MUMMY WHEAT. 
1 19 
Saurin, J.P., is a member of a well-known Dublin family, and 
an Irish magistrate. If this statement is correct, we trust that 
members of both political parties will make efforts for his re- 
moval from the bench. It would be utterly impossible for any 
person to have the slightest respect for sentences delivered by one 
who had himself been convicted of such a disgraceful action. 
But we are still of opinion that such conduct as this is of ex- 
tremely rare occurrence, not only among magistrates, or gentle- 
men bearing Her Majesty’s Commission, but among respectable 
men of any class whatever. The outrage was just as unsports- 
manlike as it was cruel and cowardly ; and it must be one of the 
severest punishments of the culprits in this case that they will 
feel they are exposed to the contempt of every humane and hon- 
ourable man, even among their own associates. 
“ MUMMY WHEAT.” 
HE popular error of confounding “ Mummy wheat ” 
with “ Egyptian wheat ” has lasted for at least half 
a century, and is not extinct yet ! Perhaps, there- 
fore, a brief resume of the subject may not be unin- 
teresting to our readers. In 1840, Mr. M. Farquhar Tupper 
received twelve grains from Sir G. Wilkinson, who, it was said, 
took them with his own hands out of a vase in an Egyptian 
tomb. Of these twelve Mr. Tupper asserted that he raised 
one plant, which bore two poor ears, one of which was figured 
in The Gardeners’ Chronicle, (1843, p. 787). Mr. Tupper’s ac- 
count was reported in the Times (Sept., 1840). In the second 
and third years the wheat was described as having recovered 
its vigour, so that it bore ears seven and a-half inches long, and 
was so like a good sample of Col. Le Couteur’s variety called 
“ Bellevue Talavera,” that even the experienced ej'e of that 
gentleman was unable to detect any difference. The eminent 
botanist, Dr. Lindley, then editor of the Gardeners' Chronicle, in 
a leading article expressed his belief in the truth of the survival 
of the wheat after some 3,000 years. 
Suspicions, however, were raised ; and a writer, signing 
himself, “ Este,” suggested that there had probably been some 
tampering by the Arabs ( Gardener's Chronicle, p. 805). 
In 1846, Sir W. Colebroke is said to have raised several 
plants from “two grains of mummy wheat, received in 1842;” 
but it is not stated whether they were of the original sample, or 
of the produce of those raised by Mr. T upper. After cultivat- 
ing them, Sir W. Colebroke remarks: — “I cannot resist the 
impression that this is a winter wheat; and if so, it cannot be a 
production of the soil of Egypt ; for whence could the ancient 
