Mr. Rofe continues through pp. 9, 10, 11, 12, to urge frong objections ag inft the fyftem of Mr. Malthus.

At pp. 12, 13, the author corrects a common error; that in other parts of the United Kingdom there are no compullory rates for the maintenance of the poor.

"The poor in Scotland are fupported by collections at the church doors; by certain fmall fees on marriages, baptifms, and funerals; and by the intereft of fums given or bequeathed for that purpose: and, when the above are not fufficient, by an af feffiment laid on the parish by authority of the heritors or landholders; and the Kirk Seffion, that is the minifter and elders of the parith. The amount of this affeffment, upon the whole, is (as in fact it is in England) in proportion to the actual number of poor in the parish at the time. The felection of objects to whofe relief this affeffment is to be applied, is likewife vefted in the Kirk Seffion, whofe ordinary functions in this refpect may, if there is any reafon to fufpcct abufe, be controlled by a meeting of the heritors." P. 13.

But the chief diftinction between England and Scotland, with regard to the poor, arifes from the fuperior management in the latter; where they are as effectually provided for as in the former, though at infinitely lefs expence." P. 14.

We find, in a note to this paffage, a very serious and important truth:

"There is but too much reafon to believe, that in many parts of England, the cultivators of the land are more folicitous to retrain the price of labour, than to keep down the poor's rate; in which cafe the latter, in fact, becomes a part of the former." "Infinite advantage is likewife derived from the conftant and active attention of the clergy, who are invariably refident." P. 14.

A comparifon feems to be here intended with the English clergy; and we muft acknowledge that there is at prefent too much room for admonition to the latter; but an alteration in this refpcct, fpeedy though not inftantaneous, may reasonably be expected.

"The law of fettlement, as Dr. Adam Smith, with his ufual wifdom and power of illuftration, has obferved, feparated the parishes of England, as if there were a fea between them; and prevented, as mifchievously as abfurdly, the free tranfport and circulation of labour throughout the kingdom." P. 20.

We apprehend that on this, as on many other points, there may be more of fpeculation than of practical wifdom in Dr. Smith's fchemes. He feems to have had no acquaintance with the mifchiefs of vagraney.

"By

"By the act for encouraging friendly focieties, which I had the honour of introducing in 1793, the law of fettlement was firft fhaken under that, all perfons who fhould become members of fuch focieties were protected from being removed, till they fhould become actually chargeable." P. zo.

To this firft baking we make no objection; believing it to be a falutary, because a very limited meafure. But we view all fhakings, in public affairs, with fome apprehenfion. "In two years afterwards, another act was palled extending that provifion to all perfons whatever." Concerning the neceflity of this act, we entertain much doubt; and not a little, concern. ing its ultimate benefit, which certainly is not yet afcertained. We are well aware that overfeers were in the daily habit of applying to magiftrates for orders of removal on very flight grounds; often (we fear) from mere perfonal difpleafure to. wards the perfons declared likely to be chargeable. But we maintain, that the magiftrates, and not the overfeers, were the legal judges of this question-likely to be chargeable; and though the matter was too often left to the judgment of the overleers, yet the fault was not in the law, but in the wrong execution of it. If magiftrates had, in all cafes, required that the likelihood of becoming chargeable thould be politive and clear, we think that the act of 1795 might well have been fpared; which is not unfrequently attended with this inconvenience; that a family becomes chargeable by the death of the father, whofe fettlement is then hard to be. proved; and litigation is the unavoidable confequence. We agree very cordially with the author,

"That of all the meafures which appear likely to render our prefent fyftem lefs burdenfome, and at the fame time more effectual, the inftruction of the poor claims our earliest and most serious attention, as the moit probable means of rendering them induftrious, and their labour productive." P. 23.

"Habits of induftry," accompanying "inftruction in · moral and religious duties," would certainly be " of ineftimable value;" and the effect of them, in moft cafes, would be, not only inducing the poor to love and revere the laws of their own country; but also lifting them up from poverty; and exhibiting them to the rifing genera tion of poor, as examples worthy of their imitation. The arguments of Mr. Malthus, De Foe, and even of Sir Fre deric Eden (at p. 27) against the full employment of all poor perfons whatever, appear to us fuperficial. We maintain, in ftronger terms than the author before us, that if the hand of every poor perfon in the kingdom could be at all times duly employed, we fhould fpeedily become an exporting,

Kk4

and

and fhould ceafe to be an importing kingdom, in matters in

numerable.

As to Overfeers, our decided opinion is, that there ought to be, in every parifh, one permanent (till difplaced by magiftrates) with a moderate falary; who fhould remove paupers, collect rates, furnifh information, &c.; and one, or more, not permanent; who would controul, or prevent any irregularity in the permanent overfeer.

On the fubject of abolishing workhouses, this author is not fo fatisfactory. If the poor in a workhoufe are unemployed, for want of attention in the overfeer, how can it be expected, that "proper employment fhall be found for them at their own homes," in every corner of a parish many miles extended? This feems very impracticable. Neither do we approve of the non-interpofition of a magiftrate, in ordering relief at home, according to ftatute. We find, that "remonftrances and perfuafion" would occupy the time of a magiftrate, conftantly refident in a large diftrict, beyond all enduring; and we think that the bufinefs is well shortened by the found exercife of legal authority.

"It appears, by the returns, that paupers in workhouses coft about 121. 35. 6d. each annually, throughout England, and other parishioners relieved out of workhoufes about 31. 38. 7 d. Where parishes, therefore, do not compel all applicants for relief to go into the workhoufe, the lofs to the public may be estimated at about 91. per head on the perfons fo fhut up, creating an augmentation of the Poor's Rate to a very large amount." P. 36.

We think this an erroneous reckoning; and we account for the difference in this short, and furely very probable way; that paupers in workhoufes are ufually aged, impotent, and maintained wholly by the Poor Rate; while thofe relieved out of workhoufes are able, in a great measure, to maintain themfelves.

Finally; we give high credit to the author for the Act introduced by him, only eleven years fince, for encouraging Friendly Societies; which now comprife, in England alone, more than 700,000 perfons; their eftablishments having been, before that act, precarious, and their numbers comparatively fmall: and we are inclined to think, that welldigefted improvements of this act would do more towards lelfening the Poor Rate, and increafing the comforts of the poor, than any plans contained in this or in any other publication on the fubject.

ART.

ART. IV. Song of Songs: or Sacred Idyls. Tranflated from the Original Hebrew, with Notes Critical and Explanatory. By John Mafon Good. 8vo. 210 pp. 7s. 6d. Kearfley.

1803.

WHEN Mr. Good had publifhed his moft partial, and therefore dangerous, life, of that very felf-opinioned and prefumptuous man, that Chriflian without Chriftianity, his friend, Dr. Geddes, we little thought that we should foon have been inclined to commend a publication, the refult of his lucubrations. Nor will we wholly deny that the prefent work has lain the longer unnoticed on our fhelves, from a certain unwillingness to renew an acquaintance, which had commenced, in our opinion, fo inaufpicioufly. We truft, however, that our prejudices will never ultimately obftruct our fair judgment: and, in the prefent cafe, we most readily give up all that we had preconceived of an unfavourable kind; and avow that we have been much gratified, and even delighted with the prefent production.

Boffuct, Lowth, and other eminent fcholars, had confidered the Song of Solomon as a drama, divided into parts or acts, referring to the days of the bridal week. Mr. Good, in our opinion, has thrown a new and pleafing light upon the compofition, by confidering it rather as a collection of diftin&t idylls, or eclogues, on the loves of the Hebrew monarch and his amiable bride. This idea, after he had long entertained it, and had formed his tranflation upon it, he had the pleasure to find apparently confirmed by a paffage in the writings of Sir William Jones, which he has therefore adopted as a motto: "Salomonis fanctiflimum carmen inter idyllia Hebræa recenfendum puto." This notion, it may be obferved, fufficiently accords with the dramatic form, to account for the conftruction of various parts of the book; and yet relieves the critic from the neceflity of pointing out, which certainly is no cafy matter, the parts and plan of a regular drama. What Mr. G. fays on this fubject feems to us excellent.

"The Song of Songs has hitherto been generally regarded as one continued and individual poem;-either as an epithalamium (oporus nuptialis), accompanied, in its recitation, with appro priate mufic; or a regular drama, divifible, and at first clearly divided, into diftinct acts or periods. Since the commentary of the learned and elegant Boffuet, bishop of Meaux, upon this admirable paftoral-and more especially fince the confirmation of his ingenious conjecture, by that excellent critic the late bishop Lowth-the latter opinion has more generally prevailed; and the

роед

poem has been arranged into feven parts; one being appropriated to every day of the bridal week, or period of time allotted among the Hebrews for the celebration of the nuptial folemnity.

"Great as are the authorities for both thefe fpeculations, I have ventured to deviate from them, in the verfion now offered to the public. The Song of Songs cannot be one connected epithalamium, fince the tranfitions are too abrupt for the wildest flights of the oriental Mufe, and evidently imply a variety of openings and conclufions; while, as a regular drama, it is deficient in al most every requifite that could give it fuch a claffification: it has neither dramatic fable nor action, neither involution nor catastrophe; it is without a beginning, a middle, or an end. To call it fuch, is to injure it effentially; it is to raise expectations which can never be gratified, and to force parts upon parts which have no poffible connexion. Bishop Lowth himfelf, indeed, while he conrends that it is a drama, is compelled to contemplate it as an imperfect poem of this defcription*." P. iii.

Of the mode in which he has diftinguifhed thefe feveral poems, the tranflator fpeaks alfo in a fatisfactory manner.

"In forming this arrangement, I have followed no other guide than what has appeared to me the obvious intention of the facred bard himfelf: I have confined myfelf to foliloquy, where the fpeaker gives no evident proofs of a companion, and I have introduced dialogue where the refponfes are obvious. I have finifhed the idyl where the fubject feems naturally to clofe, and I have recommenced it where a new fubject is introduced. Thus divided into a multitude of little detached poems, I trust that many of the obfcurities which have hitherto overshadowed this unri valled relique of the eastern paftoral have vanified completely, and that the ancient Hebrews will be found to poffefs a poet who, independently of the fublimity of any concealed and allegorical meaning, may rival the beft productions of Theocritus, Bion, or Virgil, as to the literal beauties with which every verse overflows." P. v.

In another particular, the prefent interpreter differs from the generality of his predeceffors, and, we think, with equal propriety. The object of Solomon's attachment in this infance has been ufually fuppofed to be the royal daughter of Pharaoh, king of Egypt. But Mr. G. contends with much probability, and many good arguments on his fide, that she

*Id itaque fatis tuto jam ftatuere licet, Canticum Salomonis ad minorem illam fpeciem dramatica poëfeos pertinere, feu formam folummodo dramaticam habere; neutiquam jufti dramatis titulo infigniri poffe. DE SACR. POES.

was