270 Mr. Townson’s Objections againft the 
_T fhall offer to the maet of the Linnean Society will agree 
with either. 
The firft confideration 1s—'T'hat an inert fluid is in motion. 
Secondly— That, poffefling no motion in itfelf, it owes this mo- 
tion to the plant. 
Thirdly—That as action and re-aétion are equal, whilft the 
plant draws the fluid towards itíelf, it muft be drawn towards 
the fluid, and that in the reverfe ratios of their refpective re- 
fiftances. 
Now whether this abfor ption be performed by veffels sing as 
in the animal oeconomy, or by veflels of the nature of capillary 
tubes, is of little moment, provided only that an abforption be ad- 
mitted ; for it is evident, that if action and re-action be the fame, - 
the abforbed fluids, which poffefs no motion in themfelves, cannot 
be put in motion by the open-mouthed active veffels, without be- 
ing drawn in the direction of the abforbed fluids. But fhould we 
prefer the theory which explains this abforption by capillary at- 
tra&ion, which theory I think is the moft prevalent, we fhall ftill 
fid that the abforbing veffels are drawn towards the fluid. This is 
equally true as evident, whether applied to that fimple hydraulic 
inftrument, the ftraw, through which the fchool-boy fucks, or 
to the moft complicated machine of the natural philofopher. 
Thefe principles will, I think, be fufficient to explain thofe appear- 
ances in yegetables which -have ferved asa foundation, or have been 
confidered as figns of their perceptivity and volition, and which, 
as far as I have learnt, have never been attempted to be explained, 
viz. the direction of their roots towards the foil which affords them 
the beft nourifhment, and the young and tender fhoots towards the 
light: for here is an abforption of water and light. The abforption 
of water is eafily afcertained; but that of light, by its fubtlenefs, 
eludes our experiments, with probably many other fluids of great 
importance 
