[ 172 ] 



Notes^ on Alildeiv. 



I cannot reconcile to my ideas of the well known intelli- 

 gence oi the celebrated Arthur 7'oung^ his eulogy on the 

 *' use of long fresh du7ig^ in preference to that zvhich is rotteni*"* 

 but by presuming that its failure in success here, is owing to 

 the difference of climate. See his lecture, read before the 

 British board of agriculture, May 26th, 1809. Pages 46, 47; 

 where he says, " were the practice general^ it zvould add above 

 20 millions Sterling to the produce of the kingdom." Could 

 I hazard the imputation of presumption, in setting up my 

 limited experience against an authority so truly respectable, 

 I should doubt the soundness of his calculation, even in En- 

 gland ; but in our country, and especially on loamy and light 

 lands^ I should directly reverse his position. As Mr. Davy 

 has joined in the sentiment, it must be chymically right. But 

 from every observation I have made here, either on my own, 

 or the lands of others similar to mine, I cannot hesitate to 

 say, that, in this country, it would be agriculturally wrong. 

 If it ever succeeds it must so do, in w^et, cold, clays^ It will 

 be recollected, that I always distinguish between hot^ long and 

 fresh dung, and that sufficiently prepared, by a due fermen- 

 tation and putrefaction, before it is applied. Over-rotted dung^ 

 I never approved of. There are, however, here, advocates 

 for long, fresh, dung. I have seen the most vigorous vegeta- 

 tion layed ; or end in blight, smut, or mildew ; and their 

 grounds filled with weeds and vermin. 



R. Peters. 



