1853 . 
307 
ture, in round numbers, $1,185,000,000—a result which 
seems to me astonishing, in view of the small number 
said to be engaged in that occupation. Englishmen 
boast that “ Britannia rules the sea ;” but, viewing 
human life as I do, I cannot but decide that her achiev- 
ments on the land are far more glorious. Her present 
Sovereign, beloved, I may say, as well in America as 
in England,^?* her goodness, loves peace, and rejoices 
to cultivate the arts of peace. The royal consort, also 
beloved wherever men appreciate quiet usefulness^ is 
said to be himself a farmer, engaged in superintending 
(through a bailiff I presume) the cultivation of a mo¬ 
del farm, and in the rearing of noble stock. 
But the foregoing figures give but a very partial, a 
mere dollar and cent view, of the subject. English ag¬ 
riculture has for many years nearly supplied a popu¬ 
lation of 25G persons to the square mile, or, (exclusive 
of lands hitherto little productive) of 320 persons to the 
square mile, with food; and English agriculturists, if 
I rightly comprehend their spirit, mean, before long, to 
quite supply an increasing population with as much, as 
good, and nearly as cheap food, as is consumed by any 
other nation in the world. They suppose that they have 
the resources ; they believe that they willj?ncZ out the 
way; and, with their present zeal for improvement, I 
think they will. As Americans, we may regret the 
improbability of being able to pay our dues to them in 
agricultural produce; but I think we shall have to ad¬ 
mit, very good-naturedly, that in endeavoring to sup¬ 
ply their own market, they but do as we would in their 
place; and, if necessary, to try to get along with less 
of their manufactures. 
But there, is still another view of this subject. The 
results of agriculture are not alone to reward honest la¬ 
bor, nor yet alone to furnish food; in connection with 
both these, there is an infinitely higher end to be 
gained. Intelligent husbandry, more than any, or all 
other causes, save the direct influences of Christianity, 
tends to the elevation of the race—to the hastening of 
that time when universal peace shall embosom the 
earth, when nations shall love instead of destroying 
each other, and when man shall everywhere recognize 
in his fellow a man and a brother . 
I am happy to know, Mr. Editor, that you fully com¬ 
prehend the refining, elevating, harmonizing influence 
of enlightened agriculture, as distinguished from the 
unintelligent, unprofitable, wasteful, tasteless proceed- 
ures, that have too much prevailed in our country. I 
know that you are laboring to diffuse right sentiments 
on this subject; I know, too, that you are successful. 
A change is coming over the scene. Respectfully yours, 
J. A. Nash. —<$»— 
Composition of the Atmosphere. —The minute 
proportion of carbonic acid gas in the atmosphere, had 
led some to suppose its presence merely accidental, and 
variable with locality. Guy Lussac ascended at Paris 
in a balloon, to a height of nearly 22,000 feet, or more 
than four miles, the greatest height ever attained by 
man, and by afterwards analysing a bottle of air filled at 
that height, found the composition precisely as at the 
earth’s surface. 
Spurious and Genuine Science. 
Our readers may remember that we made some re¬ 
marks a few weeks since, showing the absolute necessity 
of connecting Practice with Science, so far at 
least as the application of chemistry to agriculture 
is concerned, and that mere theoretical reasonings 
on the results of cultivation were unreliable until 
their accuracy is proved by actual experiment. In the 
course of these remarks we pointed out some false as¬ 
sertions on this subject, published in the Working 
Farmer , by J. J. Mapes, and in reply he has come 
out in nearly five columns in his last number. Unfortu¬ 
nately for himself, he has furnished no arguments to 
prove his positions, but deals entirely in assertion, and 
of course but little notice of his article is needed from 
us. 
He asserts at the outset that we admit “ that chem¬ 
istry has been useful to the mechanic arts.” Now, we 
never admitted such an absurdity; and the public call 
judge of the fitness of such a person for a public teach¬ 
er, who is so ignorant as not to know the difference be¬ 
tween chemistry and mechanical philosophy. He un¬ 
derstands so little of the nature of argument as not to 
know he was demolishing his own reasoning, in his at¬ 
tempt to refute our position, when he quotes the exam¬ 
ple of the old lady who told her boy “ never to go into 
the water till he had learned to swim,” for he denies 
the necessity of 'practice in connection with theory , at 
least in agricultural chemistry, if not in swimming. 
He stoutly “ asserts,” (to use his own favorite word so 
often repeated,) that there “need be no error in anti¬ 
cipating results from theory,” and yet in direct con¬ 
tradiction of this position, he unwittingly admits all we 
have said, by stating that “we have placed our labo¬ 
ratory in the middle of a farm which we cultivate our¬ 
self, and on which we try every experiment which the¬ 
ory may suggest, before promulgating it.” (!!) As a 
specimen of the style of his argument, we give his 
mode of disposing of our objection to his claim for the 
infallibility of the analysis of soils and its uses. “ We 
re-assert the above,” says he, “ and put the Country 
Gentleman to the proof of the contrary.”(!! !) This 
is certainly a cheap way for a professed public teacher, 
one who calls on the public for credence in his asser¬ 
tions, to get rid of doubts of his correctness. If such 
a puny man, (comparatively) as Christopher Columbus, 
had adopted this same mode of reasoning, he might 
have saved himself much trouble, and told the doubt¬ 
ing sovereigns of Europe, “ I re-assert what I have said 
of the western world, and call upon you to prove the 
contrary.” What is the reason that numbskull, Rob¬ 
ert Fulton, never thought of this easy way to prove 
steamboats of general utility, by -telling his incredulous 
countrymen, “ I assert that steamboats are a practica¬ 
bility, and I call upon you to prove the contrary.” 
This mode of argument would never have answered for 
such men as these—what then must be the self-estimate 
of a man who presumes to adopt it at the present time? 
It is quite needless for us to occupy more space, in 
pointing out such specimens of contradiction and emp- 
gp2^3: 
