[ 46 ] 
try has had of its beneficial interpofition. But though this 
fociety was exprefsly founded for the encouragement of agri+ 
culture, perhaps it does not now fufficiently direct its care to 
rural affairs. Manufactures and arts divide its atvention, and 
dimintth its energy. 
Wueruer this apprehenfion be well or ill founded, no rea- 
fon .appears why a competition of exertions for the publick 
good ought not to be defired. The encouragements held out 
by country affociations may confpire and cannot interfere with 
the encouragements offered by the Dublin Society. Gentlemen 
‘on the fpot can beft judge for the cultivation of what branch 
of agriculture each part of the country refpectively is pecu- 
liarly favourable. They can alfo moft effectually incite the 
people to exertion, and moft fatisfactorily judge how far their 
own patriotick labours are crowned with fuccefs. 
Ir fuch focieties fhould be eftablifhed, I would beg leave 
to fuggeft to their confideration whether they might not devife 
modes of encouraging and affifting young men in applying 
themfelves efpecially to peculiar branches of agriculture. 
In manufactures it is acknowledged that the produétive 
powers of labour are confiderably increafed by its divifion. 
Skill, dexterity, and judgment employed wholly upon one fub- 
jet, muft tend more to its improvement than if they had 
been engaged by feveral. This is true in agriculture as well 
as in manufactures ; although it muft be acknowledged that it 
is much eafier to preferve the fubdivifions of occupation diftiné 
in the latter than in the former. 
It 
