that as the loofe earth that is thrown into the middle of the dike fubfides much more than the feal on each fide, the top of the dike finks down; and, of course, the two fide walls are preffed too much upon the infide, fo as to bilge (fwell) out about the middle, and quickly crumble down to duft. To avoid this inconvenience, I have always chofen to build my dikes of this fort much thinner than ufual; they being only three feet and a half thick at the bottom; one foot, or a very little more, at top, and five feet high taking care to have them built in fuch a manner as that every fod (feal) from top to bottom binds the joinings of the others below it, with as much accuracy as the bricks in a well built wall.'

If the ground is foft, and the feal rife well, I get a fence of this kind done for one penny halfpenny per yard; but, if it is not good to work, a little more than that must be allowed. As to the time that a fence of this kind may stand without needing any repair, I cannot fpeak with certainty, as it is not long fince I fell into this method of building them. The oldeft has just now ftood ten years, and feems to be nearly as firm as when firft built. I have feen fome walls of poor cottages that have been built fomewhat after this manner, that have been good after ftanding forty or fifty years: but their durability depends. greatly upon the nature of the feal of which they are formed. The beft is that which is taken from poor ground of a fpungyquality, which is generally covered with a strong fward of coarfe benty grafs. And, in fituations where this can be had, I would have no hesitation in recommending this as the cheapest and best temporary fence that could be reared.'

It has long been a general opinion, that trees fhould be raised in nurferies, of as poor or poorer foil than that on which they are to be tranfplanted. Mr. Boutcher, a nurseryman near Edinburgh, in a late Treatife written by him on Foreft-Trees, appears to be the first who has controverted that opinion, upon experience. Our author likewife recommends the beft land, as moft proper for nurferies..

For, fays he, I have found, from reiterated experiment, that a ftrong and vigorous plant, that has grown up quickly, and arrived at a confiderable magnitude in a very fhort time, never fails to grow better after tranfplanung, than another of the fame fize that is older and more funted in its growth, whether the foil in which they are planted be rich or poor; fo that, instead of recommending a poor hungry foil for a nursery, I would univerfally wifh to fet apart for this purpofe, the richest and moft fertile fpót that could be found; and, in the choice of plants, would always prefer the youngest and most healthy to fuch as were older, if of an equal fize. I fpeak here from experience, and, therefore, do it without the smallest doubt or

he

hefitation; being certain that future obfervations will confirm the juftness of these remarks.'

The greatest inconvenience attending the banks of earth recommended by the author, he fays is, that they are in danger of being torn down by cattle rubbing against them; and propofes to prevent this, by planting the fweet briar or eglantine against them; but that thefe plants, being very prickly, would catch hold of, and tear off the wool of the fheep that came close to it; and then propofes raifing furze against these banks from feed, as a defence againft cattle; but fuppofes an inconveniency from this alfo, that it would bloffom and produce much feed, which would fpread through, and produce many furze plants in the adjoining fields, which could hardly ever afterwards be thoroughly rooted out. But fo far as the sheep could reach, they would continually be cropping the furze, of which they are very fond, which would prevent the furze blowing and feeding; as we fee the furze bushes, that grow in theep-walks, on heaths and commons, grow so close at top, as to exclude the air and fun fo much, that few or no bloffoms are to be feen upon thofe buthes; and the sheep nibbling the furze growing against thofe walls would have the fame effect; as trimming the furze with a hook above the reach of the fheep would have, in this cafe.

The author mentions feveral plants as proper for fences, and recommends the white thorn for this purpose, to be planted, not in double or triple, but in fingle rows, feven or eight inches apart; but that the hedge will be reared more quickly, and at a lefs expence, if they are planted at twelve inches diftance in the row; and vigorous plants of eglantine (dog rofe) of one year's growth, planted between thofe of the white thorn. The white thorn plants not to have their tops cut off, but allowed to grow up as trees; which will make a much better fhelter to the fields, and be much handfomer than hedges that are cut at top. The author makes many curious remarks on this fubject, and the methods he lays down appear to be very rational; but that plants grow better when fet on the floping fides of banks, than on their tops, feems questionable, if planted and cultivated with equal care, and equally good foil; a perpendicular pofition, being undoubtedly the most natural.

The fecond volume of this work confifts of mifcellaneous difquifitions, doubts, and queries, relating to agriculture. In these the author has introduced many obfervations relating to plants, and their ufes in feeding cattle, &c. and a very particular account of the different breeds of fheep, and quality of their wool; on which heads the author much expatiates, K 3

and

and in fome circumftances rather refines. He then proceeds to the fubject of paftures, and recommends, from his own obfervation, and trials, feveral forts of valuable graffes proper for them, not hitherto cultivated for that purpose.

The doubts and queries propofed by the author, though. they do not determine conclufively, contain many useful hints. And the other parts of the work abound with curious matter, upon a variety of rural fubjects.

X. A Differtation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to brute Animals. By Humphry Primatt, D. D. 8vo. 45. Boards. Cadell.

THE HE various tribes of created beings, with which this earth is inhabited, compofe one great family, united by mutual intereft, fubordination, and dependence. The leaft infect has its ufe, as well as the largest aninal; and is, in fome refpe&t or other, fubfervient to the advantage of the whole commupity. Man himself, though at the head of this visible creation, is as much, or perhaps more dependent on other creatures, than the meaneft reptile. He is indebted to the lives, the clothing, or the labours of inferior animals for the greatest part of his comfort and fupport. The horfe, the cow, the fheep, the fish, the fowl, the bee, the filk-worm, and a thoufand others, are continually adminiftering to his neceffity, convenience, and pleasure; infomuch that if he were deprived of their affiftance, he would be divefted of fome of the most agreeable and effential articles of his dress and equipage, of the furpiture of his houfe, and the delicacies of his table,

Surely then these useful creatures have a reasonable claim to our care and protection. But, intoxicated by a vain idea of preheminence and fuperiority, we are apt to look upon them. with contempt; and can hardly bring ourselves to think, that we are under obligations of duty and gratitude to contribute to their cafe and happiness.

The defign of this tract is to rectify thefe miftaken notions ; and to prove, that, as the mercies of the Creator are over all his works, from the archangel to the worm, our benevolence. and compaffion are not to be confined within the circle of our friends, acquaintance, and neighbours; nor limited to the more enlarged fphere of human nature, to creatures of our own rank, fhape, and capacity, but are to be extended to every object, endowed with life and fenfation.

The author, having fhewn, that no fuperiority of rank or ftation can give a right to inflict unneceffary or unmerited pain, obferves, that the cruelty of man to brutes is more heinous, in point of injuftice, than the cruelty of men to men.

:

In the cafe of human cruelty, the oppreffed man has a tongue that can plead his own caufe, and a finger to point out the aggreffor all men that hear of it fhudder with horror; and, by applying the cafe to themfelves, pronounce it cruelty with the common voice of humanity, and unanimously join in demanding the punishment of the offender, and brand him with infamy. But in the cafe of brutal cruelty, the dumb beast can neither utter his complaints to his own kind, nor describe the author of his wrong; nor, if he could, have they it in their power to redress and avenge him.

In the cafe of human cruelty, there are courts and faws of juftice in every civilized fociety, to which the injured man may make his appeal; the affair is canvaffed, and punishment inficted in proportion to the offence. But alas! with shame to man, and forrow for brute, I ask the queftion, What laws are now in force? or what court of judicature does now exist, in which the fuffering brute may bring his action against the wan ton cruelty of barbarous man? The laws of Triptolemus are long fince buried in oblivion, for Triptolemus was but a heathen. No friend, no advocate, not one is to be found amongst the bulls nor calves of the people to prefer an indictment on behalf of the brute. The priest paffeth by on one fide, and the Levite on the other fide; the Samaritan ftands ftill, fheds a tear, but can no more; for there is none to help; and the poor wretched and unbefriended creature is left to moan in unregarded forrow, and to fink under the weight of his burden.

But fuppofe the law promulged, and the court erected. The judge is feated, the jury fworn, the indictment read, the caufe debated, and a verdict found for the plaintiff. Yet what coft or damage? What recompence for lofs fuftained? In actions of of humanity, with or without law, fatisfaction may be made. In various ways you can make amends to a man for the injuries you have done him. You know his wants, and you may relieve him. You may give him cloaths, or food, or money. You may raise him to a higher ftation, and make him happier than before you afflicted him. You may be feet to the lame, and eyes to the blind. You may entertain him, keep him company, or fupply him with every comfort, convenience, and amufement of life, which he is capable of enjoying. And thus may you make fome atonement for the injury which you have done unto a man; and by thy affiduity and future tenderness, thou mayeft perhaps obtain his pardon, and palliate thine own offence. But what is all this to the injured brute? If by thy paffion or malice, or fportive cruelty, thou haft broken his limbs, or deprived him of his eye-fight, how wilt thou make him amends? Thou canst do nothing to amufe him. He wants not thy money nor thy cloaths. Thy converfation can do him no good. Thou haft obftructed his means of getting fubfiftence; and thou wilt hardly take upon thyself the pains and trouble of procuring it for him, (which yet by the rule of juf

tice thou art bound to do). Thou haft marred his little temporary happiness, which was his all to him. Thou hast maimed, or blinded him for ever; and haft done him an irrepairable injury,'

It is objected, that man has a permiffion to eat the flesh of animals; and that this cannot be done without taking away their lives, and putting them to fome degree of pain.-Our author replies,

That this permiffion cannot authorize us to put them to unneceffary pain.... Death to a brute is nothing terrible. He muft die once, as well as we; and though it is of small moment, whether my beaft is to die to day or to-morrow, I ought not to put him to pain to-day for whilft he lives, he has a right to happinefs, at least I have no right to make him miferable; and, when I kill him, I ought to dispatch him fuddenly, and with the leaft degree of pain.'

:

It is alleged, that there are fome animals obnoxious to mankind; and the moft compaffionate of men make no fcruple to deftroy them.-The author answers;

It is true, fome animals are obnoxious to us, and have it in their power to hurt us. But very feldom do they exert that power; and well it is for us, that they have not the malice or revenge that is in man. "It is obfervable, fays the ingenuous writer of the Guardian, of thofe noxious animals, which have qualities moft powerful to injure us, that they naturally avoid mankind, and never hurt us unless provoked, or neceffitated by hunger. But man, on the other hand, feeks out and pursues even the most inoffenfive animals, on purpofe to perfecute and deftroy them." If this be the cafe, it appears, that mercy. preponderates in the fcale of brutes. For one injury which we may poffibly receive from the creatures, we offer them a thoufand. A horfe may now and then, when provoked, give a man an unlucky kick; but what is this to the blows, and cuts, and fpurs, which they receive every day and every hour from the brutal rage and unrelenting barbarity of men? The matter of wonder is that we do not oftener feel the effects of their power and refentment. If we confider the excruciating injuries offered on our part to the brutes, and the patience on their part; how frequent our provocations, and how feldom their refentment; (and in fome cafes our weakness and their ftrength, our flownefs and their fwiftnefs), one would be almoft tempted to fuppofe, (reafon to both alike allowed,) that the brutes had combined in one general scheme of benevolence to teach mankind leffons of mercy and meeknefs, by their own forbearance and long-fuffering. But grant that there are some fierce and formidable animals that are ftrangers to pity and compaffion. Does this juftify the fuppreffion of thefe amiable difpofitions in men? Becaufe a wolf will feize upon a man; is a man therefore war.

ranted