304 
THE COTTAGE GARDENER 
in sand or earth till all are collected; they are then planted 
in fine prepared earth. Next spring they will start, and in 
the autumn of 1855 they will be yearling plants. While 
yet in leaf select the most promising subjects—such as 
show in their features the greatest degree of refinement; 
then, instead of waiting ten years for these to bear, we bud 
or graft them into bearing trees, dwarfs, if possible, and in 
two years they will be fruited. Plums and Cherries are 
managed in the same manner. 
We think that no reasonable person who has patience 
enough to wait for the ordinary seed-time and harvest could 
call this a very tedious process. Aside from the advantages 
which it offers, the raising of seedling fruits is full of in¬ 
struction and interesting, as every one can testfy who has 
given it a trial .—Genesee Farmer. 
BEES SWARMING VERY EARLY ON THE 
EIGHTH OE JUNE. 
As J. B. asks you if any of your readers remembered 
their bees swarming early on the 8th of June, I beg to say, I 
had a swarm on that day, which left the hive at a quarter to 
eight in the morning, were in their new hive a little after 
eight, and are now working a good-sized bell-glass, having 
filled one of “ Golding’s Bar Hives." I find I cannot 
prevent swarming in any hive. I have “ Nutt’s Pavilion,’’ 
King’s,’’ “ Golding’s,” “ Common Cottage and Improved 
Cottage,” and a Cork Hive, being in all eleven stocks; more 
than I actually want; and though I gave them all room in 
April, they swarmed in May; and from three I have had 
casts, and from one, two second swarms; and from one 
of the new swarms, a second swarm, all of which are doing 
well; but none of the old stocks are working in the glasses, 
except one. I must get rid of some of my stocks, and con¬ 
clude I had best unite the weakest hives ; at present they 
are very strong, though the weather is very much against 
honey-making.— Honey Bee. 
POULTRY-YARD RE PORT. 
SHANG11AE V. SPANISH. 
During a temporary absence from home in the early part 
of this month, although I had given strict injunctions 
relative to these matters, like many others, it was forgotten. 
I have, therefore, chosen to break off the report at the end 
of May. It stands thus :— 
SPANISH. 
Eggs. Weight. 
January. 4 .... 0 8 0 
February . 10 .... 2 2 0 
March . 59 .... 7 11 0 
April. 70 .... 9 4 3 
May . 04 .... 8 8 1 
213 fits. 28 3 0 
KHANGHAE. 
January. 36 .... 3 13 2 
February . 100 _ 10 13 5 
March . 44 .... 4 0 7 
April. 04 .... 7 0 0 
May . 71 .... 712 7 
315 lbs 34 4 5 
In every way the report is favourable to the Shanghaes : 
reckoning six Minorca and eight Shanghaes, both as to 
weight and number of eggs, the latter have the advantage; 
the weight of the eggs is greater in proportion. The 
Minoreas (fewer in number j ought to have laid 207 eggs; 
and the weight should have been 3 lb. more than it is now ; 
then they would, in proportion, have equalled theShanghae. 
Altogether, the eight Shanghaes have sat seventeen times. 
One sat six weeks without intermission. On the side of 
the Minoreas, one only. I do not hesitate awarding the 
palm, as far as my experience goes, to the Shanghae. 
H. B. S., Monmouthshire. 
July 20. j 
PEASANT PROPERTIES.* 
In our present observations on peasant properties, we do 
not intend to inquire into the ethics of the question. We 
do not ask whether it was morally right or morally wrong 
for England to pursue that vast sjstem of inclosure, by 
which the English peasantry were permanently ejected from 
their commons, and deprived of their prescriptive rights,— 
or whether it was right or wrong for the Legislature and the 
Highland proprietors to convert, by a fiction of Taw, what 
was once, to all intents and purposes, the property of the 
clans, into the private domains of individual landlords,— 
thereby disinheriting all save the chief and his family. 
These questions are practically settled,—the facts are a- 
chieved,—society has accepted them,—and it is now useless 
to speculate on what might have been the result, if a dif- \ 
ferent principle had pervaded the arrangements. Within a 
century and a half, a vast revolution has been wrought in 
the occupation of the lands both of England and Scotland. I 
By the inclosure of the commons, about five thousand 
\ parishes, constituting nearly a half of the soil of England, 
were subjected to a legal process which severed the peasant 
I from all direct interest in the land, and left it ultimately in 
the hands of large proprietors. And by the introduction of 
the English doctrine of property into the Highlands, the i 
old system of customary occupation was entirely superseded, j 
, and a new system substituted, which threw vast territories i 
into the absolute control.of single individuals, who had pre¬ 
viously been only the representatives of their tribe, and 
who had held the lands not as their own, but in virtue of 
their office as chiefs or petty sovereigns, who ruled over a 
given district, and administered the public affairs of the 
clan. These measures have produced a radical change in 
the whole structure of society. The first, by leading to the 
absorption of the smaller properties, abolished the English 
1 yeoman ; and the second bids fair to abolish the Highland 
population. Both measures had essentially the same result 
in one respect,—essentially a different result in another. 
They both left a country population, composed of a very 
small number of great landed proprietors, surrounded by a 
dependent and almost subject tenantry, outside of which 
remained the mass of those who live by labour alone,—who 
have been cast loose from all interest in the soil, and who 
are regarded as machines for the execution of work. In 
this respect the results have been similar in the two 
countries; but a very striking difference presents itself to 
view when we turn our attention to the soil itself, and ask 
how it has been affected by the change. In England the 
pretext for the inclosure of the commons tvas, that the land 
was uncultivated, and to a great extent unproductive. This 
was actually true, and being so, it was a good and sufficient 
reason for the introduction of some new system by which 
the lands should be brought into cultivation. Still, even 
supposing that the produce after the inclosure was five or 
ten times greater than before, it was more advantageous to 
the peasantry, that is, to the great body of the rural popu¬ 
lation, to have only the fifth or tenth as their own, than to 
be deprived of it altogether, and to see ten times the produce 
passing into the hands of the great landlords and great agri- 
j culturists. The lands, however, were cultivated, and the 
I produce was obtained; so that although the English 
peasant was ousted from bis common rights, the land was 
turned to its proper agricultural use, and grew corn for the 
service of the nation. The landlords and farmers acquired 
wealth, the peasants went on the parish, and were support¬ 
ed by the parish rates. In Scotland the effect has been en¬ 
tirely of an opposite character. The lands, instead of being 
brought into cultivation, have been thrown out of cultivation. 
The cottage and the croft have been herried to make way 
for grouse and deer; and so far as the production of food is 
concerned,—food available for the ordinary purposes of life, 
—hundreds of thousands of acres that once grew, and sup¬ 
ported soldiers second to none who ever stepped, might as 
well be sunk in the bottom of the sea. Not only are they 
not cultivated, but, in some cases, they are not even to lie 
seen. 
What, then, is to be the termination of this course, that 
has been gradually but surely working an entire change in 
the relations of the British population to the British soil ? 
* By Hugh Miller, Esq., Author of “The Old Red Sandstone,” &e., 
and Editor of the “ Edinburgh Witness .” 
