68 Observations on Colonel Taylofs Letter, 



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 stift'in 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 w^ould 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 to a 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 he 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 

 litde — and dies. If there is any exception, it is grass ; 



