1806.] Drill and Broad-cast Husbandry compared. 8233

are well applied, I am truly sorry that T should have given reason for them. LI can only say that.when my statements were offered to you, I had no intention whatever to mis-re- present any thing which your respectable and ingenious cor- respondent had advanced. The fact is that I then took the clew of Agricola Northumbriensis, not at all doubting his correctness, in consìdering the dispute to relate entirely to the comparative guantum of produc€, comparing thatin the drill- ing of turnips and in the drilling D corn, with broadecast rops of each sort, his arguments being confined to fair experi- ments. A. N. was my senior in this Important discussion, but as he has not offered any explanation in your last Num» ber, or any remarks upon what your Essex correspondent has sheltered himself in(after being hardly pressed in a warn Pursuit,) it seemed a duty incumbent upon me to examîne those papers which gave rise to the controversy.‘This[ have done, and I can see no reason to think that Agricola North- umbriens1is had misunderstood your Essex friend. The for- mer gentleman defends the drill-husbandry, both in the cul- ture of turnips and corn. He also defends the use and supe- rior advantages of employing the horse-hoe. And when to this we add the request,& of the Essex Farmer, that you would insert in your Magazine the drilling experiments of the Rev. Mr. Cook,&c.(No 82,) 1 cannot see bow any one can entertain a doubt, that the dispute was upon the relative pro- duce of drilled turnips and corn, each species of crop being compared with the produce—the quantity of produc e under the broadcast method of cultivation; for we all know(what A. N. has mentioned) that this reverend agriculturist, con- tended that drilled culmiferous crops would exceed the broad- cast(in guantity) in the ratio of three, four, or more, to one. Viewing the matter in this light,(and I cannot see how we could otherwise receive it, as; scarcely any difference seemed lo exist, on other points, between the principal combatants), T think it will easily be decided in favour of(A North- umbriensis, in his late correspondence with“ An Fessex Far- mer,” 1 shall not detract from£4he merits of the former gen- tleman’s communications, by attempting to say more upon the subject at present. It is worthy of observation, however,

that they seem to be ably supported by the last com! munica- tion of Agricola Norfolciensis. This correspondent, if I am not miSlaken. is an advocate for much larger quantities of seed-corn, than those recommended by most of our creat and reverend drillers, Cook, Close,&c.&c. Your Essex friend greatly inclines lo the sìde of the latter; and perhaps the usnual quantities of FE POR rich sols, may be somewhat

Second Series, Vol. H.;h

Y SE 2

1)

el ui LU rica 7p