ciety; and the judges determined on a competition in their favour.

Their general fcope is thus briefly fummed up by the Author. In fo neceffary an art,' fays he, where the terms are inaccurate, confufed, and differ fo much in different counties, to fix thefe terms, and afcertain their meaning; where there is nothing fyftematic to lay down a regular plan; where the different parts are generally looked on as complete, to mark the deficiencies, and fhew that there is much wanted; where the means of improvement are unknown or neglected, to point out the only road that can lead with certainty to it; where there are few experiments to build on, to relate fome, and on thefe to lay a foundation for more; where the reafonings are in general fo very unphilofophical, to fettle fome fund for difcourfe and argument; where the proper helps have not been called in, to make ufe of thefe, and introduce a new fcience to the affiftance of this art; in fhort, where there is but little afcertained, to fix fome general principles on which the artift may depend: this is the defign of the following papers. That no more has been done, will be most readily excufed by thofe who are beft acquainted with the difficulty of • the undertaking.'

Dr. Home obferves, that every art has undergone some confiderable improvements in this and the laft century, except agriculture; which he thinks is little better understood by the moderns than it was by the antients: and that Virgil and Columella may be ftill reckoned among the beft Writers on that fubject. This he very rationally accounts for in the following manner. Hufbandry is in general practifed by people whofe minds have never been improved by Science; who have never been taught to make obfervations, or draw conclufions, in order to attain the truth or by thofe who, though better qualified by nature, are difabled, by the narrownefs of their fortunes, from carrying their schemes into execution. But fuppofing the fortune eafy, and the judgment improved, yet the difficulty of the art itself, is fufficient to retard its progrefs. How delicate,' as our judicious Author obferves, are the circumstances that must attend each experiment! What a number of different obfervations on heat and cold, dry and wet, difference of foils, grains, feafons, &c. must be exactly made, before one can be certain of the general fuccefs of an experiment! What a difagreeC ment from a fmall difference in one of these circumftances! How feldom can thefe experiments be repeated, which take a whole year before they can be brought to a conclufion! How unequal for fuch a tafk are the few years of judgment and activity we enjoy! How liable are obfervations to die

with the obferver, when not made public! And how averfe is human pride to do it, unlefs it could erect a fyftem! Agri-, culture, feemingly fo eafy, appears, from the fcarcity of good authors, to be the most difficult of all arts.

But these are not the only obftacles that Husbandry has met with. It has yet had a greater to ftruggle with. It does not, like most arts, lead to an account of itself, or depend on principles which its practice can teach. Something beyond this art is necellary to the knowlege of the art itself. The principles of all external arts must be deduced from mechanics, or chemistry, or both together. Agriculture is in the laft clafs; and though it depends very much on the powers of machinery, yet I'll venture to affirm, that it has a greater dependence on chemistry. Without a knowlege in the latter fcience, its principles can never be fettled. As this fcience is but of late invention, and has not yet been cultivated with that regard to utility, and the improvement of trades and manufactures, as it ought and might, Agriculture is hardly fenfible of its dependence on it. The design of the following fheets is to make this appear; and to try how far chemistry will go in fettling the principles of Agriculture.'

In the application of chemistry to Agriculture, and the afcertaining the principles of Hufbandry by chemical experiments, confifts, indeed, the great merit of Dr. Home's performance: wherein he has at once fhewn himself a good philofopher, a worthy citizen, a fenfible man, and a judicious writer. As to any little imperfections in his laft-mentioned capacity, the most perceptible to us are a few northern idioms, which here and there break in upon the elegance and perfpicuity of his language: but these are minutiae beneath the critic's notice, especially with refpect to works of this kind; in which utility ought ever to take place of ornament.-But we offer not this as an apology for our Author, who, in truth, ftands in no need of it; for, in general, he writes like gentleman and a scholar; and appears not only to have employed much thought, but much reading allo upon this branch of natural philofophy.

In this work he does not pretend to teach the practice of Hufbandry; his defign being only to fketch out the great outlines of this art, and to fhew that it is capable of being reduced to a fyftem. If in this way,' fays he, we can fix fome fettled principles from the facts which are already afcertained, those who apply to practice will find their benefit in it. The just theory of an art leads directly to its improvement, as it leads to thofe experiments which yet remain to be tried. • Without this guide we may stumble on truths by accident'; Sf 2 • but

.

but when led by it, we have the fecret fatisfaction of thinking, that we are indebted to ourselves for the happy iffue of the experiment.'

To enter particularly into our Author's fyftem, or the principles of his philofophy, would lead us beyond our limits; fuffice it, therefore, that we apprize our Readers what are the general out-lines of the scheme on which he proceeds; and this we fhall give in his own words:---the moft unexceptionable manner of representing any Writer whatever.

• All organized bodies receive their increase from the reception and application of certain particles, which are designed by the author of nature for their nourishment. Without thefe nutritive particles there could be no increase. As plants belong to the clafs of organized bodies, they thrive in proportion to the quantity of nourishment they receive at their roots. Hence arifes a fimple, but very comprehensive, view ⚫ of Husbandry. The whole of the art seems to center in this point, viz. nourishing of plants.

But how can the farmer understand the art of nourishing plants, unless he knows the nature and qualities of each kind of foil, whether it be proper or improper for that office; unlefs he can provide fuitable food for the nourishment of plants, ⚫ and discovers what that food is; unless he affifts the plants in reaching and acquiring that food, by rendering the foil loofe and open; unless he knows and endeavours to remove, so far as lies in his power, all impediments to this nourishment? These are the great outlines of Agriculture. In following thefe, then, we fhall divide our fubject into five parts. The nature and qualities of different foils. 2. The nature and qualities of the different compofts. 3. Their manner of acting. 4. The different methods of opening the foil. 5. The impediments to vegetation, and their cure.

1.

The operations of bodies are to be accounted for only from their known qualities, afcertained by experiment. Reasoning on any other plan, can never certainly lead to truth. I • fhall not, therefore, proceed a fingle ftep, without fact and • experiments: and when I am not fupplied with them from • others, fhall endeavour to make them myself. It is laborious, but it is neceflary,'

As thofe parts of Dr. Home's book which have the most immediate relation to practice, may prove the moft generally ufeful to our country Readers, we fhall give them an abftract of two or three of his fections, as fpecimens of his induftry with

regard

regard to his experiments, and of his judgment in respect of his conclufions from them: And first,

C

Of the Sandy Soil.

• Sand cannot detain the water fo long as the rich foils, because it does not contain those faponaceous and mucilaginous juices which thefe do, and with which the water is combined and detained. Hence fandy foils often want a fufficient quantity of moisture for the nourishment of plants. Hence they are very hot, becaufe fand is fufceptible of a greater heat from ⚫ the influence of the fun, and will retain it longer than wa• ter does.

Sand cannot fwell by the addition of water, because that quality in rich foils is owing to an inteftine fermentation, which goes on in them. But in fand there are no particles, and in fandy foils too few, which are capable of fermentation. Hence a defect of nutritious particles in fandy foils. Inftead of fwelling, it diminishes in bulk when wet; because the water rufhing in, difpofes the particles more regularly, so that the interftices are better filled up than before, and its bulk • leffened.

The faults, then, of the fandy foil are, that it lets water pafs through it too eafily, and that it contains too few nutris tious particles. Whatever compoft is ufed to this foil, muft correct one or both of these faults. Clay will help it to re<tain the water; but then it is not richly ftored with vegetable food. Woollen rags anfwer both purposes very well, as they contain a great quantity of mucilaginous juice, which ferves equally well in nourishing plants, and in detaining moisture.

The compoft that appears to me to be one of the fittest, is mofs for it is as impervious to water as clay, nay, perhaps, more fo; and as it is a vegetable, contains more oil than any other that I know. This reafoning is confirmed by fact. A gentleman laid fome of this manure on a fmall part of a field, confifting of a very light fandy foil. The oats which grew that year, and the clover which grew the following, were much better on that part than on the rest of the field.

The following experiment was tried on equal portions of about three feet fquare, in a very light fandy foil, during the laft fummer, which being very dry, makes the experiment more conclufive.

Exp. 8. N° 1. was covered and incorporated with two inches deep of clay. N° 2. with three inches. N° 3. with four inches. N° 4. had two inches of clay with the com

Sf3

· mon quantity of lime laid on ground. N° 5. had three inches of clay with the fame quantity of lime. N° 6. had four inches of clay with the fame quantity of lime. No 7. had two inches of clay with the ufual quantity of dung. N° 8. had three inches of clay with the fame quantity of dung. Ng. had four inches of clay with the fame quantity of dung. N° 10. had fix inches of clay. N° 11. had the fame with lime. N° 12. had the fame with dung. light poor fandy foil without any addition. ufual quantity of lime added to the foil. ufual quantity of dung added to the foil.

9.

July 2. N° 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. are all bad.

N° 13. was the N° 14. had the N° 15. had the

N° 7. very good."

N° 8, 9. exceeding good. N° 10, 11. very bad. N° 12. exceeding good. N° 13. is the worst of all, and scarcely bears any thing. N° 14. bad. N° 15. pretty good,

August 13. N° 1, 2, 3, 4, ceeding good and heavy grain. N° 12. exceeding good. N° 15. pretty good.

5, 6. bad. N° 7, 8, 9. exN° 10, 11. are all withered. 13, 14. carries nothing. No

No

From this experiment the following useful conclusions

arife.

Corol. 1. A poor fandy foil, when of itself it was able to produce no grain in a dry feason, was fructified to a confiderable degree by dung alone, but clay alone, and lime alone, did it but very little fervice.

Cor. 2. Light fandy foil is not much benefited by a mixture of clay and lime; but clay and dung enrich it to a prodigious degree, and make it capable of bearing a dry feason, which of itfelf it can fo little ftand. While all vegetation was stopt in the foil alone, an addition of clay and dung produced one of the beft crops that I ever faw,

Cor. 3. Though thefe conclufions agree in general with regard to all forts of grain, yet as different kinds were fown, I obferved that oats agreed better with clay, and clay and lime, than either barley or peafe; but that the two laft agreed better with the clay and dung than the oats.'

This ingenious and accurate obferver of nature, has three other curious experiments in this fection; for which we refer to the Book itself, and proceed next to his remarks On Vegetables in an intire and in a corrupted ftate, and on dungbills.

Here we have a number of curious obfervations on those manutes which are drawn from the vegetable kingdom, on putrefaction,