[ 444 ] 



LETTER V. 



[From Meflrs. Clarke, Jacam, and Clarke, Drug- 

 gifts, in London.] 



Sir, 



WE have deferred giving you our opinion on the two 

 fpecimens of rhubarb fent to us by the Bath Society, 

 wiOiing to join fome phyfical obfervations to our own as 

 druggifts, thinking it a fubjcd that required much nicety 

 ahd attention. 



The fpecimen No. L appears to be not of the true rhu- 

 barb j it abounds more in gummy matter than refmous, 

 therefore, as a purgative, is much weaker than either the 

 Indian, Ruffian, or Scotch, Its texture is more lax and 

 fpongy than any rhubarb we ever faw, and its colour lighter. 

 The grain in fome parts is beautiful; but it does not com- 

 municate t6 the tafte that warmth and bitternefs which is 

 always found in the other rhubarbs. Its fmell is very An- 

 gular, not in the leaft rcfembling rhubarb; it is befides 

 imperfectly dried. It has Ijeen given in the ufual quantity 

 of a dofe without any fenlible efFe£l. 



The fpecimen No. II. appears to be of the true rhu- 

 barb, but we think not produced from the Ruffian feed. 

 Its fmell, tafte, and effb-1:, correfpond in fome degree with 

 the foreign rhubarbs, only it is weaker, and the grain very 

 indifferent. This has alfo been imperfectly cured, and we 

 apprehend not taken up at a proper age. Of the two fpe- 

 cimens, we certainly give the preference to this, though 

 think rt inferior to tlie foreign rhubarbs. 



We 



