FLAX COMPARED WITH WHEAT. 93 



with much pleasure and interest the discussion on the Flax 

 question, in the Farmer's Journal, and I must say the 

 opponents of Flax do it most gross inj ustice. For instance, in 

 1843 I got 145 for Flax grown on barley six Irish acres (or 

 say nine English acres), and I calculate, after making a liberal 

 allowance for expenses, I had 100, or more than 16 per 

 acre clear profit by selling the Flax at 8s. to 8s. 6d. per stone 

 in Cookstown.' Then he adds 'This year I saved some 

 seed of the Flax on the Courtray system [before this he did 

 not do so : it was as usual lost in the watering] ; on applying 

 it I find the seed excellent ^and nutritive food for milch -cows, 

 pigs and horses ; and to this kind of food we attribute the 

 remarkable sleekness of animals feeding on it ; and we observe 

 that the milk of the cows improves both in quality and 

 quantity immediately after we commence giving them the 

 bolls.' 



" Now, as this gentleman states that he had, without the seed, 

 (for it appears he followed in 1843 the old system) a clear 

 profit on the Flax grown on eight acres of ... 100 

 We must add to this what seed he should 

 have had according to the Norfolk farmer's 

 calculation, 29 bushels to the acre, or 232 

 bushels at 3s. 6d. per bushel 72 10 



172 10 



t( Therefore, had he saved the seed, even working the Flax 

 on the old system, he would have had a clear profit of 

 21 11s. 3d. per acre; whereas, had he managed the whole 

 crop on the improved method, he would have got much more 

 than 8s. 6d. per stone; in all probability 10s. or 12s. It is 

 a well known fact that any uneducated ploughman can sow 

 and reap off an acre of good land from thirty to thirty-fire 

 bushels of wheat or barley. In this case, the land gives the 

 quality, and does all after the seed leaves the hand that sows 



