one: however, this one refpect is fo diffufive, that it includes almost every thing valuable, viza method, plainness, judyment !

We must obferve, that Mr. Mortimer has flood 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 himfelf 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. Lifle feldom gives above one-tenth of the circumstances which should be known.' Will not this criticifm raise a small objection to the experimental method? Mr. Lifle's work is already of a decent fize, and if it should, in the experimental way, have been ten times as large, may not both buyers and readèrs (for they are often diftinct persons) and poor reviewers too, deprecate the omen?

Of Mr. Tull, Mr. Y. fays, that, with all the advantages of learning, fortune, travelling, and a vaft share of natural penetration and ingenuity, he faw with wonderful quickness the omiffions of all preceding writers.-Full of the juftest 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, inftead of laying before his reader a plain narrative of his experience, and fubjoining his reflections, he compofed a folio of reflections, inftructions, and opinions, which might be just and well-founded, but carried not with 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 fplitting on which, Mr. Tull fo much condemned others.

And here we must own, that Mr. Y.'s appears to be the better method; but much may be faid in excufe 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 muft in a certain degree confult the taste of the generality of their readers.

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 destroy his favourite measure.'

Hence our Author accounts, and perhaps with truth, for the neglect into which the drill husbandry 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 deferving much more attention than they meet with, and containing a vaft fund of real experience, He owns, however, that many long paffages 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 fuch, that on perufal of them the delicate reader will, rather than have the difguft of perufing the chapters themselves, 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 fhew Mr. Bradley certainly to have had little experience; fuch as that from which he determines, that the turnip, with a root like a parfnip'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 ufed till it is like earth (p. 91.), and that the dung of pigeons and poultry fhould be steeped in water (p. 82, 83.), though we perhaps hold neither of thefe opinions.

* Modern Hufbandman, 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

And now, Mr. Y. obferves, that the experiments of Monf. Du Hamel and his correfpondents have been fo much praised, that fome may imagine they preclude fresh experiments.'-He will therefore give them a little attention, and justly praises them, as being generally concife,' (and we may pronounce conciseness to be a great excellence, when joined to fufficiency,) admirably expressed, and with great attention to moft concurrent circumftances,' yet adds, with truth, that some circumstances of high importance are omitted in them.

In fupport of this conclufive obfervation, Mr. Y. mentions one grofs omiffion in thofe experiments, which must have ftruck every attentive reader, yet cannot be too often noticed, viz. that

expences of the new hufbandry are totally omitted;' and without this circumftance, an experiment is in many cases useless.' He notes, that he will engage to raise vaft crops of corn in the warft fields (p. 12.), and judiciously proceeds to remark, that Monf. De Chateau Vieux's comparative experiments between the old and new husbandry frequently extend no farther than one or two crops on the fame land: and that he calculates crops for many years, on the data of that ist, or 2d.

He alfo rightly adds the fuperiority of the new method to the old husbandry of Geneva, with alternate fallows, is a small recommendation of it, as that [old husbandry] is a very imperfect one; and that in England the cafe is widely different, fo that no comparifon can be decifive, unless conducted for several years, and an exact regifter kept.'

Mr. Y. fupports his very useful general remark by an instance of Mr. De Chateau Vieux's calculating from a crop of 1752, that the crop of 1753 will be equal; nay, suggesting that there is no doubt but it will be greater. He exclaims juftly against fuppofitions artfully interwoven with facts; and then drawing from thence many conclufions and maxims.

He very handiomely acknowledges, that the well-being of mankind was the only view of Mr. De Chateau Vieux, but obferves, that as his experiments are published for universal benefit, it is highly neceffary, especially in foreign countries, to examine clofely whether the new practice promifes advantage fuperior to the old, which it is intended to fubvert;' and thefe experiments being translated into English, and firongly recommended to our farmers, he afks, Will the comparison betwixt Geneva and England hold good? How miferably defective (cries hej muft their old husbandry be, to produce, on a medium, not more than three times the feed.'

He concludes, that after a moft attentive examination of thefe experiments, he could not determine whether, on given land, the drill husbandry deferved to be adapted.

Thus

Thus he clears himself from the imputation of temerity, in publishing his course of experiments, as in fome inftances better adapted to the practice of British cultivators,' and profeffes to pretend to equal Mr. Du Hamel and his correfpondents in nothing but fincerity..

Mr. Y. acknowledges (in the faimable phrase) that the whole range of economic writings does not prefent a more valuable morfel than the history of Turbilly's improvements,' and adds, that the general œconomy of a farm is fo much concerned in them, that the want of registered experiments is comparatively but little felt.'

But is not the fame apology admiffible, in certain degrees at deaft, for other writers to whom the fame indulgence is not fhewn? We would not be thought to reckon the Marquis of Turbilly among the black kind; otherwife we fhould repeat the fatyrift's adage, Dat veniam corvis, &c.

Mr. Y. acknowledges the uncommon pleasure which he received from perufing, in the Encyclopedie of Meffrs Le Roy and Quefney the fon, the articles Fermier, Froment, Culture, and Grain. He avows their giving accurate defcriptions of feveral practices, and obfervations on them, drawn from reason; and on this plan thinks these articles moft excellently executed, with great penetration.

He praises, as of the fame nature, M. Patullo's Effai fur l' Amelioration des Terres' (12mo, 1758), which has numerous reSections of a practical kind, and includes an elegant idea of a newly-inclofed farm, with calculation of expences, produces, and profit, for a term of years, with confiderable precifion.

We mean not to decry this work, but muft obferve, that here, if any where, plans fhould go on experiments, as calculations without proof of experience, are moft fallacious in building, inclofing, &c.

But our Author condemns the works of Mr. Le Large, viz. • Memoires fur l' Agriculture' (12mo, 1752), and Monf. Sarcey de Sutieres, viz. Agriculture Experimentale (12m0, 1764), as pretending to experiments (the latter of twenty years) without the merit of good reafoning or reflections.

We think, with Mr. Y. that fuch a deficiency is a very great one, but still the experiments remain to reafon upon; unless Mr. Y. means that these gentlemen only pretend to, but have or give no experiments..

He praises the Memoires et Obfervations of the Berne fociety, as abounding with a great variety of knowledge truely useful; but thinks the ellays profeffing to be experimental, less fatisfactory,

The good eating of the French has introduced this fashionable phrafe into literary matters, Indeed the bon geur has long been familiar.

8

as blended too much with reafonings, reflections, and instruc

tions.

We cannot agree with Mr. Y. in this cenfure, as it seems a contradiction to what we have agreed with him in, on the laftnamed writers, if the reafonings &c. be good.

He notes, that feveral of thefe writers have a proper idea of [the neceffity of] inferting their expences (p. 14, 15.) but la ments that experimental effays bear no proportion to the argumenta tive; and applies this remark to the agricultural part of the Memoirs of Britanny. But, before his readers join with him, they will wish to make an estimate of the respective merits of two kinds of writing, both very ufeful.-He confeffes, that he could not procure the Memoirs of Rouen, and fome other cities of France. A fact at which we wonder much.

Dr. Home's Treatife of the Principles of Agriculture and Vegetation, is justly praifed by Mr. Y. as affording fpecimens of pure and truly philofophic experiments; and he declares, that if the Doctor had attended to a larger courfe of experiments, he would have prevented the publication of Mr. Y's imperfect sketch. Such confeffions as this, may deprecate the feverity of judges; but we must note, that two bulky volumes in 4to are usually expected to give more than an imperfect sketch.

Dr. Home's omiffion of expences is indeed (as Mr. Y. notes) a great defect.

Our Author laments that he cannot speak of Mr. Dickson's Treatife of Agriculture (8vo, 2d edit. 1765), in the fame terms of refpect; regreting, that he kept no regifter of his bufinefs and experiments on a confiderable farm for many years; and fays, Experience is an admirable foundation for any kind of ftructure; but in agriculture fhe must be the fuperftructure itself, not the foundation only. We can fcarcely allow this diftinction, as every fuperior ftone &c. in every building, is a fuperftructure to the inferior.

Mr. Y. makes the fame objection to Mr. Randal's elaborate Treatife, and notes, that Mr. Randal's fallow year is fo prodigiously expenfive, that his readers must neceffarily defire to see how it anfwered with himfelf, before they venture to adopt it. Had he given a number of acres on which he tried his method, ftating every operation, and the actual expence, with the produce and profit, &c. for a term of years,. fuch a fingle experiment would have more weight with the world, than a volume of reasoning from experience.

Mr. Y. refides, indeed, at a great diftance from the feat of Mr. Randal's femi-virgilian husbandry; but as he has lately made the northern tour, we thould have thought that he might have eafily learned how to reconcile the feemingly difcordant truths,