82 



FARMERS' REGISTER. 



[No. 2 



thian, and in many cases is performed by the 

 farmers themselves; and some similar system has 

 been adopted by Sir James Graham and a i'ew 

 others. To follow this motle of draininir, a sub- 

 soil plough has been invented, to move the soil a 

 foot below tlie ordinary furrow, in order to deepen 

 the mould by the gradual mixture of the soil and 

 subsoil. This is in direct opposition to customary 

 practice, which fixes wheels on the beam ot" the 

 plough to prevent going too deep; so contradictory 

 are the opinions of men. But reason tells that 

 whatever tends to deepen and increase the quan- 

 tity of soil, will increase its fertility; and that in 

 order to alTord lood to plants, the soil must be 

 moved and brought in contact with the roots. In 

 order to promote this ubject, complete pulveriza- 

 tion is essentially necessary, and a minute mixture 

 of the soil with the manure applied; tor we know 

 enough of the nature olthe food of plants, to con- 

 clude that it must be in a slate of solution and 

 most minute subdivision. The reducing putres- 

 cent manures 10 a cold mass has been doubted, 

 and is now partly discontinued; but it may stdl be 

 doubted, il' straw and excrementitious matter, 

 though heated and in a decomposing state, lying 

 in a body along a drill, be in the best state cajiable 

 of affording nourishment to the tender roots of 

 plants. This idea occurred to me in 1827, when, 

 in order to complete the dunging of a iailow field 

 in Northumberland, I applied some very rough 

 manure, almost dry straw, on two acres on a side 

 of the field. The ploughs could not cover it, and 

 the appearance was very unsightly. The field 

 being clear of v/eeds, the dung was applied in 

 July, and was much pulled about by the plough- 

 ing, one extra furrow being given to the two 

 acres, to cover the dung, if possible. When seed- 

 furrowed in October, the soil and manure appear- 

 ed finely bleqded, the braird matted fiat and thick, 

 a sure sign of prosperity; and to the ilay of reap- 

 ing maintained a very visible superiority over the 

 rest of the field. It is now generally understood 

 to apply rough dung evenly over grass lands; to 

 bush harrow, roll, and rake the refuse — great part 

 of the benefit to the grass arising from the temper- 

 ature produced by the covering of dung. To ap- 

 ply rough dung li-om the yards to fallows clear of 

 weeds and early in the season, so as to admit of 

 repeated ploughings and harrowings, seems prac- 

 ticable in many cases; but to apply it to Swedes 

 and early sown crops, when the land may require 

 repeated cleanings, and when the season affords 

 fewer opportunities of mixing, admits of more 

 doubt. To settle ihis point, and lo determine if 

 dung so applied and blended, on land prepared in 

 autumn or in spring, would afford equal crops of 

 turnip.^, beet, or potatoes, with a mass of dung ly- 

 ing in drills, would be a curious and a most valua- 

 ble experiment. To apply rough dung fiom yards 

 and sheds to raise turnips, on which so much la- 

 bor is bestowed in preparation, will seem a tnost 

 startling doctrine; but let not conceit and igno- 

 rance condemn such suggestions, for every im- 

 provement has had a similar origin: and if expe- 

 rience confirms it, it will be an nnprovement of 

 the right kind — to produce a result at less cost. 

 Experience has convinced me that a firmer may 

 plough and sow and reap for his lilijtime, and de- 

 rive no advantage — very probably nnpoverish iiitn- 

 Eelf and his farm; and ifiat the first and most es- 



sential requisite is to fill the land with manure, by 

 every possible means; and if the land be then kept 

 in that state by judicious and improving rotations, 

 return and profits may be confidently expected. 

 A farmer may hire a farm, stock it with seed and 

 a few implements, sow and reap and get little; but 

 unless every exertion be used to increase the 

 means whence the produce flows, he will only re- 

 semble a manuliicturer who erects machinery, and 

 then refuses to buy the raw material to employ it. 

 A miller must buy a quarter of wheat before he 

 can expect the profits of manufacturing it: the 

 cotton spinner must buy the raw material before 

 he can reap the profits of his machinery: in like 

 manner the farmer must buy the basis of produc- 

 tion, or lie will drudge and puddle on as he has 

 done, in confusion worse conibunded. 



In the Quarterly Journal of Agriculture, Dec, 

 1836, we find a review of Mr. S. Lefevre's letter, 

 on the result of the labors of the agricultural com- 

 mittee, passinir over much of the inquiries about 

 the foreign and domestic prices of corn, and other 

 matters of little use. I shall make a few remarks 

 on the expenses of cultivation, as connected with 

 my present purpose. The relative expense of cul- 

 tivation is stated as differing 4os. per acre on land 

 rented at 39s., being more than the rent of the 

 land. In the review we find the following pas- 

 sage: — "If the expenses are not calculated on si- 

 milar data, there can be no analogy in the results; 

 and even if they had been so calculated, the com- 

 parative industry in the application of labor should 

 not be overlooked. Calculating corn consumed 

 by men and horses, and in seed at market price, 

 and the price of labor as if paid bj' the day or job, 

 can give none but fallacious results. A farmer 

 has no right to estimate the cost of these items of 

 expense at more than they really cost him." This 

 comparative industry, in the application of labor, 

 constitutes the difference of expense, and it seems 

 in this case we must put down 45s. as that diffe- 

 rence. The industry used in any art, will show 

 itself in the superiority of the execution; and, by 

 here allowing 45s. in superiority, a balance will be 

 struck. It is a general complaint of farmers, that 

 all crops cost more in cultivation than they receive 

 for the produce: if, therelore, the farmer cultivates 

 these items at the market prices, he estimates at 

 less than Ihey really cost him, and not at more, as 

 stated in the review. The grand objection al- 

 ways found against the convertible system, is the 

 expense. Here is an open uncontradicted state- 

 ment in an open committee, of less expense in 

 support of private statements, which are always 

 disregarded, and proprietors asserting they cannot 

 support a system that pays most rent. And it 

 seems as if no statement, even Mr. Lefevre's, will 

 be convincing; for an Athanasian creed has ob- 

 tained in the field as in the temple: Do as we do, 

 say farmers, and you wdl be right; — if you do not, 

 you are wrong. Many ludicrous opinions have 

 been advanced to account for the superiority of the 

 alternate system. Mr. Poulett Scrope says it is 

 the freedom from tithes and rates; and then reck- 

 ons them all as rent. One sentence, here, being 

 a flat contradiction to the other, does not require 

 any flirther confutation. Mr. Cayley is certain it 

 is the possession of one- pound notes, as they 

 make capital more plentiful for undertaking im- 

 provements; and, from analogy, they will also 



