(4 
246 _ Correfpondence of Fox and Bertrand. 
notwithfanding the unfavourable feafon, 
it ripened before barley _fown at the fame 
time, and on the fame field, and was cut 
en the zoth of September, immediately 
after the autumn-fown whieat : the crop 
two quarters per acre. 
3. That about two bufhels may be the 
proper quantity of feed per acre ; when 
drilled, lefs ; mine has been fown broad- 
eaft. That the average produce may be 
about two quarters per acre, unlefs when 
fown after turnips fed off by fheep, when I 
have gained three quarters per dcre. 
4. That the average value may be about 
as. lefs per bufhel than the commion 
wheat. I fold this year the {pring-wheat 
at ros. while 11s, was given for the com- 
mon fort. ; 
5. That being a fmaller grain than the 
common wheat, it ripens earlier and with 
fefs fun; in a wet harveft, therefore, it 
Gries fooner for grinding, as I experienced 
laft year, ‘That it receives but little in- 
jury froma wet fummer and autumn, but 
will ripen earlier than barley in fuch a 
feafon. 
6. That when harrowed in on aufumn- 
fown wheat, in places where the crop has 
failed, it will ripen at the fame time with- 
out injuring the fample, which would not 
be the cafe with either barley or oats. It 
may therefore, on a large farm, deferve 
the attention of the hufbandman, and be 
worth his wile always to cultivate a 
{mall quantity, as the beft means of re- 
fioring a thin wheat crop. — Mazagan 
beans, when dibbled in, will anfwer the 
fame purpofe, but perhaps not equally 
well, as they may be longer in diying than 
the wheat, J remain, Sir, 
Your humble fervant, 
A WILKINSON, M.D. 
White Webb Farm, Enfield Chace,March 14, 
= 
For the Monibly Magazine. 
THE CORRESPONDENCE OF FOX AND 
MOLEVILLE. 
‘HE correfpondence between Bertrand 
si de Moleville and Charles James Fox 
may do honour to both parties by propri- 
ety of compofition, by the chara¢teriftic 
fentiments which it contains, and the ur- 
banity with which it is conducted ; but 
this very urbanity perhaps throws a veil 
over the molt important topic of difference, 
and prevents its meeting the public eye in 
all the diftinétnefs of unintercepted day- 
light. Mere polemicks would have ftrip- 
ped the queftion nakeder: it is no lefs 
than this: 
Was Louis XVI. a traitor? Did he 
[April 1, 
negociate with foreign powers to bring on 
a war againft his country, for the purpofe of 
recovering by foreign force his intringed 
authority ? Was a hoftile coalition formed, 
at his fuggeftion againft France, anterior 
to its alleged agereffions ? 
It is admitted (p. 16, Dallas’s edition), 
that “* M.de Montmorin, who fecretly kept 
up a daily correfpondence with the Count 
de Mercy, was to commiffion him on the 
part of the king, to invite the Emperor to 
form, as foon as poffible, a feigned coali- 
tion with the Empire, Pruffia, Ruffia, 
Spain, and the Kings of Naples and 
Sardinia; to declare, but not to make 
aciual war againft France.” 
“< This coalition once formed, was to 
publifh a manifefto, at which period the 
Emperor, the Kings of Pruffia, Spain, and 
Sardinia, were each to put his army in 
motion, and order it to approach the fron- 
tiers of France, by fhort marches, under 
pretence of waiting the aflembling the 
troops of the other powers, but in faét to 
give the king time to prepare the different 
-meafures in the interior, which were to 
concur in the fuccefs of the-plan.”” 
It is further admitted (p. 15), that this 
plan was approved by the King of France, 
and adopted by the Emperor of Germany. 
_Now, jet any man of common fenfe an- 
fwer the queftion.—If foreign powers are 
to move their forces towards the frontiers, 
and to declare war againft France, although 
the abettors of the plan fhould all the 
while affert it to be a feigned coalition, 
and an unreal hoftility:—is it not the 
obvious dictate of prudence to take mea- 
fures of defence; to march other troops 
to the frontiers of the adverfary; to difbe- 
lieve declarations which have the complex- 
ion of fraud ; to refent a pantomime really 
infulting ; and, for its own better fecurity, 
to occupy, or fezgz to conquer, Flan- 
ders. ili ge! 
Military fophifts ufually defcribe a re- 
pulfe as a feigned attack; the fophifts of 
defpotifm, with imitated dexterity, may 
deferibe a baffled confpiracy as a feigned 
coalition ; but while they deny in phrafe, 
they reveal in fa&, that Louis was negoci- 
ating with the Emperor (p.20), to declare 
war againft his country, plotting to tranf- 
fer the States General to Metz or Valen- 
ciennes, in order to overawe their delibe- 
rations by a foreign foldiery, to cafhier or 
difperfe (p. 21) the reprefentatives of the 
people, to difarm the national guards, and 
(p. 23) to inftitute a fummary monarchy. 
No charges fo liberticidal have been ad- 
duced by the accufers of Louis, as are here 
admitted by his defenders: sp 
e 
