126 



THE FARMER^S MAGAZINE. 



points of considerable interest to agriculturists, namely, the 

 substitution of an implement for the ordinary plough, and 

 the relative merits of wheel and swing ploughs, it might 

 have been expected that the results of the Warwick Show 

 would exercise some practical bearing on these questions. 

 But both have excited little or no attention; the plough, 

 remains master of the field, and no rotary rival has appeared 

 to lay claim to its place ; and wheel ploughs and swing 

 ploughs have been tried in all amity, and little display made 

 of the eager earnestness which bygone days have witnessed 

 when theirrelative merits have been discussed. 



With reference to the first of these points, namely, the 

 substitution of an implement for the plough, which will 

 make a better and a cheaper seed-bed, our readers are 

 doubtless aware that much has been written. Possibly ex- 

 aggerated views have been held by the advocates of a new 

 implement, of the loss of labour, and the narrow limits by 

 which the eflScieucy of the plough is bound ; but it never- 

 theless appears to be a fact that the efficiency of the plough 

 must be greatly increased if the system of deep culture is 

 proved to be a sound one. Deep culture, such as we believe 

 is desiderated not only to bring soil now nearly unpro- 

 ductive into use, but to greatly increase the productiveness 

 of that already in fair heart, cannot, it is said, be economi- 

 cally effected by means of the plough as at. present con- 

 structed. At all events it is firmly maintained by many 

 whose experience gives them a right to express an opinion, 

 that an implement may be invented which will do the work 

 required cheaper and better than the ordinary plough. That 

 the defects of the plough are serious all are agreed upon, 

 but how to get rid of them is a point which has not been 

 decided, nor, viewing the present position of afi"airs, is it 

 likely soon to be. It is a difficult thing to get matters moved 

 out of the groove in which they have long been running ; 

 and avast deal of prejudice has yet to be overcome before 

 many will be got to admit that the plough is not a perfect 

 machine. For a full discussion of the matter, however, we 

 refer the reader to an article by us in the Nov. 16th, Dec. 

 2l8t and 2Sth numbers of this journal for 1857. 



With reference to the other point mooted above, namely, 

 the vexed question of the wheel and swing ploughs, much 

 has been written. It has however been, we think, ai-gued 

 upon too exclusively theoretical grounds. On this point we 

 may, perhaps, be permitted to lay before the reader some 

 remarks which we have elsewhere given ("Book of Farm 

 Implements and Machines." Blackwood and Sons, Edin- 

 burgh and London;. " The question," we there remark, 

 "is not to be decided simply on theoretical grounds; con- 

 siderations of economy and expediency must be taken into 

 account." It seems to be conceded even by the most ener- 

 getic advocate of the swing-plough, that the wheel-plough 

 ■^vill enable an inexpciienced workman to perform work of a 

 tolerably useful character, while the swing-plough would 

 be almost entirely useless ; again, that while an experienced 

 workman has "no great difficulty (we quote the words of a 

 well-known Scotch agriculturist) in making straight furrow 

 slices with a swing plough," he has " very great difficulty 

 indeed in making them of uniform depth." With wheel- 

 ploughs this uniformity of depth is insured. 



Here then we have an obvious distinction between the 

 two forms of ploughs ; the swing having more the character 

 of an implement; one wheel more of the character of a 

 machine. The distinction here pointed out is important, 

 and should not be lost sight of while attempting to decide 

 which IS the best form of plough. Let us pursue the mat- 

 ter a little farther. A machine operating upon a substance 

 which varies little from its normal condition, may be con- 

 structed so as to be nearly in all things self-acting, requii-ing 

 from man little more attention than is necessary to supply 

 It with the material upon which it is designed to operate. 

 An tmplemcnl, on the contrary, required in an agricultural 

 operation, may, and often does, demand the exercise of 

 skill on the part of the worker, to enable it to meet the 

 peculiarities of a soil or crop constantly varying in character. 

 Ihe more completely, therefore, we can make a machine to 

 doits own work, and adjust itself to its own requirements, 

 the more completely are we freed from the necessity of em- 

 ploying skilkd labour; and the cheaper, consequently, can 

 we do our work. * » * * * 



We thus take it for granted, what doubtless will be by all 

 conceded, that the " wheel" possesses more of the characte- 



ristics of a machine than the swing-plough ; and further, 

 that in many districts — this holding more especially true of 

 England — soils are met with possessing that uniformity of 

 character which best aids the operation of a machine adjusted 

 to do a specific kind of work. Such being the case, it is 

 obvious that the work of ploughing will be mor6 cheaply 

 done when it can be performed by unskilled than by skilled 

 labour ; and with such a soil as we here suppose no one 

 will deny that the work will be as well done as with the 

 swing-plough. We find this consideration enforced very 

 clearly by Mr. Handley in his " Essay on Swing and Wheel 

 Ploughs" (in the Journal of the Royal Agricultural Society), 

 " I cannot but consider," he says, " the fact of the wheel- 

 plough demanding less skill in the ploughman to be a con- 

 siderable advantage on its side, though it receives hut little 

 favour among first-rate swing-ploughmen, who are accus- 

 tomed to estimate highly their own manual dexterity, from 

 the circumstance of their work depending on dexterity 

 alone. •* * * it has been objected that they (wheel- 

 ploughs) create a nursery of bad ploughmen, inasmuch as 

 it is in the power of any one to make a good furrow with a 

 wheel-plough; while it tests the abiUties of a man to pro- 

 duce the same eSect with a swing-plough. When, however, 

 it is called to mind that boys can be instructed at an earlier 

 age in the use of the plough, and enabled to come into bet- 

 ter earnings than they could do otherwise ; as well as that 

 a boy at lOd. per diem wages, may benefit his master by 

 making as good work with the one implement as a man at 

 •2s. can execute with the other, and that the advantage shall 

 be obtained of an even furrow throughout the field, rarely 

 effected by a gang of swing-ploughs, with depth, width, and 

 angle of inclination performed with almost mathematical 

 precision, thereby producing an unvarying bed for the seed, 

 and a regular edge for the haiTows — the advantage of the 

 wheel-plough can scarcely be estimated too highly, and 

 marks a decided preference." As then there is a distinct 

 difference of character between them, so there must neces- 

 sarily be a class of soil in which one is better fitted to do the 

 work than the other. This compromise of opinion must, 

 we take it, be made by the advocates of the two forms. 

 Whenever a soil approaches the character of uniformity 

 (which we have shown is necessary for the operation of a 

 machine), the more closely we can bring this machine to 

 the condition in which it is self-adjusting, and requires 

 little exercise of mind on the part of its attendant ; the 

 more economically, and cceteris paribus, the more perfectly 

 will it do its work. In such cases the balance of circum- 

 stances is in favour of wheel-ploughs. On the other hand 

 it must be conceded, that, in some districts, the soil is so 

 crude, unsteady, and unequal, that some exercise of skill 

 and forethought on the part of the attendant is imperatively 

 demanded before the plough can do its work well : in such 

 cases the balance of circumstances is in favoiu" of the swing- 

 plough. 



Now it will be pretty generally admitted that, as a rule, 

 the soil possessing a uniformity of character is more fre- 

 quently met with in England than it is in Scotland, where 

 an unequal soil is prevalent. May not this circumstance 

 give us a clue to the reason why in England wheel-ploughs 

 are such favourites, the swing an equal favourite in Scot- 

 land? * * * A statement may here be permitted, and 

 one which is pregnant with meaning, namely, that the 

 opinion of Scotch agriculturists, long and almost univer- 

 sally inimical to wheel-ploughs, is fast becoming modified, 

 and that they are being introduced successfully into practice. 

 May not this ai-ise from the circumstance that some soils, 

 through superior culture, have assumed that uniformity 

 of character which enables the wheel-plough to be worked 

 where, in times gone by, it would have been found almost 

 inoperative ? Indeed, we may state it without hesitation, 

 that as long as the soil contains a large proportion of loose, 

 though even small, stones, there the use of the wheel-plough 

 is impracticable; and the swing-plough implement is re- 

 quired to wend its way through them by skill, not by mere 

 force. On the other hand, smooth soils arejust the medium 

 for the exercise of the wheel-plough machine." Seeing then, 

 what will be generally conceded, that there is a marked dif- 

 ference of character and mode of operation between the 

 wheel plough and the swing-plough, would it not be advi- 

 sable hereafter to institute separate trials for the two 

 classes ? not huddling ploughs of all kinds, no matter how 



