1804. Thcughis on certain Objiacles to Improiement. 157 



the landlord. Yet, alas ! this is the very fyllcm which is purfucd 

 in many parts of the country. Every man of experience well 

 knows, that the fupnlies of human food, which can be raifed un- 

 der it, ai'" comparatively Icanty ; and that, under a proper rota- 

 tion of c ps (pernuttin|T aitificial grafles to be a part of them) 

 lands impoveriihed by long aration, become, in no great fpacc of 

 time, very fruitful. 



Akin to the fyllem I have jufl mentioned, is that which not 

 only virtually compels the difpirited farmer to continue his ex* 

 haufted land in tillage, but to lime it every third year. Although 

 many praclic:il and fcientiiic agriculturifls differ in opinion as to 

 the modus operandi of lii.iie, yet all men of judgment and expe- 

 rience agree in Hating that its good effe£ts are moil difcerniblc 

 in frefh lands impregnated v/ith vegetable matter, and which have 

 never, or for a confuicrable time, been limed j that its application, 

 every third year, without dung (a fcarce article under fuch ma- 

 nagement), to land which has been long in tillage, and frequent* 

 ly limed, is of no utility, and, in fome cafes, hurtful. The con- 

 dition of large trads of moor, and v/afte lands cap?.b]e of much 

 improvement, I ihall not place entirely to the account of land- 

 lords and land-agents, tithes being, in my opinion, the principal 

 caufe of their being continued in their prcfcnt unproductive and 

 difgraceful itate ; but for the milchievous efte£ls of this tax, and 

 the belt plan of accommodation which has yet been offered to the 

 public, I refer to the able letter m your Number for February 

 lail, figned * A Friend to Improvements. ' The Hate of com- 

 mons \ the cuRom of allowing large quantities of hay and ftraw 

 to be confumed, or rather moilly wafted, by cattle, in the fields, 

 inftead of being properly ufed in houfes and fold-yards for raifing 

 as much manure as poirible, and m.any other inftances of inju- 

 dicious management, may be adduced. Trufting, however, I have 

 already faid enough to {}iow that, in many parts of the coun- 

 try, the management of landed eftates is very defective, and that 

 the encouragement for the inveftiture of capital in agriculture, is 

 far from being fo great as that which is held out in other em- 

 ployments, I ihall not at prefent enumerate them. Let it fuf- 

 lice to fay, that if the whole were particularifed, they would, in 

 all probability,, induce many impartial agriculturids to conclude, 

 that hufbandry is an employment which it is deemed good policy 

 to reprefs. Tiie loud acknowledgments of its importance, which 

 were made by Jome of our landholders during the late alarming 

 fcarcity of corn, and their promifed fupport of agriculture, I am 

 apprehenfive (when I confider the difcordancy between profefiiou 

 and practice) we can place but little reliance upon. Indeed, Sir, 

 a cynic would infift either on a total want of fiacerity, or that thc- 

 agriculturc of PruiFia was alluded to. 



Yet^ 



