362 
pended on its cultivation *. If fome ne- 
gleéted corners be obfervable on a large 
farm, the deficiency they occafion can 
never be put in competition with the fur- 
plus, arifing from the high cultivation of 
the reft; and, indeed, it is the profits. of 
this high cultivation, which render the. 
“* occupier too opulent to care fo much 
about” the minutia. The calculation, that 
a farm of 1000 acres produces lefs grain, 
by one fixth, than if the fame had been 
divided among nine or ten farmers, 1s 
extraordinary in itfelf; but the affertion 
on which it appears to be formed, is ftill 
more fo.—The great farmer, it is faid, has 
certainly not fo much manure, in propor- 
tion, as he who farms toa lefs extent.—. 
The author of this, one would fuppofe, 
was acquainted with no manure for a farm, 
but what was colleéted from the dunghill 
of the houfe, and then, indeed, as the 
farm increafed, the proportion of manure 
would diminifh. But is there no method 
of raifmyg manure from the produce of the 
farm itfelf > and will not that produce be 
in proportion to the extent of the farm,. 
and to the capital employed in its culti- 
vation ? Again, a {mall farmer, of a {mall 
capital, colleéts his hay and his ftraw, car- 
rics them to market, and brings their 
value back in coin: an extenfive farmer, 
with a large capital, buys cattle to fatten 
on the produce of his fields; and, when 
they are fold off, they leave, to the farmer, 
their value in coin; and, to the farm, its 
hay, turnips, and ftraw, in the fhape of 
manure. Let me afk your correfpondent, 
then, which of thefe two methods is likely 
to accumulate the greateft proportion of 
manure ? and which is hkely to produce 
lefs grain, by one fixth, than the other ? 
Will he who mows and felis the pro- 
duce of his meadow lands, or he who con- 
fumes that produce at home, have the 
greater quantity of manure left to encreafe 
the fertility of that portion of his farm, 
which is to fupply the community with 
grain + ? 
ae 

% Even where the {mail and the great farmer 
perform the fame operations, the certainty of 
fuccefs is much in fayour of the latter: for 
where critical feafons are to be caught, either 
for the fowing or reaping of critical crops, or the 
preparation of the foil, he who can centre on 
one object the greateft number of hands, will 
evidently accomplifh it with lefs rifque. 
_ + It is evident that the fame reafoning which 
proves a fuperior produce of grain on large 
farms, would, in like manner, demonftrate a 
fuperior proportion of every other article : the 
sbjection to large farms, therefore, which this 
On Small and Large Farms. 
f June: 
The cafe, I believe, is, that when farms 
are fo fubdivided, as to be within the reach: 
of fuch as ean “ ferape together gol. or 
sol.” all that the occupants can hope, Is, to- 
live and paythe rent. They have fearcely- 
capital fuficient to conduét them to this 
point of mediocrity, by tillig the foil in 
order to reap its /pontaneous produ€tions.— 
By continually cropping, and carrying off 
the crops, the foil is exhaufted; and ex- 
haufted too, perhaps, in fupplying nutri- 
ment to nearly equal quantities of weeds 
and edible plants; for weeding, manuring,. 
draining, fencing, and all the adjertitious 
aids to nature, are beyond the compafs of 
their little capital to afford. 
‘© Nothing, perhaps” (fays your corre= 
{pondent ) ‘is iefs fubjeét to monopoly, tham 
corn.” —Is it, then,. his opinion, that that 
which is leaft fubjeét to monopoly, fhould 
be moft fubjeé to reftri€tion >—* But, 
that it may be monopolized” (he main- 
tains) ‘* the preceding year has afforded 
too many examples’ —and the ‘‘ overgrown 
farmers” he confiders as the monopolizers. 
In the frff place, he muft allow, that the 
fearcity of corn in the market,. laft year, 
may have arifen, in a great meafure, from 
a deficiency in the preceding crop, in con- 
fequence of a waat of labourers to cultivate 
the foil, and the inability of fmall farmers 
to pay the increafed price of labour—thar 
has been the confequence of the war. In 
the /econd place, it remains to be proved, 
that the corn, which has been withheld 
from market, has been withheld from 2 
fpirit of monoply.. The peculiar opennefs 
of rhe winter having enabled farmers to 
continue their agricultural operations 
through the whole of the feafon, litrle 
opportunity of thrafhing corn has oecurred ; 
farmers generally, and judictoufly, defer- 
ring that work, till the expeéted time, 
when they can no longér employ their la- 
bourers out of doors, and when, if the 
bufinefs of thrafhing does not remain, they 
muft lie idle. And here again it muft be 
obferved, that, if the farmer were inclined 
to carry on both operations together, the 
{carcity of hands would bean obftacle of ne 
trifling confideration. 
In the third plaee, it remains to be 
proved, that, if the corn were withheld 
from a fpirit of monopoly, the farmers 

writer afterwards urges frem the fuppofed confe- 
quence of a fearcity of milk, can have no force 
from the inadmifiibility of the faét. The ob= 
jection from a fearcity of poultry, which he 
urges at the fame time, is, as an article of lux- 
ury, too trivial to be confidered in queftions of 
national.profperity, 
were. 
-_ 
