iSc4> Reviewers Reznewed, ^i 



under conceivable circumflimccs, might have InduRrioiilly widit 

 ed to cotUign it. 



In Mr Findhiter's diTcuflions, a difficulty muft have fometimcs 

 occurred, of liudiiig language, aheatiy fi (uri ufe fteadily appronri- 

 ated to the iubjeft — a dirriculty that occurs not in iimilar diicuf- 

 fions upon commerce, maiuifa(5lure, and iuch h'ke topics of poii- 

 ticfil economy, as have been more trecjiiently made the fubjedts 

 ol' general fpeculation. If the reviewer was not in canacily to 

 be properly av/are ot this difficulty, it is jxiiuble that tbc appli^ 

 catio7i of words to anew sense, to which Mr Findlattrr might 

 have been ncceflitated, may have been miiluken fomctin-ies 

 ft»r thofe Scotticisms, with which he allcdgeg Ctho' with- 

 out fpeciflcation,) the work abounds, and for which candid al- 

 lowance is made, in coniideration of the author's fituation. I 

 have indeed frequently felt a ruggednefs in the ilyle, though I 

 believe not unfreqiiently produced by the neceilary unaccustom- 

 ed juncture of words, to which I have alluded : what 1 have 

 perceived, in general, has been manly, vigorous Scots fenfe ; per- 

 fpicuouily, and, if not always elegantly, yet often moil forcibly 

 fxpreifed. 



The reviewer feems to think that the circumilances alluded 

 to by the aurhor, as unir.tereiling to the public, which pre-. 

 vented the Survey originally drawn up for the Board of A- 

 griculture, from being publifhed under its faii6libn, ought to 

 have been explained. I do think there was no fuch neceffity. 

 The work is given to the public, and by its own merit, and not 

 by the fandion, or want of fanc'^hion of autliority, ought it to 

 Itand or fall. If tliere is found in it any thing improi^er, the 

 Board is jultified in tefufing its fandion ; if th.ere is in it any 

 thing dubious, or even any thing merely new, tiie refulal of 

 fiich fan6lion might alfo have been expedient. A Board of refpect- 

 ability is 'placed in a peculiar predicament ; the iiifiuence of its 

 authority alone, independent of any other reafon, may give cur- 

 rency to falfe or dubious opinions, or to bad or equivocal prac- 

 tical operations. For thefe realons a Board ought ever to be 

 extremely delicate in interpofing the authority of its fanftion. 

 On this account, without pretending to any information upon 

 the iubjecl, I can readily conceive that the Board, in regard to 

 this Suivey (which is by no means of a eunuch neutral defcrip- 

 tion), might, in their preliunii-.ary treaty with the autlior, be 

 particularly cautious in requiring tliat it mufl be implicitly fnb- 

 mitted to the abfolute difcretion of tlieir confidential literary cen- 

 for ; and, from the author's bold manner of exprelling himfclf, 

 I can as readily fuppofe him poffeffed of that manly indepen^ 

 dence, or (if you will) of that haOgiity felf-fufficiency, which 

 would prevent hiiij from fubmittlng to iiand forward as th.e au* 



thor 



