PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. 719 
may properly be termed the Garden of the North, such are the possibilities of 
improvement afforded by its soil and situation and the ‘ hasty Diligence of a wise 
and polite People.’ Laurence’s work was intended to place before these northern 
agriculturists an account of all the experiments that had been made in husbandry 
and especially to set forth in plain language the information published by the 
Royal Society. He appeals to his brethren in the Church to exert themselves in 
the cultivation of their glebes, which would give them both the ‘ Relaxation and 
Refreshment they require,’ and he says, ‘I should think myself extremely happy 
if I could be instrumental in reviving among Gentlemen whose affairs do not 
oblige them to spend a great part of their Year in London, a Spirit of improving 
their Estates and imploying their Time in making Experiments, which cannot 
be expected from the farmer.’ 
Although for seventy years after its formation, and throughout a period during 
which agriculture was neglected by the landed classes, the Royal Society diu 
much to keep alive the Spirit of the Improver, the unfortunate apathy of the 
agriculturist prevented that progress which appeared to be imminent when John 
Evelyn wrote his ‘Pomona.’ It was not possible for a learned society in London 
to investigate agricultural questions in the absence of the scientific agriculturist 
himself ; subjects of agricultural interest were therefore discussed chiefly from 
a theoretical standpoint, and, neglecting the teachings of Bacon and the example 
of Evelyn, there arose that use of the deductive method which in the past two 
centuries has done so much to hinder the progress of agricultural science. 
The first to show up the fallacy of the deductive method in studying this 
subject was Jethro Tull, who, though he himself fell into the errors which he 
condemned, was, in his understanding of the true relationships of science and 
practice, far ahead of any of his contemporaries. A lawyer by training, he prob- 
ably took to agriculture because of his poor health. He worked at it for twenty 
years before he was induced to set out his views in writing, and it was years after 
he began farming before he read anything on the subject. Dissatisfied with the 
practice of his times he set himself to reason out new methods and to make 
experiments. He got suggestions from foreign travel; he tells us, for example, 
that the first hint of the value of horse-hoeing husbandry was derived from the 
ploughed vineyards of France; but he was careful to submit his ideas to the test of 
experiment before he adopted them in farm practice. He was not a Fellow of the 
Royal Society. He lived a lonely life, and until the fame of his farming spread 
abroad and he published his ‘ Horse-hoeing Husbandry,’ in 1730-31, he appears 
to have devoted himself entirely to experiments in farming. The appearance 
of his book occasioned much correspondence, and thereafter he made himself 
acquainted with both the ancient and modern writers on husbandry, and used 
’ his knowledge to good effect in his arguments with the writers whom he terms 
collectively Zquivocus. His temper, which, if one may judge from his references 
to his labourers, was far from serene, was much tried by his controversies with 
ELquivocus, and his criticisms of the writers and scientific men of the preceding 
half-century are severe. He remarks, for example, on the superficial knowledge 
of agriculture shown by ‘Mr. Laurence, a divine; Mr. Bradley, an academic; 
Dr. Woodward, a Physician; Mr. Houghton, an Apothecary; these for want of 
practice could not have the true theory; and the writers who are acquainted 
with the common practice, as Mr. Mortimer (whether for want of leisure, or not 
being qualified, I do not know) have said very little of any theory.’ 
Tull himself, a thoroughly experienced, practical farmer, whose successful 
methods had drawn widespread attention to ‘his Berkshire farm, showed no 
hesitation in setting out his own views on roots, leaves, the pasture of plants, 
and other scientific subjects then engaging attention. His remarks were based on 
original observations, and it is clear that he did not merely copy opinions from 
scientific treatises. He freely criticised the writings of others; even ‘ Mr. Boyle’ 
and that ‘miracle of a man Sir Isaac Newton’ are severely handled by this 
critical farmer, and in a characteristic sentence he remarks: ‘From Sir Isaac’s 
transmutation arguments we may learn that a man never ought to depend entirely 
upon his own for support of his own hypothesis.’ An admirable sentiment 
which I am afraid that Tull himself, and many another agriculturist since his 
time, failed to lay to heart. When we remember how meagre were Tull’s oppor- 
tunities for study, that he lived a retired life in the country, that he had long 
abandoned letters for practical farming and only began to read the works of others 
