20 
STEAM PLOWING. 
force required to effect the cleavage, and the 
weight of the instrument itself. Were there 
no other reason for saying it than this, this 
alone would entitile the philosophic machinist 
to say, and see, that the plow was never meant 
to be immortal. The mere invention of the sub- 
soiler is a standing commentary on the mischief 
done by the plow. 
Why Then should we struggle for its survival 
under the new dynasty of steam ? • The true 
object is not to perpetuate, but as soon as pos¬ 
sible, to get rid of it. Why poke an instrument 
seven or eight inches under the clod, to tear it 
up in a lump by main force, for other instru¬ 
ments to act upon , toiling and sweating and 
treading it down again, in ponderous attempts 
at cultivation wholesale—when by simple abra¬ 
sion of the surface by a relolving-toothed in¬ 
strument, with a span as broad as the hay-ted¬ 
ding machine, or CrosskilPs clod crusher, you 
can perform the complete work of comminution in 
the most light, compendious, and perfect de¬ 
tail? 
Imagine such an instrument, (not rolling on 
the ground,) performing independent revolu¬ 
tions behind its locomotive, cutting its way down 
by surface abrasion, into a semicircular trench 
about a foot and a half wide, throwing: back 
the pulverised soil (just as it flies back from 
the feet of a dog scratching at a rabbit hole); 
then imagine the locomotive moving forward on 
the hard ground with a slow and equable me¬ 
chanical motion, the revolver behind, with its 
cutting points, (case hardened,) playing upon the 
edge , or land side of the trench, as it advances, 
and capable of any adjustment to coarse or fine 
cutting, moving always forward and leaving be¬ 
hind perfectly granulated and precisely inverted , 
by its re voting action, a seed bed seven or 
eight inches deep, never to be gone over again by 
any after implement except the drill, which had 
much better follow at once, attached behind 
with a light brush harrow to cover the seed. 
Why did steam reject the pump handle and the 
oar ? Because in both the leverage is obtained 
by loss of labor and time, occurring during the 
back movement of the handle, a movement nec¬ 
essary to the manual, but not to the mechanical 
agent. For the same reason, whenever it is ap¬ 
plied to till the earth, it will antiquate every in¬ 
strument that cultivates by traction , because trac¬ 
tion is not only unnecessary to cultivation, but 
is inherently mischievous on other grounds, 
apart from the clumsiness, inaccuracy, and in¬ 
completeness of the work it turns out. 
But the stones! There is much fear express¬ 
ed for the teeth cf the circular cutting implement 
I have described, when they come in contact 
with stones. The objection would have been 
equally valid, at first sight, against the use of 
the plow or the scuffler. Let me see the instru¬ 
ment in use where there are no stones —(and 
there are plenty of broad acres in England of 
this class)—and it will not be long before it gets 
upon the others. If it cost five pounds an acre 
to clear them out, it must be done, and would in 
such case, well pay to do it. But the truth is, 
that the instrument itself suggests the kind of 
machine, which, with a little adaptation, (greater 
power and slower motion,) might perform this 
preliminary service at the least expense. If 
land is to be like a garden in one respect, I see 
no good reason why it should not in all. I do 
not think stones will stand long in the way of 
steam, nor be readily preferred to bread; if, 
where there happen to be none , a steam-driven cul¬ 
tivator can be brought to bear, which, after the 
simple and beautiful example of the mole , shall 
play out the long comedy of our present field 
cultivation in a single act, present a finely gran¬ 
ulated seed bed by a single process, almost at 
the hour required, and trammel up the long 
summer fallow into the labor of a day, with 
an accuracy as perfect as the turning of a lathe, 
and an aeration, (and consequent oxygenation,) 
of the soil as diffusive and minute as that of a 
scattered mole heap, or the dust flying from a 
steam-saw bench. 
Implement makers and mechanicians would 
not be long in understanding all this, if they 
were not under the supposition, received at sec¬ 
ond hand by them, and therefore the more diffi¬ 
cult to eradicate, that plowing is a necessary 
form of cultivation to be kept in view. Once 
let them be made fully to perceive that plow¬ 
ing is merely the first of a long series of means 
towards the accomplishment of a particular 
end, that end being the production of a seed bed , 
of suitable depth and texture, and with the soil 
as nearly as possible inverted in its bed—and I 
do not think they will be long setting the steam 
engine about its proper task, in the proper way. 
But their attention is distracted, at present, from 
the end to the means. They are taught to think 
that the plow is a sine qua non —that steam culti¬ 
vation of necessity implies steam plowing, and 
they are led to give up the task in despair, be¬ 
cause they are at fault upon a false scent. 
We have many rolling implements employed 
in ae field, but we have only one instance of a 
revolving implement. The clod crusher and the 
Norwegian harrow roll , the hay-tedding ma- 
