APPENDIX. 



** fufpe&ed of any prejudice in favour of the 

 " horfe-hoeing fyftem." 



Sir Digby cannot indeed be charged with 

 any partiality in this refpedr, and without doubt 

 his ftating the errors of his firft practice of this 

 Hufbandry was giving a fair and candid ac- 

 count of his fuccefs ; yet, in a comparative 

 view of the Old and New Hufbandry, it is much 

 to the difadvantage of the New, to include 

 thele imperfect beginnings ; for, as the Old 

 Bufbandry is ftated in the beft and mod ap- 

 proved methods of that huibandry, the beft 

 method in the New fhould likewiie be ftated, 

 the errors having beenfeen and rectified in the 

 future practice of it. This field, fays he, 

 < (the feven experiment acres) has never been 

 " manured, as I obferved before, fince my 

 * experiments were begun, nor for many 

 < years preceding. It may be remarked, that 

 that the firft crops were not the beft ; but, 

 * on the contrary, a regular improvement for 

 *< fome years kept pace with its cultivation, and 

 * the value of the four laft crops is almoft 

 *< double to the former ones. The greateft 

 ' fault committed at firft was the lowing 

 * too little feed. The land feems yet in per- 

 * feet heart, and though the product of laft 

 " year was lefs than in former ones, it was 

 well known that the wheat crop failed all 

 over England.'* 



By this it appears, that, by a few years prac- 

 tice, this method of Hufbandry was fo much 



improved, 



