Lois Weedon Husbandry.

111

'A short way off is this four-acre piece of light land......I took these from my tenant for the express purpose of experiment on a totally different description of soil from the clay land, and in a totally different condition. For it is a light gravelly loam, the gravel greatly predominating. It was totally exhausted between five and six years ago, in the ordinary acceptance of the term; for it had never known a bare fallow in the memory of man. Four years before, it had been manured for swedes, which were carried off the land. It had no dressing for the three following crops; the rotation ending with a crop of wheat, sown broadcast. In this condition, the stubble standing, I entered upon the field in October, 1850. I then simply ploughed the whole field an inch deeper than it had ever been ploughed before; cleaned and levelled it; and so, without preparation, got in my wheat. Out of the five unmanured crops which have followed, the yield from these four acres was twenty quarters and a half in 1851, and in 1854 twenty quarters; bringing the average of the five years to about thirty-four bushels. Come with me now and see how the sixth crop looks at this moment. No one can deny that it is coming up well and strong......The intervals are dug already......Observe also, that here, instead of triple rows, there are but two rows of wheat, with three-feet intervals. Why is this? Simply for the greater ease of hand weeding and hoeing...... And you will notice besides that the intervals are dug only one spit deep, for this reason. In former diggings I found I had to deal with a gravelly subsoil, evidently deficient in mineral food for the wheat plant. As I could not therefore bring up what I wanted from below, I carted the clay from a clay pit in a corner of the field,-after weathering and turning it again and again, -and spread it on the surface, to be mixed with the staple and dug in. The yield this year is comparatively light, amounting to only twenty-five bushels per acre; but the sample was one of the best in the neighbouring market,' &c.-Lois Weedon Husbandry, p. 83.

The foregoing passages afford a clear idea of the 'Lois Weedon husbandry.' With regard to his observations on Tull's system, and his practice of not going below the staple' with the plough, we have shown that he could not do so with impunity on his chalk soil, any more than Mr. Smith could on his gravelly subsoil. Tull, therefore, had no opportunity of subsoiling to advantage, even if the idea had struck him, though, if it never struck him, it was no discredit.* The practice and its advantages have been known for many years, so that Mr. Smith has had the benefit of the experience of others, which Tull had not;

There are, however, indications in Tull's work that he was well acquainted with the practice of deep culture. We trench-plough where the land allows it; and two ploughed furrows (that is, one ploughed under another) are as much more advntageous for the nourishing a crop, as two bushels of oats are better than one for nourishing a horse.'

If this passage does not include sub-soiling or deep culture, we are at a loss to know what it does mean.

and he can scarcely claim it as a new invention, otherwise than as applied to the Tullian system.

Other agriculturists have from time to time made experiments upon the Tullian system with equal success. These are enumerated in Tillage and Manure, to which we must refer the reader for their names, and the period for which they continued the experiments. We have shown, however, by the extract from Tull's own book, that Mr. Burnett errs in supposing that his produce was 24 bushels per acre, (p. 151,) and that the average was estimated by him, for 20 years, at only two quarters or sixteen bushels of 70lbs. each.' We shall now refer to the experiments of Mr. Lawes at Rothamstead, which, both on account of the deservedly high position that gentleman occupies in the estimation of the agricultural public, and the fact that these experiments are recorded in the pages of the Royal Agricultural Journal of England, demand more than a passing notice.

These experiments are referred to both by Mr. Burnett and Mr. Smith, and each of them asserts that for many reasons they cannot be considered as tests of the general principles of the Tullian husbandry. Mr. Burnett adduces the following reasons for this opinion.

'1st. That made, as they were, irrespective of considerations of industrial profit to the experimenters, they do not fall within the category of practical trials.

2nd. With regard to the cultural means used, these were deemed of so little importance in the inquiry, that in the reports of the trials published by the experimenters themselves, no circumstance connected with tillage is admitted, except only in the nugatory instance referred to in the foot-note at p. 153.

'3rd. Although the trials consisted of instances of unintermittent corn-growing, it is remarkable that Jethro Tull's discoveries, doctrines, and practice in that mode of husbandry were, in conducting them, completely ignored.'—Tillage and Manure, p. 170.

Mr. Smith also charges Mr. Lawes with the following deviations from the rules practised by himself at Lois Weedon, each of them essential to success.

'1st. He neither pulverized the trial piece, nor kept the surface open; so that it became foul and crusted in the summer.

'2nd. Instead of keeping the surface open, whilst the corn was growing, by the horse-hoe, he only hoed it twice by hand, whilst the intervals were not hoed at all.

'3rd. Instead of bringing up the subsoil by degrees, an inch or two in a season, Mr. Lawes at once dug the ground over two spits deep, by which he brought up one whole spit of six or eight inches of the stiff raw clay, with which the staple was thus covered, to the detriment of the crop.

'4th. Four-feet intervals were used instead of three-feet, by which the crop was reduced one sixth.

'5th. The roller was neither used after the wheat was first sown, nor in the spring, the latter being especially necessary after the frost.'

To these deviations from the principle on which Tull practised his husbandry, and from those adopted by Mr. Smith at Lois Weedon, both our authors ascribe the failure of the experiment at Rothamstead, the produce for 13 years averaging only 16 bushels 1 peck per acre, on a clay soil apparently equal in quality to that at Lois Weedon, where the average has been 34 bushels. But our space will not allow us to follow the arguments and tabular statements further; and we must hasten to conclude this notice.

In chapter xiii. Mr. Burnett, after showing that Tull was 'the originator of thin sowing, drilling, interculture, tillage a substitute for manure,' &c., goes on to say,

'5th. That to exclude the cultivation of cattle crops from the management of the modern improved farm, would only be to resort to the ancient tillage farming of England, which obtained up to the introduction of roots and clover as plants of field culture.

'6th. That this elder husbandry was vicious in no respect except in an insufficiency of tillage means, either to cleanse the surface from foul vegetation, or to promote adequately the mechanical and chemical amelioration of the soil.

7th. That the main feature in the old tillage husbandry of England, was successive corn-growing, under which, successive as it was, the soil of the kingdom not only underwent no diminution in productiveness, but actually kept pace in fertility with the advance in national industry and the improvement of agricultural practice.

8th. That Jethro Tull's method of unintermittent corn-growing, without manure, was simply a reformed adaptation of the old husbandry; and that, in the actual practice of that method, he proved the truth of the following propositions: viz., that the then newly originated theory of change of species being a necessity in field culture was a fallacy, since his own crops, instead of falling off, became yearly more abundant; that not only was his mode of working the land a substitute for manure, but more than a substitute for old manuring, since increasing fertility was the consequence; and that in point of economy of labour, as well as efficiency of performance, his tillage procedure was every way successful,' &c.

Such are the principal deductions drawn by Mr. Burnett from a review of Tull's system. And they are fully borne out in the practice of that system by the Rev. Mr. Smith at Lois Weedon; though greatly augmented in its effects by the superiority of the soil, and the increased knowledge of the present day in science and natural history. Nor would it be right to omit the

VOL. XVI. NO. XXXI.

increased means of more effectual cultivation afforded by the vast number of agricultural implements now used, by which the tillage of the soil is more efficiently performed. Especially is this the case where steam power is employed, which is probably destined to effect an entire revolution in husbandry. So strong, indeed, is our opinion on this subject, that we feel convinced, if the Tullian system of husbandry could be combined with the Halkett guideway system of cultivation, wheat could be profitably grown at a much lower price than the present average rates. That the Tullian husbandry is practicable upon a large scale with the present means of a thorough tillage cannot admit of a doubt, when we find that Tull could apply it to his farm of near two hundred acres (as Mr. Burnett supposes *) with success; for he states that he laid by money enough out of the profits to purchase more land. Nor needs this system to interfere with the cultivation of root or green crops, as only a part of a farm may be appropriated to it, say one fourth, and the remainder to other produce, to which the manure may be applied. The Tullian husbandry, in fact, is found equally applicable to roots and to corn; and the Rev. Mr. Smith has shown in his work that larger crops may be raised by this system than by the ordinary

method.

In the present state of agriculture, (in 1857 and 1858,) and more especially looking at the price of wheat, it becomes a necessity for the farmer to endeavour to reduce the expenses attending the growth of that grain. Tull calculated, in his time, that unless the mean price of wheat was forty shillings, the farmer could not grow it to advantage. It is admitted that the cultivation of the ground can be performed more effectually, and, by the improvement in machinery and implements, more cheaply than in Tull's time. But, on the other hand, the expenses attending a farm are far greater than at that period; and this more than counterbalances any improvement in tillage, so far as the expenses are concerned. Besides, the enormous sums that are spent in manure, both artificial and raised on the farm, are an important and almost overwhelming item in the accounts of modern farming. It is generally asserted that cattle kept on a farm are merely machines for manufacturing manure; that, per se, their maintenance is attended with a dead loss; and that it is only by the increased crops of cereals consequent on the manure raised that any advantage is derived from them.

Bearing in mind, therefore, these considerations, we feel justified in strongly recommending Mr. Smith's and Mr. Burnett's works to the agricultural public. They contain and unfold

* Tull himself calls it 'a large farm.'

principles of the highest practical importance, as they were successfully carried out on a large scale by Tull, at a period when science as applied to agriculture was unknown; and as they are now carried out by Mr. Smith on a smaller scale, when new means, appliances, and knowledge, have enabled him to improve upon the practice of his prototype.

ART. V.-1. On Liberty. By JOHN STUART MILL. 1859. 2. Report to the Commission of the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland on the Cardross Case. 1859.

3. The Ultimate Principle of Religious Liberty. 1860.

THERE are few phrases in the English language which have been used in our time with so little discrimination as that which stands at the head of this article. Once it was the watchword of a great and prolonged struggle, and the prestige of that important service clings to it even now, when the practical benefits which it represented have been won, and the phrase itself has degenerated into cant. It is high time that all who attach any solid meaning to the term 'religious liberty,' or who are careful to possess any theory of the rights and duties which it involves, should endeavour to rescue these words, and the beliefs they import, from the hands of demagogues, and carve durably in memorial stone the truths whose living power we in England, at least, no longer need for purposes of conflict.

With this view, our aim in the following pages will be to define religious liberty, not so much for the sake of knowing what it is, as of knowing what it is not. On any sound interpretation of the term, this country has already secured religious liberty, (though, if report says truly, Scotland is not quite so far advanced;) but there still remain many opinions and demands on this side the border which are supposed to be concerned with religious liberty, while, in reality, they are not. And since our object is thus a practical one, and directed to the faults of the present day, we shall ask leave to make certain assumptions which would otherwise encumber the discussion, and take up too much space.

And, first, we assume the truth of orthodox Christianity: not because it is uncontroverted, or always taken into full view in treating of the question, but because it is generally believed by those to whom our conclusions are principally addressed. Even if this were not so, since one thing must be taken at a time, this