J Jo 3. Remarh ty tie Condu^orl 43^ 



l^hethcr this breed or that breed of flicep will pay Iiim bed for 

 SL given quantity of food, and nut which will yield the greatelt 

 relifh to his palate, or the fofteft clothing to his back. 



Epiciirus's lirlt letter feemed to embrace two objects : ift, To 

 detecSi: the fallacy of the paragraph inferted in the Edinburgli newf- 

 papers ; and, 2dly/ro depretiate the New-Leiceiler, or, what is com- 

 monly called the improved breed of ihecp. In our remarks upon 

 that letter, we virtually joined him m his firit ohjecl, at leall lb 

 far as refpeded the matter of houfe lamb ; and, with refpeft to 

 the fecond, ;'. e. the merit or value of the New-Leice(ler breed of 

 iheep, we remarked, that he had not confidered the fubjedt in a 

 true point of view, tliat is to fay, his arguments were folely di- 

 redled to the quality of their fleOi, not to the profit and lofs arifin-^ 

 from the breed. This is the fum and fubflance of the difpute^ 

 fo far as m^q interfered ; and let any impartial perfon examine his 

 paper, and the attendant remarks, and fay, whetiier the latter are 

 not ftridly applicable. If the paper had been confined to the pa- 

 ragraph in the uewfpapers, Epicurus would have been perfectiv 

 right, when he fays that he had nothing to do with profit and 

 lofs ; but the remark made by us applied to another part, in which 

 profit and lofs was materially concerned. 



Whether the compliment we paid to the author of the letter figa- 

 ed ' j4 Breeder of Coalheavers^ Mutton ^^ be juft or not, we muli; 

 leave to be determined by thofe who are acquainted with the me- 

 rits of that refpeclabie gentleman. This, however, and the re- 

 mark which followed, viz. that it might almoft be received as an 

 axiom, that, in general cafes, the New-Leicefter, or improved 

 breed of fheep, are more profitable to the farmer than many o- 

 ther breeds, forms the effence of his fecond criticifm. We are 

 tlierein accufed of a61:ing didactically, dogmatically, and, in fliort, 

 of giving opinions altogether unfupported by proof. We did not 

 know before, that giving a fimple opinion was ailing dida£l:ically, 

 and are yet to learn, that dida^lic and dogmatic are fynonymous 

 terms. But be thcfe things as they may, we muil be allowed to 

 think, that the rapid fpread of the New-Leicefler over a great 

 part of the ifland, is a ftrong proof of tlieir intrinfic and iupe- 

 rior quality as feeders. We do not fay that the cxtenfion of the 

 breed warrants us to lay down as an axiom, that they are the beft 

 breed j but it certainly juflifies the opinion given, that, in gene- 

 ral cafes, t!iey will prove more profitable to the farmer than many- 

 others. Does Epicurus mean to nraintain, that every animal feeds 

 or fattens in diretl proportion to the food it confumes ? If he 

 does, we miglit ufe the argumcntiim ad kominem in return, were 

 we not averfe to making an application. 



With regard to the mode cf alcertaining the value of difFereit 

 breeds, we can have no objei^iou to wli^tt \% fuggefted by Epici- 



