neglected? Most certainly not. Still there is a certain limit, in
a newly settled country with a thin population, beyond which their
establishment is not only useless to government, but a burden to
the people. It is undoubtedly true that the manufacture of articles
of immediate necessity or very general circulation ought to be
encouraged by a wise and provident people; but it ordinarily happens
that these need no extraordinary patronage; their extended use
soon gives a facility to the artist, which enables him to enter
into competition with the foreigner, provided the raw material is
to be found at home in any tolerable abundance. Thus we find that
hats were manufactured in the colonies at a very early period;
together with household furniture, saddlery, &c. they have long
since ceased to be an article of importation. It is necessary for
the well-being and security of a nation, that certain articles,
should be manufactured within its limits, such as gunpowder, coarse
clothing, and some others of a similar discription.--But the moment
people attempt to force by means of high duties on foreign imports
the production of a commodity, which, by reason of the extravagance
of the wages of labour and other causes, must necessarily be sold at
a much greater price than the imported one, their conduct would seem
no less an affront to common sense, than a solecism in political
economy.
The United States possess a very restricted capital; and as the
tilling of the soil requires comparatively much fewer advances than
any other department of industry, that capital became immediately
invested in agriculture. Land, cheap, and fertile, constituted
a fund which gave a certain profit. And as the productions of
the labour of more than five eighths of our population went to
purchase foreign articles either of luxury or necessity, a great and
profitable intercourse was constantly maintained with Europe. Under
an equitable system of foreign duties, arising from this commerce,
the expenses of government were defrayed, our debt gradually
extinguished, and by a powerful but necessary re-action our
agriculture improved and extended. But the tariff bill restricted a
large and valuable commerce principally with Britain. It is not to
be supposed that, while we refused the broadcloths and hardware of
England, she would still continue to buy the same proportion of our
cotton and tobacco. Our market then for these articles would be so
far lost; and if we now feel the effects of a diminished demand for
our produce in consequence of the establishment of peace in Europe,
how can it be thought a wise policy to suffer other embarrassments
and losses, by excluding ourselves entirely from every foreign port
where we might calculate upon its sale? Where then is our produce
to find a vent? For assuredly the most enthusiastic friend of
domestic manufactures could never imagine, that the most extensive
establishment of them could ever give an adequate consumption for
the present amount of our agricultural productions.
The bill then imposing heavy duties on foreign articles, besides
diminishing the number of the cultivators of the soil, would in some
degree operate as a tax on its fruits, because, while the price of
manufactures was enormously increased, the value of produce would
be more than proportionally diminished. For the cultivator, not
only deprived of the benefit of a competition between the domestic
and foreign consumer in the sale of his articles, is obliged to
purchase those of his neighbour, at any price which his cupidity
and the tariff may determine. The expenses of the state being still
the same and its usual resources dried up, a general but unequal
system of taxation would be adopted, which in fact, the farmer
bending under the weight of this partial policy, is less able to
pay whatever contribution may be levied. These assertions are by
no means novel, they are mere corollaries from the plainest and
most undoubted principles of political economy. Dr. Adam Smith, the
great father of the science, and all whose views on this subject,
though not acted upon in a country whose domestic policy was too
firmly established to be changed without a most serious revolution,
ought to have great weight with us in the adoption of any permanent
system, speaks in this decided manner in his "Wealth of Nations,"
vol. iii. p. 201. "It is thus that every system which endeavours,
either by extraordinary encouragements, to draw towards a particular
species of industry a greater share of the capital of the society,
than what would naturally go to it; or by extraordinary restraints,
to force from particular species of industry some share of the
capital which would otherwise be employed in it; is in reality
subversive of the great purpose which it means to promote. It
retards instead of accelerating the progress of the society towards
real wealth and greatness; and diminishes instead of increasing
the real value of the annual produce of its land and labour. All
systems either of preference or restraint therefore, being thus
completely taken away, the obvious and simple system of natural
liberty establishes itself of its own accord. Every man, as long as
he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to
pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry
and capital into competition with those of any other man or order of
men." M. Say, a man no less remarkable for his practical knowledge
of manufacturing industry, than his profound acquaintance with every
branch of economical science, has given his marked disapprobation
of that system which we are discussing. "Lorsqu'au travers de cette
marche naturelle des choses," says he, "l'autorité se montre et dit:
le produit, qu'on veut créer, celui qui donne les meilleurs profits,
et par conséquent celui qui est le plus recherché, n'est pas celui
qui convient, il faut qu'on s'occupe de tel autre; elle dirige
évidemment une partie de la production vers un genre, dont le besoin
se fait sentir davantage." Traité d'Economic Politique, tom. i. p.
168. We can only refer to pages 172 and 201 for the expansion of
these ideas. It is thus we find that the arguments adduced in favour
of this system neither accord with the convictions of fact nor the
suggestions of reason. Whenever the increasing capital devoted to
the land can no longer be profitably employed, then manufactures
will flourish and the surplus profits of agriculture be legitimately
devoted to their support.
During the late war, the prospect of large gains caused by the
extravagant price of all European commodities, caused many persons
in our country to embark their fortunes in cotton and woollen
factories.--These factories were brought into being by a temporary
and unnatural state of things. On the return of the peace of 1814,
many of these manufacturing establishments came of necessity to an
end. Some establishments remain and ought to succeed, because they
prove that the profits of their capital may enter into competition
with that employed in agriculture. In this case the transfer is not
only natural but conducive to national wealth.
But we are asked to patronise manufactures at the expense of
agriculture, on the ground of our being rendered really more
independent by them. This is, however, but an attempt to conceal
private interest under the garb of patriotism,[5] and ought at least
to awaken suspicion. We are not to be called _dependant_ merely
because a state of war might give rise to many inconveniences. We
can do without silks or broadcloths while we possess the real means
of sustenance and defence. But these factories once established,
say the advocates of this interest, the citizens ought to support
them in their present languishing condition, and therefore ought
not to buy, even at a much less price, foreign articles in
preference to our own. The force and propriety of such reasoning
would appear to be similar to that of a gardener, who having in
winter devoted himself to the cultivation of flowers, &c., by means
of artificial heat, should in the spring apply for an act of the
municipal authority, forbidding all persons to pluck a daisy or
violet in the field, and requiring them to resort to his hot-house.
So far from there being a necessity for any interference on the
part of government, we believe we may assert that our manufactures
never were so flourishing as since the peace. It is true that
many establishments have been broken up and much capital sunk,
but it is a fact that those factories which are in the hands of
individuals, have generally been successful, while those conducted
by incorporated companies wanting the circumspection and prudence
of private interest, have as often become bankrupt. In the western
states this branch of business has greatly improved, and recent
information enables us to affirm, that the profits which are now
realised are nearly as large as those during the war. In the east,
we might cite an instance, which must put down all cavil on this
subject. The cotton factory at Waltham near Boston, begun when
manufactures were by no means in so promising a situation as at
present, is a triumphant answer to every one who demands additional
encouragement for the loom, and a new tax on his brethren to extend
its operations.
[5] "Qui est-ce qui solicite des prohibitions ou de forts droits
d'entrée dans un état? ce sont les producteurs de la denrée dont il
s'agit de prohiber la concurrance, et non pas les consommateurs.
Ils disent, c'est pour l'intérêt de l'état; mais il est clair
que c'est pour le leur uniquement.--N'est-ce pas la même chose,
continuent-ils, et ce que nous gagnons n'est-il pas autant de
gagné pour notre pays? point de tout:--ce que vous gagnez de cette
manière est tiré de la poche de votre voisin, d'un habitant du même
pays; et si l'on pouvait compter l'excédant de dépense fait par les
consommateurs, en consequence de votre monopole, on trouverait qu'il
surpasse le gain que le monopole vous a valu." Traité d'Economie
Politique par Jean-Baptiste Say, tom. i. p. 203.
But we hasten to return from our wanderings, and to introduce our
readers to the work, of which we have prefixed the title to this
article. It is in the form of letters addressed to Professor Pictet
of Geneva, from various places in Italy, and contains the author's
remarks upon that country. He dwells not on the palaces of Venice,
neither worships at the altar of Roman genius in the Pantheon,
but taking his silent way through the fields, he describes that
which gave birth to both: he informs us of the processes of Italian
farming, of the effects of irrigation, and of the general state
of Italian agriculture. And, in our opinion, he has shewn as much
taste in the execution of his design, as those travellers who have
employed themselves upon inquiries commonly thought as interesting,
but certainly not as useful. M. de Chateauvieux appears to be an
enthusiastic admirer of the subject on which he writes, as well
as to have a practical knowledge of all its details. His book is
very little known among us, though it has lately been translated
in England, and formerly occupied the attention of a celebrated
critical journal of that country. It is our intention in this
article to put our readers in mind of its existence.
The author divides Italy into three regions, distinguished by
their different systems of cultivation.--The first extends from
mount Cenis and the Alps of Suza to the shores of the Adriatic.
The fertility of Lombardy is proved by the constant succession of
its crops, and to this province he has given the name of "Pays de
Culture par assolement," or the district of culture by rotation of
crops. The second of the regions reposes on the southern declivity
of the Appenines, from the frontiers of Provence to the boundaries
of Calabria. This is called the District of Olive trees, or, by
an association somewhat forced, of Canaanitish culture. The third
region is that of _Malaria_, or patriarchal cultivation, from a
supposed resemblance, which we are still less able to enter into,
between the shepherds of the older and the present time. It is found
from Pisa to Terracina, and comprehends the plain between the sea
and the first ridge of the Appenines.
Lombardy has been often called the garden of Europe, and seems
abundantly entitled to the appellation. The soil is not only rich
and alluvial, but deep and perfectly level. The climate is humid,
and the system of irrigation supplies water to almost every field.
These circumstances, united to the heat of a southern sun, cause a
most rapid and luxurious vegetation. Nothing can be more important
in the economy of a farm than the situation of the farm-house
and its out-buildings. In this respect our American farmers are
lamentably deficient, and though we would not recommend as a model
the one described by de Chateauvieux as common in Lombardy, still we
think it would afford some valuable hints. The buildings raised on
the four sides of a square, present on one side a central elevation
of two stories. The lower part for the farmer, the upper story for
his grain. Adjoining this, at each end, is a stable plastered so
as not to let the dust descend, for the cows and oxen; the other
three sides of the square are enclosed by a sort of portico, open
within and supported by columns, which serves as a depository for
straw, hay, &c.--This structure is about twenty-four feet broad, and
fifteen high. Half the court is paved, the remainder is used for
threshing out the corn, which, in the primitive way, is still done
by horses. The place for manure is outside of the court. This plan
presents the most space with the least building, and assures the
preservation of every product.
The farms in Lombardy are small, and do not often contain sixty
arpents;[6] notwithstanding M. de Chateauvieux asserts against
Arthur Young, that they bring more to market than the large farms,
and that there is no country in the world which can dispose of so
large a portion of its productions as Piedmont. If the fact be so,
it may possibly arise from the peculiar character of the persons
who cultivate the land.--Our author, however, remarks, that this
system of small farms can never take place till the advances of
capital have carried agriculture to its highest point. Lombardy is
cultivated by a species of farmers, called _metayers_. They pay a
small fixed rent, valued at one half the produce of the meadow,
or forty francs the arpent. The clover belongs to them entirely;
the crops of wheat, Indian corn, and flax, and the wine and silk
are equally divided between them and their landlord. The latter
advances nothing but the taxes, and of course must find such an
arrangement singularly advantageous. Father and son continue the
same engagement, without the formality of a lease or any registry
of the contract. M. Say regards this system as unfavourable to
agriculture, and in his treatise on Political Economy, book ii.
chap. 9, vol. 2, says, "il y a des cultivateurs qui n'ont rien, et
auxquels le propriétaire fournit le capital avec la terre: on les
appelle des Métayers. Ils rendent communément au propriétaire la
moitié du produit brut. Ce genre de culture appartient à un état peu
avancé de l'agriculture, et il est le plus défavorable de tout aux
améliorations des terres; car celui des deux, du proprietaire ou du
fermier, qui ferait l'améliarition à ses frais, admettrait l'autre à
jouir gratuitement de la moitié de l'interêt de ses avances."
[6] An arpent is to an acre nearly as five to four.
(To be concluded in next Number.)
POTATOES.
MR. SOUTHWICK,
I have stated in my former communications, the result of my
experience in the cultivation of potatoes. So long as I practised
setting my crop with small potatoes, the cullings of my potato bins,
my crops degenerated, grew less and less for several years, and
finally run entirely out.--I changed my practice, and the result has
been a continued improvement for near ten years, both in quantity
and quality. My practice has been to select the largest, soundest,
and best potatoes for seed, to cut them into 4 quarters, and plant
4 pieces in each hill in a square of about 9 inches. The results
have been every way satisfactory. My potatoes have been large,
constantly improving in size, earlier, better, and more abundant
from year to year. I have never been nice enough to weigh my seed,
to ascertain exactly whether a potato of one ounce or two ounces be
as perfect a root as one of 6 or 12 ounces. My experience both in
planting and in distillation has left on my mind a strong impression
that small unripe seed is very improper, and very unprofitable. I
am aware that many farmers hold firmly that small seed potatoes are
as good as large ones; but I also know that I have sold potatoes to
these men at 5 and 6 shillings per bushel, and some of them have
been convinced that good seed was an object even at those prices.
In the south I am aware that it is the practice almost uniformly to
plant small sweet potatoes. But I am fully persuaded it is an error.
To this cause I think may be justly attributed the decrease and
deterioration in the crops of this valuable root.
_Middlesex, August 3, 1820._
[_Plough Boy._
ECONOMY IN FUEL.
While economy is the order of the day, it may not be amiss to point
out an item of which it is believed a general ignorance prevails. It
is well known to philosophers that when water commences to boil in
the open air no additional fire can make it any hotter. A contrary
opinion prevails, and those employed in cooking victuals, in order
to accelerate the operation think that they cannot make the fire
too intense. The fuel added for this purpose is, in fact, not only
a wanton waste, but by causing a violent ebulition, it forces from
the victuals, with the steam its finest flavour. How much fuel in
families might be saved if, in cooking, no more were used than to
keep the water that is used just at the boiling point, and it is
certain the victuals would be the better for it.
[_Ib._
MAKING CIDER.
Directions for making sweet, clear Cider, that shall retain its
fine vinous flavour, and keep good for a long time in casks,
like wine.
It is of importance in making cider, that the mill, the press, and
all the materials be sweet and clean, and the straw clear from
must. To make good cider, fruit should be ripe, (but not rotten)
and when the apples are ground, if the juice is left in the pummice
twenty-four hours, the cider will be richer, softer, and higher
coloured; if fruit is all of the same kind, it is generally thought
that the cider will be better; as the fermentation will certainly be
more regular, which is of importance. The gathering and grinding of
the apples, the pressing out of the juice, is a mere manual labour,
performed with very little skill in the operation; but here the
great art of making good cider commences; for as soon as the juice
is pressed out, nature begins to work a wonderful change in it.
The juice of fruit, if left to itself, will undergo three distinct
fermentations, all of which change the quality and nature of this
fluid. The first is the vinous; the second the acid, which makes it
hard and prepares it for vinegar; by the third it becomes putrid.
The first fermentation is the only one the juice of apples should
undergo, to make good cider. It is this operation that separates the
juice from the filth, and leaves it a clear, sweet, vinous liquor.
To preserve it in this state is the grand secret; this is done by
fumigating it with sulphur, which checks any further fermentation,
and preserves it in its fine vinous state. It is to be wished that
all cider makers would make a trial of this method; it is attended
with no expense, and but little trouble, and will have the desired
effect.
I would recommend that the juice as it comes from the press, be
placed in open headed casks or vats: in this situation it is most
likely to undergo a proper fermentation, and the person attending
may with correctness ascertain when this fermentation ceases; this
is of great importance, and must be particularly attended to. The
fermentation is attended with a hissing noise, bubbles rising to
the surface and there forming a soft spongy crust over the liquor.
When this crust begins to crack, and white froth appears in the
cracks level with the surface of the head, the fermentation is about
stopping. At this time the liquor is in a fine, genuine, clear
state, and must be drawn off immediately into clean casks: and this
is the time to fumigate it with sulphur. To do this, take a strip of
canvas or rag, about 2 inches broad and twelve long; dip this into
melted sulphur, and when a few pails of worked cider are put into
the cask, set this match on fire and hold it in the cask, till it
is consumed, then bung the cask and shake it, that the liquor may
incorporate with and retain the fumes; after this fill the cask and
bung it up. The cider should be racked off again the latter part
of February or first of March; and if not as clear as you wish it,
put in isinglass to fine it, and stir it well; then put the cask
in a cool place, where it will not be disturbed, for the fining to
settle. Cider prepared in this manner will keep sweet for years.
It is certainly of great importance to the people of America to
cultivate the fruit that is natural to the soil of their country,
and to make the most of the fruit which the soil produces;
especially, when its produce is an article of value and of great
consumption in this country.
A LOVER OF GOOD CIDER.
_Am. D. Adv._]
CABBAGES FOR CATTLE.
_Extract of a Letter._
Having been in England, I have had an opportunity of observing many
improvements in agriculture, which, if I were to see them adopted
here, would give me the sincerest pleasure. Among the number of
them, I think the culture of cabbages for fattening of cattle stands
in the first rank. From strong soils, it may fairly be questioned
whether any kind of winter provision can be raised of such weight
and quality per acre, as the larger kind of cabbages. For cows, they
surpass all other kinds of vegetables, and probably some method may
be thought of, by which they may be conveniently preserved through
our long winters. The colewort cabbage used to be in most esteem,
but I understand that a variety of the large red kind is coming into
use, and bids fair to drive out the Scotch drumhead, it being much
more hardy. They are exceedingly well adapted to wet land, and will
prove very productive where turnips cannot be raised to any good
purpose. It is, unquestionably, a crop of far more use and value
than the mangel wurzel, which has, in England, within these few
years, been in such fashionable culture.
In England and Scotland, I have seen the _parings of potatoes_
planted as seed; and at the same time I was told that they yielded
quite as plentifully as cuttings with three eyes, or even whole
potatoes.
I never had an opportunity of witnessing the result, but it may be
worth while for some experimental agriculturist to plant some in
this way, in order to prove or shew the fallacy of the assertion. I
should recommend that they cut the parings about two-tenths of an
inch in thickness, as those parings which I saw planted always had
the eye left in them entire, and the root of the germ not in the
least wounded.
[_St. John's paper._
PRESENT STATE OF POMPEII.
From William's Travels in Italy, Greece, &c.