the windows of the castle, and from this terrace. Thus, precautions have been taken that the massacre might be effected without danger to the authors of it. We may see, by the disposition of the picture, that the chief personage is the Pacha, and that the scene is but indicated; so that, were it not for the title denoting the subject of the picture, we should be much perplexed to find out whether it is a massacre or a revolt. "The subject is never too soon explained."

In another piece, “Ismayl and Maryam," the same painter transfers again the spectator to the East. The scene here passes in the middle of the desart. Ismayl, the son of a chief of an Arab tribe, wounded and made prisoner by troops of the governor of Jerusalem, repays the cares of hospitality by the rape of the daughter of him to whom he had been confided for the care of his recovery; Maryam, struggling against the love with which Ismayl had inspired her, and her religious scruples, sinks under the weight of her grief and her fatigues, and dies in the desart where Ismayl has carried her she is buried under some palmtrees. The reddening cloud, the precursor of the terrible simoom, the terror of the desart, is soon seen to rise. Every one flies: Ismayl alone, inconsolable for the loss he has sustained, a prey to the most profound despair, does not seek to escape from the death which threatens him. He removes the sand which covers the unfortunate Maryam, contemplates her in bedewing her with his tears, and soon the general ravager has made them both disappear. This was a subject difficult to express, and the public, who look only to results, do not seem to have welcomed this picture so favourably as it deserves. The palm-trees, and the colour of the atmosphere, appeared to me to be well invented; the person of Ismayl on the whole satisfactory, in regard to attitude and expression; but I cannot say as much of Maryam, the execution of whom is at least feeble. This artist has been very fertile in his productions; for, besides a number of other paintings, he executed a great number of lithographic drawings.

[To be concluded in our next.] To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine.

SIR,

N page 323 of your Magazine for May inst. a correspondent wishes

"Now as to the doctrine of a particular providence, it must mean either the violation of established order, to suit the circumstances of individuals: or, which is the only rational and intelligible sense, it must mean the particular application of a general principle. Aud in this latter sense the doctrine of a particular providence is not only consistent with the doctrine of a general providence, for which I so strenuously contend; but is in fact a branch of it, and could not exist without it."

In place of establishing the doctrine of a particular providence, does it not, on the contrary, prove a general providence only? One part of an established order or succession of events, can with no more propriety be deemed the result of a particular providence than another; the union of all the parts making up, or constituting what is called a general providence. A general providence, and a particular providence, unaided by each other, individually constitute a complete whole: manifestly therefore, the former may exist, and have an affecting operation separate from the latter, or the latter without the former; this, however, in no wise prevents their mutual co-operation, in perfecting the existing scheme of things; any more than the links of a

chain being originally separate and distinct, would impede their subsequent union, and mutually effective co-operatión. A particular providence, according to the Enquirer, has no individuadity it is a link in the chain, but not a separate one, a dependent link only, and of itself, wholly inefficient. Every whole, undoubtedly is constituted of parts; but the point to be here ascertained, is not, whether there be a strict conformity and fitness of the various parts to the whole, and a mutual dependency upon one another: but whether, the popular notion of the existence and operation of two separate and independent principles, be correct? Thus far, therefore, we do not accord; nevertheless, with the utmost complacency, I can agree to differ in opinion; convinced," from the good temper and liberal spirit which characterize his paper," we have but one common object in pursuit: viz. the investigation, and elucidation of the truth. In one point indeed we perfectly agree: in the popular notion of a particular providence meaning an interposition, whereby "the settled course of nature is not unfrequently disturbed; and the action of those great laws by which the world is governed, is occasionally suspended;" or in other words, what is generally understood by the doctrine to be this: "the violation of established order, to suit the circumstances of individuals."

I now proceed to a more minute investigation of the popular notion. The popular belief of the doctrine of a particular providence is uniformly associated with the belief of a general providence, inasmuch as it is considered a corrective to some supposed defects in the ordinary administration of the latter; both, however, according to the common belief, must have a separate and distinct being; since an imperfect, or defective dispensation could not possibly either correct itself, or supply its own deficiency. And provided the instances adduced in proof of the doctrine are found to be exactly in point, inexplicable, or not to be accomplished by the ordinary operations of a general providence; nothing farther is wanting to establish its truth. -Our next step, therefore, will be, an attentive and candid examination of

cases.

Enquirer, p. 26. We find the following:

"I had a professional visit (says Dr. Percival) to make to a lady who re

sided a few miles from Manchester. I called on a medical friend who was to accompany me.-Just as he was stepping into my carriage, a gentleman accosted him, and detained him in conversation about two minutes. We then proceeded; and on approaching the bridge, which had been recently erected, over the river Irwell, we heard a dreadful crash, proceeding from the fall of the central arch. Had we not been interrupted in our course by the seemingly casual circumstance of my companion's conversation with the gentleman who accosted him, we should probably have reached the bridge, and been buried in its ruins."

This case, to the best of my apprehension, so far from proving the doctrine of a particular providence, id est, according to the popular notion of it, "the violation of established order to suit the circumstances of individuals," proves the contrary: since in the relation, no circumstance is said to have happened, which needs to be referred to miraculous agency, or which may not be satisfactorily explained on natural principles.-That an arch of a bridge should give way is no very extraordinary occurrence; much less, that an eminent physician should be called to see a patient, when his road thither lay over this identical bridge; that he should call on a medical friend by the way, who was to accompany him; or that this friend should have been detained a few minutes in conversation or in fact, for here is the only semblance of any thing extraordinary, that, delayed a minute or two in their progress, they should have approached the bridge at the identical time the arch gave way. If there be any thing really remarkable in the case, it is not, their having arrived there at that critical moment; but, that they should not have passed it at some other: when we reflect, that for 14 hours of the 24, it is highly probable there was constant passing and repassing. So far from invoking a particular providence to their aid, would it not rather argue the absence of it, that they had not escaped the danger altogether. On the supposition of 12 hours passing and repassing only, the chances were 718 to 2 they had done so: and as medical men are liable to be called upon at all hours, in this particular case it possibly might have proved even 1438 to 2, or the chances have been doubled. Had we no better evidence of a particular pro

vidence

vidence than the foregoing, little credit could attach to the belief of the doctrine; and it is remarkable, that of the numberless cases adduced in proof of it, most of them, on examination, will be found equally vague and indeterminate. With a slight variation in the circumstances of the preceding case, the inference, although not warranted, would at least be admitted to have been both specious and imposing. Suppose, for instance, an enemy of Dr. Percival's, who had wanted to injure or to have assassinated him; willing to avoid suspicion, and make it appear the Doctor had come to his death by accident; having gained intelligence that he was to pass the bridge at a certain hour, had lain a train of gunpowder, or used other adequate means, to have enabled him instantaneously to complete his fell design. Again, suppose from some trifling mismanage ment he had found himself not quite ready; but, knowing that a friend of the Doctor's was to accompany him, and delay necessary to his purpose, had contrived to have him detained a few minutes in conversation. Suppose farther, that, on seeing or hearing the approach of the carriage, he had set fire to the train a few moments too soon:the Doctor's escape would certainly have been a signal one, and might have given some countenance to the idea of special protection: but even these circumstances would have afforded no proof of a particular providence.

Had, however, the arch given way, whilst the carriage was upon it, and they had not fallen together; but the carriage had remained stationary in the atmosphere, until effectual assistance could have been given, or that it had been made to float, cautiously, and easily, to a secure landing; then, indeed, a violation of established order would have taken place, a suspension of the operation of general laws, an actual interposition: a particular providence would have been exerted, to suit the circumstances of individuals. -Your attention will now be required to a case of a different kind, affording a greater scope for reflection, and in its consequences of infinitely more importance than the preceding; since the comfort and future religious hopes and expectations of millions have depended upon it. I allude to an occurrence in the life of Mahomet-an occurrence which, by the believer. or disbeliever, of the Mahomedan religion, might

equally be adduced in proof of a particular providence, or against it.-In the very commencement of Mahomet's wars, a stone thrown from a sling struck him on the temple, when he fell senseless to the ground. A little harder, and Mahomet, with the Mahomedan religion would probably, together, have ceased to be: for his death at that time would not have been the loss of an able general only; but must, in the estimation of his followers, have amounted to the privation of a divinely commissioned leader; to the loss of the founder of their religion. Consistently with the popular notion, the disciples of Mahomet would naturally have considered his escape a signal one, and the result of an actual interposition;-admitting, too, his commission to have been divine, not altogether without reason as an occurrence highly corroborative of it; with moreover, an ulterior object, worthy the divine interposition. The disbeliever of Mahomet's authority, on the contrary, would have hardly failed to express the utmost regret and astonishment, that in a moment so critical, some additional energy, or unusual vigour, had not been infused into the arm of the assailants; whereby the full accomplishment of his design in throwing the stone would have been effected, in the destruction of a false prophet. An ulterior object, too, of the utmost importance would also have been obtained,

an attainment even worthy of the divine interference; since multitudes then unborn would have thus escaped the thraldom, the persecutions, the degradation, of the Mahomedan superstition.-Nevertheless, the impartial enquirer, and dispassionate ́observer, would, in the event, have seen nothing more than the ordinary operation of general laws, without attaching any particular importance to the occurrence; it, in fact, having left the cause in question, unaltered.

In this, equally with the Manchester case, we discover “no violation of established order, to suit the circumstances of individuals;" no suspension of the ordinary operation of general laws; neither do we find any unusual energy, or unnatural vigour, to have been communicated, or exerted in their execution. Had either of the latter suppositions been realised, unquestionably a particular providence would have been exerted in such an exigency: but without the slightest evidence of

such

such interference, the only practical inference from the occurrence will be found in the inconclusiveness and inconsistency of the popular application of the doctrine. Any act of a particular providence having taken place, the event cannot possibly be such, as to admit of doubt, whether it had really done so or not: or whether it had been

exerted in the most effectual manner possible. SAM. SPURRELL.

Hackney, Dec. 1819.

[The remainder of Mr. Spurrell's paper will be given in our next. Its length has led to its being so long deferred. In discussions of this nature we are of course no parties; and we should ill perform our public duty if we refused our pages to all discussions and doctrines except to such as accorded with our own opinions.]

ARTHUR YOUNG, ESQ. F. R. S. Secretary to the Board of Agriculture,&c. ERHAPS the pursuits of no man PER in this active age have more influenced the habits of the people, and the policy of the state, than those of the late Arthur Young. He laid the foundation, by his early writings, of that SCIENCE of agriculture which had before his time been left to chance or precedent, and which ignorance or prejudice was considered as competent to direct. His Tours created a spirit of enquiry; his Annals of Agriculture kept it alive, and extended it to the highest classes; while his Farmer's Kalendar embodied all improvements and discoveries, and conveyed them to every farm-house and fire-side in the empire.

Yet in his time, though he survived to a good old age, he did not live to enjoy the fruits of his labours in the expected improvement of society. Either his systems were not matured, and sufficiently engrafted on the general institutions of the country, or they have been abused by being rendered subservient to the avarice and selfinterest of individuals, or to the unprincipled policy of the state, which has made use of them for purposes of foolish aggrandizement, or for the gra

tification of an insane passion for military display and public influence in every sense foreign. Be this, however, as it may, Mr. Young was the genius who pointed out the powers of Land when judiciously cultivated; and he proved that the soil of Britain was competent to diffuse luxury and plenty among the entire population. But it was not his fault that the increased produce was seized on by landlords, tythe-collectors, and tax-gatherers, as their exclusive share; that a silly policy of manufacturing for all the world drew the population from the healthful employments of the country to those of the forge and the loom; that high rents destroyed small farms, and led to their universal engrossment; and, in fine, that the depopulation of the country, where nature supplied all with enough, and the swarming of the towns where superabundant labour caused subsistence to be precarious, and led to famine, disease, and every variety of misery! These were not the faults of Mr. Young or his system, but they have been engendered by the selfishness of power, upheld by the pride and cupidity of legislators, and kept in countenance by the hardness and wickedness of the human heart.

Mr. Young was born Sept. 7, 1741; his father was Arthur Young, D.D. a prebendary of Canterbury, rector of Bradfield-Combust, in Suffolk, (where was the family estate), also, of Bradfield St. Clair, and of Exning, near Newmarket. He was a very active magistrate for the county, and chaplain to Arthur Onslow, then Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr. Young's elder brother, born in 1727, was John Young, D. D. prebendary of Worcester, and fellow of Eton, who broke his neck while hunting with the late King in 1786. Their only sister, born in 1733, died soon after her marriage to Mr. Tomlinson, of East Barnet.

He himself was intended for commerce, and apprenticed to a wine-mer

chant

chant at Lynn, in Norfolk. During this engagement, his leisure was employed in those studies which laid the foundation of that celebrity in life which he has since attained. But in 1761 we find Mr. Young's mercantile concerns were exchanged for a more congenial sphere-the cultured field; and he commenced farming at Bradfield Hall for the family.

Injudicious management, and consequent losses, produced family disputes, which in a few years were ended by the prudent intervention of a mother; the event, however, was a separation, and his removal from Bradfield. Happily for the agriculture of this country, and indeed of the European world, the mind of Arthur Young was too steady in its favourite pursuit, and too confident of its own powers, to be deterred by this unfortunate beginning.

As a second attempt in that which had now become his profession, he hired a farm in the neighbouring county of Essex, known by the name of Sampford Hall; but here a circumstance of a truly unfortunate kind attended him: he was prevented from taking possession of his new bargain by being disappointed of a promised loan of money, and ultimately obliged to forfeit his agreement.

Mr. Young now determined to travel in search of a proper spot on which he might commence business with a probable chance of advantage. If this expedition was not successful in its professed aim, he however received ample amends in another point of view, which probably had not before opened upon his mind, but which has since proved the primary cause of his utility to his country, and the basis on which he built his own reputation. It was in the course of these journies that he formed the plan of making an agricultural survey of England, which he afterwards so ably accomplished in his successive Tours.

The farm which he at last fixed upon was situated in Hertfordshire, near North Mimms, and it appears that it repaid him for nine years cultivation with little else than experience and loss. It was not the kind of soil where, with the best culture, money could be obtained in immoderate profusion, more especially under the management of a warm-headed, professed, and as yet insufficiently seasoned experimenter.

The improvements made at North Mimms, some useful and curious, others

of a different stamp, and of but little account at this time of day, have been long since published and appreciated. The experience of nine seasons having convinced our inquisitive farmer that he had already lost money enough, he quitted his Hertfordshire concerns, and retired once more to his paternal home, Bradfield Hall. His excellent mother dying soon after, he came into possession as heir to the estate, and that independence on the uncertain chances of life, so congenial with his laudable ambition, and so necessary to his views, was at once and for ever established.

We are no longer to consider him either as farming for his subsistence, or as much engaged in experiments, at least on his own account. The plan of his tours, as has been observed, was already laid, and the very extensive circulation obtained by his writings, both at home and upon the continent, gave him the highest degree of encouragement to persevere in a course so beneficial to the country, and so full of credit and probable future emolument to himself. Mr. Young had now be come a successful author, and had begun to reap the most solid advantages from that too generally precarious profession.

During the years 1776, 1777, 1778, and 1779, he performed his celebrated Tours in Ireland, and his fame attracted the notice of the whole body of landed proprietors: Lord Kingsborough availed himself of his abilities, and Mr. Young remained upwards of twelvemonths in the county of Cork, arranging and leas ing out a considerable part of his lordship's estate. About this period he published the first edition of his Farmer's Kalendar, which he continued to improve in successive editions through life, and which is too well-known to stand in need of eulogium.

In the year 1784, he commenced the Annals of Agriculture, published in monthly numbers, which were uninterruptedly continued for many years. In this very voluminous work the author has given, according to his original proposal, his own opinions and practice, joined with those of many of the ablest cultivators in the country, upon almost every possible agricultural topic, with an occasional introduction of the subjects of political economy, commerce, finance, and their various correlatives. His correspondents were men of the highest rank; and among them, the late King sent him seven communicatious