180%. | 
unfuccefsful. The found moft readily at- 
tached by an Englifhman to the letters ov, 
would doubtlefs be that of the monofyl- 
lable how. It is probable, however, that 
the found intended to be exprefled by Mr. 
Marthall was that of the French word oz. 
Neither of thofe founds have any confide- 
rable refemblance to the pronunciation of 
the Gloucefterfhire word. The letters 7, 
pronounced hard, convey the beft idea of 
it: ih, like the correlponding pronoun he, 
is commonly united to the verb wll, after 
an elifion of its firft lettérs. In this cafe, 
the afpirate is dropped, thus ¢‘ 7, 7d fig- 
nify * he'll, he'd.” As the remainder of 
Mr. Marfhall’s remarks appear to be accu- 
rate, I now proceed to make a few ob- 
fervations on his lift of provincial- 
ifms. 
“¢ Blows,” Mr. Marthall fays, means 
“blooms.” I believe the word is feldom 
or never ufed in Gloucefterfhire, in that 
fenfe. The verb ‘* to blow,” fignifying 
“* to bloffom,” is very common there ; but 
it is alfo to be found in feveral of our dic- 
tionaries, and in fome of our beft writers. 
** Blowings,’ for bloffoms, 1s common, 
and, I believe, provincial ; but it can 
hardly be improper, fince many fubftan- 
tives are derived from verbs in the fame 
manner. ‘* Court,” we are told, fignifies 
a yard.—Surely this term is not provin- 
cial. It is at leaft as common in London 
as in Gloucefterfhire. ‘* Crazey”’ is given 
as the provincial name of the ranunculus 
repens,—It fhould have been cray'zey, for 
fo the word is pronounced. ‘§* Meadow, 
penerally common mowing-ground, fubjed 
to be overflowed.’ Query, whether this 
is not the univerfal acceptation of the 
term in almoft every part of England? 
“« Mifkin” is faid to be uled for a. dung- 
hill. Mifkin, however, is only a vicious 
mode of pronouncing the word muixen, 
which is by far the moft frequently ufed 
of the two. This latter word is probably 
nothing more than the participle mixed, 
with a Saxon termination. Should this 
conjecture be true, the word muit be ac- 
knowledged to be fingularly appropri- 
ate. 
I haveonly to add, that Mr. Marfhall’s 
lift is far from being complete. If you 
fhould think thefe obfervations worth in- 
fertion in your Magazine, I may probably 
trouble you, on a future otcafion, with 
fome further information relative to ‘the 
fubject in queftion. 
Your’s, &c. 
A NaTIVE OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, 
April 4, 180%. 
2%. 
Mir, Like on Ligyptian ' heat. 
395 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
BSERVING a letter from Dr. Wil- 
kinfon in your Magazine of March, 
on the iubject of Egyptian wheat; I am 
induced to offer you feme remarks, anda 
few further particulars, concerning that 
grain which have come to my knowledge. 
The Doétor defcribes it exaéily.—It is 
certainly of the nature of rivetts. He 
fuppoles that it say be fown with advan- 
tage in the /primg, and that it will not an- 
fwer in this country, unlefs it can be in- 
troduced as fpring coru. Perhaps he may 
be right ; but one or two trials are hardly 
fufficient to degermine that point. 
Thave fown it as {pring corn in the 
middle of April, and have had above four 
quarters per acre. It was on very good 
land, and kept perfectly clean from weeds. 
If it be truly a native of Egypt, I fhould 
have judged, that a light, but. very rich, 
foil might have been moft proper for it: 
neverthelefs, I think I have found, that 
(like Englifh rivetts) ftrong land fuits it 
beft. It gives a very bold, plump, found 
grain, of a good colour. 
I cannot think, that it is the fame as 
the Siberian wheat (or barley, as fome have 
called it). The grains do not anfwer the 
defcription which fame authors give of 
that fpecies. That was introduced inta 
this country about the year which Dr. Wil- 
kinfon mentions ; but this was known here 
at leaft cbove 120 years before ; forl find 
a fhort deicription, and a tolerably good 
figure, of itin Parkinfon, page 1120, un- 
der the name of triticum multiplici pica. 
In the figure, its very remarkable diftinc- 
tion from all cther forts is well expreffed, 
viz. a number of fhort ears growing out of 
the fides of the chief ears. We, calls it in 
Englith double eared wheat, and fays that 
it grows about Lyons. 
It may be of ule to individuals to multi- 
ply the kinds of corn, and even to extend 
its cultivation; but nothing of this kind, 
nor indeed any ocher of the tutile methods 
adopted, can be of any effential fervice to 
our flarving poor, and the fimking middle 
rank of life, while a villainous {pirit of 
fpeculation is permitted, and connived at, 
and thereby encouraged... It appears too 
plainly that real fcarcity is not among our 
evils; but that the avaricious gripe of the 
unfeeling is wafting the ftrength, and wi- 
thering the powers, of all but the wealrhy 
part of the community; and that we are 
rapidly haftening to tnat deplorable ttate, 
wherein there will be but ¢vo defcriptions 
“ ‘of 
