in a little time is very denfe, and forms a natural defence. We have known cyder drank, and it has not been difcovered, till the veffel was empty, that the bung had been forgotten. The Herefordshire farmers think the cyder should have fomething to feed on;' and they add egg-fhells, ifinglafs, &c. but this is a tacit confeffion of the weakness of their liquor. The annual produce of four counties, Gloucester, Monmouth, Hereford, and Worcestershire, is eftimated on an average of 30,000 hogfheads.

Notwithstanding the extraordinary produce of fruit, which this country affords, in a plentiful year, it is a difputable point; efpecially between landlord and tenant; whether, upon the whole, the liquor it yields be a good, or an evil. This is a mat ter, which would be difficult to determine, demonftrably. -I am inclined to believe, from what I have feen, that, every thing confidered, it is, under prefent circumftances, the latter.

The damage done to the crops, by the drip and fhade of the trees, is annual, certain, and, at prefent, exceffive. Whereas a general hit of fruit is most uncertain ;- is not expected oftener than every third year. This is the fourth year from the last general fruitage. Many trees, during this interval, not having, perhaps, matured an apple: while this year, though the produce be abundant, the price is fo low, that it little more than pays for labour, carriage, and attention: yet the neat profits of this year, fmall as they may be, have to stand against the da→ mage of four years; alfo against a proportionate fhare of the coft of plants, planting, grafting, and defending the young trees; of the mill-houfe, and apparatus; of the wear and tear of casks, and of cellar room; as well as against the evils of a habit of drinking; which, in a fruit year, is the caufe of much idlenefs; and, in a dearth of fruit, is the cause of an unneceffary wafte of malt liquor; which, alfo, the neat profit of the fruit year, has to ftand againft.

Nevertheless, it is fufficiently evident, from data interspersed in the foregoing pages, though difficult to prove, that youthful, bearing trees, even of the common forts of fruit, and under their prefent neglect, produce, on a par of years, more than will repay their feveral encumbrances; and that the more valuable kinds are very advantageous to their occupiers.'

This disadvantage may, in our author's opinion, be leffened by taking more care of the trees, preventing the forts from degenerating, and procuring new varieties. Yet, on the whole, they are numerous and important. But we must now leave Mr. Marshall, whofe work is valuable and ufeful: we truft he will continue his enquiries, and we shall receive them with pleasure.

A Let

A Letter to the Reverend Dr. Parr, occafioned by his Re-publication of Tracts by Warburton and a Warburtonian. 800. 25. Robson and Clarke.

TH

→HOUGH we were unwilling to praise or to censure the spirit by which the Editor of the Tracts' by Warburton and a Warburtonian appeared to be actuated,' in our review of that publication, vol. LXVII. p. 211, yet we find it difficult to avoid making some obfervations on the subject. It is always an unpleafing task to cenfure motives, because when they are secret ones, we combat a phantom which we have raised, and which the author may at once destroy; and when they are avowed, we respect the candour and ingenuity which led to the confeffion, if we cannot approve of the motives affigned. Our filence on this fubject has unfortunately been misinterpreted and misrepresented; but, whatever the different reasons may have been, the terrors of Dr. Parr's thundering eloquence were not among the number. We have smiled in more violent whirlwinds, and been calm amidst the flashes of brighter lightning.

The editor's correfpondent is unwilling that the republication fhould be forgotten, or that the motives of it should be miftaken. He retorts, in effect, Dr. Parr's motto, and seems to tell him, nescit vox missa reverti.' He first skirmishes at a distance, and reprehends the editor for thofe occafional paragraphs in the newspapers, in commendation of his work, which no one mistakes for the voice of fame, who knows the influence and the means by which they are inferted. But these may be the indifcretions of friends, injudiciously begun, and injuriously continued, without the knowledge of the author; for purchased praise is one of the most degrading libels. That the Tracts of Warburton were not admitted into the complete collection of his works, Dr. Parr fcarcely blames the editor, or blames with unwillingness. The great objects of his indignation are the Tracts by a Warburtonian, tracts which have been attributed to Dr. Hurd. These are introduced by a long preface, which is the object of the Letter-writer's attack.

The first apology for the publication, noticed in this pamphlet, is that the Tracts were become scarce, a fcarcity that has 'fhrewdly and perverfely' been imputed, not fo much to the avidity of purchafers, as the management of the writers.' If this threwd or perverfe imputation be for a moment admitted, the first obvious and natural interpretation is, that the writer's fentiments were changed, and he wished to conceal opinions which he had taken up, perhaps, without a careful examination. What purpose then could the republication answer? Was it, as the author contends, a compenfation to doctors Jortin and Leland?

T 2

Leland? The compenfation was already made by the manage ment' was it to establish their characters more firmly ? A weak and infufficient attempt, when the nature of the dispute is confidered, which we have examined at fome length in our XVIIIth vol. p. 10, and 328; or was it, as the Letter-writer fufpects, an attack on the author with a remote view to another publication on the controverfy? We own that there is great reason to believe the last motives to be the true ones.

Whether the tracts were written by the prelate to whom, under the title of a learned critic, you have dedicated them, 1 know not; nor is it of any confequence to the prefent concern. Neither is it of any moment whether he acknowledge them or not. If your real object had been the defence of the Dis. Jortin and Leland, thefe circumstances would have been of as little confequence to your purpose as mine; fince, if defence be neceffary, it is certainly fo in either cafe. But that I may give you all the credit you can defire, as to this matter, I am willing, for the prefent, to admit your evidence as to the identity of the author. Whoever he was, the tracts themselves have very confiderable merit. That on the Delicacy of Frendfhip is the fineft piece of irony I ever beheld, and fully justifies itself in the perufal; and the Letter to Dr. Leland is a mafter-piece of criticifm, not unworthy the friend and vindicator of the learned bp. of G. Had the re-publication of thefe tracts been unattended by the spleen, and blufter of your dedication; had they been prefented with the decency of a fcholar, and not dragged into view with the ferocity of a ruffian, the public (leaving you to reconcile the impropriety of voluntarily taking upon you the office of re-publication) would have gladly hailed their approach, without feeling mortified at the difgrace which attends their prefent connexion.'

But, independent of the mode of republication, these Tracts are faid to have been firft condemned, and afterwards forgotten by the public. They are therefore confeffedly of no importance; for how can the republication of a despicable work, in oppofition to Jortin and Leland, be any fort of compensation to -characters that cannot have been injured by it, fince it has been condemned and has been forgotten? How can the revival of a controverfy which may, in the opinion of fome, detract from their merit, establish their character? Has it been lately in danger?

The authors alluded to have, however, replied not in every inftance with fuccefs; and they are now compensated by the republication of the works to which they could not at firft reply.

And fo, fir, when the arguments of a theological difputanr have been cut up and diffected by the hand of a mafter, and with the finest tempered inftruments of logic; and his cavils at the

system

fyftem of an honoured and valued friend laid bare; the best mode of compenfation, which Dr. P. can difcover, for the agony which the patient has fuffered, is, to repeat the operation, by re-publishing the tracts, which before performed it. This, it feems, will more effectually reflore the expofed and lacerated nerves and muscles of that fide of the controversy, than a direct argumentative defence; which, as the fubjects were not exhaufted by Jortin and Leland, you once intended to prepare for the press.

But furely, fir, it is an odd mode of compenfation, which you have at last difcovered for the reverend difputants; and fuch as never once entered into their own heads. They did not think that the publication of the letters was a fufficient juftification of thofe, to whom they were addreffed; and, accordingly, fet themselves to work in trying to confute them. You have performed, therefore, but an aukward kind of fervice for these departed fcholars, whofe caufe you have fo generously taken. in hand. But, Nil defperandum, te duce.'

The Letter-writer goes on, and produces another paffage from the dedication, in which the editor obferves, that, as fome of the parties are dead, and the controverfies in which they were engaged have ceased to agitate the paffions of men, this republication has not the smallest tendency to fow ftrife among scholars.' This paffage our author animadverts on with fome pleafantry and indignation: indeed, we think it can have but this fingle tendency, unless it be admitted that the bishop, being himself unwilling to engage in the controverfy, has not a fingle scholar among his friends, or his friends are too wife not to fee, that their exertions will bring forward the feeds of strife already fown. We are told of the editor's work which may be prepared for the prefs on this subject.

Many other paffages are examined with the fame spirit; but perhaps we have given fpecimens enough of the Letter-writer's ability; and we do not fcruple adding, that we think, with him, the republication is a mean and weak attempt to cenfure a refpectable prelate, and a good man; a defign unworthy either of a scholar or a philofopher.

Hortus Kewenfis; or, a Catalogue of the Plants cultivated in the Royal Botanic Garden at Kew. By William Aiton, Gardener to his Majefty. Three Volumes. 8vo. 11. 13. in Boards. Nicol.

WE

WHAT the profpect of wild luxuriant nature is to the more fplendid and ornamental labours of the gardener, fuch may be confidered as the difference between a Flora and a Hortus. The former contains variety and profufion: the latter what is elegant, curious, rare, and beautiful: in the one we

admire the various properties of numerous plants, defigned to diverfify the scene, or to affift our wants; in the other, a difcrimination of beauty and selection of uncommon appearances, the refult of extenfive enquiries, repeated examination, and that vaft comprehenfive refearch which an active commerce can alone affift, or render effectual. In the Kew gardens, all that the most advantageous fituation for acquiring can afford; whatever is within the reach of influence or of rewards may be expected to be found; and those who compare Dr. Hill's Hortus Kewenfis with the prefent Catalogue, will be aftonished at the amazing increase of new, curious, and valuable plants. This work, however, though it deferves the highest praises as a botanical catalogue, though it contains many new plants, accurately difcriminated, and numerous corrections in the characters and arrangements of those formerly known, is yet of importance in another view. It is the first regular work which marks the progrefs of English horticulture, by a particular account of the periods when each plant was introduced, so far as the most careful enquiry and most attentive examination of ancient manuscripts can afcertain them. This is a fubject of curious fpeculation; and, if the facts here recorded were taken out of their scientific form, and reduced to an historical one, it might form a pleafing work.

Mr, Aiton, in a very humble and diffident dedication to the king, informs us, that this work has employed the leifure moments of more than fixteen years of his life, in which it has been thought worthy the affiftance of men more learned than himfelf-alluding, we apprehend, to the attention of the late Dr. Solander, and Mr. J. Dryander. As horticulture has been unremittingly attended to during his life, he trufts that the first fruits of his labours will be received with candour: in reality we have little doubt but they will be received with the applause which they fo well merit.

In the conduct of the work, our author tells us, that the plants defcribed in the Species Plantarum, the two Mantissas of the elder Linnæus, are referred to, without adding any other fynonyms, than thofe which Jacquin, Curtis, L'Heritier, and the Flora Roffica have furnished. The Supplement of the younger Linnæus was published after the Catalogue was in part compiled; fo that, in fome places, bis fynonyms are repeated; but afterwards the reference to the Supplement occurs in the fame manner as to the works of his father, correcting only the errors which may be difcovered in that faulty publication, where much is inferted on truft, without an accurate informa tion or anxious enquiry. Befides this work, the younger Linnus purpofed to publish a treatife on palms and liliaceous

flowers.