1798. 
<c Habermus 
in magiftri alicujus verba Juratos: 
tam abfurdum, quod illi, fi res et occafio 
ferat, non parati fint defendere. Sed nemi- 
nem credo jam apud nos efle, in Critica Sa- 
cra paulum modo verfatum, et cui fanum jit 
finciput, qui pro finceritate. commatis 7m 
x Joh. v, propugnare velit.” 
This pafiage is cited from a letter to 
Michaelis in his ‘ Literarifcher Bricf- 
evechfely’ part fecond, p- 4285 ‘2 collec- 
tion abounding with curious information, 
and, among the reft, an anecdote of 
Handel, who informed the late Sir John 
Pringle, that he was indebted to Luther's 
P{aim tunes for many pafiages introduced 
in theologia rabulas quofdam, 
nihil eft 
. by him into his oratorios. Lam, Sir, your 
' 
“country, as 
conitan@reader, AN Otp CANTAB. 
Se ermee a ee 
Lo the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
Mr. EDITOR, 
RTHUR YOUNG, in his “ Sex 
Weeks Tour,” atter prefenting his 
readers with a table of the average price 
of labour in agriculture from 20 miles 
round London to the diftance of 170 miles, 
makes the following remarks (page R25). 
< You fee, Sir, by thefe tables, that the 
influence of the capital, in railing the 
price of labour, is prodigious ; the differ-. 
ence between the extremes being no lefs 
than 4s. 6d. or xearly three-fourths of the 
loweft ceuairy price: mor can the leatt 
reafon be given for this. At London the 
bread is ate as cheap as any where, and 
meat only one penny per pound dearer 
than the cheapelt part of the county: the 
price of provifions therefore has nothing 
to do with labour.’’ Nothing, in my 
opinion, can be more fallacious than this 
ftatement. In the fArft place butter, which 
is an article confumed by the labouring 
poor in the remote and frugal parts of the 
weil as in the luxuricus neigh- 
bourhood of the metropolis, is totally 
omitted in this general recapitulation, al- 
though his own tables (page 310) prove 
the difference in this article to be nearly 
three-fouribs of the loweft country price. 
Firing alfo is put out of the account, al- 
though it appears from another of the 
faid tables (page 319), that.in Glamor- 
ganfhire (his greateft given diftance) as 
many coals as fix oxen can draw may be 
had for litrle more than the price of three 
bufhels in the neighbourhood of London : 
and although it is known, that in many 
of the diftant provinces, firing is to be 
procured by the poor cottager for no other 
expence than the time and labour of cut- 
ting or digging it. There is alfo a fallacy 
in taking the medium price of butchers mect, 
as the bafis of his conclufion, fince veal, 
fo dear an article in the neighbourhood of 
pondon, is to be purchafed in the fcattered 
Price of Labour near London... fewifh Keedufh. 
409) 
neighbourhoods of remote parts of the 
country, at about halt the price of beef or 
mutton, i. ¢. about one-third of the me-, 
dium priceof meat about London. Bread, 
alfo, about London, muft be purchaied at 
the baker’s fhops; and accordingly at 
the fame price as in London: but in di- 
ftant parts the labourer does not buy his 
bread at thofe bakers’ fhops, in towns, 
where A. YouNG procured his informa- 
tion as to the price. He buys the wheat, 
gets it ground, fells the bran at a good 
price, has his bread made and baked at 
home, and has therefore feveral advan- 
tages over thofe who live in the populous 
neighbourhood of London. In fhort, phe d 
had leifure at this time to puriue the cal- 
culation, I think I could make it fuffici- 
ently apparent, that the wages near Lon- 
don are not out of proportion, and that: 
the condition of the peaiantry in Glamor~ 
ganfhire and thofe other parts of Wales, 
and remete parts of England which f am 
acquainted with, is not worle (though all 
are bad enovgh) than that of their fup- 
pofed luxurious and enviable tellow-la- 
bourers within 20 miles of the metropolis. 
* * * 
2 
ee rs 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magaxtze. 
SIR, 
HE communication of P. C. in his 
remarks on C. P. page 335, on the 
curious inveftigation of the Lord’s Sup- 
per, is very interefting, fince it tends to 
prove, that the Editor of ** Calmet’s Dic- 
tionary,” whoever he may be, has, in 
fome refpe&t, adopted the fame idea as is 
thrown out in VAURIEN: it is not, how- 
ever, probable, that either this Editor, or 
the writer of Vaurien, are at-all acquaint- 
ed with each others works. It merits 
obfervation, that the cu/fom, noticed un- 
der the article EATING in ¢ Calmet’s Dic- 
tionary, tran{cribed by P. C. and on 
which the Editor founds his idea, is NOT 
the Keedufh, or Jewith rite, defcribed by 
the author of Vaurien, but merely the 
grace after meals, prattifed in that form 
by thé Jews. It bears. a great refem- 
blance, and chiefly differs in this, that 1€: 
is ufed after meals daily, dnd that the 
bread is not diffributed in morfels, as is 
now done in the facrament. The keedu/h 
is exactly the SACRAMENT, and is only 
practifed on the evenings of the fabbath, 
and other feftivals. 
I am as little delighted with theological 
difcuffions as yourfelf; but this correc- 
tion, or rather explanation, feems very 
neceflary for the proper underftanding of 
_this curious topic. 
Dec. 10, 1798. ' 
B. W. 
Be 
