Cnæus Julius, born at Frejus in Provence, was, in Vespasian's time, made lieutenant to Vettius Bolanus in Britain; and upon his return, was ranked by that emperor among the patricians, and made governor of Aquitania. This post he held three years; and upon his return was chosen consul, and afterward appointed governor of Britain, where he greatly distinguished himself. He reformed many abuses occasioned by the avarice or negligence of former governors, put a stop to extortion, and caused justice to be impartially administered. Vespasian dying about this time, his son Titus, knowing the great merit of Agricola, continued him in the government. In the spring, he marched towards the north, where he made some new conquests, and ordered forts to be built for the Romans to winter in. He spent the following winter in concerting schemes to bring the Britons to conform to the Roman customs. He thought the best way of diverting them from rising and taking arms, was to soften their rough manners, by proposing to them new kinds of pleasure, and instilling them with a desire of imitating the Roman manners. Soon after this, the country was adorned with magnificent temples, porticos, baths, and many other fine buildings. The British nobles had at length their sons educated in learning; and they who before had the utmost aversion to the Roman language, now began to study it with great assiduity: they wore likewise the Roman habit; and, as Tacitus observes, they were brought to consider those things as marks of politeness, which were only too many badges of slavery. Agricola, in his third campaign, advanced as far as the Tweed; and in his fourth, he subdued the nations betwixt the Tweed and the friths of Edinburgh and Clyde, into which the rivers Glotta and Bodotria discharge themselves; and here he Agricola built fortresses to shut up the nations yet unconquered.

In his fifth, he marched beyond the friths; where he made some new acquisitions, and fixed garrisons along the western coasts, over against Ireland. In his sixth campaign he passed the river Bodotria, ordering his fleet, the first which the Romans ever had in those parts, to row along the coasts, and take a view of the northern parts. In the following spring, the Britons raised an army of 30,000 men; and the command was given to Galbaeus, who, according to Tacitus, made an excellent speech to his countrymen on this occasion. Agricola likewise addressed his men in very strong and eloquent terms. The Romans gained the victory, and 10,000 of the Britons are said to have been killed. This happened in the reign of the emperor Domitian; who, growing jealous of the glory of Agricola, recalled him, under pretence of making him governor of Syria. Agricola died soon after; and his death is supposed to have been occasioned by poison given him by that emperor. Tacitus the historian married his daughter, wrote his life, and laments his death in the most pathetic manner.

George, a German physician, famous for his skill in metals. He was born at Glaucha, in Misnia, the 24th of March, 1494. The discoveries which he made in the mountains of Bohemia, gave him a great desire of examining accurately into every thing relating to metals, that though he had engaged in the practice of physic at Joachimsthal by advice of his friends, he still prosecuted his study of foils with great avidity; and at length removed to Chemnitz, where he entirely devoted himself to this study. He spent in pursuit of it the pension he had of Maurice duke of Saxony, and part of his own estate; so that he despised more reputation than profit from his labours. He wrote several pieces upon this and other subjects; and died at Chemnitz the 21st of November 1555, a very firm Papist. In his younger years he seemed not averse to the Protestant doctrine; and he highly disapproved of the scandalous traffic of indulgences, and several other things in the church of Rome. The following lines of his were posted up in the streets of Zwickaw, in the year 1719:

Si non injeceta salvebit cibula nummo, Hoc nimium infelix tu mibi, pauper, eris! Si nos, Christe, tua servatis morte beatis, Tam nihil infelix tu mibi, pauper, eris.

If wealth alone salvation can procure, How sad a fate for ever waits the poor! But if thou, Christ, our only labour be, Thy merits still may blest ev'n poverty!

In the latter part of his life, however, he had attacked the Protestant religion: which rendered him odious to the Lutherans, that they suffered his body to remain unburied for five days together; so that it was obliged to be removed from Chemnitz to Zeits, where it was interred in the principal church.

John, a Saxon divine, born at Eisleben in 1492. He went as chaplain to Count Mansfeld, when that nobleman attended the elector of Saxony to the diet of Spire in 1526, and that of Augsburg in 1530. He was of a restless, ambitious temper, rivalled and... AGRICULTURE

Definition. Agriculture in general, or in the abstract, may be defined to be, The art of making the earth to produce in large quantities, and in the greatest perfection of which their nature is capable, those vegetables which are necessary to the subsistence, or useful for the accommodation, of mankind. Agriculture differs from gardening in this respect, that the gardener is chiefly occupied in rearing small quantities of the nicer and more delicate vegetables, which are rather valued as objects of luxury than as articles of food, whereas the agriculturist labours upon a larger scale, with a view to supply himself and his countrymen with the necessaries of life.

Is a separate art. In civilized societies agriculture, or the cultivation of the soil, becomes a separate business or employment; and agriculturists, or the persons engaged in agriculture, receive the appellation of farmers or husbandmen.

To enable the agriculturist or husbandman to conduct his business with success, it is necessary that he should not confine his attention to the mere cultivation of the soil, or the rearing of vegetables. The vegetables which are capable of affording a comfortable subsistence to the human constitution are few in number; and it has been found by experience, that they cannot be profitably sown and reproduced year after year upon the same spot of ground. Hence it becomes necessary at times to rear upon it grafts or other vegetables which are unfit for affording nourishment to man. But although men cannot eat grapes, they may, nevertheless, contrive to obtain subsistence from it in an indirect manner. They may give it to cattle, whose ordinary and natural food it is; and having thus, as it were, converted the grapes into the flesh of animals, they can devour these animals; and in this way, obtain a richer and more stimulating food than any vegetable production can possibly afford: It is therefore a part of the business of the husbandman to rear and to feed those animals which are used as food in the society of which he is a member, that he may be enabled at all times to derive profit from the portion of territory that he cultivates. It is also necessary towards conducting his operations with success, that he should rear and feed other animals, not as a source of human subsistence, but for the sake of the services which they are capable of affording; for it has pleased the benevolent Contriver of this world, to place upon it beings of a subordinate nature, capable of assailing mankind in their labours without being degraded by the state of servitude in which they are placed. To the cultivators of the soil, these animals, from their strength and patience of labour, are particularly useful, and even absolutely necessary in our cold and barren climates. They must therefore be fed and lodged with the greatest care.

Hence, the employment of the husbandman is of an extensive nature, requiring much foresight, and a considerable knowledge of the relations that subsist between the most important objects in nature—the soil, the seasons, the animals, and the plants, so far as they are connected with the subsistence of mankind. It is by bringing to perfection this art that man becomes truly the lord of the universe. He subdues by his operations every part of the surface of the earth, and acquires over the animals which inhabit it, a solid right of dominion or of property, in consequence of having reared, and afforded them subsistence by his skill and his labour. He uses them indeed as food; but before he can do so, he must first bestow upon them subsistence, attend to their multiplication, and to their health and welfare. As they possess no foresight, the purpose to which they are destined, is to them no evil.

It is only in proportion to the degree in which this important art of agriculture has flourished, that nations have been, or ever can be, permanently prosperous. Every improvement that is made in it is a moral benefit conferred upon mankind; for by increasing the quantity of human food, or facilitating the production of it, one of two things must always happen: Either the number of our species will be increased, that is to say, a greater multitude of rational and intelligent beings will exist in the creation; or a greater number of those who already exist, will find leisure for the improvement of their intellectual characters by studying and carrying to perfection the sciences and arts. Thus, the strength of nations is increased in proportion to the degree in which their soil is skilfully cultivated, and their independence is secured by finding upon the spot which they inhabit all that is necessary for their subsistence.

It is a fortunate circumstance, that the art of the husbandman, which is the foundation of all others, and at all times indispensable to human existence, is in every respect conducive to the welfare of those engaged in it. The practice of it bestows health upon the body; and its advantage by the variety of occupations which it affords, it also bestows a considerable degree of reflection upon the minds of the lowest persons occupied in it; while, at the same time, it prevents their acquiring that spirit of artifice and of cunning, which in all countries is apt to degrade the character of those engaged in the inferior branches of commercial employment. Nor does it fail, in all ranks and conditions of life, to produce a more candid and liberal character than any other employment. ployment. No British husbandman has ever refused, or even hesitated to allow to be communicated to the public every branch of his art, and every improvement which he and his forefathers may have made in it; whereas, in all the branches of manufacture or of commerce, every transaction, as far as possible, is covered with a mysterious veil of secrecy, and every improvement, as far as possible, is concealed by its inventor, and sometimes undoubtedly perishes with him.

The antiquity of this art is undoubtedly beyond that of all others; for we are informed by Scripture, that Adam was sent from the garden of Eden to till the ground; and, this being the case, he certainly must have known how to do so.—It would be ridiculous, however, to imagine that he was acquainted with all the methods of plowing, harrowing, fallowing, &c., which are now made use of; and it would be equally so to suppose, that he used such clumsy and unartful instruments as wooden hooks, horns of oxen, &c., to dig the ground, which were afterwards employed for this purpose by certain savages: but as we know nothing of the particular circumstances in which he was situated, we can know as little concerning his method of agriculture.

The prodigious length of life which the antediluvians enjoyed, must have been very favourable to the advancement of arts and sciences, especially agriculture, to which it behoved them to apply themselves in a particular manner, in order to procure their subsistence. It is probable, therefore, that, even in the antediluvian world, arts and sciences had made great progress, nay, might be farther advanced in some respects than they are at present. Of this, however, we can form no judgment, as there are no histories of those times, and the Scripture gives us but very slight hints concerning these matters.

No doubt, by the terrible catastrophe of the flood, which overwhelmed the whole world, many sciences would be entirely lost, and agriculture would suffer; as it was impossible that Noah or his children could put in practice, or perhaps know, all the different methods of cultivating the ground that were formerly used. The common methods, however, we cannot but suppose to have been known to him and his children, and by them transmitted to their posterity: so that as long as mankind continued in one body without being dispersed into different nations, the arts, agriculture especially, would necessarily advance; and that they did so, is evident from the undertaking of the tower of Babel. It is from the dispersion of mankind consequent upon the confusion of tongues, that we must date the origin of savage nations. In all societies where different arts are cultivated, there are some persons who have a kind of general knowledge of most of those practised through the whole society, while others are in a manner ignorant of every one of them. If we suppose a few people of understanding to separate from the rest, and become the founders of a nation, it will probably be a civilized one, and the arts will begin to flourish from its very origin; but, if a nation is founded by others whose intellects are in a manner callous to every human science (and of this kind there are many in the most learned countries), the little knowledge or memory of arts that were among the original founders will be lost, and such a people will continue in a state of barbarism for many ages, unless the arts be brought to them from other nations.

From this, or similar causes, all nations of equal antiquity have not been equally savage, nor is there any solid reason for concluding that all nations were originally unskilled in agriculture; though as we know not the original instruments of husbandry used by mankind when living in one society, we cannot fix the date of the improvements in this art. Different nations have always been in a different state of civilization; and agriculture, as well as other arts, has always been in different degrees of improvement among different nations at the same time.

From the earliest accounts of the eastern nations, we have reason to think, that agriculture has at all times been understood by them in considerable perfection; seeing they were always supplied not only with the necessaries, but the greatest luxuries of life.

As soon as the descendants of Abraham were settled in Palestine, they generally became husbandmen, from the chiefs of the tribe of Judah to the lowest branch of the family of Benjamin. High birth or rank did not at that time make any distinction, for agriculture was considered as the most honourable of all employments; witness the illustrious examples of Gideon, Saul, and David.

The Chaldeans, who inhabited the country where agriculture had its birth, carried that valuable art to a degree of excellence unknown in former times. They cultivated their lands with great fidelity, and seem to have found out some means of restoring fertility to an exhausted soil, by having plentiful harvests in succession; on which account they were not obliged, as their predecessors had been, to change their situations, in order to obtain a sufficiency for themselves and their numerous flocks and herds.

The Egyptians, who, from the natural fertility of their country by the overflowing of the Nile, raised every year vast quantities of corn, were so sensible of the blessings resulting from agriculture, that they ascribed the invention of that art to Osiris. They also regarded Isis, their second deity, as the discoverer of the use of wheat and barley, which before grew wild in the fields, and were not applied by that people to the purposes of food. Their superstitious gratitude was carried so far, as to worship those animals which were employed in tillage; and even the produce of their lands, as leeks, onions, &c.

The divine honours paid to Bacchus in India were derived from the same source, he being considered in that country as the inventor of planting vineyards, and the other arts attendant upon agriculture.

It is also related of the ancient Persians, on the most respectable authority, that their kings laid aside their grandeur once every month to eat with husbandmen. This is a striking instance of the high estimation in which they held agriculture; for at that time arts were practised among that people in great perfection, particularly those of weaving, needle-work, and embroidery. The precepts of their religion taught by their ancient magi, or priests, included the practice of agriculture. The faint among them was obliged to work out his salvation by pursuing all the labours of agriculture: And it was a maxim of the Zendavesta, that he who sows the ground with care and diligence, acquires a greater degree degree of religious merit, than he could have gained by the repetition of ten thousand prayers.

The Phoenicians, so well known in Scripture by the name of Philistines, were also remarkable for their attention to, and skill in agriculture. But finding themselves too much disturbed and confined by the incursions and conquests of the Israelites, they spread themselves throughout the greatest part of the Mediterranean islands, and carried with them their knowledge in the arts of cultivation.

Mago, a famous general of the Carthaginians, is said to have written no less than 28 books on the subject; which Columella tells us were translated into Latin by the express order of the Roman senate. We are informed by the ancient writers, that Ceres was born in Sicily, where she first invented the arts of tillage and of sowing corn. For this essential service, she was, agreeably to the superstition of those ages, deified and worshipped as the goddess of plenty. The truth of this is, that in the time of Ceres, the island, through her endeavours and the industry of the people, became very fruitful in corn; and agriculture was there esteemed an honourable employment, that even their kings did not disdain to practice it with their own hands.

But time, which at first gave birth to arts, often caused them to be forgotten when they were removed from the place of their origin. The descendants of Noah, who settled in Europe, doubtless carried their knowledge of agriculture with them into the regions which they successively occupied. But those who took possession of Greece were such an uncivilized race, that they fed on roots, herbs, and acorns, after the manner of beasts. Pelargus had taught them the culture of the oak, and the use of acorns as food; for which service, we are told, divine honours were paid him by the people.

The Athenians, who were the first people that acquired any tincture of politeness, taught the use of corn to the rest of the Greeks. They also instructed them how to cultivate the ground, and to prepare it for the reception of the seed. This art, we are told, was taught them by Triptolemus. The Greeks soon perceived that bread was more wholesome, and its taste more delicate, than that of acorns and the wild roots of the fields; accordingly they thanked the gods for such an unexpected and beneficial present, and honoured their benefactor.

As the arts of cultivation increased, and the blessings they afforded became generally experienced, the people soon preferred them to whatever the ravages of conquest, and the cruel depredations of savage life, could procure. And accordingly we find, that the Athenian kings, thinking it more glorious to govern a small state wisely, than to aggrandize themselves, and enlarge the extent of their dominions by foreign conquests, withdrew their subjects from war, and mostly employed them in cultivating the earth. Thus, by continued application, they brought agriculture to a considerable degree of perfection, and soon reduced it to an art.

Hesiod was the first we know of among the Greeks who wrote on this interesting subject. According to the custom of the Oriental authors, he wrote in poetry, and embellished his poem with luxuriant description and sublime imagery. He calls his poem Works and Days, because agriculture requires exact observations on times and seasons.

Xenophon has also, in his Oeconomics, remarked, that agriculture is the nursing mother of the arts. For, says he, "where agriculture succeeds prosperously, there the arts thrive; but where the earth necessarily lies uncultivated, there the other arts are destroyed."

Other eminent Greek writers upon agriculture were, Democritus of Abdera, Socrates, Archytas Tarentinus, Aristotle, and Theophrastus, from whom the art received considerable improvements.

The ancient Romans esteemed agriculture so honourable an employment, that the most illustrious senators of the empire, in the intervals of public concerns, applied themselves to this profession; and such was the simplicity of those ages, that they allowed no appearance of magnificence and splendour, or of majesty, but when they appeared in public. At their return from the toils of war, the taking of cities, and the subduing of hostile nations, their greatest generals were impatient till they were again employed in the arts of cultivation.

Regulus, when in Africa, requested of the senate to be recalled, lest his farm might suffer, for want of proper cultivation, in his absence; and the senate wrote him for answer, that it should be taken care of at the public expense, while he continued to lead their armies.

Cato the censor, after having governed extensive provinces, and subdued many warlike nations, did not think it below his dignity to write a Treatise on Agriculture. This work (as we are told by Servius) he dedicated to his own son, it being the first Latin treatise written on this important subject; and it has been handed down to us in all its purity, in the manner that Cato wrote it.

Varro composed a treatise on the same subject, and on a more regular plan. This work is embellished with all the Greek and Latin erudition of that learned author, who died 28 years before the commencement of the Christian era. Virgil who lived about the same time, has, in his Georgics, adorned this subject with the language of the Muses, and finely illustrated the precepts and rules of husbandry left by Hesiod, Mago, and Varro.

Columella, who flourished in the reign of the emperor Claudius, wrote 12 books on husbandry, replete with important instruction.

From this period to that of the reign of Constantine Paganatus, husbandry continued in a declining state; but that wise emperor caused a large collection of the most useful precepts relating to agriculture to be extracted from the best writers, and published them under the title of Geponica. It has been asserted, that he made this collection with his own hand; and the truth of the assertion is not improbable, as it is well known, that after he had conquered the Saracens and the Arabs, he not only practised and encouraged, but studied the arts of peace, fixing his principal attention on agriculture, as their best foundation.

After the death of Constantine, however, the increasing attention of the people to commerce, and the ignorance and gross superstition of the ages which succeeded, seem to have rendered agriculture an almost neglected The irruptions of the northern nations soon abolished any improved system. These innumerable and enterprising barbarians, who overrun all Europe, were originally shepherds or hunters, like the present Tartars and the savages of America. They contented themselves with pasturing, without labour or trouble; those vast countries rendered deserts by their own ravages, cultivating only a very final spot near their habitations; and in this trifling husbandry only the meanest slaves were employed: so that the art itself, which formerly was thought worthy of the study of kings, was now looked upon as mean and ignoble; a prejudice which is scarcely effaced at present, or at least but very lately.—During this period, therefore, we find no vestiges of any thing tolerably written on the subject. No new attempts were made to revive it, or to improve it, till the year 1478, when Cerecenzio published an excellent performance on the subject at Florence. This roused the flustering attention of his countrymen, several of whom soon followed his example. Among these, Tatti, Steffano Augustino Gallo, Sanfino, Lauro, and Tarello, deserve particular notice.

At what time agriculture was introduced into Britain, is uncertain. When Julius Caesar first invaded this island, it was not wholly unknown. That conqueror was of opinion, that agriculture was first introduced by some of those colonies from Gaul which had settled in the southern parts of Britain, about 100 years before the Roman invasion.*

It is not to be expected that we can now be acquainted with many of the practices of these ancient husbandmen. It appears, however, that they were not unacquainted with the use of manures, particularly marl. This we have on the authority of Pliny†, who tells us, that it was peculiar to the people of Gaul and of Britain; that its effects continued 80 years; and that no man was ever known to marl his field twice, &c.—It is highly probable, too, that lime was at this time also used as a manure in Britain, it being certainly made use of in Gaul for this purpose at the time of Julius Caesar's invasion.

The establishment of the Romans in Britain produced great improvements in agriculture, inasmuch that prodigious quantities of corn were annually exported from the island; but when the Roman power began to decline, this, like all the other arts, declined also, and was almost totally destroyed by the departure of that people. The unhappy Britons were now exposed to frequent incursions of the Scots and Picts, who destroyed the fruits of their labours, and interrupted them in the exercise of their art. After the arrival of the Saxons in the year 449, they were involved in such long wars, and underwent so many calamities, that the husbandmen gradually lost much of their skill, and were at last driven from those parts of their country which were most proper for cultivation.

After the Britons retired into Wales, though it appears from the laws made relative to this art, that agriculture was thought worthy of the attention of the legislature, yet their instruments appear to have been very unartful. It was enacted that no man should undertake to guide a plough who could not make one; and that the driver should make the ropes of twisted willows, with which it was drawn. It was usual for six or eight persons to form themselves into a society for fitting out one of these ploughs, providing it with oxen and everything necessary for ploughing; and many minute and curious laws were made for the regulation of such societies. If any person laid dung on a field with the consent of the proprietor, he was by law allowed the use of that land for one year. If the dung was carried out in a cart in great abundance, he was to have the use of the land for three years. Whoever cut down a wood, and converted the ground into arable, with the consent of the owner, was to have the use of it for five years. If any one folded his cattle, for one year, upon a piece of ground belonging to another, with the owner's consent, he was allowed the use of that field for four years.

Thus, though the Britons had in a great measure lost the knowledge of agriculture, they appear to have been very affiduous in giving encouragement to such as would attempt a revival of it; but, among the Anglo-Saxons, things were not at present in so good a state. These restless and haughty warriors, having contracted a distaste and contempt for agriculture, were at pains to enact laws to prevent its being followed by any other than women and slaves. When they first arrived in Britain, they had no occasion for this art, being supplied by the natives with all the necessaries of life. After the commencement of hostilities, the Saxons subsisted chiefly by plunder; but having driven out or extirpated most of the ancient Britons, and divided their lands among themselves, they found themselves in danger of starving, there being now no enemy to plunder; and therefore they were obliged to apply to agriculture.

The Saxon princes and great men, who, in the division of the lands, had received the greatest shares, are said to have subdivided their estates into two parts, which were called the in-lands and the out-lands. The in-lands were those which lay most contiguous to the mansion-house of their owner, which he kept in his own possession, and cultivated by his slaves, under the direction of a bailiff, for the purpose of raising provisions for the family. The out-lands were those at a greater distance from the house, and were let to the ceoils, or farmers of those times, at very moderate rents. By the laws of Ina king of the West Saxons, who reigned in the end of the seventh and beginning of the eighth century, a farm consisting of ten hides, or plough-lands, was to pay the following rent: "Ten casks of honey; three hundred loaves of bread; twelve casks of strong ale; thirty casks of small ale; two oxen; ten wadders; ten geese; twenty hens; ten cheese; one cask of butter; five salmon; twenty pounds of forage; and one hundred eels." From this low rent, the imperfection of agriculture at that time is easily discoverable; but it is still more so from the low prices at which land was then sold. In the ancient history of the church of Ely, published by Dr Gale, there are accounts of many purchases of lands by Ædelwold the founder of that church, and by other benefactors, in the reign of Edgar the Peaceable, in the tenth century. By a comparison of these accounts it appears, that the ordinary price of an acre of the best land in that part of England, in those times, was no more than 16 Saxon pennies, or about four shillings of our money: a very trifling price, even in comparison with that of other commodities at the same time: for, by comparing... comparing other accounts, it appears, that four sheep were then equal in value to an acre of the best land, and one horse of the same value with three acres. The frequent and deplorable famines which afflicted England about this time, are further instances of the wretched state of agriculture. In 1043, a quarter of wheat sold for 60 Saxon pennies (15 of our shillings), at that time equal in value to seven or eight pounds of our money now.

The invasion of the Normans, in 1066, contributed very much to the improvement of agriculture; for, by that event, many thousands of husbandmen from Flanders, France, and Normandy, settled in Britain, obtained estates or farms, and cultivated them after the manner of their country. The implements of husbandry, used at this time, were of the same kind with those employed at present; but some of them were less perfect in their construction. The plough, for example, had but one stilt or handle, which the ploughman guided with one hand, having in his other hand an instrument which served both for cleaning and mending the plough, as well as for breaking the clods. The Norman plough had two wheels; and in the light soil of Normandy was commonly drawn by one or two oxen; but, in England, a greater number was often necessary. In Wales, the person who conducted the oxen in the plough walked backwards. Their carts, harrows, scythes, sickles, and hails, from the figures of them still remaining, appear to have been nearly of the same construction with those that are now used. In Wales, they did not use a flail for reaping their corns, but an instrument like the blade of a knife, with a wooden handle at each end.—Their chief manure next to dung, seems still to have been marl. Summer fallowing of lands designed for wheat, and ploughing them several times, appear to have been frequent practices of the English farmers in this period.

We are, after all, very much in the dark with respect to the state and progress of agriculture in Great Britain previous to the fourteenth century. That it was pretty generally practised, especially in the eastern, south, and midland parts of England, is certain; but of the mode, and the success, we are left almost totally ignorant. In the latter end of the fifteenth century, however, it seems to have been cultivated as a science, and received very great improvement.

At this time our countryman Fitzherbert, judge of the common-pleas, shone forth with distinguished eminence in the practical parts of husbandry. He appears to have been the first Englishman who studied the nature of soils and the laws of vegetation with philosophical attention. On these he formed a theory confirmed by experiments, and rendered the study pleasing as well as profitable, by realizing the principles of the ancients, to the honour and advantage of his country. Accordingly, he published two treatises on this subject: the first, entitled *The Book of Husbandry*, appeared in 1534; and the second, called *The Book of Surveying and Improvements*, in 1539. These books, being written at a time when philosophy and science were but just emerging from that gloom in which they had long been buried, were doubtless replete with many errors; but they contained the rudiments of true knowledge, and revived the study and love of an art, the advantages of which were obvious to men of the least reflection. We therefore find that Fitzherbert's books on agriculture soon raised a spirit of emulation in his countrymen; and many treatises of the same kind successively appeared, which has however deprived us of, or at least they are become so very scarce as only to be found in the libraries of the curious.

About the year 1600, France made some considerable efforts to revive the arts of husbandry, as appears from several large works, particularly *Les Moyens de devenir Riche*; and the *Cofinopolite*, by Bernard de Palilly, a poor porter, who seems to have been placed by fortune in a station for which nature never intended him; *Le Theatre d'Agriculture*, by Deferres; and *L'Agriculture et Maison Rustique*, by Messrs Etienne, Liebault, &c.

Nearly in the same period, the skilful practice of husbandry became more prevalent among this people and the Flemings than the publishing of books on the subject. Their intention seemed to be that of carrying on a private lucrative employment, without instructing their neighbours. Whoever therefore became desirous of copying their method of agriculture, was obliged to visit that country, and make his own remarks on their practice.

The principal idea they had of husbandry was, by keeping the lands clean and in fine tilth, to make a farm resemble a garden as nearly as possible.

Such an excellent principle, at first setting out, led them of course to undertake the culture of small farms only, which they kept free from weeds, continually turning the ground, and manuring it plentifully and judiciously. When they had by this method brought the soil to a proper degree of cleanliness, health, and sweetness, they chiefly cultivated the more delicate grapes, as the surest means of obtaining a certain profit upon a small estate, without the expense of keeping many draught horses and servants. A few years experience was sufficient to convince them, that ten acres of the best vegetables for feeding cattle, properly cultivated, would maintain a larger flock of grazing animals than forty acres of common farm grass on land badly cultivated. They also found, that the best vegetables for this purpose were lucerne, fainfain, trefoil of most kinds, field-turnips, &c.

The grand political secret of their husbandry, therefore, consisted in letting farms on improvement. They are said also to have discovered nine sorts of manure; but what they all were, we are not particularly informed. We find, however, that marl was one of them; the use and virtues of which appear also to have been well known in this kingdom two hundred years ago, although it was afterwards much neglected. They were the first people among the moderns who ploughed in green crops for the sake of fertilizing the soil; and who confined their sheep at night in large sheds built on purpose, the floors of which were covered with sand or virgin earth, &c., which the shepherd carried away each morning to the compost dunghill.

In England, during the civil wars, though the operations and improvements in husbandry suffered some temporary checks, there flourished several excellent writers on the subject, and the art itself received considerable encouragement. Sir Hugh Platt was one of the most ingenious husbandmen of the age in which he lived; yet so great was his modesty, that all his works, except except his Paradise of Flora, seem to be posthumous. He held a correspondence with most of the lovers and patrons of agriculture and gardening in England; and such was the justice and modesty of his temper, that he always named the author of every discovery communicated to him. Perhaps no man in any age discovered, or at least brought into use, so many new kinds of manure. This will be evident to those who read his account of the compost and covered dunghills, and his judicious observations on the fertilizing qualities lodged in salt, street dirt, and the fallage of streets in great cities, clay, fullers earth, moorish earths, dunghills made in layers, fern, hair, calcination of all vegetables, malt dust, willow tree earth, foakers ashes, urine, marl, and broken potsherds.

Gabriel Platten may be said to have been an original genius in husbandry. He began his observations at an earlier period, in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and continued them down to the Commonwealth. But notwithstanding the great merit of this writer, and the essential service he had rendered his country by his writings, the public ungratefully suffered him to starve and perish in the streets of London; nor had he a shirt on his back when he died.

Samuel Hartlib, a celebrated writer on agriculture in the last century, was highly esteemed and beloved by Milton, and other great men of his time. In the preface to his work entitled his Legacy, he laments that no public director of husbandry was established in England by authority; and that we had not adopted the Flemish method of letting farms upon improvement. This remark of Hartlib's procured him a pension of 100l. a-year from Cromwell; and the writer afterwards, the better to fulfill the intention of his benefactor, procured Dr Beattie's excellent annotation on the Legacy, with other valuable papers from his numerous correspondents.

The time in which Hartlib flourished seems to have been an era when the English husbandry rose to great perfection, compared with that of former ages; for the preceding wars had impoverished the country gentlemen, and of course made them industrious. They found the cultivation of their own lands to be the most profitable station they could fill. But this wife turn was not of long continuance. At the Restoration, they generally became infected with that intoxication and love of pleasure which succeeded. All their industry and knowledge were exchanged for neglect and dissipation; and husbandry descended almost entirely into the hands of common farmers.

Evelyn was the first writer who inspired his countrymen with a desire of reviving the study of agriculture; and he was followed by the famous Jethro Tull. The former, by his admirable treatises on earth and on planting, and the latter, by showing the superior advantages of the drill husbandry, excited numbers to bring their theory to the test of fair experiment.

Many valuable and capital improvements have since that period been made in English husbandry: and these great men have been succeeded by a variety of writers, many of whom have done essential service, by enlightening the minds of their countrymen, and exciting them to emulation.

About the middle of the last century, Ireland began to make a considerable figure in the art of husbandry. It must indeed be confessed, that the Irish had very strong prejudices in favour of a wretched method of agriculture, till Blyth opened their eyes by his excellent writings. Since that time, a spirit of improvement has more or less been promoted, and in many instances carried on with great zeal, by the nobility, clergy, and gentry of that kingdom. In proof of this, it will be sufficient to observe, that the transactions of the Dublin Society for encouraging Husbandry are now cited by all foreigners in their memoirs relating to that subject. And the observations of that discerning and judicious writer, Arthur Young, Esq. in his Tour through that kingdom, show, that in many respects improvements there have of late years made a progress nearly as rapid as in England.

After the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle, most of the nations of Europe, by a sort of tacit consent, applied themselves to the study of agriculture, and continued to do so, more or less, amidst the universal confusion that succeeded.

The French found, by repeated experience, that they could never maintain a long war, or procure a tolerable peace, unless they could raise corn enough to support themselves in such a manner as not to be obliged to submit to harsh terms on the one hand, or to perish by famine on the other. This occasioned the king to give public encouragement to agriculture, and even to be present at the making of several experiments. The great, and the rich of various ranks and stations, followed his example; and even the ladies were candidates for a share of fame in this public-spirited and commendable undertaking.

During the hurry and distresses of France in the war of 1756, considerable attention was paid to agriculture. Prize questions were annually proposed in their rural academies, particularly those of Lyons and Bordeaux; and many judicious observations were made by the Society for improving agriculture in Brittany.

After the conclusion of that war in 1763, matters were carried on there with great vigour. The university of Amiens made various proposals for the advancement of husbandry; and the marquis de Tourbillon (a writer who proceeded chiefly on experience) had the principal direction of a georgical society established at Tours.

The society at Rouen also deserves notice; nor did the king and his ministers think it unworthy their attention. There now existed about fifteen societies in France, established by royal approbation, for the promoting of agriculture; and these had twenty co-operating societies belonging to them.

About this time vigorous exertions began to be made in Russia to introduce the most approved system of husbandry which had taken place in other parts of Europe. The late emperors sent several gentlemen into Britain and other countries to study agriculture, and gave it all possible encouragement in her own dominions.

The art of agriculture has also been for many years publicly taught in the Swedish, Danish, and German universities, where the professors may render effectual service to their respective countries, if they understand the practical as well as the speculative part, and can converse with as much advantage with the farmers as with Virgil and Columella. Even Italy has not been totally inactive. The Neapolitans of this age have condescended to recur to the first rudiments of revived husbandry, and begun to study anew the Agricultural System of Crecenzio, first published in 1478. The people of Bergamo have pursued the same plan, and given a new edition of the Ricordo d'Agricultura de Tarello, first published in 1577. The duchy of Tuscany has imbibed the same spirit of improvement. A private gentleman, above 40 years since, left his whole fortune to endow an academy of agriculture. The first ecclesiastic in the duchy was president of this society, and many of the chief nobility were members.

His Sardinian majesty also sent persons to learn the different modes of practice in foreign countries; and made some spirited attempts to establish a better method of agriculture among his subjects.

In Poland, also, M. de Bieluski, grand marshal of the crown, made many successful attempts to introduce the new husbandry among his countrymen; and procured the best instruments for that purpose from France, England, and other parts of Europe.

The Hollanders are the only people now in Europe who seem to look upon agriculture with indifference. Except the single collateral instance of draining their fens and marshes, they have scarcely paid any attention to it; and even this seems to have proceeded more from the motive of self-preservation, than any love of, or disposition to, husbandry.

In the year 1759, a few ingenious and public-spirited men at Berne in Switzerland established a society for the advancement of agriculture and rural economics. In that society were many men of great weight in the republic, and most of them persons of a true cast for making improvements in husbandry, being enabled to join the practice with the theory.

Nor must we here omit to mention, that the justly celebrated Linnaeus and his disciples have performed great things in the north of Europe, particularly in discovering new kinds of profitable and well-taught food for cattle. About the same time, Sweden bestowed successful labours on a soil which had before been looked upon as cold, barren, and incapable of melioration. Of this the Stockholm Memoirs will be a lasting monument.

Denmark, and many of the courts in Germany, followed the same example. Woollen manufactures were encouraged, and his Danish majesty sent three persons into Arabia Felix to make remarks, and bring over such plants and trees as would be useful in husbandry, building, and rural affairs.

The duchy of Wurtemberg, also, a country by no means unfertile, but even friendly to corn and pastureage, has contributed its assistance towards the improvement of agriculture, having more than 50 years since published 14 economical relations at Stuttgart.

Neither must we forget the very assiduous attention of the learned in Leipzig and Hanover to this important object. During the rage and devastation of a long war, they cultivated the arts of peace; witness the Journal d'Agriculture printed at Leipzig, and the Recueils d'Hanover printed in that city.

Even Spain, constitutionally and habitually inactive on such occasions, in spite of all their natural indolence, and the prejudices of bigotry, invited Linnaeus, with the offer of a large pension, to superintend a college founded for the purpose of making new inquiries into the history of nature and the art of agriculture.

Among the Japanese, agriculture is in great repute; and among the Chinese it is distinguished and encouraged by the court beyond all other sciences. The emperor of China yearly, at the beginning of spring, goes to plough in person, attended by all the princes and grandees of the empire. The ceremony is performed with great solemnity; and is accompanied with a sacrifice, which the emperor, as high-priest, offers to Chang-Ti, to ensure a plentiful crop in favour of his people.

But, without any improper partiality to our own country, we are fully justified in affirming, that Britain alone exceeds all modern nations in husbandry; and from the spirit which for the last twenty years has animated many of our nobility and gentry, to become the liberal patrons of improvement, there is reason to hope that this most useful of arts will, in a few years, be carried to a greater pitch of perfection than it has ever yet attained in any age or country.—The Royal Society, the Bath Society, and the Society of Arts, &c., in particular, have been singularly useful in this respect; and the other associations, which are now established in many parts of the kingdom, co-operate with them in forwarding their laudable design.

It is not, however, to the exertion of public societies, excellent and honourable as they are, that all our modern improvements in agriculture owe their origin. To the natural genius of the people have been added the theory and practice of all nations in ancient and modern times. This accumulated mass of knowledge has been arranged, divided, and subdivided; and after passing the test of practical experiments, the essential and most valuable parts of it have been preserved, improved, and amply diffused in the works of Lord Kames, Mr Young, Stillingfleet, Dr Hunter, Anderson, Dickson, Ellis, Randal, Lisle, Marshall, Mortimer, Duhamel, Bradley, Kent, Mills, and a few other writers upon this great art of rendering mankind happy, wealthy, and powerful.

We also remark with much satisfaction, that the British government has of late years thought fit to render the improvement of agriculture an object of public attention and encouragement, by the institution of a board of agriculture.—About the year 1790, Sir John Sinclair, Bart., invited the clergy of the church of Scotland to transmit to him descriptions of the state of their different parishes, with a view to the publication of what is called a Statistical Account of Scotland. The whole members of this body having readily complied with his request, a work in 20 volumes octavo was compiled from the materials afforded by them, containing an account of the agriculture, manufactures, and population of the country. The same gentleman, about that period, was also active in obtaining the institution of a private society, called The British Wool Society, which was very successful in calling the attention of the public to the improvement of that important article of national growth and manufacture. By these patriotic exertions, having acquired a considerable share of popularity, he was encouraged on 16th May 1793, to make a motion in the house of commons, of which he he was a member, for an address to the crown, recommending the institution of a board of agriculture. The chancellor of the exchequer, Mr Pitt, on perceiving that the proposal was acceptable to the majority of the house, gave it a decided support, and on the 17th May, to which the debate had been adjourned, the motion was carried for an address to his majesty to institute such a board, at an expense not exceeding £3000.—In consequence of this application, a charter passed the great seal, incorporating the members of administration for the time, with the archbishops of Canterbury and York, and all their successors in office, together with certain other noblemen and gentlemen, into a board or society, by the name of the Board or Society for the encouragement of Agriculture and internal improvement, under the patronage of the crown; with power to the members to elect office-bearers and successors to themselves: and in the mean time Sir John Sinclair was appointed to be the first president, to continue in office till 25th March following; Sir John Caul, Bart. was appointed to be the first treasurer, and Edward Young, Esq. so well known for his agricultural publications, was appointed secretary.

The regular fittings of the board did not commence until 23rd January 1794, since which time it has continued to exert a very considerable degree of activity in establishing an extensive foreign correspondence, and in procuring and publishing every kind of useful domestic agricultural intelligence, some specimens of which we shall afterwards have occasion to notice. This board, soon after its institution, also employed persons of known reputation to prepare agricultural surveys of every county in the island of Great Britain.—Many of these surveys have been published, and form treaties upon this important art, which, for extent of intelligence and ability of execution, have not been exceeded in any age or country. The board has also obtained parliamentary rewards to some individuals for important discoveries, and has offered premiums for essays or treaties upon subjects connected with the purpose of its institution, which have produced a great variety of valuable and ingenious disquisitions.

**THEORY OF AGRICULTURE.**

In an art that is so necessary to mankind, and that has been so universally practised, it might perhaps be expected, that the principles upon which its operations depend, would have been by this time completely and accurately investigated, and consequently that a correct theory of agriculture could easily be exhibited. This, however, is by no means the case; and it is not a little singular, that, in this most useful of all arts, the theory should still be more defective than in almost any science with which we are acquainted. It is fortunate, however, for the human race, that in most cases, or at least in all important arts, they succeed better in practice than in speculation. During many ages, various artists were accustomed to extract the most ordinary, but most useful metals, from the state of ore or earth in which nature produces them, and to reduce them back from their metallic form and lustre, to a state of ore or earth again. These artists were unacquainted with the principles upon which the success of their operations depended; and it is only within these few years that some ingenious chemists have successfully investigated the nature of these processes, and have explained what they have called the oxygenation and difxygenation of metals. The same thing has happened in agriculture. Men have often cultivated the ground well, while they have speculated ill concerning the mode of doing so. Various reasons render it still more difficult to form a complete theory of agriculture, than of chemistry, mechanics, or other arts. In agriculture, an experiment cannot be made in an instant, or even in an hour, or in a day or two. A whole season must pass away before a single experiment can be performed, and after all, as in other arts, the inquirer after truth may be misled by some unobserved circumstances. Some fact, quite foreign to the experiment itself, arising out of the peculiar state of the soil, or of the train of seasons, may produce plentiful crops for a year or two, though, in ordinary circumstances, no such effect would follow; and the ingenious contriver of the experiment, who thought he had made an important discovery, may afterwards derive from it only disappointment and mortification. But human life is too short to admit of a very great variety of agricultural experiments to be performed by the same individual. After a few seasons, he must leave his place to be occupied by a new inquirer, possessed of a different character and of different views. Unfortunately, till of late years, it was not usual for husbandmen to publish, and thus to immortalize and diffuse over whole nations, the result of their private experience and reflections. Scattered over the face of great countries, and having little intercourse with foreigners, or even with each other, they knew little of what was done by men engaged in the same profession, though at no great distance.—In this way, the benefit of local discoveries was not communicated to the world at large, nor was an opportunity afforded of eradicating local prejudices and erroneous practices. As the state of this valuable profession is now rapidly altering in these respects, there is little doubt that we are fast approaching towards a period at which it will be possible to exhibit a clear and correct theory of agriculture, or to arrange under a few simple heads the rules or principles upon which the practice of the art depends.—What we are now to offer, is not to be considered as perfect, nor even as possessing any nearer approximation towards a perfect theory of the husbandman's art; but merely, such a general statement of its principles as results from the degree of information hitherto collected upon the subject.

A theory, or general view of the principles of agriculture seems necessarily to resolve itself into the two following investigations: 1st, To inquire among the great variety of vegetables that exist in nature, what particular plants ought to be regarded as most worthy of cultivation; and 2ndly, To consider the best mode of cultivating with success the plants thus selected.

With regard to the first of these divisions of the subject, or the vegetables that ought to be chosen as most valuable and worthy of cultivation, it may be observed, that the value of a plant is of two kinds, absolute, or relative; Vegetables relative: The absolute value of a plant depends upon its fitness to afford subsistence to the human species, whereas its relative value consists of the tendency which the cultivation of it will have to enrich a particular husbandman, or class of husbandmen, either because their lands are well adapted for its growth, or because there is a ready market for it in the vicinity, where it bears a high price.

Concerning the absolute value of plants, or their tendency to afford subsistence to mankind, it is to be observed, that some plants are directly useful or valuable, because they are immediately consumed as food by man, such as wheat, oats, or potatoes; whereas mankind derive subsistence from another class of plants, only in an indirect manner, by giving them to cattle, and afterwards eating the flesh of these cattle, as happens with regard to grass and straw of all kinds.

Sect. I. Of Vegetables to be cultivated as Food for Man.

Some vegetables afford subsistence to the human species by means of the fruit that grows upon them, which hangs, and is brought to maturity in the air, at the summit of their stems. Other vegetables derive their value from producing roots which come to maturity in the bottom of the soil, and are dug from thence to be consumed by mankind.

Of fruit-bearing vegetables, those called trees, which rise aloft with a strong trunk, are the most permanent and remarkable. It is said that a spot of ground, occupied by some kinds of trees such as chestnuts or dates, is capable of producing a very great portion of food, useful for the support of the human species. One advantage attending the cultivation of such vegetables would be that, after the trees are planted, and secured by fences for a few years against animals, they would forever after, or at least for many years, continue to grow and flourish without care or labour. It does not appear, however, that in any nation of ancient or modern times, forests of fruit-bearing trees have been reared with a view to afford subsistence to the community. For this two reasons may be assigned. In the first place, a considerable number of years must elapse before such plants could arrive at maturity, and fulfill the purpose of their cultivation. Of whatever use therefore they might be to future ages, it is evident that they could afford little benefit to the generation which planted them. But in question about subsistence, mankind are usually under the necessity of considering their own immediate wants, and hence they have been led to the cultivation of such plants, as afford the most speedy reward for the efforts of their industry. Another reason for preferring the culture of small annual plants, to the greater and more permanent productions of nature, would arise, in the early ages of the world, from the turbulent state of society and the frequency of wars. A community that should depend for its subsistence upon the fruit of forest trees, might be ruined for half a century by the inroad of an enemy. An example of this was exhibited in the war between Great Britain, and her North American colonies. When the parent state hired the savages on the western frontier, to join her party and to make inroads upon the colonists, the latter retaliated upon the savages in the following manner. Several of the colonies united in fending an expedition against the Indians. The bodies of militia employed upon this expedition, were surprised to find small corn fields around a considerable number of the Indian hamlets. They were not satisfied however with destroying the huts of the natives, and these incipient efforts of savage industry; but they anxiously fought out and destroyed every fruit-bearing tree that they found in their progress of almost a thousand miles, thereby rendering the wilderness utterly uninhabitable to a people destitute of agriculture, and who could not always depend for subsistence upon their succours in hunting. From this example we see that the frequent wars arising from the barbarous character of ancient nations, would compel them to seek subsistence, not from the fruit of forest trees, but from grain which speedily arrives at maturity, and which when destroyed can soon be renewed. Thus war becomes a less wasteful scourge to the human race, and communities are enabled speedily to recover from the devastation which it produces. Had the nations of Europe depended for subsistence upon any fruits which could not be speedily restored when destroyed, it is evident, that, in the late languidary conflict, the greater number of them must have been irretrievably ruined.

Hence it appears that the cultivation of plants of annual growth, as a source of subsistence, is favourable to trust to the permanence of civilization in the world; and that before nations can venture to rely for their subsistence upon the fruit of plants of slower growth, their character must have arrived at a degree of moral amelioration far superior to what it has ever been known to possess.

Of annual plants cultivated for fruit, wheat has always been accounted the most valuable. This has probably arisen from the extreme facility with which the flour of it undergoes a process of fermentation, which renders it capable of becoming a more light and agreeable kind of bread than the flour of any other grain. This quality is believed to arise from a quantity of a substance contained in wheat that is of the same nature with the gluten, or glue, that is prepared from animal bodies. In other respects, however, it does not appear that wheat is more valuable than some other kinds of grain; by means of long boiling a given weight of barley, or even of oats, will render a quantity of water as thick or full of mucilage as can be done by the same weight of wheat.

It may not be improper here to remark, that, in the use of modern times, an author of no mean reputation, has has arisen, who endeavours to prove that wheat ought not to be cultivated, nor bread to be eaten. This is M. Linguet, who has written a treatise expressly upon the subject; and, ridiculous as the assertion may seem, it has been thought worthy of a formal refutation by Dr Tifflot.—One of M. Linguet’s arguments is, that wheat impoverishes the ground on which it grows: but in opposition to this, Dr Tifflot argues, that corn is more easily cultivated than grass; and that consequently in the country he speaks of (Switzerland), the best fields are appropriated to hay, and the worst to corn. “If there are some districts of very poor land (says he) almost entirely grown with corn, they are not poor because they produce only corn, but because they are not fit to produce anything else. Their soil is so bad, that they can grow but very little fodder: consequently they maintain only such cattle as are absolutely necessary for labour; Vegetables labour; and those are ill fed, and frequently perish.

They have but little manure, and their crops are small; for large crops of all sorts can only be expected from lands naturally rich or strongly manured. Thus the poverty of the inhabitants is only owing to their profiting an ungrateful soil. What proves evidently that it is the natural soil which is in the fault, and not the corn which impoverishes it, is, that where there is meadow and arable land, the price of the meadow land is much more considerable than that of the arable. In most parts of this country the proportion is nearly ten to one; and there are even some meadows, for one part of which they would give 30 of field lands; and some of vines, for which 100 of arable would be given. Those districts where the soil will produce nothing but corn, are poor; but in those which furnish fodder, and also fine crops of grain, the inhabitants are wealthy and happy, unless they are oppressed by taxes."

M. Linguet draws another objection from the length of time required to cultivate wheat; but Tifot, by another calculation, shows, that at days work throughout the year would cultivate more wheat than is sufficient for a family of five persons. The time necessary for cultivation of arable land also does not increase in proportion to its extent; but in case more is cultivated than is requisite for the subsistence of the family, a trade is formed, which might be increased to an unlimited extent. He then compares the time requisite for the cultivation of vines, which are recommended by M. Linguet, and finds it to be much longer than that required for wheat. "I know very well (says he) that the one requires cattle, and the other does not; but these cattle, far from being expensive, will, if properly managed, increase the gain of the farmer; therefore they must not be looked upon as any expense. Corn is subject to many accidents, but vines are subject to many more; those which the vines suffer, sometimes spoil the vintage for several years; whereas those which happen to arable land, only spoil the crop for the season; and as the expense of cultivating vines, for which only manual labour can be employed, is much more considerable, therefore the vigneron (or person who cultivates vines), who engages more largely than the farmer, will consequently be a much greater loser if unsuccessful.—Hay is also subject to frequent and very disagreeable accidents; the securing it is sometimes very difficult; and, when it is badly made, it is very hurtful to cattle.—A single fact will be sufficient to prove the casualties to which hay is subject; viz. that it varies in price as much as grain. Accidents of hay mows taking fire are but too frequent: and this is not to be feared in corn mows."

The other objections of M. Linguet to wheat appear to be quite frivolous; so that concerning the cultivation of this grain, Dr Tifot draws the following conclusions: "It appears then, from what has been said, that wheat is not a commodity that is impoverishing in itself; and that this grain will grow indifferently at least in lands and situations which are unfavourable to other plants. This grain is likewise adapted to most climates; and if there are districts almost entirely sown with wheat, and yet poor, it is the fault of the soil, and not of this useful grain."

But the most extraordinary argument perhaps ever thought of on this subject is M. Linguet's assertion, that the use of wheat, or bread made from it, is detrimental to population; and that the countries where this grain is cultivated are poor and thinly inhabited, whereas those which abound with vineyards and pasture lands are rich and populous. But this, in Dr Tifot's opinion, shows only that one soil is more rich than another, and that a fertile soil will maintain more inhabitants. "No person (says he) is more capable of afflicting the cause of the subjection of the Roman empire to the northern powers, than M. Linguet; but he cannot surely be serious when he says, that they were enabled to conquer them because those northern countries produced no corn, and that population decreased since the introduction of grain." I shall make three observations on this passage: First, The armies of Gaius Julius Caesar, Charles XII. and the king of Prussia, whose food was bread, would be as formidable against the Italians of those times, who ate less than was eaten in the days of Scipio, as their ancestors were 1400 years ago against the Romans: and M. Linguet must certainly know, that those Greeks who subsisted on bread, those Romans who eat nothing but bread and vegetables in pottage, subdued all the known world, among whom were many nations who ate less bread than themselves. A Roman soldier's allowance of bread was much greater than what soldiers have at present; and by the use of this food they had much more strength than our modern soldiers boast of. The allowance to a Roman soldier was 64 pounds of wheat per month; and this was strictly forbidden either to sell or exchange. Their soldiers had very seldom any cheese, bacon, or pulse; so that wheat was almost their only food, and the proportion was double what is allowed soldiers in our days. They ate it in bread, in flour-milk, and in thin cakes; and they were not subject to epidemic or putrid disorders, which is too much the case with our modern armies. We may easily judge, from the weight of their accoutrements, that the Roman soldiers were not possessed of less personal strength than those who compose the armies at this day; they were not less brave, nor did their food render them in any way unhealthy: on the contrary, where there is such difficulty in procuring a supply of good animal food to an army, as is often the case in modern times, it is probable that reducing them to the simple diet of a Roman soldier would be the most proper method of preventing epidemic diseases among them. Secondly, It is very doubtful whether those countries were more populous formerly than they are at this time; it is even probable that they were less so. Lastly, The people of those northern countries were not without wheat; it was the basis of their food and drink: without quoting other authors who attest it, suffice it to say, that Tacitus affirms it," &c.

In this last particular, however, our author appears to be mistaken; but whatever may be in this, we apprehend that few of our readers will entertain any doubt concerning the wholesome effects of wheat, or the propriety of making it into bread after once it is cultivated.

After wheat, oats have in our country been considered as of very great importance. It is a hardy and lovable beautiful plant; grows with little cultivation, and is particularly well suited for lands newly brought in from a state of nature, upon which it was always used as the first crop, till the introduction of the turnip huf- Vegetables bandy. The meal of it is usually very coarsely ground, and mixed with a considerable quantity of the inner covering of the grain. Hence it has always a considerable degree of roughness, and is harsh, and unsuited to very delicate constitutions; but this very harshness, from its stimulant effect, producing a feeling of warmth in the stomach, renders it more grateful to persons much exposed to the open air, and accustomed to hard labour, who account it a hearty kind of food. Essentially, and in its intrinsic qualities, this grain differs little from some others.

Barley is chiefly valued in consequence of the facility with which it produces a great quantity of saccharine matter by the process of vegetation or malting, which fits it for the preparation of vinous or spirituous liquors. Pease are also sometimes used when ground into meal as an article of human food; but on account of their viscid and indigestible quality, they can never become valuable in that point of view, unless to persons engaged in the open air, in the most active and severe kinds of labour.

In other respects, however, it does not appear that there is much difference in point of quality or wholesome effects between the various kinds of grain cultivated in different countries. They are all capable of affording nourishment to the human constitution, and of preserving it in health and vigour: When ground into meal, they require little further preparation, and are easily made into bread, or otherwise prepared for immediate consumption, by being mixed according to the fancy or taste of different nations, with a small quantity of water, or any other liquid.

Of the roots which are used to afford subsistence to man, the potato has hitherto been the principal. The rest, consisting chiefly of carrots, turnips, and parsnips, are never used as a sole nutriment, being rather adopted for the purpose of giving variety and relish to other food, and chiefly to butchers meat. The potato, however, is in some measure an exception to this general rule. It contains a large quantity of starch, which does not seem inferior to the starch prepared from wheat, so far at least as that ingredient is to be regarded as contributing to the nourishing qualities of the grain. Its taste resembles, more nearly than any other root, the taste of bread; and accordingly it is daily beginning to be more extensively used, and to form a larger portion of the food of the poor. The celebrated Dr Adam Smith long since remarked its tendency to produce a strong and handsome race of people, as demonstrated by its effect upon the common people of Ireland, who have for a considerable length of time in a great measure subsisted upon it.

It is to be observed concerning all the roots now mentioned, that a crop of them always contains a much larger quantity of human food than a crop of any kind of grain upon the same extent of ground. A Scots acre of good land, which will not produce more than 1280 pounds weight of oatmeal, will easily produce 20,000 pounds weight of potatoes, and will sometimes in favourable seasons produce 30,000 or 35,000 pounds weight of that valuable root. Supposing one pound of oatmeal to contain as much nourishment as four pounds of potatoes, still it is evident, that, where an extent of territory employed in the production of oats can only support one million of people, the same territory employed in the cultivation of potatoes will support fifteen millions of persons.

Potatoes, however, and all the other roots, have hitherto perplexed their radical defects: The carriage of them is extremely expensive, in consequence of their weight, arising from the vast quantity of moisture they contain. Hence they can only be cultivated in abundance in the vicinity of great towns, or where they are meant to be consumed upon the farm as the food of cattle.

Roots are also incapable of long preservation. In the winter they are destroyed by frost, and in summer by heat, which causes them to vegetate or to corrupt; both of which changes render them unfit to be used as food.

These roots are also much more bulky than grain in proportion to the quantity of nourishment contained in them. Hence they are rendered less fit to be consumed by persons engaged in sedentary professions. Such persons accordingly seldom fail to find them injurious to the stomach, by their bulkiness, and their tendency to injure the powers of digestion, by producing flatulencies and other unpleasant consequences.

On the whole, the difference between these succulent roots and the grain of corn plants seems to amount to this, that, although they are both formed of similar substances, the potato being analogous to wheat, and the carrot and parsnip to rye, or rather to barley, after it has been converted into malt, yet, as the roots are formed in the bottom of the soil, and are of a loose and watery texture, their formation requires from nature a lighter effort than the bringing to perfection the small grains which are produced in the air at the top of corn plants. She therefore compensates by an abundant crop the diminished quality of her work.

Hence it has appeared an important problem in economics, to devise a plan by which the succulent roots may be rendered equal in value to what nature has not accomplished; and that they may be rendered completely equal in value to grain in point of quality, while in quantity they are so superior.

With this view different processes have been adopted. Potatoes have been grated down in their raw state, and repeatedly washed with water: the result of which operation is, that the starch contained in them is obtained with great labour; but the rest of the root is lost; and this operation cannot be applied to other kinds of roots with success. Another mode of accomplishing the object was devised a few years ago by M. Grenet, and published in the Journal of the Lyceum of Arts of Paris. It is performed in this manner: The potatoes must first be boiled by the heat of the steam of boiling water, without touching the water itself. They are then stripped of their skin, and allowed to cool, and made use of in the following way:—A white iron tube of two inches diameter, and eight inches in length, open at the one end and close at the other, is everywhere perforated with small holes, and a round piece of wood is prepared, which easily goes into the tube, but which at the same time fills it. Things being thus in readiness, a quantity of the potatoes, boiled as already mentioned, is put into the tube till it is full. They are then forcibly rammed down with the round piece of wood or plinth; the consequence of which operation... Vegetables operation is, that they are forced through the little holes in the sides of the tube, and come out in the shape of worms. They are received upon linen cloths, covered with unizied paper, and dried in the heat of the sun, or in a warm room. The small pieces must be stirred from time to time; and it is said, that in less than 12 hours, the preparation dries so as to be capable of being preserved.

The defect of this process evidently is, that it is a petty operation, which can only proceed slowly, and upon a diminutive scale. It is therefore unlikely to be adopted in the great operations of an extensive agriculture, as a mode of preparing or preserving human food.

At the beginning of the present year 1802, another process for accomplishing this important object was contrived by Robert Forsyth, Esq., advocate. Of this process, which has been communicated to the Board of Agriculture, we are authorized to give the following account:

The whole difficulty of discovering a process, with the view to render succulent roots as easily preserved and transported, and therefore in every respect as valuable as grain, seems to arise from our not having the command of such a degree of steady and vigorous, but moderate heat, as will deprive them of their moisture, while at the same time they are prevented from being burnt or scorched in the way that coffee-beans are treated before being ground. This requisite degree of heat may be obtained in a very cheap and easy manner, by making use of the steam of boiling water, which never can burn any vegetable substance. Upon this principle, Mr Forsyth's process is founded, and is conducted in the following manner:

1st, Let a quantity of potatoes, or carrots, or parsnips, &c., be washed, and then cut or chopped into very small pieces.

2ndly, Lay them upon a metallic plate, and dry them with the heat of steam transmitted through the metal. They are then in a state analogous to grain, and seem capable of being preserved for any length of time.

3rdly, Reduce them into flour or meal, by grinding in any mill, or with any instrument capable of grinding grain.

The meal or flour thus prepared has no tendency to attract moisture from the atmosphere, and may be preserved during any length of time, if closely pressed or packed. Without this precaution, Mr Forsyth has preserved it for six months, when it had been coarsely ground in a coffee mill.

The drying process is not tedious. As potatoes contain a great quantity of starch or gummy matter, the pieces of them, while drying, are apt to adhere to each other; they must therefore be frequently turned or stirred during that part of the operation. When dry, they are almost as hard as barley, and taste somewhat like the skin of a roasted potato.

Carrots and parsnips contain less gummy matter. They require less attention while drying, and do not become too hard. They may be ground with ease. Their flour is very sweet to the taste. Its smell is fragrant, and though the taste of the roots cannot be said to be altered, it is rendered rich and agreeable by the concentration produced by the process. This is more particularly the case with regard to the parsnips. Their meal, when coarsely ground, and exposed to the air for a month or two, loses its grateful smell, but the taste continues unchanged. The taste is communicated very rapidly to lukewarm water, by pouring it upon the meal, so that it may probably prove of some value when subjected to the vinous fermentation; and it seems not improbable, that if sugar is ever to be produced in abundance from plants of European growth, it must be by preparing them according to this process.

Mr Forsyth performed his experiments with a steam apparatus, which, with some alterations, may prove not unsuitable, when erected upon a great scale.

A, Plate XII, A shallow vessel, of white iron, 1 foot square, and 2 inches in depth, for containing substances to be dried.

B, a small round vessel, in which water is kept boiling by a lamp, C, with three wicks.

D, a tube, by which the steam passes into E, which contains the drying vessel A, and is closely foldered all round to the bottom of it.

F, a tube, by which the water formed by the condensed steam, flows from the steam vessel, E, back into the boiler B, entering at the bottom of the boiler.

G, a crooked tube, by which the superfluous steam escapes into the open air. It is crooked, that it may retard the passage of the steam when the vessel is at work, which forces it to deposit more of its heat on the bottom of the drying vessel A.

H, a tube by which the boiler B is filled with hot water.

I, a tube passing up through the centre of the boiler, and serving as a chimney to the lamp C. It does not communicate with the water in the boiler.

K shows the figure of the cover of the drying vessel A. The cover has a groove or gutter LL, passing round its lower edge. The vapour which rises from the roots when drying, condenses on touching the cover, and flows down to the gutter, from which it escapes in the state of water, by a hole left for that purpose at each corner. The cover is only used for the neatness requisite in making experiments.

The whole is supported by four moveable feet, attached to the corners of the drying vessel A, but not appearing in the figure. Every part of it is made of white iron or tinned plate.

Instead of the lamp C, a small iron pan filled with pieces of burning charcoal, was sometimes used to keep the water boiling, and a still more convenient plan was at times adopted during the winter season. It consisted of raising the bottom of the boiler B, upon the front of the grate of the chamber, while a fire was burning, the rest of the instrument being at the same time supported by a rope attached to the back of a chair, to a nail or peg in the wall for hanging a picture, or to any other convenient support. When used in this last manner, however, the instrument has this defect, that the water in the tube H boils over at times into the fire, which might be avoided, by placing the tube on the opposite side of the boiler.

Upon the above contrivance it may be remarked, that a kiln formed of a large metallic plate, heated by the steam of boiling water, may prove valuable in many processes. In particular, it will probably be found... found useful for drying malt, with a view to prevent the ale formed of it from having a brown colour. It may also, perhaps, be used with succulents for drying wheat that is intended to be sown, to prevent the future crop from suffering by mildew, as will be afterwards mentioned; and it affords a ready and cheap mode of drying not only roots, but all vegetable productions, without burning them, or altering their taste or other essential properties.

Sect. II. Of the most proper kinds of Vegetables to be raised for the purposes of feeding Cattle.

Though this must be an article of the utmost consequence to every farmer, we do not find that it has been much considered. Mr Anderson seems to have been the first writer on agriculture who hath properly attended to this subject; and what he hath written upon it, is rather a catalogue of desiderata, than anything else; and indeed the desiderata on this subject are so many and so great, that we must acknowledge ourselves very unable to fill them up.—To attain to a competent knowledge in this respect, the following qualities of things must be taken into consideration. (1.) The wholesome nature of the food for cattle, with regard to health and strength, or fatness. (2.) The quantity that any extent of ground is capable of yielding. (3.) The quantity necessary to feed the different kinds of cattle. (4.) The labour of cultivation; and, (5.) The soil they require to bring them to perfection, and the effect they have upon it.

With regard to the wholesome nature, it is plain, that as the natural food of wild cattle is the green succulent plants they meet with all the year round, food of this kind, could it be had, must be preferable to hay; and accordingly we find that cattle will always prefer succulent vegetables where they can get them. To find plants of this kind, and having proper qualities in other respects, we must search among those which continue green all the year round, or come to their greatest perfection in the winter time.—Of these, cabbages bid fair for holding the first place; both as being very succulent, and a very large quantity of them growing upon a small space of ground. In Mr Young's Six Months' Tour, we have an account of the produce of cabbages in many different places, and on a variety of soils. The produce by Mr Crow at Keelin, on a clay soil, was, on an average of five years, 35 tons per acre; by Mr Smelt at the Leafes, on sandy gravel, 18 tons per acre; by Mr Scoop at Danby, on an average of five years, 37 tons per acre; and the general average of all the accounts given by Mr Young, is 36 tons per acre.

Cabbages, however, have the great inconvenience of sometimes imparting a disagreeable flavour to the milk of cows fed with them, and even to the flesh of other cattle. This, it is said, may be prevented by carefully picking off the decayed and withered leaves; and very probably this is the case; for no vegetable inclines more to putrefaction than this; and therefore particular care ought to be taken to pull off all the leaves that have any symptoms of decay. Dr Priestley found that air was rendered noxious by a cabbage leaf remaining in it for one night, though the leaf did not show any symptom of putrefaction.—For milk cows, probably, the cabbages might be rendered more proper food by boiling them.

The culture of the turnip-rooted cabbage has lately been much practised, and greatly recommended, particularly for the purpose of a late spring feed; and seems rooted cabbage to be a most important article in the farming economy, as will be shown in its proper place.

Turnips likewise produce very bulky crops, though Turnips far inferior to those of cabbages. According to Mr Young's calculations, the finest soil does not produce above five tons of turnips per acre; which is indeed a very great disproportion; but possibly such a quantity of turnips may not be consumed by cattle as of cabbages; an ox, of 80 stone weight, ate 210 lb. of cabbages in 24 hours, besides seven pounds of hay.

Carrots are found to be an excellent food for cattle Carrots of all kinds, and are greatly relished by them. In a rich land, according to Mr Young's account, the produce of this root was 200 bushels per acre. In a finer soil, it was 640 bushels per acre. A lean hog was fattened by carrots in ten days time: he ate 16 lb.; and his fat was very fine, white, firm, and did not boil away in the dressing. They were preferred to turnips by the cattle; which having tasted the carrots, soon became so fond of them, as difficulty was made to eat the turnips at all. It is probable, indeed, that carrots will make a more wholesome food for cattle than either cabbages or turnips, as they are strongly antiseptic; inasmuch as to be used in poultices for correcting the fumes of cancers. It is probably owing to this, that the milk of cows fed on carrots is never found to have any bad taste. Six hares kept on them through the winter without oats, performed their work as usual, and looked equally well. This may be looked upon as a proof of their salubrity as a food; and it certainly can be no detriment to a farmer to be so much versed in medical matters, as to know the impropriety of giving putrefied food to his cattle. It is well known what a prodigious difference there is in the health of the human species when fed on putrid meats, in comparison of what they enjoy when supplied with food of a contrary nature; and why may there not be a difference in the health of beasts, as well as of men, when in similar circumstances?—It is also very probable, that as carrots are more solid than cabbages or turnips, they will go much farther in feeding cattle than either of them. The above-mentioned example of the hog seems some kind of confirmation of this: he being fed, for ten days together, with 21 lb. less weight of carrots, than what an ox devoured of cabbages and hay in one day. There is a great disproportion, it must be owned, between the bulk of an ox and that of a hog; but we can scarce think that an ox will eat as much at a time as ten hogs. At Paullington in Yorkshire, 20 work horses, four bullocks, and six milk cows, were fed on the carrots that grew on three acres; from the end of September till the beginning of May; and the animals never tasted any other food but a little hay. The milk was excellent, and 50 hogs were fattened upon what was left by the cattle.

Potatoes likewise appear to be a very palatable food Potatoes for all kinds of cattle; and not only oxen, hogs, &c. are easily fed by them, but even poultry. The cheapness of potatoes compared with other kinds of food for cattle, cannot well be known, as, besides the advantage Theory.