Were we to follow our natural inclination, we should here close our account of this volume; but, left we should be accused of carelessnefs, or ignorance, we muft, in justice to our reputation, declare the language and ftile of this performance to be extremely poor, and frequently ungrammatical. In many inftances, the author does not feem acquainted with the idiom of our language, and he is, throughout the whole, beyond conception, prolix and tedious.. We muft alfo add, that there is fcarce a fingle paragraph that does not afford examples of falfe pointing. Mr. Molyneux may be a very honest gentleman, and a brave foldier, for any thing we know to the contrary; but he is really a bad writer. DUHAMEL'S Hufbandry concluded. See our laft Month's PAR ART II. of this work, confifts of a prodigious number of experiments and Reflections relative to the NEW HUSBANDRY. As this method of relating the fuccefs of different experiments, made at different places, and by many different perfons, seems the most likely to determine the true value of both the old and new husbandry; we cannot help recommending this part of the work before us, to the particular attention of all lovers of agriculture: and, as a fpecimen, fhall present our readers with the first Section of the firft Chapter, which contains Experiments on Wheat, made at Denainvilliers and Acou, in the year 1750. Mr. Duhamel begins his account of the advantages of the new husbandry, with experiments made on small pieces of land. The two firft, he mentions, were made with great care, one under his own eyes, at his brother's estate called Denainvilliers, and the other under the eyes of his neighbour, M. de St. Hilaire, at Acou. The more eafily to compare the produce of the new hufbandry with that of the old, fays he, I fhall here take the extent of two arpents; each, containing an hundred perches, and the perch twenty-two feet. The two arpents slay in the fame field, and were plowed as ufual for wheat. They were divided into two equal parts, by a furrow, so that the quality of the foil in each was perfectly alike.One of thefe arpents was fowed in the common way, with ten bufhels of dry grain, weighing two hundred and ten pounds, which, after being fegped, and fprinkled with lime, lime, filled twelve bufhels, and weighed two hundred • and fifty-two pounds.-The other arpent was sowed with the drill-plough, in the following manner: first, a border of two feet was left unfowed; then three rows of wheat C were fowed in a bed two feet wide: after which, another fpace four feet wide was left unfowed. This space we call the alley. The beds, of three rows of wheat each, and the alleys, were thus continued alternately till the whole < was finished.-As the grains of wheat were fowed in the rows at the distance of four, five, or fix inches from each other, two bufhels, or forty-two pounds of wheat steeped and limed, were more than fufficient to fow this arpent; by which a faving was already made of ten bufhels, or two hundred and forty + pounds of wheat, which would have been used in the common husbandry.-This arpent was fowed so thin, that during the winter, and the beginning of the spring, it had more the appearance of ground only plowed, than of a field which had been fowed; whereas the other was green as a meadow.-In the spring, we vifited the rows, and pulled up the plants where they grew · too thick, fo as to leave, at leaft, four inches diftance between each. The alleys were first stirred with the horsehoe. The horse-hoeing had a wonderful effect: the wheat became of a deep green, pufhed forth large blades, and branched greatly; fo that by the middle of May, the earth between the rows was quite covered, and the wheat was 6 higher than that of the other arpent, which, in comparifon of this, was of a yellowish green. When the wheat of the rows began to fpindle, it was almoft as high again as the other. The alleys then received their fecond hoeing. We plucked up at this time fome of the most thriving plants of the wheat fowed in the common way, and found that each grain had produced no more than two, three, and very rarely four stalks capable of yielding ears. Many grains had even produced but one ftalk, of which, numbers were very weak, and feemed choaked by the reft.-Each grain of wheat in the rows, on the contrary produced eight, twelve, fifteen, or twenty ftalks, almost In the book, the printer has here put only fifty-two pounds :plainly a typographical mistake. + Thus it ftands in the book: but should be two hundred and ten pounds only. to make it agree with the former calculations.—Our author himself alfo exprefsly tells us, at the end of this Sect. p. 117. that he computed the weight of a bushel of wheat at twenty-one • pounds :'-and 10 X 21=240. ❝ all all of them ftrong and able to produce large ears.-The wheat in the common way was in full ear, before one appeared in the rows, in which, nevertheless, the wheat was taller, and ftill of a deep green.-As foon as the wheat of the rows was in ear, it was horse-hoed a third time, and continued growing taller as the ears appeared. It bloffomed, and the grain formed extremely well: but it was ftill very green when great heats came on, which • ripened it fuddenly, and prevented its farther increase, which would otherwife have been confiderable. The crop would certainly have been more plentiful, had it not been for this untimely heat: yet, contrary to our expectation, the grain was not parched; but proved larger and better filled than that of the other arpent. The wheat was fowed at Acou, as at Denainvilliers: the hoeings were repeated in the fame manner; the progrefs of the wheat fowed in both ways was alike; and laftly, the great heats accelerated too much the ripening of the wheat in the rows, at Acou, as at Denainvilliers. Refult of the Experiment at Denainvilliers. The arpent which was plowed and fowed in the common way, had been very well dunged; and the other, which was cultivated according to the new husbandry, had re⚫ceived no ding at all. This fhould make fome difference in their products. Let us compare them. The arpent which was cultivated according to the new husbandry, produced two hundred and eighty-four sheaves : the other four hundred and feventy-fix. It is proper to obferve, that the quantity of fodder was not in proportion to the number of fheaves; because the ftraw which grew in the rows, was much longer than that of the other arpent. The arpent fowed in rows, yielded seventy bushels of large wheat. The other yielded ninety-eight bushels of fmaller wheat. Thus the field which was cultivated in the C common way, produced twenty-eight bufhels more than the C rows. But it must be remembered, that only two bufhels of wheat were employed to fow the rows; whereas twelve bufhels were ufed to fow the other arpent. Ten bufhels fhould therefore be deducted from the produce of this last, which will then exceed that of the rows only by eighteen bufhels.-The expence of dunging an arpent, is equal to the value of twenty bushels of wheat when it bears a middling price. This already, brings the produce of the arpent fowed in rows, at least to an equality with that of the "other • other arpent. But a confiderable advantage of the new • husbandry, yet remains to be confidered. The value of the produce of an arpent in the common way, can, in three years, be only equal to the value of one crop of wheat, and one third of a crop; because, a crop of oats is reckoned • equal to but one third of a crop of wheat: therefore, the • produce of three years will be only one hundred and thirty bufhels, and two thirds ; whereas the arpent, cultivated according to the new husbandry, will yield three crops of wheat, which, fuppofing them equal to that of the first year, will amount to two hundred and ten bushels in the fame space of time. The increase is thus one third greater, • befides the faving of dung. Refult of the Experiment at Acou. In this experiment, both the arpents were dunged; as well that cultivated in the old, as that in the new way §. The arpent cultivated in the new way produced one hundred and fifty bufhels. The arpent cultivated in the old way produced one hundred and thirty-three bushels, and one third. Thus the produce of the former, exceeded that of the latter by fixteen bufhels, and two thirds; ' which make a clear gain of one-eighth: to this must be • added, eight or ten bufhels faved in the feed: the profit 'will then amount to twenty-four bufhels, and two thirds. On calculating the produce of the two arpents for three years, it will be found that the arpent cultivated in the old way, will yield but one hundred and feventy-feven bufhels, and feven-ninths; whereas the arpent cultivated in the new method, will produce in three years four hundred and fifty bushels. Thus, befides the faving of the feeds [feed] for oats, there will be in three years a clear profit of two • hundred and feventy-two bufhels, and two-ninths. A vaft advantage in favour of the new husbandry!' In the fecond Chapter of this fecond Part, we meet with many fenfible experiments, related in a clear and convincing man This calculation Suppoles the ground to be fallowed one year in three, in the common way; which is not, however, always necessary. § By the turn of expreffion here ma le ufe of one would imagine, that, in the former experiment at Denainvilliers, the arpent culti vated in the new way had been unged, and not that in the oid; whereas just the re-verje was really the cafe. ner, ner, to fhew the great benefit of the new husbandry, above that of the old but they are too numerous, as well as too long, to be inferted here. We cannot, however, deny our readers, the pleasure of perufing the following reflections, upon fome very interefting experiments, which we are obliged, unwillingly, to omit. The partifans of both kinds of husbandry, will do well to confider, that the great principle which we are endeavouring to inculcate, and on which almost the whole fuccefs of the new hufbandry depends, is admitted in the old husbandry: viz. thoroughly to divide and loofen the earth. This principle is fo generally received, that there is not a • husbandman who does not know, that one plowing more than ordinary does his land as much good as dunging it would do. His experience has certainly taught him, that this extraordinary plowing produces him better crops: but he is not fufficiently fenfible, that of all the ways of im• proving his land, no one is more effectual, or less expenfive than this. Were the full value of it known, it would be practifed more; and every farmer would give all his lands at least one plowing extraordinary. What we propofe, is therefore not a novelty capable of giving any husbandman the least dislike to the new husbandry. We all proceed upon the fame principle, and agree as to its effect. All of us fay, the earth must be well divided and thoroughly loofened: but we differ in the manner of doing it. We propose a method by which the ground is much better • prepared than in the old way. In this confifts all the novelty. Whoever rightly confiders it, and compares it with the principles and experiments, will readily receive it: but he that is determined before-hand not to enter into this examination, will never enjoy the benefits of it, but will continue plodding on in the old beaten track; not from reason, but because others did fo before him. The advantages of the new husbandry are however fo great, that it would be doing the public an injury, not to endeavour to make them more and more known. The fitteft way to answer this end, feems to be, to exhort all • husbandmen to convince themselves, by ftudying the theory of the new husbandry, weighing the folidity of its principles, and confulting the experiments which have been already made. Every man of common understanding, cannot but fucceed in the practical part; and his example being imitated by others, the new hufbandry would foon become the general method.' Chpa. |