^04 On the Shortnefs of Leafes, Nor. 



TO THE CONDUCTOR OF THE FARMER's MAGAZINE. 



On the Shortnefs or Total IFant of Leafes in fome pints of Scotland. 



Sir, 



In the few remarks that I am about to make, I take my ground 

 from the firft query in a fet of queftion& on general fubjeds of 

 agriculture in the Firlb Number of your very excellent and ufeful 

 Magazine. The quclHon runs in thefe words :. ' Whether is it 

 mofl advantageous to the State, that land (liould be cultivated by 

 the proprietors, or that a right to cultivate the foil fhould be 

 afligned, for a limited time, to otlier perfons, upon certain teims, 

 preftations, and limitations ? ' 



Among the many topics that have been treated of in your 

 Magazine, I do not recoiled to have feen this one difcuffed in a 

 way perfeclly to my mind. It appears to me, that you have done 

 rightly in putting this quellion on the broad bafis of the fubjed 

 of it being advantageous or difadvantageous to the State \ for, as 

 I confider the land as the capital ftock of the State, any in- 

 quiry into the bell mode of managing this capital ftock muft. 

 become doubly interefting, when ftated upon this ground, from 

 what it would have been if the inveftigation had been put on any 

 other. 



There are tliree great Sources of the wealth and profperity of 

 flates, — commerce, manufactures, and agriculture. Of thefe, the 

 two firft are fleeting and precarious ; the laft only is ftable and. 

 permanent. As a confirmation of this remark, we have only ta- 

 iay, that it is long fince the great tide of commerce has left the 

 cities of Italy and Flanders ; but that Lombardy, Tufcany, and 

 Belgium ftill continue to be among the beft cultivated countries in 

 Europe. 



I wifii to fee this queftion treated as a moral and political, rather 

 than as an agricultural and economical one. The folution of it 

 involves the prime interefts of the State, and is intimately con- 

 neded with its ftabiiity and profperity. The difcuflion embraces 

 the happinefs of the people, the confequenc increafe of population, 

 the improvement of the country, the multiplication of the means 

 of fubfiftence, the increafe of the ftock of national wealth, and 

 all thofe cbjeds which wife ftates, and patriotic princes and 

 prudent miniiters have ftiown the greatcft anxiety to cherifti and 

 promote. 



A change in the fentiments and purfuits of the people, and of 

 the meafures of government of a particular country, is fometimes 

 more quickly brought abouv than, I believe, is generally imagined. 



