E 306 1 



On the fiippofition that the ufe of boiling wafcf 

 in the picpaiation of{]ix may be found to be ad-r 

 vantageous and profitable, I can recoUedb ar j. re- 

 fent but one (A/jeflion agf ind its bcing generally 

 adopted. Every flax-g.ovver, it may be faid, could 

 not be expc(5lecl to have convtnicnces for boiHrig 

 water fu/Bcient for the purpofe; the confuniption 

 of water would be great j and fome additional cx- 

 pence would be incurred. In anfwer to this 1 lliail 

 only obferve, that I prefume any additional ex- 

 pence would be more than reimburfed by the better 

 marketable price of the flax i for othcrwife any 

 new improvement, if it will not quit cod, mull be 

 dropped, were it even the fcarching after gold. 

 In a large cauldron a great deal of flax might be 

 dipped in the fame water, and the confumption per- 

 haps would not be more than a quart to each flieaf; 

 even a large houfliold pot would be capable of con- 

 taining one flieaf after another; and I believe the 

 whole objection would be obviated, were the prac- 

 tice to prevail with us as in Flanders and Holland, 

 that the flax-grower and the flax-drefler fhould be 

 two difl:ind: profefllons. 



I fliall conclude with recommending to thofe 

 who are inclined to make experiments, not to be- 

 difcouraged by the failure of one or two trials. 

 Perhaps the flax, infl:ead of being jufl: plunged into 



the 



