they had acquired solidity and firm

ness.

What a far more elevated idea of the supreme Being does it therefore afford, to conceive Him operating, as Moses describes, on all the different substances which the globe contains, at one and the same instant; and not on this globe only, but on the whole universe; than that paltry mode of formation suggested by geologists, which restricts it to this globe alone, and consists of various depositions one upon another at widely distant periods ! Nor is such procedure in the creation of the globe unanalogous to the other works of God. He has, for instance, formed man and other animals in a fearful and wonderful manner. Like the globe itself, their bodies are composed of solids and fluids; and many various organs, and different kinds of fluids, and layers of muscles, enter into their system, which are all simultaneous in their origin. To suppose it were otherwise, would be absurd. To suppose that man was originally formed in the same piece-meallike manner that has been ascribed to the globe,-first, one bone, or rather one layer of a bone, and then another; then one muscle, or rather one fibre of a muscle, and then another, and so on until the structure was completed; how absurd the idea! If then all the different parts of animals were formed simultaneously, and if the structure of the animated part of nature is still more complicated than that of the inanimate, what could hinder a similar diversity of arrangement from being effected in the same simultaneous manner in the earth itself?

The Wernerian theory has never yet accounted for the causes of its supposed first, second, third, and fourth formation, &c.; nor has it said, how its supposed solution contained in it at one time the matter of one kind of rock; and at another, the matter of another; and on on. Neither has it explained how, after the rocks had been formed and dried, and fissures and rents were made in them,-the solutions, one after another, occurred, containing the matter of veins; and how they deposited no more than what just filled the veins, so that no part of the veinous matter is to be found, in any instance, spread over the surface of the rock:-a circumstance which must have occurred frequently, had

the Wernerian theory been true. But the fact of the matter seems to be, and this explains the whole phenomena, that both solids and fluids were formed at "one cast," as Newton expresses it, and as the Mosaic account here circumstantially informs us.

Admitting therefore, with geologists, that granite is the lowest of the primitive rocks which have been traced; and that gnies, mica, &c. where they occur, form strata above them; what state excepting the chaotic, when all substances were indiscriminately mixed, and the divine mandate went forth for their separation, can account for these formations in their respective order? What state, excepting this, now that chemical operations were to take place, which would consist of attractions and repulsions, liquefactions and consolidations, in a variety of ways, can account for the formation of rocks, whole mountains, and districts of them, hills and valleys, with veins of metals, and all manner of crystalline fossil substances, found sometimes in what have been termed primitive rocks? How, in the greater proportion of instances, could they have got into such situations, unless from an origin common to both? Their preserving a distinction in the mass from each other, is no argument to the contrary. The chemical laws, which were at this moment impressed upon Matter, would both be the cause and the security of the distinction.

The Wernerian theory on this subject, is objectionable in two respects. First, it explains veins, as if they were all cuneiform or wedge-like in their appearance, with their bases uppermost, or towards the earth's surface; which is by no means a universal fact. Veins occur in all the variety of rocks winding in every direction, and which do not extend to the external surface of the rock. Of course, their formation could never have been effected in the manner which Werner supposes; that is, by a deposition of the veinous matter into open fissures from above. Secondly, it supposes them to have been filled by depositions in this way, at various distant periods. But this is entirely hypothetical, and is not attended by the smallest proof of the cause of such depositions. Nor could many veins in nature, as they have no communication with the external surface, be formed in this manner.

I

grant that rocks, from losing their sup- | port on one side, or from shrinking and becoming more condensed, may be the cause of fissures being formed in them; but that these fissures were afterwards filled, so as to form veins, in the method assumed by Werner, is very problematical. It rather appears, as every particle of matter is now active, that is to say, possessed of mechanical and chemical properties, and constantly undergoing changes to a greater or less extent, that such veins as entered not into the original formation of the globe, were filled up by chemical deposits from the rocks which contain them. Hence it is, that many veins bear a great affinity to the rocks in which they occur, and seem to have been formed from the most easily decomposed portions of them.

It has always appeared problematical to me, that, upon the Wernerian theory, the quantity of the veinous materials should have been so nicely proportioned to the size of the open fissures or rents, where it was to be deposited, as to leave nothing over. Would it have been wonderful, if indeed veins were filled in this manner, to have seen portions of the veinous matter, after the fissures and rents had been filled up, spreading over the surface of the rocks, and not only forming veins by depositions into the open fissures, but layers and beds on this external surface? This must unquestionably have been the case, less or more, in all places, if veins had been formed by the method of the Wernerian hypothesis. But, perhaps, the veinous matter held in solution, was exactly proportioned to the size of the rents, and they were filled by means of a funnel, that nothing might run over!

bodies of the universe, and now hardened some portions into rocks, and made others fluid; could leave other portions in a loose and earthy state, that they might be adapted to the purpose to which they were immediately to be applied. Why must we say, with the Huttonians, that the alluvial soil was, in the succession of ages, originally formed by the decay of rocks and mountains; as some small portions, at the mouths of rivers and other places, are observed to form in the present times; when there was no physical impossibility of its being formed in the manner here asserted? At what stage or period, I therefore ask, could all these mighty effects be so conveniently or so naturally produced, as at this instant, that Nature, influenced by an energy for the express purpose, was thus emerging from its chaotic state? That out of an homogeneous mass of matter in its elementary state, should be formed all the substances which the globe contains, exactly as they are on the great general scale, appears to be a self-evident truth, arising from the nature of the thing; as well as from the manner, we are assured by Moses, in which the whole was at first produced and formed.

[To be continued.]

BY

THE PLAN OF SETTING WHEAT DIBBLING, EXPLAINED AND RECOMMENDED.

THE writer of this article, having tried the system of Dibbling in a mountainous district, and having reason to be well satisfied with the result of his experiments, is desirous to promote the public benefit by rendering this valuable improvement more generally

Dibbling has for some years been partially practised in the southern counties; but has, in only a very few unconnected instances, been introduced into the north. For the clear development of such a subject, the most convenient and natural order will be, first, to describe the implements and the process; and, then, to state the advantages of the plan.

The instrument employed in this operation is called a pair of Dibbling irons.

It consists of three parts, namely, two irons for making the setholes, and a connecting bar, which, from the purpose it serves, may be 3 A

is about a yard long, with a handle like that of a spade. The bottom part, with which the holes are made, is much like a plumber's solderingiron, but smaller and more pointed. On the projecting shoulder of each iron the foot-bar rests, on which the requisite pressure is made by the foot of the labourer. To furnish a more correct notion of its construction and use, a drawing of the instrument is here given.

In this drawing, fig. A, represents one of the irons. The whole of this is made of iron, except the part of the handle marked f, which is of wood. The shaft ab is about half an inch thick. The thinness of it allows it to enter the opening g, in the circular ends of the foot-bar, as exhibited in fig. B. The lower part of the shaft in fig. A, from b to c, is made twice as thick as the upper part; the projection at b being a quarter of an inch. This thickness of the lower part is designed nearly to fill the circular holes of the foot-bar, in order, that when the bar is thrust down, as in fig. C, the whole may be so united as to form one compact instrument, and yet so loose as to allow each iron to be turned half round with a quick motion of the hand, at each step. The twist thus given to the irons, on taking them up from the set-holes, prevents the soil adhering to the instrument; and, that

From this drawing and explanation, it is presumed, an ingenious smith would be able to make the instrument. It remains however to be stated, that the thick part of the shaft, from 6 to e in fig. A, is an inch and half in length: that the cone at the bottom, from c to d, is two inches thick at the shoulder, the projection at c being half an inch; and from the shoulder to the point dis three inches. These being the dimensions of the instruments in use, where the practice is most prevalent, may be supposed to be such as, after repeated alterations and experiments, have been found most convenient.

The ground designed to be dibbled, is first prepared as for broadcast. The man stretches a gardener's line wherever it may be convenient to begin, and then proceeds to make the holes, with one foot on the bar, advancing by steps of three inches, till he arrives at the end of the line, which he removes five inches, and then proceeds as before. This being done with exactness, will at length divide the whole field into neat squares of five inches by three. Two children follow the man, dropping three or four seeds into each hole. In the evening the seed is covered, by using either a garden-rake or a brush harrow.

As the seed required for this process is but one-third of the quantity allowed for broadcast, a little extratrouble in preparing it will be well bestowed. After washing the seed, and skimming off all the light grains, soak it in a strong solution of common salt, or in the draining from a manure heap, 24 hours: then take it out, and dry it, by adding to it, while wet, fallen lime and soot, in equal quantities, stirring the whole till none of the seeds stick together. The seed thus prepared, must be set in 12 or 18 hours afterwards, or it will not grow. This mode of preparing seed will generally prevent rust or mildew, and smut; it also renders the crop more excellent.

For several weighty reasons, Dibbling may be strongly recommended to the opulent, as well as to the poor farmer, as being much superior to the old plan of sowing wheat by broadcast.

1. Dibbling saves much seed. The usual allowance for broadcast is nearly three bushels per acre. Dibbling requires scarcely one. Suppose wheat to be 80s. per quarter, then the saving in seed is 20s. for each acre. The inferences from such a ratio of saving are obvious and important. Suppose the farmer to sow one, two, three, or four hundred acres of wheat, the corn preserved will be accordingly twentyfive, fifty, seventy-five, or one hundred quarters annually. Were the plan therefore generally adopted, it would be manifestly equal to a considerable importation. This is an important consideration in a country which is endeavouring to render its own agriculture equal to the subsistence of an increased population.

2. To the opulent farmer it affords an opportunity of profitably employing the poor, which ought at all times to be a weighty consideration, but especially in such times of general distress as the present. To the poor farmer, who may have a small family, it is peculiarly advantageous, by enabling him to render his smaller children useful.

3. Upon this plan, there is generally more grain produced, and of superior quality. The roots being planted at regular distances, the grain is better fed.

4. Wheat set by Dibbling, as it produces less unnecessary straw than that sown by broadcast, will not so soon impoverish the land.

5. By this mode the roots of the young wheat strike deep into the ground, and therefore are not so liable to be heaved out by the Winter's frost; and when harrowed in the Spring, (provided the harrows are drawn across the rows) very few roots are disturbed by that process.

6. Another advantage accruing from this system is, that in consequence of the stems being at regular distances, they are far less liable to be laid down | by heavy rain, than when upon the old system they stand clustering together in an unequal and confused manner. This is not a trivial ground of preference.

per acre, when wheat is 80s. per quarter, there remains after the payment of the labourer, a clear saving of 13s. per acre.

This rate of reduction in the annual expense of sowing, would, to the cultivator of 100 acres, be an annual saving of £65. Had Dibbling no other points of superiority over the old method, this alone should command attention; but when the many advantages enumerated are viewed collectively, they compose such an aggregate of profit as must attract the favourable consideration of every sensible farmer. SAMUEL COCKER.

Hathersage, July 22, 1820.

MR. EDITOR, SIR,-In your instructive miscellany, No. 15, Col. 387, there is a Mathematical Query, relative to the solution of Biquadratic Equations, according to the method of Des Cartes, which I believe is yet unanswered. I shall feel greatly obliged, if any of your correspondents will give an answer to it, as well as to the following.

1. Whether there is any rule to point out, which of the three roots of the Cubic Equation y3 + py=+g, (supposing all the three to be rational,) is to be employed in finding the value of x in the Biquadratic, as I perceive sometimes the first, sometimes the third, and (for any thing I yet know to the contrary) sometimes the second, is employed for that purpose, to the great perplexity of the learner. None of the writers on Algebra, so far as I have been able to discover, notice this point, though the fact is indisputable.

2. Bonny castle, in his large work on Algebra, says, Vol. II. p. 114, that Des Cartes' method only holds good when two of the roots are possible, and two impossible. Whereas, in his Introduction, (the new as well as the old editions,) he has given SEVERAL examples for solution, where three of the roots, frequently all the four, are rational. How is this to be reconciled? and what is the true state of the case?

really is almost by a whole unit, in order to bring out the roots of x, though the question has been worked through