68 Observations on Colonel Taylor’s Letter. 
——————_—_——_____InnnIIInENIEAEEEEEEETE EEE ml 
the fact, too, of the necessity of change of crop from the 
following example of its contrary ; because it was very 
remarkable, though not singular. A neighbour of mine, 
rich and stiffin opinion, (and not like Mr. T. receiving 
graciously all information) added to my long catalogue 
of facts on this subject. He would not believe my doc- 
trine (nor will many others) about change of crops. He 
said dung would do every thing. He planted Indian 
corn, and plaistered it for seven or eight years, in the — 
same field. In his last effort he highly dunged the field. 
He saw it gradually dwindle, ’till it came toa small 
bamboo. It is a great exhauster, added to the other ob- 
jection. He continued apparently incredulous; and 
thought of his field, as one in a consumption does of 
himself: who does not believe he is dying, though on his 
last legs: He changed his crop, however, from con- 
viction: but fe said it was “‘ because he was tired of 
seeing always the same plant.”? He sowed wheat; and 
had the finest crop, he ever raised. This had the bene- 
fit of his dung; which wants no co-operator. But plais- 
ter is not a noun substantive. Nor is a plant too long 
kept in the same field. —Alternation and vegetable ma- 
nure may favourably interrupt the continuity of crop.— 
A plant kept too long in the same field is not assisted 
by frequent repetition, or quantity, of manure. It must 
have a change. Gorging with dung, is as little benefi- 
cial to a plant, as overabundant food to an individual, 
cursed with a canine appetite. He eats much—digests 
littleh—and dies. If there is any exception, it is grass ; 
