Produce of 80 R. fown broad caft, was 31 bufhels.-Free produce 281 of 240 R. drilled, was 109 bufhels. Free produce 1054 which is equal to 35 bushels for 80 rods; fo that there is here 6 bushels and 7-12ths on half an acre, or 13 bushels on an acre in favour of the drill hufbandry.

The experiments of Mr. John Boote, of Athurston, Warwickshire, with Mr. Cooke's drill, communicated in the next article, are upon a much larger scale.

At wheat feedness,' fays Mr. Boote, in 1785, having purchased a machine, I drilled 80 acres with wheat, the promifing appearance of which, in the spring of 1786, encouraged me to drill all my barley, being 120 acres; alfo 60 acres of beans, 20 acres of peas, 28 acres of oats, and 60 acres of turnips; in all 368 acres the refult of the above experiments I have enclosed, having ascertained them with the greatest accuracy, by reaping and thrashing feparately, the produce of one land or ridge of each crop in a fair average part of each field, except the oats and turnips; the former were inadvertently omitted to be afcertained; the latter were mostly destroyed by the fly, as well as those that were fown broad cast.

Refult of the Experiments above referred to.

He adds-N. B. I have now growing one hundred and twenty acres of drilled wheat, of a very promifing appearance.

Mr. Boote farther takes notice that he faved upwards of 150!. fterling in the article of feed, when compared with the price of what would have been commonly fown in broad caft; the whole of which fum he meant to have laid out on hoeing.

Of an inferior quality.
17

From

From thefe experiments, and other obvious confiderations, it feems to be very evident, that the practice of planting feeds of grain at regular diftances in narrow drills, adapted to the nature of each particular plant, so as to admit at the same time of era dicating annual weeds by means of the hoe, and flocking the ground with juft as many plants of grain as it is properly able to fupport, would be highly beneficial to the farmer. The advan tages, however, that will ultimately refult from this practice, cannot, at the beginning, be fully experienced. The feeds of many weeds retain their vegetative quality for a great number of years, while they are depofited in the earth at a depth improper for their germination. These feeds, therefore, when they are turned up by the plough, will, fome of them, be placed at their proper germinating depth each feafon; fo that for many years, could every weed that vegetates be even entirely deftroyed, fresh weeds would still be produced upon the foil, and the neceffity of frequent hoeings will not be diminished. But fhould the weeds be prevented from coming to feed for several years, the feeds originally in the foil will in time come to be exhaufted, and the ground could then be kept perfectly clean, at a much smaller expence than before. This reafoning is entirely confirmed by the practice of gardeners: for it is found by experience that a garden, newly taken in from a corn field, if not trenched, fo as to bury all the feed weeds, requires more weeding in one season, than it will require in fix, after it has been feveral years well kept, as a garden. Mr. Boote therefore has reafon on his fide, when he here propofes that no pofitive conclufions fhould be drawn between the advantages of this kind of drill husbandry and the broad caft, unless a fair comparative trial of the expence and profits of both kinds be continued on the fame fields, for several years.

We beg leave, however, to remark, that we are far from wishing to recommend to the favour of our Readers the drill hufbandry, as practifed by Mr. Tull, for the ordinary corn crops in this country; for this, we are fatisfied, cannot be attended with profit. Sowing grain in narrow drills, is indeed nothing more than a regular way of diftributing the feed at fuch diftances for each kind of grain, as experience fhall prove to be juft fufficient for producing a full crop of that kind of grain, and at the fame time to admit the hoe, for eradicating the weeds, and loosening the earth. The great defideratum, hitherto, has been, to get a machine, properly calculated for diftributing the feeds regularly, at any diftance, and depth, that might be wanted; and we are not without hope, from the extenfive practice of Mr. Boote, that this defideratum may be now nearly obtained. If a drill machine can be found, which performs its bufinefs properly, the only important points that remain to be afcertained are the exact

distance

diftance between each grain in the drills, and the width between the rows, which in general will yield the weightieft crop of each particular kind of grain, or plant, cultivated by the farmer. Some attempts have already been made to ascertain these points, but many more will be required before any certain conclufions can be drawn.

ART. XIV. Of the Origin and Progrefs of Language. Vol. IV. 8vo. 5 s. Boards. Cadell. 1787.

A

GAIN we hail our old acquaintance, the good Lord Monboddo, riding bis hobby-horfe; not, however, on the full ftretch, as we have formerly feen him, but jogging along foberly, as befeemeth his age and gravity, and as many of our readers may have feen him, trotting from Edinburgh to London. Still he holds every thing ancient to be facred, every thing modern to be contemptible, and all human affairs to be perpetually going on from bad to worse.

The bufinefs of this volume is to exhibit a comparison of the excellencies and defects of different languages, and to explain the nature of ftyle, in its feveral kinds. The Author treats of words, firft, merely as articulate founds, capable of variety and melody, and then, as fignificant, fingly and in compofition: and, after laying down the general characters of excellence under each head, he examines the comparative merit of feveral languages, ancient and modern, always giving a decided preference to the Greek. On the fubject of ftyle, the Author difcourfes of compofition, as an art, under the heads of melody, rhythm, variety, and decorum; and points out the diftinct characters of the epiftolary, dialogue, and hiftorical ftyle. This latter part of the work contains remarks on Xenophon, Plato, Cicero, and Lord Shaftesbury, as dialogifts; with an abridge-ment of Cicero's dialogue De Oratore, and Lord Shaftesbury's Moralifts. This piece our Author pronounces to be the beft production of modern times in the walk of dialogue: next to which he places Harris's Three Dialogues: thofe of Lyttleton and Hurd he has not condefcended to mention. On the subject of history, Herodotus is the principal object of his Lordship's panegyric.

The reader will be difappointed if he expects much new matter in this volume; but he will meet with juft and pertinent remarks, fufficient to repay him for the trouble of perufing it.

Among these we are particularly pleafed with our Author's bbfervations on the prefent tafte for a fhort and abrupt mode of writing, the reverfe of that compass and variety of periods, which diftinguished the beft models of antiquity.

The only variety (fays he) we can give to our ftyle, is by compofition in periods, fitly divided into members of different lengths

and

and structures, and variously connected together. Whoever, there fore, composes in fhort fentences, where the fubject makes periods proper, appears to me to be entirely ignorant of the beauty of compofition, nor indeed to know that there cannot be any beauty in any art without variety, and that variety cannot be, except where there is a whole of some extent or fize. And accordingly we observe, that this short cut of a ftile, as I call it, which has been introduced among us from France, but is not at present so fashionable as it was fome years ago, is tedioufly uniform and difgufting to the ear, which in matter of compofition must be the judge, fince, as I have elsewhere obferved, reading is the teft of good writing. The ear is alfo offended by the frequent breaks or ftops, which make a kind of bounding hopping ftyle, without any thing like that flow, that flumen orationis, of which the ancients fpeak fo much. And befides all this, I maintain that the fenfe, collected in a well-compofed period, comes upon you more fully and forcibly, than when it is cut into fhreds, and frittered down into short and unconnected fentences. I will add, that the compofing in this way has a bad effect upon the readers or hearers; for it weakens their comprehenfion, by accuftoming them to take in the fenfe only in fmall parcels, and broken down as it were into pap to feed children. Now, the most valuable faculty of the human mind, is comprehenfion, by which we are enabled to fee a whole at once. In acquiring this faculty, as in acquiring other habits, the mind muft proceed by degrees, and before it can take in a whole oration, an epic poem, a tragedy, or a fystem of science, it must have learned to comprehend a period.'

་

Although we are of opinion, that every appearance is against the Author's notion of the downward progreffion of mankind, and can, by no means, think with him, that all we should aim at is, to preferve the arts that have been handed down to us from our forefathers, or to reftore them when loft;' although we are tempted to file at his frequent references to himself, and his fmall-talk about himself and his friends, and cannot refrain from downright laughter, when we hear him maintaining, that men fung before they spoke,' that the ufe of language was firft taught in Egypt by the god Teuth,' and that the cuckow, who articulates his own name mufically, raifing the tone of the firft fyllable a third above the laft, comes nearer to the Greek pronunciation than any thing he knows;' we cannot, neverthejefs, pay Lord Monbod do the compliment, which it seems [fee Preface, p. 3.] he would be willing to purchase from us at a handfome price (we make no apology to him for a long period or parenthefis), that of informing the public that his work is of no value. Till we are properly feed by his Lordfhip, we shall continue to commend him where we can, and to cenfure him only where we ought.

ART.

ART. XV. Obfervations on the Specimen Alterum Pharmacopæiæ Londinenfis, 1787; pointing out its many ftriking Defects, &c. In a Letter addreffed to the Committee felected out of the Members of the College of Phyficians to reform the old Pharmacopæia. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Robinfons. 1787.

EFORE we proceed to make any remarks on thefe obferva

BEFOR

tions, it will be neceffary to inform our readers, especially those who live at a diftance from the metropolis, that the London College of Phyficians have been employed for thefe laft two years, in preparing a new edition of their Pharmacopæia published in 1746.-That they diftributed among their Members a printed copy of the intended new edition, of October 1786, under the title of Specimen Pharmacopaiæ, &c. and another, entitled Specimen Alterum &c. in the begining of laft fummer. The Committee of the College declared that these fpecimens were diftributed for the fake of obtaining the opinion of the whole body of the College, on the alterations and improvements which they had made, and of procuring fuch additions to the work as would tend to make it more perfect and complete. The defign was laudable. It gave undoubted proofs of their liberality, and that they were only actuated by the beft of motives, the improvement of the fcience, and the benefit of mankind.

After a due confideration of the conduct of the Committee, and the reasons which prompted them to act as they have done, the following queftion neceffarily prefents itfelf: Are the fpecimens of the Pharmacopeia objects of public criticism? We answer in the negative; and, in conformity to that opinion, we forbore to mention the fpecimens in our Journal. They were intended enly for the private infpection of the Members of a particular Society, and were fubjected only to their criticism; and even then to private criticism.

The Author of the present work appears, however, to have formed a different opinion. He has not only thought the Specimen Alterum a fit object for public criticism, but he has executed bis defign with a spirit of rancour which the liberality of the Committee by no means deferves, and which true criticism abhors. If he had written his obfervations, with a real intention of affifting the Committee, or of improving the Science of Pharmacy, he ought to have ufed decent language at leaft, especially if he meant, or wifhed, the College to adopt his propofed amend

ments.

With refpect to the propriety of his publishing this critique, he may poffibly vindicate himself by afferting, as he does in pages 4 and 5 of the Pamphlet, that he fent, privately, to the Committee, his remarks on the firft fpecimen; and that their not being attended to in the fecond, was the reafon of this publication.

This vindication, however, cannot justify abuse; and we do

no