No. 14. 



Mixed Husbandry. 



249 



tempts to prove that his own is the best busi- 

 ness, but he contends that it always must 

 Remain so ! — Yet how many have lived to 

 see their confident predictions entirely falsi- 

 fied by tlie event — their favorite pursuit 

 placed for a considerable period at least, en- 

 tirely at the bottom of the list. 



The truth is when we mount our hobbies, 

 (especially on paper) we are liable to take a 

 little too much for granted. "Paper calcu- 

 lations" has passed into a bye-word. Fortune 

 always smiles on paper ! Our grain never 

 rusts — or is winter killed — or destroyed by 

 insects, in a paper calculation ! Our sheep 

 always shear just so much wool — raise just 

 so many lambs to the hundred, and the wool 

 always commands just such a price! Our 

 cows "cannot fall short" of so many pounds 

 of butter and cheese to the head, each week 

 —and these commodities "cannot fall short" 

 of so many cents to the pound! So on, 

 through the chapter of hobbies. In this way 

 "fie figure ourselves into a fortune. But who 

 does not know that the "tide in our affiiirs" 

 does not always carry us on smoothly ! Who 

 does not know that prices are always fluctua- 

 ting; that accident is ever at work ; that mis- 

 fortune will assail us; that 



"A' our views may come to nought 

 Where every nerve is strained]" 

 It may belaid down as an axiom in agricul- 

 ture, that no one branch can be permanently 

 more profitable than all others. The princi- 

 ples of political economy forbid this. De- 

 mand and supply must regulate each other. 

 If transient causes — particular circumstances 

 — render the producing ofony one commodity 

 the most profitable, the rush attending the 

 discovery soon restores the equilibrium — nay, 

 sinks the fxvored article, for a period, below 

 the common level. 



I do not doubt that any department of agri- 

 culture entered into with a discreet apprecia- 

 tion of circumstances, and followed skilfully 

 and perseveringly, will, with the ordinary 

 blessings of Providence, lead the man who 

 has some capital to the acquisition of more. 

 But the danger of farming with exclusive 

 reference to a single object, lies in the fact, 

 that in so doing, we commit all to a single 

 risk — in nautical phrase, embark all in one j 

 bottom. — This may do well enough with the [ 

 capitalist, but it is far otherwise with the! 

 mass of farmers. They are not able to lose, 

 or lie out of the produce of a season. And 

 they are always liable to be placed under the 

 necessity, where they commit all to one ven- 

 ture. If that venture be in 'sheep, a revolu- 

 tion in the pecuniary world may (as at present) 

 destroy the market for wool ; if it be in the 

 cultivation of wheat, the rust, or the worm, 

 may doom the granary to emptiness. It is 



true that the labor of a whole season may also 

 be lost, wiiere a course of mixed husbandry 

 has been pursued, but the risk is less. When 

 one cable has parted, another may hold the 

 vessel. Each adds to our chances of safety. 

 Mixed husbandry as a system is objected to 

 because it militates against the theory of a 

 "division of labor." Let every one, says the 

 advocate of this theory, bend his energies to- 

 wards a single point — cultivate that which he 

 can cultivate best, and exchange his surplus 

 for such other commodities as he may want. 

 This is good doctrine in the mechanic's shop, 

 or the manufactory. The blacksmith had 

 better stick to his trade, and if he wants a 

 wagon, buy it of the wagon maker; but no 

 such degrees of skill are requisite in each of 

 the simple avocations of the husbandman. 

 Good common sense, aided by the experience 

 which he rapidly acquires, fits him for the 

 whole round of his duties. But it is said that 

 much time is frittered away in the constant 

 change from one descripti(m of labor to an- 

 other. There is perhaps some force in the 

 objection, but this change, according to my 

 taste, adds to our enjoyments, by introducing 

 a pleasing variety into our routine of labors. 

 This, and the pleasure of being surrounded by 

 so many agreeable objects, constitutes, to my 

 mind, one decided argument in favor of mixed 

 husbandry. We farm it not only to make 

 money, but to make ourselves happy. A va- 

 riety of pursuits, no one followed until it be- 

 comes a drudgery, are enjoyed as pastimes. 

 We go forth and we are gladdened with a 

 scene, not abounding in the stern sublimities 

 of nature, but glowing in the beauty oi utility 

 — the meadow stretching away in the vale — 

 the wood fringed uplands — the intervals tes- 

 sehted with fields of various colored crops, 

 in every stage of vegetation — yonder hiU-side 

 dotted with sheep — and the pastures devoted 

 to horses and kine. Neither do we pass con- 

 temptuously over yonder field of clover filled 

 with luxuriating swine, and even the gay co- 

 lored poultry, the cock with his noisy harem, 

 add to the general animation of the picture. 

 A well regulated farm, where the mixed sys- 

 tem is adopted is a little independent nation 

 (a government strictly patriarchal) of itself. 

 With the exception of some few 'importa- 

 tions' from the shelves of the merchant, and 

 the calling in of the mechanic's skill to manu- 

 facture its raw material, it contains within 

 itself the element of self support, the true 

 luxuries and substantial necessaries of life. 

 I speak of course of lands which will admit 

 of the introduction of such a system. Some 

 I admit will not. There are those for in- 

 stance, well adapted to dairying, which would 

 not yield wheat enough to pay for the tiilinor. 

 But if good for dairying, they would in all 

 probability, be also good for wool growing, 



