SIR,

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO ARTHUR YOUNG, Efquire.

Wand the Public, those motives on which we engaged in the re

E will here, according to our promife +, fairly lay before you

view of your Courfe of Experimental Agriculture," and the manner in which we conducted it.

We knew the experimental method to be the only one in which agriculture can be ftudied as a fcience, lamented its having been fo long generally neglected, and we rejoiced at a more confiderable opening than ufual, in this walk, being made by a perfon of your fuppofed actual practice.

We refolved, Sir, therefore to give your work an accurate review; and we reafonably believe we are the only perfous who have fo attentively peruied it.

hat we might properly execute this laborious task, we determined to lay before the Public the ftate and refult of many of your most important experiments, and not to felet but take them in courfe, that our Readers might be the better enabled to form their judgment of the whole. We refolved alfo to confider you as a farmer, not as a fine writer, unless you forced us upon a review of your ftyle; and we are not confcious of having mifreprefented any part of any one of your experiments through defign, or even through inattention.

In order to do justice both to the Public and to you, we faw it necelfary to begin our review with your promises in your preface, that the Public might form neither too high nor too low expectations, both difadvantageous (and perhaps almost equally fo) to any Author.

We found you, Sir, confefling feveral great imperfections in your work, and characterising it as an imperfect sketch," which you was afhamed of giving to the Public; and we thought it would be inju rious to you to conceal from that Public this rare teftimony of your modefty, especially as the work was fo voluminous, and the price very high.

But how, Sir, do you recompence us for this record of your judgment and modefty? In your ufual manner, by grofs abuse!" If I had not told the Monthly Reviewers (fay you) that my work was an imperfed fetch, they could not have found out its imperfections." -Really, Sir, this vindication of yourself, by a confeffion of your faults, is a pleafant effort of your wit! You are an adroit apologist! But (not to flatter your vanity) if you had not owned this great and glaring truth, we could have feen, without pretending to extraor dinary difcernment, that a course of experiments, many of which were undertaken under a full conviction that they could not anfwer the propofed end (particularly attempts to get crops without manure on poor worn-out land) leaving a farm when it began to come into order, burning, or lofing, or never recording many experiments,

+ This Letter was intended for the laft APPENDIX; but, on second thoughts, it was judged improper to mingle an article of this kind with our account of FOREIGN LITERATURE.

See Home on Vegetation.

whofe

whofe refult might have been contrary to what is recorded, trufting a bailiff, &c. muft occafion a very imperfect sketch, and afford a ftrong and clear proof that you have been often, as you confefs, a very bad husbandman!

What will a judge fay to a culprit, who, in arreft of judgment, pleads only his confeffion of guilt? Will he not answer, "If you had relied on the formality of trial, your jury would certainly have convicted you. Your confeffion was prudent, and may have its force in abatement of fentence, but cannot acquit you." Thus may the Public reply to Mr. Young.

Entering on the detail of your long, uniform, unentertaining work, we owned ourfelves glad that your review of a group of agricultural writers, chiefly ancient ones, might afford your readers fome little amusement, by the variety of their tyle, manner, and fubjects.

But here, to our furprize, we found you, Sir, affuming the character of critic in fiyle (which you frequently affect to defpife, as old maids defpife beauty, and dull men wit) and lafhing your predeceffors with unmerciful feverity.

When we faw you, Sir, thus quitting the experimental path, in which you might walk with dignity, and gather useful fruits, and beheld you deviating into that of the Belies Lettres, where you ufually pluck weeds for flowers, we thought it an act of common juftice to the old agricultural writers, and charity to you, to whifper, "Sir, you are out of your way!" In return for this gentle admonition you have (in the Appendix to the Eaftern Tour) poured upon us fuch a torrent of abufe, as feldom flows even at Billingsgate. But we have contented ourselves with calmly fhewing the injuftice of your hypercriticisms, in every inftance, in notes to our review of the Eastern Tour.

You exclaim, "The R don't go to the bottom of one experiment in my Courfe." Principles of natural philofophy are the bottom, or ground-work, of all judicious experiments in agriculture. Thefe we ftudied in an English University, famous for improvements in this part of knowledge, while you, Sir, were otherwise employed; and we have always applied them to the ftudy of agriculture. But to tell a plain truth, which you appear not even to dream about, a judicious Reviewer can have nothing to do with the bottom of experiments: it is his duty to ftate only the experiment and the refult from it. He adopts your principles, credits your facts, and has no objection to your conclufions, unless they do not refult from your premifes. But we beg your pardon: this is the language of an univerfity, not of a farmer.

rs

And now, Sir, you avow your preference of the M. R of ancient days to thofe of the prefent. It is a flale trick of culprits to praise deceased judges, from whom they have nothing to fear, In the opinion of true gentlemen, comparifons are always odious, because invidious; and we mean not to compare ourfelves with our predeceffors of immortal fame. That we may not feem infected with that fever of vanity, under which you fuffer fo much, we will only fay, "Our predeceffors could not have reviewed your Courfe with more care or candour than we have done. Frobably they would not have beflowed

on it half fo much pains. Forgive us this generous wrong, and we folemnly promife never to offend again in the fame way.

It is really ludicrous to hear you, Sir, dare us to change our note on your productions, from that of the general tenor of our review of your Courfe. If we do change, it must be from diftinguishing praife to indifcriminate cenfure, fuch as you have fo illiberally betowed upon us!

The utmost effort, however, of your ridicule, is the old worn-out dull cant, that our "praise is damnation !" To this noble inftance of gratitude, our fole anfwer fhall be, "Your two mighty volumes then are the fevereft fatire on yourself; for we have liberally praised every confiderable part of them, except your doctrine of averages, which we have calmly refuted in our account of the Eastern Tour." Let us ftate, Sir, with you the account of honest praise by which you are debtor to us: you are better acquainted with figures than letters.

1. One most important part of your Course, is an examination of the broadcast and drill hufbandry. In order to do juftice to the pains you had taken on this head, we went accurately through your experiments in all kinds of crops, in both methods; the comparison of them, and the refult; and gave you a liberal fhare of praise.

2. Another important part of your Courje is that where you give us your experiments concerning the most profitable quantity of feed in all kinds of crops. We proceeded through the examination and representation of the refult, with equal pains and accuracy, and be ftowed on you due praife.

3. Your experiments alfo about the moft proper time of fowing are very confiderable; and these we have reprefented with care, and juftly praised.

4. A principal point of management which you recommend is, attention to the collection of manures. Here again we praise you liberally.

5. Another material point is the introduction of fallow crops inftead of wasteful fallows. In praife of this improvement too much can hardly be faid, and we have fignified our full approbation of it.

6. Another capital branch of improvement in agriculture, which you recommend, is the hoeing both of beans and turnips; and to this you have our entire fuffrage.

7. Although your experience is much confined in the article of oxen (viz. to two pairs, one of which failed) yet you incline evidently to prefer an ox draught to horses; and in this you have our warmest applause.

8. Nor have we confined our praise of you, Sir, on all these important articles, to our account of your Course only, but extended it uniformly, without one exception, to our review of every agricultural writer fince. We have taken every opportunity to explain and defend these your principles and doctrines when misunderstood or opposed by other writers.

Now, Sir, if all these great things, for which we have liberally commended you, be no parts of farming, then we have not reviewed you as a farmer; and if we have praifed you amifs on thefe fubjects, then your two quarto volumes ftand juftly condemned, by

their Auther, to oblivion and the paftry-cooks. If, on the contrary, all these your doctrines are of importance to the Public, and we have given them diftinguishing encomiums, you are, Sir, an unjust and ungrateful-GENTLEMAN, or 'Squire, fhall we fay ? Or shall we leave you to crown the period with a chaplet of your own flowery eloquence ?

Indeed, Sir, you are one of the ftrangeft Gentlemen we ever engaged with. You affirm that we have praifed you for common place merit only. Thus you defraud yourself of juft praife, in order to deprive us of the credit of beftowing it: like the man who hangs himself, to cheat his creditors of their honeft debts. Read over the above eight heads of our praife, and ask yourself if the merit there celebrated, be of the common-place fort? Then blush, if you can! Indeed, Sir, in this paffage, you fhew that you understand Englif as well as you understand Greck.

And now, Sir, with a grave face you dare to tell your readers that the Rrs have criticifed about a fifteenth part of your work, If you have any concealed meaning of the word criticised, and allow nothing of your works criticised but what is praifed, we have criticifed much more. If by criticised you mean cenfured, we have criticifed much lefs: but if by criticifed you mean fairly reviewed, we maintain that we have criticised ail its confiderable parts.

at.

"

And here, in answer to your ridiculously defying us to produce a better fet of experiments than yours, we challenge you to fhew, in any public account of books, in any modern language, half fo much pains taken to reprefent, fairly and advantageously, any book of agriculture, as we have taken with your Courje, its nature juftly confidered; for which our remorfe arifes only from our dilcovery that you fo little deferve the recommendation we gave to your work. But we foresee that you have prepared a back door to escape You may lay, that although your Appendix to the Eastern Tour was published after we finished the review of your Course, yet you wrote it long before, when we had not criticised above a fifteenth part of your work." If you chufe to fay this now, you should have had the honefty to add a fingle line at the time of publication, to fave you from the reproach of a difingenuous ambiguity as to time, Indeed, you fhew that your Appendix was wrote before our review of your Course was finished: for in it you prophejy (frange that you should turn prophet!) what we will do. We thall, you fay, not analyfe any piece of management fufficiently to convince our Readers that we really understand farming." We know, Sir, that you hate the barbarous Greeks, and most probably do not know that to analyfe is" to reduce any thing to its component parts." Look inta any tolerable English dictionary, and when you find this to be the meaning of the word, tell us what you mean by analysing an experiment; we will then undertake to fhew that we have analysed all your experiments, as far as they are capable of being analysed.

46

And here, good Sir, accept a word of admonition. Violate the rules of an English grammar as often as you will, but be cautious of ufing words derived from the Greek, of whofe meaning you have no tolerable idea, as you have juft fhewn us in your ufe (or rather abuse) of criticism and analyfing. Be cautious especially to avoid all

attempts

attempts to analyfe; for your genius appears, from your doctrine of averages, to be adapted to a contrary operation, confufion.

We must now, Sir, take notice of one of your imaginations, the wildeft, furely, that ever came into the mind of man, viz. that " the Rrs were fome months employed in examining your experiments, in order to determine whether your temper, understanding, and principles, are fuch as render your experiments credible."

Just the contrary of all this is the plain truth! We thought that we knew enough of your temper, understanding, and principles, fafely to conclude that we might give credit to your experiments: we therefore employed part of our Review, for fome months, to lay before the Public, for their approbation, many of thefe experiments: but in this Appendix to the Eastern Tour you have given us reafon fo to judge of your temper, &c. that if we could have forefeen you capable of writing it, we fhould have been more cautious of trufting their authenticity. But we pretend not, like you, to prophefy.

In fupport of this curious charge (viz. our judging of the authenticity of a man's experiments from their face, and examining them three or four months, in order to determine whether he has a good temper, understanding, and principles) you threwdly inquire," May not a villain publifh ufeful experiments ?" We anfwer, Certainly. He may make them, and it may be his interest to lay them fairly before the Public: but it may also be his intereft, for ends which we cannot discover, to lay before the Public, as authentic, experiments which he never made, or unfairly stated. Charity teaches us not to fufpect without reafon; and we may hope that a man is honeft who is indeed a knave: but fools only truft the man whom they know, or reafonably fufpect, to be a villain..

We blush indeed, Sir, that you, whom we have praised, can advance fuch a paralogifm under the name of argument.

And now, Sir, you attack us with a coup de main, and pretend to hew that "we contradict ourselves."

This method of demolishing an adverfary is decifive, when the affailant has a quick hand and eye; but in other cafes rebounds on his own head. Let us try, Sir, whether you are thus prepared for the encounter: indeed we dread you not.

You quete formally, from our Review, two paffages, which, you fay, fet together, confrent and confound each other; for in one of them we praise you for giving real not national prices, and in the other condemn you for doing fo.

You, Sir, have given the Public many proofs that reafoning is not your fort. We cannot, however, judge fo contemptuously of your rational powers, as to fuppofe you fincere in this charge. Ah! no, Sir. You had a strong motive to mifreprefent them. You clearly faw that one of them ftruck at all your confufed averages, and that you might poffibly take out its fting, if you could artfully and plaufibly mitreprefent it as contradictory to fome other of our affertions. In one place we praife you, Sir, for giving real not imaginary or (as they are called) national prices; and in the other we blame you for confounding real prices; or, in other words, we praife you for giving real expences and returns of bad as well as good crops; but we justly blame you for dragging thefe real expences, and returns of extraordinary good or bad crops into general averages of expences

and