( 295 ) 



No. II. 

 FLAX. 



To the Editor of the Farmer s Journal. 



SIR. 



THE letter of " An Old Subscriber," in your Journal of 

 last week, may justly be compared to that of his anti-patriotic 

 contemporary " Cincinnatus." Both are valueless, except for 

 the opportunity they afford of exposing the ignorance of past 

 ages, and the fallacious notions of the present day notions 

 that have no foundation beyond the remembrance of things 

 that happened when the writers were "mere boys," or the 

 failure of experiments through inexperience, impatience, and 

 want of perseverance. 



Such are the cogitations of " Cincinnatus," and of " An Old 

 Subscriber^;" all of which I refuted last week ; and I think that 

 the intelligent reader must have discovered that " both birds 

 were killed with one stone." 



But, as "An Old Subscriber" may not be altogether quick- 

 sighted, or willing to acknowledge the effect of my prowess, 

 I will give him a separate charge, and leave him to feel, and 

 the public to judge, how far my aim has been correct. I must, 

 however, express my admiration of his indubitable courage in 

 venturing to combat my experience of several hundred acres 

 of flax, with his own half-acre grown in an old garden; or 

 rather, I ought to have said astonishment at his indiscretion, in 

 presenting a weapon so feeble against a phalanx so strong. 



It appears that your correspondent sowed in 1845 an acre of 

 land, one half with flax, the other with carrots, potatoes, and 

 mangel-wurzel. The result, he states, was exactly "20/. sterling 

 in favour of the root over the flax-crop ; that is to say, he 

 disposed of the former at the rate of 49/. 8s. per acre, and the 

 latter (if haply he could obtain 30s. for the stalks) at 9/. 8s. 

 per acre. He further adds, that the above is " a true state- 

 ment." It would therefore be indecorous to dispute the quan- 

 tity of roots produced or money realized. I can only say that 

 the accounts are marvellous, and ought to have been authenti- 

 cated by a real and not a fictitious signature. But, whether 

 true or false, the comparison is unfair, because it ought to have 

 been drawn between the tenant-farmers' root-crop (which cannot 



