7

* Moft moderns (purfues Mr. Y.) adopt the manner of these ancients, neglecting experiments;' and on this head aie condemned, Gallo, in his l'inti Giornete dall' Agricoltura;' (4to. 1550) Tarello in his Ricordo d'Agricoltura; alfo our Fitz-Herbert in his Boke of Hufbandry and Surveying (1539), and the Frenchman," De Serres, in his Theatre d' Agriculture' (1600).

Yet Mr. Y. confeffes that he has not only never read the two first in the original, but alfo that he has only feen extract, whence he cannot rightly judge of the whole of their works.

He owns alfo, that though the works of the third of thefe writers contain not one experiment in forty years husbandry, yet his works are valuable for the age he lived in, and that both these two laft writers practifed and understood husbandry.

The inquiries of the great Bacon which related to agriculture (fays Mr. Y.), as far as they extend, are worthy of his immortal genius-purely experimental, and related with a philofophical precifion; ftrange, that fucceeding writers fhould not catch from his works a jufter idea' [of a work on agriculture" we prefume]. This praife of Lord Bacon is very juft.

Mr Y. owns, that he has never been able to meet with any of the works of Gabriel Platte, and therefore knows not his

manner.

Here we take an opportunity of stepping, for a moment, out of the ftrict path of Reviewers, to exprefs our with, that fome able collector would prefent the public with a good edition) of all our old writers De Re Ruftica. If Mr. Y. would undertake the task, probably he would find motives to speak of them, more favourably than he does at prefent. We need hardly add, that an anonymous, but excellent contributor to the Mufeum Rufticum, has given fuch a catalogue and account of them, as muft greatly facilitate fuch an undertaking, and if himself is (as we hope) alive, we fhould with peculiar pleasure review an edition of them from his hand, and doubt not but we could, with integrity, recommend it to the grateful public.

a

Our Author owns Hartlib's Legacy (printed in 1665) to be work of great merit, though not much in the experimental flyle;. he praises it for being not nearly fo thickly frewed with the extravagancies [conceits] of the age, as the works of fome of his cotemporaries; and he condemns Beati's annotations on it, as hav-, ing too many. We own, that if he has any, he has too many, but won-' der that Mr. Y. fhould select that which he gives the public, from p. 279, where Beati speaks of rape crops, which cannot produce lefs than from five to ten quarters. We are forry to be thus obliged to review Mr. Y. as a critic on ftyle; a walk in which we expected not to meet with him. Our impartiality to the living and dead obliges us to fay, that this expreffion feems not justly cenfurable, as the unaffected style of common life juftifies this phrafe

ology,

ology, which feems also agreeable to philofophic precifion. We could eafily enter further into a juftification of it, but we think fuch a task unnecessary*.

Mr. Y. now complains, that Sir H. Platte, in his Treatise of pasture and arable lands, has no juft idea of experimental agriculture, but, in fome other works, even burlesques agriculture; and he inftances the following conceit in his Garden of Eden' (5th edit. 1659), viz. "A touch at the VEGETABLE WORK in phyfic, whole principal fire is the flomach of the ofrich." p. 167.

He notes a very different fault in Blythe's English Improver improved (1652), viz. that all his experiments are so extravagantly fuccessful, that one muft want common fenfe to believe half of what he fays. Indeed clover worth 121. per acre, and turnips, without hoeing, worth as much, feem very hyperbolical in fact; but as to hyperbolical terms, of which alfo Mr. Y. complains, we fee none of them, and if we were difpofed to pleasantry, we might fay, that hyperbolical expression is a very fuitable vehicle or garb for hyperbolical facts.

By Mr. Y's faying that he who wants not common sense, believes not half of Mr. Blythe's affertions, every Reader is reminded of a repartee ascribed to a great wit, who, on an illuftrious lady's complaint that the world reported fhe had two baseborn children, affured her, that he never believed above half of fuch reports. If Mr. Y. believes that the unhoed turnips amounted to nearly 61. per acre, he will be in danger of a fufpicion that he has parted with more than half his common fense, especially if he adds, that eight or ten quarts of feed were employed.

To these hyperboles of Mr. Blythe, Mr. Y. adds the affertion of a farmer, viz. that his hog would not eat a turnip without boiling. He might be honest, and Mr. Blythe not over-credulous. Even a fwine has not always an appetite, and perhaps he had been pampered with bon morceaus! Such experiments as this can hurt nobody, for they can deceive nobody. When men shoot with the long bow, we always with them to fhoot far enough, that every body may know whence the shaft comes. Mr. Blythe's foftenings, which Mr. Y. obferves, viz. Reader, if thou dar't believe me !' are quite unnecessary.

However, we cannot affent to Mr. Y. who ranks with the former extravagancies Mr. Blythe's crops of oats worth 61. per acre on land good for nothing," if he will only make a few grains of reasonable allowance. Ground which, comparatively (peaking, is good for nothing while unploughed, frequently yields (efpe

* What will Mr. Y. fay to the expreffion, Clipping the pinions. of drilling ideas, which foared too much? Yet fuch is found in a late Courfe of Experiments on Agriculture.

cially if pared and burned) fuch quantities of oats at the first crop, as may, when the crop in general in that neighbourhood is bad, amount to 61. or fix quarters per acre.

Mr. Adam Speed is next cenfured, and juftly, for giving into moft of the extravagant promises of fuccefs which difgrace that age. Mr. Y. inftances his advice to improve [land, we fuppofe] by rabbits in hutches, up to 20001. per annum. See his Adam out of Eden, or an Abstract of divers excellent Experiments touching the Advancement of Husbandry', 1659.

It is impoffible, unless the book or the whole fcheme were before us, to judge of the propriety of Mr. Y's exclamation, Enough to ruin any man!' At prefent we muft think that fuch a scheme could hardly have fuch dire effects, unless the attendance rose to a confiderable fum.

The inftances of turnips worth 301. per acre (p. 19.), and clover of one acre, which is to keep four cows Summer and Winter (p. 45.) are indeed laugh-at-able articles, and innocent Shots.

Surely fuch inftances do no great honour to the experimental method; and yet we doubt not, that had any person addressed Mr. Speed for fatisfaction, he would have produced his books in which all his experiments were originally recorded, with as much gravity as Mr. Y. could produce his vouchers.

All we mean to infinuate, is, that the credit of experiments depends intirely on the credit of the author for integrity, accuracy, and judgment.

Mr. Y. cites M. Stephenfon's Twelve Months,' printed in 1661, as a curiofity; and fuch it is in point of ftyle. He gives the following inftances from January and March, viz.

• After a conflict betwixt the fteel and the ftone, fhe [the maid] begets a fpark; at last the candle lights on his match,' p. 5. Linen, in dirty December, had gotten the yellow jaundice; and this is the only time to purge them,' p. 12.

Our Author thinks Mr. Worlidge, in his Syftema Agricul tura, not only totally devoid of experiment, but very superficial, and judges Mr. Mortimer in his "Whole Art of Hubandry," in one refpect no bad writer, viz. that he is every where practical, and had no vanity of shining as an author, much less as a fyftematifer; that he pretends only to collect and methodife the commonly received ideas of good hufbandry, and executes his defign in a plain and judicious manner.'

As Mr. Y. has affumed to be the critic in language, we must conclude, from the propriety of his expreffions, that Mr. Mortimer is, in his judgment, a bad writer in every respect but

By the dung, most likely.

one:

one: however, this one refpect is fo diffufive, that it includes almost every thing valuable, viz. method, plainnefs, judgment !

We must observe, that Mr. Mortimer has stood fo high in the opinion of fubfequent writers, that they have copied him literally for whole pages, down to the author of a Compleat Syftem of Agriculture, in many volumes.

Mr. Y. efteems Mr. Lifle one of the most peculiar writers in the walk of husbandry. He has registered his obfervations in no unexperimental manner, the facts being derived from the experience of himself or old farmers, and he has no favourite point, which may warp his judgment. He gives only the plaineft narratives.' Yet our Author thinks it as difficult to give as to refufe the name of a book of experiments to his work. What can be the reafon of this difficulty? Mr. Y. fatisfies us :Mr. Liflefeldom gives above one-tenth of the circumstances which fhould be known.' Will not this criticism raise a small objection to the experimental method? Mr. Lifle's work is already of a decent fize, and if it fhould, in the experimental way, have been ten times as large, may not both buyers and readers (for they are often diftinct perfons) and poor reviewers too, deprecate the omen?

Of Mr. Tull, Mr. Y. fays, that, with all the advantages of learning, fortune, travelling, and a vast share of natural penetration and ingenuity, he faw with wonderful quickness the omiffions of all preceding writers.-Full of the jufteft ideas of proceeding on experiment alone, he executed a vaft number, and for many years formed repeated trials of his method upon a large extent of ground. But when he came to publish, instead of laying before his reader a plain narrative of his experience, and fubjoining his reflections, he compofed a folio of reflections, instructions, and opinions, which might be just and well-founded, but carried notwith them the proofs of their propriety.' He then infifts much on the difference of giving experiments in particular, and a general · affurance of having made them; and avows his own poignant regret, that Mr. Tull has not given his in detail (p. 10.), and this omiffion of Mr. Tull appears to be what Mr. Y. has called that rock, for splitting on which, Mr. Tull so much condemned others.

And here we muft own, that Mr. Y.'s appears to be the better method; but much may be faid in excuse for Mr. T.'s as it is certain, that long experiments in detail require an attention · which few readers will give; and, if Authors will be read, they must in a certain degree confult the tafte of the generality of their readers.

Horfe-hoeing husbandry, 1733.

Mr.

Mr. Y. has, however, another objection to Mr. Tull, which, if allowed to be true, is inexcufable, viz. that he was by no means an impartial writer.'

Having obferved that Mr. Tull embraced the idea of the drill ploughing with the utmost warmth, he adds, infomuch that he lets nothing efcape his pen, that has the leaft tendency to deftroy his favourite measure.'

Hence our Author accounts, and perhaps with truth, for the neglect into which the drill hufbandry fell, till revived by fome very fpirited perfons in France, whofe practice has drawn the attention of all Europe.

To a writer of a very different, nay oppofite character, a recommender of the old hufbandry, viz. Mr. William Ellis of Little Gaddefden in Hertfordshire, Mr. Y. next pays his compliments, and praises his works *, as deserving much more attention than they meet with, and containing a vaft fund of real experience. He owns, however, that many long paflages in them are most disgusting, and that, through half of his works, he is a mere old woman. Indeed, the titles of feveral chapters are such, that on perufal of them the delicate reader will, rather than have the difguft of perufing the chapters themfelves, give Mr. Y. credit for his affertion, and be apt to conclude, that he who is most frequently a mere old woman, can feldom be any thing better.

To Mr. Bradley our Author allows the character of a fenfible writer, but blames him for talking of experiments, and giving none; and thinks that many ftrokes of his practice afford us a pretty accurate idea of his experiments.

Mr. Y. refers to many inftances, fome of which shew Mr. Bradley certainly to have had little experience; such as that from which he determines, that the turnip, with a root like a parsnip's, is best for light lands (p. 238 of Complete Body of Hufbandry, 8vo, 1727); and that other, viz. that dry chalk is injurious to land, if meant generally, feems of the fame kind (p. 63.). To the fame clafs probably may be referred his opinion, that fheep's dung and fand are the ruin of light lands (p. 76.), and certainly that other (p. 141.), that ground to be laid fhould be ploughed as long as it will bear corn with any fpirit.

There are, however, many fkilful farmers, who will think, with Mr. Bradley, that no dung fhould be used till it is like earth (p. 91.), and that the dung of pigeons and poultry fhould be fteeped in water (p. 82, 83.), though we perhaps hold neither of these opinions.

* Modern Husbandman, 4 vols. 8vo, 1744. The Timber Tree improved, 8vo, 1745. Agriculture improved, 2 vols 8vo, 1746. Chiltern and Vale Farming, 8vo, 1745. Shepherd's Guide, 8vo, 1749.

And