V4 Sediment from New-river Water.—Tainted Meat. [ March 7, 
ferther inveftigation. That gentleman 
fays, that «« river-awater will leave no 
fediments of earthy particles at the bottom of 
the tea-kettle.’ “This may be ftrictly true 
an many, or, if you pleafe, in mot cafes: 
but is it univerfally fo ? or, when we talk 
of “rivers”, are we exclufively to under- 
ftand zatural rivers, which flow in their 
original felf-formed channels, undiverted 
from their courfe by human induftry. 
This queftion is not foreign to the pur- 
pofe :—that ftream, for example, which is 
commonly calied The New River, and 
whofe water fupplies fo great a portion of 
the metropolis—in what light are we to 
view it? Though, in ftri€t propriety of 
dpeech, it be only a canal or aqueduét, yet, 
when every circumftance is duly conf- 
dered, its water, I think, may very fairly 
be deemed river-water. Now, I can 
pofitively affert from ocular conviction, 
and can prove by the evidence of my 
Own tea-kettle, that the Newy River water 
does depofit earthy fediments, which, in 
time, concrefce to ftone. My kettle has 
never had in it a fingle drop of any other 
than the New River water, from the time 
when it came new into my poffeffion about 
four or five years ago: neverthele/s, at the 
moment when I propofed my queries, it 
was completely lined with a ftony incruf 
tation, not indeed fo thick as I have feen 
an fome kettles in country parts, yet little 
fhort of half an inch in thicknefs. 
It may be proper to obferve that 
mine is an 7roz kettle: and, whether 
iron poflefles a greater aptitude, than cop- 
per, to attra&t the earthy particles, is a 
point that deferves confideration. To me 
it appears an interelting quefiion: for, if 
#t can be afcertained that the fame water, 
which depofits an earthy fediment in iron 
weffels, leaves none im ihefe of copper, it 
muft neceffarily follow that the water 
comes much lefs pure and wholefome from a 
copper kettle, than from an iron one, and 
that the latter is of courfe preferable. But 
this is a point. which yet remains to be 
proved. 
I recolle&i, indeed, to have been in- 
formed, a few years fince, by a gentleman 
connected with the New River Company, 
that they had tried caft-iron cocks in the 
imain- pipes which run along the ftreets; but 
that thefe were, in no very long time, nearly 
choaked with tiony incruftations, and that 
the Company were in conlequence forced 
to refume the ufe of wooden cocks, which, 
in their former practice, they had not 
found liable to the fame inconvenience. 
IT conclude by exprefiing a with that 
thefe crude remarks may attract the notice 
of fome more fcientific man than J, who 
may be able and willing to communicate | 
OO ee (ee 
to the public fome ufeful information 
on the fubje&. Meantime, Iam, Sir, 
Fan. 3d, 1804. ifs 
ES 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIR, 
“Ov @z0g Geres “amcAAvetr, wp adoover 
Quem Jupiter vult perdere, dementat prius. 
ERMIT a well-wifher to inquire of 
the critical readers of the Monthly 
Magazine, whether they know any other 
inftances of the verbs ‘adpovew and demenio 
ufed in an aétive fenfe. Thefe verbs have, 
Ithink, been generally taken for afives 
in the lines prefixed: But if there is no 
authority for this conftruétion, would it 
not be better to underftand them ina neuter 
fenfe, in conformity with their fignifica- 
tion in all other inftances? ‘The fyntax 
will then be, ‘¢ I//e, qaem Deus vult per- 
dere, prius dementat 5” 7.¢. infanit, delirat, 
defipit. The only authors within my 
knowledge who ufe the verb demento are 
Apuleius and Laétantius; it is a meuter 
with beth: The tranflator of the proverb 
in queftion was evidently dire€ted in the 
choice of this uncouth word by the corre- 
{ponding word in the Greek agpay, demens. 
Oxford, Your’s, &c. 
Nov.13, 1803 GRAMMATTICUS. 
Ee 
To the Editor of the Monthly Magazine. 
SIRs 
OU may have read lately in the pub- 
lic prints feveral accounts of taint- 
ed meat, offered for fale by the butcheis, 
being feized by magiftrates, and burnt. 
As this isan inftance of the zeal of autho- 
rity interfering with commerce, it has 
conneétion enough with a defence of fore- 
ftalling for me to be permitted to afka 
few queftions. 
1. By what arguments has it been 
proved, that meat kept fo long as to be 
offenfive to the nofe is aifo unwholefome 
to the fomach ? 
2. How comes it, that, if meat fo kept 
be dangerous to the poor, it fhould be 
innoxious to the rich; and that a mayor, 
after deftroying meat kept five days, may 
go home to his dinner on venifon kept ten? 
3. As the meat was ‘* burnt, and not 
buried, becaufe it was unfit even for 
dogs,” are all dog-feeders in an error 
(for they feed with carrion highly pu- 
trid); and is the dog himfelf in a miftake, 
when he buries his bone tiil it is rotten ? 
4. Do you think thatthe butcher is not” 
fufficiently punifhed for not having at- 
tended to the ftate of the atmofphere, by 
the lofs arifing from the decreafed price of 
his meat; and willhe not be more careful 
in future, if he do not fuffer the lofs of the 
whole ? MISORHETOR, 
