53% 
_ more and more attentively into the book, 
where this faét is recorded, which 1s a 
fmall paper book, fuch as are now com- 
monly fold for two-pence (by the bye, a 
great fum of money in thofe days) and 
covered -with blue paper (for I do not 
think marbied paper was then made)—I 
fay, upon locking into this book, I 
fulpeét there is an error in the date, and 
that for 1703, we fhould read 1763, the 
top of the figure 6 being erafed, perians 
on purpofe, or more probably never put 
on, for at that time writing was but in 
its infancy with farmers, or even parith 
clerks. ‘This, my readers will be con- 
vinced, folves the whole difficulty, ren- 
ders tea cheap, and tradition refpectable. 
But, fecondly, a very eminent antiquary, 
who has written the Hiftory of Shackle- 
well, in three vols. fol. has hinted to me, 
that he thinks the date of the manufeript 
» On the CharaGteriftics of Poetry. 
correct, and yet finds no difficulty ariing 
either from the circumftances of the 
farmer, the, Eaft India company, or the 
Cina trade. *¢ You oblerve,’’ fays he, in 
a letter, dated July 16, “that it is fimply 
Mentioned, that they drank sea. Now, 
it is not faid, nor does it appear, that 
this was the ¢4ea of botanifts, which, by 
the bye (and I think you ought to take 
motice of it) belongs to the order of #r:- 
&ynia, and not monogynia, where Linneus, 
‘by agreat mifiake, places it. The dohbea, 
as it is called, has flowers with fix petals, 
and the green with nine. No mention is 
made here of the petals, which, I take it, 
preceeded from the writer having feen 
only the dried leaf, a very common cafe 
with tea drinkers in England. My opi- 
nion, therefore, is, that the tea which 
they drank (for I am convinced of the 
drinking) ‘was not the Chinefe plant 
now {o common, and fo ufeful in she 
difcuftion of the news of the day, and in 
adjutting family difputes, articles of mar- 
riage, crim. con. and other common 
occurrences ; but the Mcliffa Hortenfss, the 
Baulm, Baum, or Balm, which’ was at 
that time weil- known for its virtues, . 
Lee) 
when ufed in infufion, and ight be 
precured for nothing, by perfons of the 
deicription you mention. Phyficians, in 
particular, fay, that ‘a decoétion of the 
leaves corroborates lax gums,’’ a diforder 
to which the lebouring people of this 
country were very fubject, when they 
were able te carn a livelihood, and we may 
fuppof that this was the ‘cafe in 1703, 
becaufe taxes were not quite fo nume- 
rous as they are now, and the national 
‘debt was a trifle lefs. If I have been the 
rn 
*  [Augs 
humble inftrument of throwing any’ light: 
upon this fubjeét, it will afford me the: 
moft heartfelt confolation, being, dear 
fir, with great refpeét, &e.: &cel’——= 
So much, Mr. Editor, for a fpecimen of 
what G. D. choofes to call beimp tedious. 
He 1s, I think, a writer of too much 
candour, not to retract where he is inter- 
nally convinced, and, af what I have 
advanced, be not enough to induce him 
to change his opinion, 1 know very few 
parifh hiftories t2 which I can refer hing 
with more hopes of fuccefs. 
Tam, fir, ph 
Your very humble fervant, 
28, 1796. PATRICK Pry. 
Sy). 
Hey 
. 

To the Editor of ibe Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
7 OUR ingenious Correfpondent, the’ 
ENQUIRER, in his elegant difcufion 
of the Queftion, “ Whether Verfe be ef- 
fential to Poetry,” appears confcious, that" 
the debate may to {ome appear a merely 
verbal one, and endeavours to fhow, that 
its objeét is of a higher kind, namely, to 
rectify our ideas concerning the honour 
due to thofe, who are, in common lan- 
guage, exclufively termed poets, and to 
diftinguith true poetry, fromthe practice 
of a mechanical art. I own, however, 
after all the confideration I can beftow 
upon the matter, that I can regard it in 
no other light than that of a verbal en- 
quiry; and it- would feem, ‘that the 
writer himfelf, in his conclufien, has the 
fame idea of it; fince all he deduces from, 
his inveftigation, is the impropriety of 
nfaking the terms foe/ry and pr¢fe oppofites 
to each other 5 inttead of which, he would 
have ver/e and prof’, and poeiy and philo- 
Jopey wed as the refpeétive’ contraries. 
But, though it-be impothble not to agree 
with the writer in moft of -his obferva- 
tions, concerning the incompetent de- 
finitions that have been given ef poetry, 
and the diftinétion between:the matter 
and file of a compofition; and its rhythm, 
ot meajfure, yet the meaning impreff- 
fed upon a word by long ufe, has al- 
ways fome foundation ; and ‘an attempt 
to fet it afide, for want of perfe& ac- 
curacy, is apt to produce more ambiguity 
than it prevents. 
in the prefent inftance, we obvioufly 
require a word, to diftinguith between 
the writer, whofe language’ is medélled 
upon that cf common fpeech, and:though, 
perhaps, more ftudied in térms and ‘or- 
‘donnance, flows, like that;‘loofe andi un- 
car fhackted 
