to eat of it thus at all. He was therefore obliged to abandon the experiment in this form. He then cut eight ounces of the leaves, and mixed them with twenty ounces of oats. The mixture was then eaten greedily, and the horse continued as well afterwards

as ever.

Our cautious experimenter, not yet satisfied, sus pected, that as this horse was thin and emaciated, the irritability of the animal fibres might thus be diminished, and that pofsibly somewhat of the effect might be attributed to that cause. He therefore repeated the same experiment with another horse in good order and high health. The mixture was eaten with the same relish as if the oats had been pure,, and the horse never discovered the smallest symptoms of uneasinefs, but continued equally lively and healthy as before.

From these experiments he concludes, that other kinds of food, taken along with plants which are by themselves destructive to animal life, may totally counteract these noxious qualities, so as to render the same substances nutritious, which would other wise have been poisonous; and that by degrees the constitution of an animal may thus be so much ha➡' bituated to it, as, with very little addition, to find an abundant nourishment from vegetables, which, without these precautions, would prove not only uselefs but noxious.

We regret that these experiments were not pushed farther; but the difficulty of procuring animals for trying such dangerous experiments, is a very suffici ent reason for their being so rarely met with. The VOL. Xii.

experience of the Hefsians seems to prove, that other kinds of food, besides oats, may be employed for this purpose; because we cannot suppose that domestic animals are subsisted chiefly upon oats there more than elsewhere; and as no mention is made of any peculiarity of food, we must suppose they used only straw or hay along with the yew tree. Many facts, that have incidentally attracted the notice of attentive observers, will recur to their memory, as tending to corroborate these conclusions.Of this nature are the following:

Linnæus, in his journey through Lapland, remarks, that about the village of Torneo in Lapland, a mortality used to attack the cattle in the spring of each year, which carried off great numbers of them at that season. This set him to examine the meadows around the town, on which these cattle fed, to see if he could discover any noxious plants growing there, which might occasion that fatality. He there in effect did find a considerable quantity of the cicuta aquatica, which the half famished animals cropped at that season, and the mortality he ascribes to that cause; and as the mortality subsides as the season advances, it may be attributed to the cattle leaving the hemlock untouched, when other plants could be found in abundance. It may be so ;-but from these experiments may we not also have reason to suspect, that as the other plants spring up in greater abundance, they then begin to operate as an antidote to the hemlock; so as that, even if the cattle fhould still continue to eat it, it would not prove hurtful but salutary to them? Have we not also reason to

conjecture, that by trying proper kinds of food along with that plant, the inhabitants might at length discover which of them counteracted its operation the best, so as to enable the inhabitants still to avail themselves of this early growing plant, as a valuable and [then] nourishing food for their cattle?

Linnæus likewise remarks, that horses and cattle which have been accustomed to feed in the open fields, are frequently hurt when carried into woodlands; while others which have been accustomed to go in the woods suffer no inconvenience from them. This he attributes to their eating noxious plants, which those animals who have been accustomed to feed there have learnt to avoid. May we not with equal reason suspect, that it may be owing to the strange animals not being accustomed to relish the kinds of food that would prove antidotes to the plants that poison them, exactly in the same way that strangers carried from Europe into the tropical regions, though they relish the succulent foods that there abound, cannot at first bear such a quantity of hot condiments as the natives of warm regions naturally employ as a corrector to the effects of their common food? In confirmation of this idea, I suppose it will be found, that animals which have been accustomed to run in woods, eat of a greater variety of plants found there, than those which are first introduced from open fields.

The uses that might be derived from a set of judicious experiments, conducted on the plan of those of Mr Wiborg, not to extirpate plants that are at present deemed noxious to animals, but to convert

these into nourishing food, by conjoining them with others, might be very great; because it might often ́happen, as in the instance of the yew tree, before us, that these noxious plants might afford abundant food, at a season of the year when others could not be found; or that the soil was fitted to produce a greater quantity of nutriment by yielding these plants than any others. Were these experiments also pushed as far as was necefsary, might we not discover means of correcting those diseases in animals that originate from noxious plants;not by means of medicines, which too often tend to weaken the animal, and prevent its fattening; but by means "of a proper mixture of other nourishing food, which fhould, altogether, tend to carry the animal forward in a continued state of progrefsive amelioration?

ON THE COMPARATIVE INFLUENCE OF AGRICULTURE AND MANUFACTURES UPON THE MORALS AND HAPPINESS OF A PEOPLE, AND THE IMPROVEMENT AND STABILITY OF STATES.

A SENSIBLE correspondent, (Bee, vol. ix. p. 84,) has made some pertinent remarks on the probable danger of turning too much of our attention to manufactures, particularly in respect to the effect it may. have on the morals of the people. As the happiness of a nation depends much more on the purity of the morals of its people, than on any other cause, this is a circumstance that ought to be carefully adverted to by all who have a desire to promote the prosperity

205 of a country. I shall therefore appropriate a few pages for the purpose of discovering whether or not the apprehensions of the ingenious writer above quoted be well founded.

The most obvious consideration that occurs, when agriculture and manufactures are considered as affecting each other, is, that manufacturers, by becoming purchasers of the produce of the fields, offer encouragement to agriculture; and that, of course, the greater the number of manufacturers there are in any country, the more prosperous will the agriculture of that country be.

There is, however, a fallacy in this reasoning; and unlefs several circumstances are attended to, and guarded against, the conclusion here drawn may be very unjust. In many situations a great part of the subsistence of manufacturers may be drawn from foreign parts; and where that is the case, the agriculture of the country is not encouraged in proportion to the prosperity of its manufactures. If laws are injudiciously made, so as to cramp the operations of agriculture, the prosperity of manufactures may even, in some circumstances, retard the progress of agriculture; for by raising the wages of servants it diminishes the farmer's profit; who finding greater returns for money and attention in prosecuting manufactures, than in cultivating ground, the capitals of the most enterprising individuals will be withdrawn from rural operations, and vested in manufactures ; and with the general poverty of the tenants, the progrefs of improvements by them must be greatJy retarded.