$02 
faGors maintained, with great powers of 
vociferation, that the {carcity was artii- 
cial. They had travelled, they had be- 
held the harvelt; they had feen things 
with their own eyes; they were convinced 
and all the world fhould not make them 
think ctherwife. 
On the other hand, the advocates for the 
millers, the great farmers, and the bakers, 
maintained with equal ftrength of lungs, 
that the fcarcity was real. They too had 
travelled ! they had beheld the harvett ; 
they had feen things with their own eyes ; 
they were convinced, and all the world 
fhould -not make them think otherwile. 
The latter party, however, trufted that I 
would not be filent on this queftion ; tor, 
as there had been riots in London, un- 
doubtedly I muft know fometbing of the 
matter; ‘‘ and I perceive, Sir,’” faid the 
pretty lady (fle really was a very pretty 
woman, Mr. Editor), ‘I perceive, Sir, 
by the buttons on your coat, that you be- 
long to one of the corps, fo you muk know 
fomething !” 
I affured my hearers, that neither my 
fituation in the corps, nor my refidence in 
-. London, had qualified me to talk upon this 
fubjeé& ; on the contrary, I was afraid that 
thefe circumftances were againft me, for I 
had not, like them, “ travelled, beheld the 
harveft, nor feen things with my own 
eyes ;” that I had often heard the fubjeé 
canvaffed as it had been to-day, in which 
aflertion was placed again aflertion, 
hearfay againft hearfay, and eye-fight 
againit eye-fight, but that I remained as 
ignorant as befcre of the queftion in dif- 
pute, and feared I fhould ever remain fo. 
It appears to me, Mr. Editor (for I 
fall now leave the ftage-coach, as I did 
after delivering the above fagacious opi- 
pion) ; l fay it appears to me rather a hard 
cafe, that we caneot go into company 
without being obliged to liften to difcui- 
fions which arrive at no conclufion, where 
opinions are given in lieu of arguments, 
and mere aflertions fubftituted for proofs, 
and of which difcuffions the only objec 
feems to be to prove haw much a man 
can talk on a fubject which he does not 
underfland. Prejudice too isa gainer on 
fuch occafions, and, Iam afraid, much of 
what we call a focial interchange of {.nti- 
ments tends only to the confirmation of 
Certain pre-conceived opinions 
But, to return to the caufes of {carcity, 
of which I hope your readers will not be 
doubtful after reading the many opinions 
I have recorded—Is not this way of tra- 
cing effects to caufes rather common in 
other cafes? Is it not by fhifting from 
Caufes of the Scarcity. 
[ Nov. 1, 
each other's fhoulders the exifting evil that 
we fancy we account for it, and, having 
accounted for it, we think little elfe re- 
mains to be done? Atk what is the caufe 
of-the fcarcity of morals, and you will be 
-_referred to the remiflneis of the magifirate 
—No,‘fays the magiftrate, I am not re- 
milfs, but the /aws are deficient: the /e- 
giflature never knows how to ftrike at the 
root of an evil—Tbe /egsflature! exclaims 
a member of parliament, what cant is ail 
this? What can the legiflaturedo? Is 
not our ftatute-book already crowded with 
penalties? Is there a crime untouched ? 
We may punifh the guilty, but can we 
prevent their efcape? Can we make men 
honeft? No, the evil lies with the clergy 
—The clergy ! O fie! what a jacobinical 
thought! The clergy! what can the cler- 
sy do? the people will not come to 
church ; they leave the church for meet- 
ing-houfes and conventicles: the metho. 
difis! the methodi/is have ruined the church ! 
—Peradventure; fays fome difciple of 
Whiifield, the church is to blame; we 
have nothing to allure the people with 
but the go/pel: preach that and the church 
will ruin us again—What do you give 
your flocks? ten or fifteen minutes of 2 
dry, moral, perhaps logicai, difcourle, 
which touches neither head nor heart.— 
‘And thus, Mr. Edivor, the fcarcity of ma- 
vals is accounted for. 
To defcend from great things to finall 
what is the caufe of the fearcity of good 
plays? Afk the manager, and he will 
tell you that no gocd plays are offered to 
him, and appeals, as he juftly may, for 
proof of this affertion to fuch as do appear. 
But afk our dramatic writers, and they 
will tell you the managers afford no en- 
couragement to good writing, and prefer 
pantemimical namby-pamby or tranfla- 
tions, which can be got up cheap, to the 
genuine Englifo drama. But afk the ma- 
nagers aod writers when they happen to 
be together, and cannot-abufe one another, 
and they will jointly aflure you that the 
town isin fault, that the public tafte is 
vitiated, ard that good plays will not ge 
down ; befides, they add, im confidence, 
that there is a moft pinching fearcity of 
good affors. And the actors, when con- 
tulted apart from either managers or wri~ 
ters, will aflure you there is no encourage- 
ment to good acting ; fuch trafh given them 
to perform as dogs not require, and can- 
not therefore be fuppofed to draw forth, a 
difplay of genius! 
This, 1 own, Mr. Editor, is comfort- 
able. It is comfortable, that when the 
blame is too heavy for our own fhoulders we 
can 
