Addrefs to the Soae'x, (">i 



lofl one creature, unlefsit were by Ibine accidental hurt : nor 

 have I known any others to die among my neighbours, except 

 from the fame caufe, or bad keeping in the fpring : and wlule 

 the rot fweeps away whole flocks of flieep in Britain, it is a 

 diforder intlrcly unknown in this country. 



All thefe natural advantages being in favour of the American 

 farmer, I fhali be allied how it happens that the lands in Britain 

 are more produdlive : Admitting the facl, which however i>s 

 not quite out of doubt, when the general average of the cultivated 

 parts of both countries, are compared, the anfwer would be found 

 in the low price of labour, and in the high price of land. 

 More labour is therefore expended upon lefs land there, and 

 the product is always in proportion to the labour, the foil and 

 the climate. But does it yield more profit to the cultivator ? 

 — ^No man need be told that a garden where one] man is 

 conftantly employed upon half an acre of ground, will produce 

 more pulfe than the fame quantity of ground cultivated with 

 a plough, in which way one man can tend ten acres ; but does 

 it follow the one half acre is more profitable than the ten 

 acres, even though the additional rent Ihould be fuperadded ? 

 That hufbandry is more profitable here than in Britain, is 

 evident from this fingular circumftance, that the labour is 

 dearer, and lands proportionably worfe cultivated, yet the 

 American farmer can afford to fell his produd 60 per cent 

 cheaper than the Britifh hufbandman — ^The reafon is obvious : 



