Part 24

These parting Furrows, and their Ridges, must be made more or less oblique, according to the Form and Declivity of the Hill; but the more horizontal they are, the sooner the Rain-water will run off the Lands; for in that Case it will run to the Furrows, and reach them at right Angles, which it will not do when the Ridges (or Lands) are oblique; and therefore the Water’s Course cross the Lands will be longer[218]. Every one of these horizontal Trenches receives all the Water from the Rills, or little Gutters, wherein the Water runs betwixt the Mould and the Clay; these are all cut off by the Trenches, which receive the Water at their upper Sides, and carry it away, as the Trunks of Lead plac’d under the Eaves of a House do carry away the Rain-water.

[218] The natural Course of Water being downwards, it would always run by the nearest Way to the Bottom of the Hill, if nothing stopt it; but the Water runs from an Hill in Two Manners; _viz._ Upon the Surface of the Staple, and upon the Surface of the Clay that is under the Staple; that which runs under keeps its strait Course from the Top to the Bottom of an Hill, under a Ridge that is made exactly with the Descent of the Hill, except that Part of the Water that rises up into the Mould, and a very little that soaks into the Furrows, for when the Furrows are not made exactly with the Descent, the more oblique they are to the Descent, the longer will be the Water’s Course under the Ridges; and the shorter, as they are nearer being at Right Angles to the Descent. ’Tis also the same with the Water that falls upon the Surface of the Ridges; for the more horizontal they are, the shorter its Course will be from them to the Furrows, which carry it off; and the less of the Water will sink into the Ridges, the less oblique and the nearer to Right Angles to the Descent they are made.

If there were no other Manner of plowing Ridges on the Sides of Hills than what is commonly practised on the Plains, this Method of leaving open Furrows (or Drains on Declivities) would be impracticable; because the Plough could not turn up the Furrows against the Hill, and against the Ridge also, from the lower Side of it: But the easy Remedy against that Inconvenience is, to plow such Ridges in Pairs, without throwing any Earth into the Trenches, and then the Ridges will be plain a-top, and the Rain-water will run speedily downward to the next Trench, and thence to the Head-land, and so out of the Field. These Trenches will be made, as well as kept always open, by this plowing in Pairs; and is abundantly more easy than the Way of plowing Ridges singly. This plowing in Pairs prevents also another Inconveniency, which would otherwise happen to these horizontal Ridges; and that is, they being highest in the Middle, the Rain-water could not run freely from the upper Half of a Ridge towards the next Furrow below it, but would be apt to sink in there, and soak thro’ the Ridge; but when Ridges lie in Pairs, the Water will run off from a whole Ridge, as well as off the lower Half of a Ridge that is plow’d singly, and highest in the Middle.

_Note_, That every time of plowing, the Pairs must be changed, so that the Furrow, which had Two Ridges turned towards it one time, must have Two turned from it the next time: This Method keeps the Surfaces of all the Ridges (or Lands) pretty near even[219].

[219] _Note_, This cannot be done on an Hill, whose Declivity is so great, that the Plough is not able to turn a Furrow against it. But in this Case, perhaps, it may be sufficient to plow the Ridges obliquely enough for the Furrow to be turned both Ways.

Farmers are at more Trouble and Pains to drown such Land (it being common to break their Horses Wind in plowing up Hill) than they would be at, if they laid their Ridges in the abovesaid Manner, which would effectually make them dry. Many hundred Acres of good Ground are spoiled; and many a good Horse, in plowing against the Hill, and against all Reason, Demonstration, and Experience too; which might be learned even from the _Irish_, who drain their Bogs, and make them fruitful, whilst some _English_ bestow much Labour to drown and make barren many of their Hills, which would more easily be made dry and fertile.

I have observed, that those Places of such an Hill, that, when plowed with the Descent, were the wettest, and never produced any thing that was sown on them, became the very richest, when made dry by plowing cross the Descent. This shews that Water does not impoverish Land, but the contrary; tho’, whilst it stands thereon, it prevents the Heat which is necessary to the Production of most Sorts of Vegetables: And where it runs swiftly, it carries much Earth away with it; where it runs slowly, it deposits and leaves much behind it.

Though in all Places, where this Way of making the Ridges cross the Descent of Hills is practised, the Land becomes dry; yet very few Farmers will alter their old Method[220]; no, not even to try the Experiment; but still complain their Ground is so wet and spewy, that it brings them little or no Profit; and if the Year prove moist, they are great Losers by sowing it[221].

[220] But some of late are convinced, by observing that an Hill of mine has been made dry by this means for Fourteen Years past, which before was always more wet and spewy than any Field in the Neighbourhood; and from the time of inclosing it out of an Heath (or Common), and the converting it to arable, which was about Seventy Years ago, it had been reputed as little better than barren, on account of its Wetness; and that it has been the most profitable Field of my Farm ever since it has been under this new Management. I have also another Field, that lies about a Mile and an half from me: It doth not belong to the Farm where I live, but was thrown upon my Hands, no Tenant caring to rent it, because great Part of it was full of Springs, and barren: This also, having been kept in Lands plowed cross the Descent (which is but a small Declivity), is become dry: And now the most prejudiced Farmers agree, that keeping the Lands or Ridges of wet Ground always cross the Descent doth cure its Spewiness. Hereupon some have attempted to put this Method in Practice on their wet Land; and, after it has been well tilled up Hill and down, have plowed it the last time for sowing of Wheat in flat Lands cross the Descent; but by Mismanagement their Furrows are higher at each End than the Middle, so that none of the Water can run off either downwards or sideways, or any other Way.

Had the Furrows carried off the Water at both or either of their Ends, it might have been effectual, notwithstanding the broad Lands, because their Ground hath a much less Declivity, and is much less spewy, than my Hill was: They will doubtless find their Mistake, and amend it, having a Precedent before their Eyes; but if they had none within their own Inspection, I question whether this Mismanagement might not discourage them from prosecuting their Project any further.

[221] Remember, in making Ridges of all Sorts, and of whatsoever Figure the Piece is, that no Ridge ought to have any more Furrows at one End, than at the other End; for if there be, the Plough must be turned in the Middle of the Piece, which will cause the Land to be trodden by the Horses; but if each End have an equal Number of Furrows, the Horses in turning will tread only upon the Head lands, which may be plowed afterwards; or if design’d to be Horse-ho’d, the Head-lands should be narrow, and not plowed at all.

The Benefit of laying up strong deep Land into Ridges is very great; tho’ there be no Springs in it, as are in the Hills aforementioned.

This Land, when it lies flat, and is plowed sometimes one Way, sometimes the other, by cross-plowing, retains the Rain-water a long time soaking into it; by that Misfortune, the Plough is kept out Two or Three Weeks longer than if the same were in round Ridges; nay, sometimes its Flatness keeps it from drying till the Season of plowing, and even of sowing too, be lost.

The Reasons commonly given against such Ridges are these following.

I. _They prevent the fansied Benefit of cross-plowing._

II. _Farmers think they lose Part of their Ground, by leaving more Furrows betwixt Ridges, than when they lay their Land flat, where the Lands are made much larger than round Ridges can conveniently be; and because also the Furrows betwixt Ridges must be broader, and lie open; but the other they fill up by the Harrows._

The first of these I have already answered elsewhere, by shewing, that Cross-plowing is oftener injurious than beneficial.

The Second I shall sufficiently confute, if I can make appear, that no Ground is lost, but much may be gained, by Ridges.

What I mean by gaining of Ground, is the increasing of the Earth’s Surface: For if a flat Piece be plow’d up into Ridges, and if in each Sixteen Feet Breadth there be an empty Furrow of Two Feet; and yet, by the Height and Roundness of the Ridges, they have Eighteen Feet of Surface capable of producing Corn, equally to Eighteen Feet whilst the Piece was flat; there will be one Eighth Part of profitable Ground or Surface gain’d, more than it had when level; and this, I believe, Experience will prove, if the thing were well examined into.

But against this Increase of profitable Ground, there is an Objection, which I must not call a frivolous one, in respect to the Authors who bring it; yet, I hope, the Desire of finding the Truth will justify me to examine it; and the Arguments brought to sustain it.

This Opinion of theirs is founded upon their Notion (which I think very erroneous) of the perpendicular Growth of Vegetables; and is, by Mr. _Bradley_, set in its best Light, in his _Vol._ I. _Pag._ 8. _usque ad Pag._ 13. and in his Cuts, representing Three Hills; but his Arguments seem to be such as all Arguments are, which pretend to prove a thing to be what it is not; _viz._ Sophistical ones.

The Hypothesis he endeavours to prove, is in _Pag._ 8. thus: ‘An Hill may contain Four equal Sides, which meet in a Point at the Top; but the Contents of these Four Sides can produce no more, either of Grain or Trees, than the plain Ground, upon which the Hill stands, or has at its Base: and yet, by the Measure of the Sides, we find twice the Number of Acres, Roods, and Poles, which measure in the Base, or Ground-plat; and therefore _Page_ 9. Hills are worth no more than half their Superficial Measure; _i. e._ Two Acres upon the Side of the Hill to pay as much as one upon the Plain, provided the Soil of both is equally rich.’

To prove it, he gives an Example in _Fig._ III. of Buildings upon an Hill; shewing, that the Two Sides of the Hill will only bear the same Number of Houses, that may stand in the Line at the Base.

This is foreign to the Question, of how much Grain, or how many Trees, the Hill will produce. For Vegetables, being fed by the Earth, require much more of its Surface to nourish them, than is necessary for them to stand on; but Buildings require no more of the Surface but Room to stand on: Therefore no such Argument, taken from Buildings, can be applied to Vegetables.

This Argument of Mr. _Bradley_’s gives no more Satisfaction to the Question about producing of Vegetables, than a Grazier would do, being asked, how many Oxen a certain Pasture-ground would maintain, if he should answer, by satisfying you with the Number of Churches which might stand thereon.

The like Answer, in effect, may be given to the Argument in _Fig._ IV. of the Pales; only he has forgot to shew, that to mound over the Hill would require double the Rails, or double the Hedge-wood (except Stakes) as to mound the Base; if it did not, the Hill would be yet of the more Value, because thereon more Surface might be fenced in at less Expence.

In his _Fig._ II. he gives no good Reason why the Hill should not bear twice the Number of Trees as the Base can do; for there is as much Room for Two hundred Trees on the Hill, as for One hundred on the Base, because he allows the Surface to be double to that of the Base. He ought to measure the Distances of the Trees on the Hill, by a Line parallel to the Surface they grow on, as well as he does the Distances of those below.

And suppose the Row at the Base, together with the Surface they grow on, were rais’d up, so that it should become parallel to half the Row on the Hill, would not the Trees in the Base Row be twice as near to one another as the Trees in the Hill Row are? And suppose a Line had been ty’d from the Tops of all the lower Trees, before the Row was so rais’d up at one End, and then, after the Situation of the Row was so alter’d, if by this Line the Trees should be pull’d from being perpendicular to the Surface they grow on, and made to stand oblique to that, and perpendicular to the Horizon, as the upper Trees are; would the Distances of the Trees from one another be alter’d by this Change of Posture? No, for their Bottoms would be at the same Distances, because not removed; and their Tops, because the same Line holds them, at the same Distances in both Postures.

Mr. _Bradley’s_ Lines, drawn from the Trees below, which are one Perch asunder, make the Two Rows of Trees falsly seem to be at equal Distances, because these Lines are parallel to each other: But this is a Deceit; for, in Truth, the Distances of the Trees are not measured by the Distances of those Lines, but by the extreme Points at the Ends of the Lines[222]; and those Two Points above, where the Lines cut the Row obliquely, and at unequal Angles are twice as far asunder as the endmost or extreme Points below are, where the Lines cut the Row at right Angles. Hence may be inferr’d, that there is Room for twice as many Trees to grow on the Hill as on the Base, and twice as much Grain for the same Reason; because there is twice the Surface for the Roots to spread in. And since Mr. _Bradley_ allows the Hill to contain Two Perches to One of the Base, and the Soil of both to be of equal Goodness; and yet affirms, that the Two can produce no more of Grain or Trees than the one Perch can; I cannot see, why it should not be as reasonable to say, that Two Quarters of Oats will maintain an Horse no longer, nor better, than One Quarter of Oats, of equal Goodness, will do.

[222] These upper Trees are measured by the unequal Length of the Lines, not by their parallel Distance, as the lower Trees are; therefore his Measure is a Quibble.

In _Page_ 13. he concludes thus: ‘That Hills, in their Measure, contain only as much profitable Land as the Plain or Plat of Ground they stand upon; and as a Proof of that, all Vegetables or Plants have an erect Method of Growth.’

This Proof of Mr. _Bradley_’s is founded upon an Argument which has no Consequence, unless it were first proved, that the Surface of Earth could produce and maintain as many Vegetables or Plants as could stand thereon in an erect Posture; which Supposition is as impossible, as that half an Acre should produce and maintain an Hecatomb, without Mr. _Bradley_’s teaching Oxen to live upon Air for their Food, as he thinks _Van Helmont_’s Tree did.

All expert Husbandmen must needs be convinced, that the greatest Crop of Vegetables that ever grew, might stand in an erect Posture, upon a twentieth (and I may say the Hundredth) Part of the Surface that produced it; therefore there must be Nineteen Parts for the Roots to spread, unoccupied by the Trunks, Stems, or Stalks.

And tho’ it be true, that an Hill will support no more of these, than its Base, when placed in an erect Posture, close together, as in a Sheaf; yet this close Position is only proper for them when they are dead, and require no more Nourishment than Houses and Pales do; and consequently require no Room but to stand on. Therefore this Argument of Mr. _Bradley_’s must not be admitted in vegetative Growth, where there is always required Nineteen times more Room in the Surface, for the Use of the Roots, than what the Stems, Trunks, or Stalks, do possess upon it: And the more Room there is for the Roots, the greater Number of Plants may be produced.

Neither can I admit, that all Vegetables or Plants have an erect Method of Growth; because the contrary is seen in Chamomile, and divers other Vegetables, which have an horizontal Method of Growth.

But what is more material to this Purpose, to be observed, is, that all Vegetables have horizontal Roots, and Roots parallel to the Earth’s Surface or Superficies; and unless those Roots have a sufficient Superficies of Earth to range in, for Nourishment of a Plant, the Stem and Branches cannot prosper, whatever be their Method of Growth above the Earth; and if there be not a due Quantity of Food for the Roots within the Earth, a very little Space may contain the external Parts of Vegetables upon it.

From what has been said, I think we may conclude, that Mr. _Bradley_’s Hill may produce more Vegetables than the Base whereon it stands; and therefore it is of more Value than half its superficial Measure; _i. e._ Two Acres on the Hill are worth more than one Acre on the Plain, the Soil being equally rich, as he allows it to be, in his Case.

Now, indeed, whether Mr. _Bradley_ might not possibly be deceived in his Opinion of the equal Richness of his Hill, and his Plain, I will not dispute: I will only say this, that ’tis generally otherwise. But where a Plain is plow’d up into moderate Ridges, their Height being in proportion to the Depth of the Staple, below which the Plough must take nothing into the Ridges, the Soil is equally rich, whether it be plowed plain, or ridged up. And as the Surface is in the Ridges increased, there is nothing in all Mr. _Bradley_’s Arguments, that shews, why that increased Surface should not produce more Vegetables than the same Earth could do whilst it was level.

There are other Reasons why it should produce more when ridged[223], besides the Increase of Surface; as,

I. _’Tis then more free from the Injuries of too much Water._

II. _’Tis better protected against cold Winds; because the Ridges are a Shelter to one another._

III. _If the Surface be much exhausted, by too frequent Sowing, the Ridges may be made just where the Furrows were, and then the Surface will be intirely changed._

[223] To the Three we may add a Fourth Reason, _viz._ the raising the Thickness of the Staple in the Ridges, keeping the Surface drier in wet Weather, and moister at the Bottom of the Staple in dry Weather. And I have seen Barley that was drilled on my raised little Ridges flourish in a dry Summer on the Brow of my chalky Hill, and on my lowest Land in wet Weather, when the Barley hand-sown contiguous to it on each Side those Ridges, sown on the Level the same Day that the Ridges were drilled, have looked yellow and sickly; and yet it is not wet Land.

The following general Rules ought to be observed about Ridges; _viz._

That, as to their Height, regard must be had to the Nature of the Soil, in its difficult Admission of Water; for the greater that is, the greater Declivities the Ridges should have; and then, if the Soil be not deep, they should generally be made the narrower.

There is one thing which Mr. _Bradley_ takes no notice of; _viz._ That no more of the Rain, or other Benefits of the Atmosphere, which descend perpendicularly, can fall on an Hill, or on a Ridge, than what would fall on the Base, or Ground-plot. But ’tis probable, that more of the fine Vapour, which swims in the Current of the Air horizontally, does strike and break against those Eminences, and so make an Equivalent[224], except that it runs off more quickly.

[224] But though Ridges do alter or increase the Surface, the Quantity of Soil or Earth remaining the same as on the Level, and of no greater Depth than can be tilled, it may produce equal Crops of Corn with the Level, and no more; except from the Advantage the Ridges may give it in lying drier.

Notwithstanding all I have here said, in behalf of Ridges, I must confess, that, for my Hoeing-Husbandry, I should prefer Land that is naturally dry enough, without a Necessity of being laid up in any larger or higher Ridges than what may contain Six Feet in Breadth[225], that Size being the largest that is proper for the regular Operation of the Horse-hoe.

[225] Since the Printing of my Essay, I find, upon Trial, that these narrow Ridges are as effectual as any for carrying the Water off from my clayey Hill; and that they be made much less horizontal than broad Ridges, whereby their Furrows are the more easily turned upwards against the Declivity.

I have not tried any narrower Ridge than that of Six Feet upon this Hill: But I have had full Experience of Five-feet and of Four-feet Ridges upon other Land; and find that all Sizes of these narrow Ridges are very advantageous, even where the Crop is to be sown upon the Level; for fewer Furrows are necessary for the Tilling of an Acre, when ’tis kept in such Ridges, than in broad Lands; and after wet Weather the Ridges will be fit to be plowed much sooner than level Ground.

CHAP. XVII.

_Of_ Differences _between the_ Old _and the_ New Husbandry.

In order to make a Comparison between the Hoeing-Husbandry, and the old Way, there are Four Things, whereof the Differences ought to be very well considered.

I. _The Expence_ } II. _The Goodness_ } of a Crop. III. _The Certainty_ } IV. _The Condition in which the Land is left after a Crop._

The Profit or Loss arising from Land, is not to be computed, only from the Value of the Crop it produces; but from its Value, after all Expences of Seed, Tillage, _&c._ are deducted.