this :—there were three 
ranks, landlords, farmers, labourers—two 
of thefe continue the fame, but the re- 
maining third is confiderably encreafed in 
ref{pectability: whether this be an im- 
provement or deterioration of the whole, 
I leave, Mr. Editor, to your confidera- 
tion. In faét, the improvement of agri- 
culture is one of the moft important ob- 
jects that can occupy either the legifla- 
ture or the individual. dt is now per- 
ceived, that this improvement can only 
be effeéied by judicious experiments, con- 
ducted under the aufpices of {cience, and 
liberal information. But if farms be frit- 
tered away, till they become an obje& 
not worthy the time and attention of men 
of knowledge and liberal education, a 
ftop will, at once, be put, to the only 
means of making any {peed or effectual 
progrefs in the art. Your’s, &c. 
Durham, May 8, 1796. G. 
Re 
For the Monthly Magazine. 
Ow EccLesiasTICAL REFORM. 
HE learned Italian annalift, Mura- 
™ tori, fays of Pope Julius III, “ that 
he bad rhougbis of yeforming the court of 
Rome ; but left the care of putting it in 
execution to his fucceffors.”’ E pen/ajfe 
anche a riformar la certe di Romas con 
lafciarne nondimeno la cura a fuoi fucceffori. 
I do not find that any of his fucceffors 
have done more than /dink of it; and the 
probability is, that with all its mul- 
tiplied offences on its head, full ripe in 
iniquity, and no longer abie to maintain 
its {way over the minds of men, it will 
fall, an unpitied and unreformed victim, 
to the fpirit of the times. This, when 
it happens, will be an event whence much 
€dification may be derived ; but cannot ~ 
we derive fome anticipated wifdom from 
the profpect of it. May we not, with 
advantage, apply the cafe nearer home ? 
Some eminent perfens in the church of 
England, have alfo sad their ihoughis of 
reforming, and have even loudly declared 
their conviction of the neceility of it. 
Such opinicns have, at times, found their 
way even to thofe, who, by their ftation, 
feem to have had it in their power, to 
bring about the defired reformation. I 
believe, I do not wrong the prefent pious 
bifhop of London, in mentioning him 
as one whofe name was pledged to the 
principle of reform ; nox can it be doubted, 
3 Az that 
