g^ Reviewers Rcvieiued. , Fehn 



fiderable part of the merit and ufefulnefs of the work. In tlie 

 body,pf it, in foot notes, and in notes fubjoined to the Report, 

 and referred to in the text, every prefenting opportunity is laid 

 hold of, »for difcuffing fubjefts of the utmolt importance to 

 ao-ricLiltural induftiy at large, independent of all peculiarities of 

 lituation. 



The author obferves, in his introduclion, that * as man is not 



* fubje6ted to the laws of mechanifm, like inanimate matter, nor 



* to unreafoning compuKion, like the unrcHeftive brute crea- 



* tion, his condu6l cannot be regulated or incited upon the p»in- 



* ciples applicable to either, and rccourfe muft be had to moral 

 *■ excitements j'lii order to ftimulate him to induftrious exertion.' 

 He then ilates, that, in conlideration of the narrownefs of the 

 county and uncultivatable nature of tlie greater part thereof, to- 

 gether with the latenefs of the prevalence of improved hufbandry, 

 it was agreed betwixt Sir John Sinclair and himfelf, that it would 

 be fuperfluous to dwell on the minute fpeciiications of detail 

 which might be cxpe6ted in the reports of counties more ad:5pttd 

 to cultivation, and where improved hufbandry had been of longer 

 {landing ; and that more fpace might therefore be allotted to t!ye 

 iianfideratioii of thofe moral excitcme?tts to agriculturalindulhy, 

 which are of univerfal application. In purfuance of this prcfef- 

 fed dcfign, though I doubt not but that the exiiliug Hate of 

 Peebles-lhire .agriculture is juftly, and, I am fur?, not flrtt- 

 (eringly reprefented, the report of the ftate of agricidture 

 iforms, as it were, onl7 the text, to introduce general difiul- 

 fions of the fubjecf as the comment. Had Mr Findlater publiihed 

 thefedifcufiibns by themfelves, as effays upon the propi-j: llimn- 

 l-ants to agrivultiiral induHry, he would have done himfcif mor« 

 juilice, and might have obtc^ined more readers and purchafeis 

 than for a work which unhappily, from its title^, is apt ta be 

 confidered as only locally intereiling. As it is, to judge from 

 what I myfelf have experienced, I believe few readers will n.'- 

 gret the coupling of his g-eneral difculhons with a local report, 

 in as much as the really exilting fiate of fails in Peebles-lhire 

 very often forms a mo (I apt and happy illull ration of the gene- 

 ral principles he has endeavoured to eftablifli. Jn confirn^ation 

 of the idea of this work, whicli I have been inculcating, I beg 

 have to (late fome few of the general topics difcuired in it. 



Mr Findlater, rcyoii jnftly, in my appreheniion, has coniidered 

 the nature of the leafe as the primary fource, either of good nv 

 of bad hufbaiidry ; and has therefore entered into a moil copious 

 and pcrfpicuous ('ifquifuion upon this inteieiling fubiccf. h\ 

 difcufling the proper character of the farmer, he has eilablilhed, 

 I think, a well defined and permanent diltinction, that mull ever 

 lubfifl betwixt the cljar.i'::ler of those ivho have their fortune 



