5|38 Remarh hy the CondtiBor, Nov* 



very little obliged to him for his officious interference in this 

 bufinefs. There was certainly no occafion for obtruding hin:i 

 upon the public. His actual merit, as a fpirited farmer, is 

 well fftabliflied, and for which he (liall alw^i^s be juftly appre- 

 ciated by Yours, &c. 



Epicurus. 



NOTE BY THE CONDUCTOR. 



Refpecl: for our old friend Epicurus^ with whom we have 

 been long conne^ed, engages us to prefent the above paper 'uer^ 

 hatim^ in fo far as our management is implicated. Perhaps fome 

 of his remarks might have been fpared •, but, being made, a juftifi- 

 catory plea is neceil'ary. We are not afraid of tlie difcufl'ion, 

 though aware it can afford little pleafure on eithei" fide. On that 

 account, we fhall be concife. 



The pradlice adopted by us, of occafionally oflerlng remarks 

 on the communications of correfpondents, was early recom- 

 mended bv a refpe£table friend, as being the alone beft method of 

 maintaining the congruity of the work. Befid'es, it occurred, 

 that the diitance betwixt each publication, rendered remarks par- 

 ticularly ncceflary, in the firft inftancc, otherwife the fubje6t 

 might, in a great meafure, be forgotten before the fucceeding 

 Number was publifhed. In making remarks, we are jullified by 

 the Miifeum RujVicum^ an agricultural work, publiflied in London, 

 about thirty-feven years ago, and even by the pra^lice of many 

 cotemporary editors. But why fhould we appeal to any autho- 

 rity at all, feeing that the ftrongeft fupport may be dra^m from 

 the very paper before us. Our worthy correfpondent quotes a 

 paflage from Mr Dempfter's letter, which is much to our mind \ 

 and here we reft our juftification. If the fparks from the coUi- 

 fion of argument light up the torch of truth, and lead the inquirer 

 to the tree of knowledge, then every additional remark or argu- 

 ment that is made mull tend to promote thefe ends. The re- 

 marks in queftion have procured three or four additional pages 

 from Epicurus ; and had the one been avoided, it is more than 

 probable that the information communicated in the other would 

 have been loft to the public. 



Having noticed our correfpondent's exordium, the criticifms' 

 offered by him call next for our attention. Wliether he is a fair 

 critic, and whether he confounds one part of a difpute with ano- 

 ther altogether unconnected with the former, we are not bound 

 to fay. He is keen, and perhaps, in fome inftances, fteps beyond 

 his objeO:. In his eagernefs to procure good mutton and good 

 cloth, he perhaps forgets that none of thefe are great objeds 

 to the ^farmer who muft keep term-time. Such muft confider 



whether 



