1803. .Revieiv of the New Farmer'' s Cidemlar. 201 



from the feed, is pei'haps about as rational as to attribute an acci- 

 dental cold to a defc£l in the parental feed of tlic patient ; and 

 that to fteep the feed of corn, with a view of preferving tlie fu- 

 ture crop from fmut, is a proceeding equally fagc, and entitled to 

 equal fuccefs, as if a man ihould apply to Dr Broduni for a me- 

 dicine to be taken at gun-powder treafon, in order to cure a cold 

 which may poflibly attack him the Michaelmas next enfuing.' 

 This is perhaps the ftrangeft paragraph that was ever wrote, and 

 is in oppofition to the experience (^in many cafes dearly boughtj 

 of ever}'- farmer in the kingdom, who has been extenfively con- 

 cerned in the fowing of wheat. 



The caufe of fmut (blight is a different diforder, though claffed 

 here with fmut), is one of thefe fecrets of nature which pro- 

 bably will not foon be difcovered ; but experience, no matter 

 how it was originally gained, teaches farmers that, notwithftand- 

 ing the caufe is beyond their reach, the efte6ls may be prevented 

 by applying ilrong fteeps or pickles to the feed immediately before 

 it is fovvn. If there is one thing, in which we are certain, it is, 

 that applications of this kind, duly adminifbered, will elTedlually 

 preferve wheat from being fmutted. That they will not prevent 

 blight, we grant ; but no perfon, to our knowledge, ever enter- 

 tained fuch an idea, unlefs, like our author, they confounded the 

 two diforders together. Indeed, the whole of this feclioa makes a 

 hixarre figure ; for it is firil maintained, that fmutted wheat has no 

 more the power of propagation than rufted iron ; or, in other 

 words, that fmutted wheat will not produce fmutted wheat ; and 

 then it is contended, * that to fow imperfect feed, is a practice 

 nearly allied to madnefs.' AfTuredly fmutted feed is imperfecl', 

 trgo, &:c. 



In this fedion it is alfo faid, that the potatoe curl is nothing but 

 a blight, and that it does not proceed from the feed. Were our 

 author not defirous to contradift eftabliOied opinion, he would 

 not ' trefpafs fo often againfl common fenfe. Let him plant a 

 few drills of found and infected feed alternately, and he will 

 foon be fatisfied, that curl proceeds from the feed, and from no 

 other caufe. / 



In fome points, the author thinks correclly. He is a friend 

 to leafes, and does not feem inclined to opprefs the tenantry with 

 arbitrary reftri6lions. His fentiments on the corn laws arc 

 pretty jufl, and fome good obfervations maybe found in the fec- 

 tion on manures. 



Thus, we have examined a w*ork, which, from the title page, 

 feems to have acquired fome celebrity, and are extremely forry 

 that our general opinion is unfavourable. Publications of this 

 kind may be highly ufeful when guided by a judicious and dif- 

 criminating hand ; but,' otherwife, thev are calculated to do mucli 



mifchie^; 



