26 A Vindication of the New Improvements in Tanning. fAug. fs 
He proceeds, Mr. Seguin, it is faid, 
has, iz a great meafure, difcontinued the 
new proce{s, and that in a country which 
-prefents greater facilities in it than Eng- 
Jand does, bark being an artiele procured 
at an eafy rate.” 
Tt would feem neceflary to ftate precifely 
in what meafure Mr. Seguin has difcon- 
tinued it. Alterations and improvements 
in the form and dimenfions of his appa- 
ratus, may have been neceflary from local 
circumftances: he may, in fome cafes, 
make Je(s ufe than formerly of the gallic 
and fulphuric acids, for unhairing the 
hides; but neither of thefe cafes has any 
thing to do with the principle of the pro- 
cefs: modifications may, and muft, be ob- 
ferved in the application of it, according 
to circumftances; but the principle itfelf 
is fo firmly eftablifhed, as never to be 
fhaken, and neither Mr. Seguin, the ori- 
ginal inventor, nor any other perfon who 
underftands it, has ever yet abandoned it. 
- Your Conftant Reader thinks, but dées 
not fay why, the new procefs is more ex- 
penfive than the old. Moft affuredly it 
cannot be on account of labour, becaufe 
it requires much lefs of it than the old 
mode; the daily operation of handling 
being totally fuppreffed. It muft then be 
on account of bark, as he plainly infi- 
nuates. But if he imagines that it re- 
quires more bark to tana given weight of 
leather in one way than another, he will 
find few people of his opinion, becaufe 
it is well known that ‘the quantity of 
tannin abforbed by the leather is what 
gives it weight. Now it is univerfally 
admitted that the leather tanned by the 
new procefs is confiderably heavier than 
by the old; and in this fenfe, no doubt, 
more bark is converted into leather; but - 
this confideration is manifeftly in fa- 
your of the manufacturer. 
But is the bark more liable to be wafted 
or loft in the new than the old procefs? 
Apparently much lefs; and if in any 
particular cafe a wafte or lofs of bark takes 
place, it muft be the fault of the manu- 
fa&turer. ‘The mode pointed out by the 
new procefs of afcertaining whether the 
_ bark is completely /pent. or not, is fo 
fimple and fo infallible, that it is {carcely 
poflible to be miftaken in it; nor is it 
more difficult, after the tannin is reduced 
to a fluid ftate, to afcertain whether it is 
totally abforbed from the liquor by the 
leather, which cannot imbibe more than 
is neceflary to faturate it: and, in both 
cafes, a little attention is fufficient. to 
Shak the pofibility of a@lo& or wafte 
Bt. Darn, . 
~ Your Conftant Reader roundly affirms, 
«that the new procefs is not calculated 
for general ufe in tanneries and 
that, if it were generally practifed, it 
would prove an injury to a confiderable 
part of the hides and fkins.” 
We mutt withhold our affent from thefe 
affertions, until forme better reafon is al 
leged for them, than what we have 
hitherto feen. Inthe mean time may we 
beg to know why the leather is more lia- 
ble tobe injuredin geveral than in particu- 
‘lar cafes? What part of it, and why a part 
only, and not the whole, is thus injured 
Much more may be faid on this appa- 
rently important fubjet, but I fear this 
letter is already too long: however, be- 
fore I conclude, may I beg leave to re- 
mind your Confiant Reader of the adage 
tentare non nocet, and obferve to him 
that the mere conjectures of an imexperi- 
enced man, whatever his candour and faga~ 
city may be in other refpeéts, can have no 
weight in this, when compared with the 
‘pofitive evidence of many who have had 
long and extenfive practice in the bufineis. 
I am, Sir, 
A. FrigEND TO IMPROVEMENT.s 
EE ‘ 
Io the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
S your admit into your valuable 
Mifcellany philological difquifi- 
tions on the dead languages, allow me, 
through that medium, to inguire of fome 
Jearned reader, whether there aré many 
inftances in the Greek Tragic Poets of 
the augment being omitted, and whether 
any Ionic peculiarity may be tolerated in 
the poets of the Attic dialect. 
The very learned and ingenious Pro- 
feflor Porfon faysin his preface to the 
Hecuba of Euripides——‘ Plane per- 
fuafum habeo, non licuiffe in Attico 
fermone augmentum abjicere.” 
A paffage has jult met my eye in the 
(Edipus Tyrannus of. Sophocles, where 
the augment is rejected contrary to this 
‘canon. (408 
Avayey ples poiloe epipavas evac—-Ver. 95, 
Cidip. Tyr. ‘i 
In avwyev the augment is omitted. | 
J fhall efteem it a favour, if any perfon 
verfed in the Greek Tragic Poets) will 
inform me whether there.aremany inftances 
of the kind, and whether they are looked 
upon as proceeding from the carelefsnefs 
and inattention of tranfcribers.: 
Chipping- Barnett, Your's, &c. 
Ta 
