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,