[1] M. Yoarst, professor of agriculture at Elfort. See his introductory address to his class, in 1806.
"Their rotation of crops, always begins with the culture either of some leguminous plant or profitable root, and generally with the potato, as the best preparative of the ground. Whatever may be the grain which follows, whether wheat, rye, &c. &c. it is generally sown with red clover; and where it is not, the stubble is ploughed in immediately after harvest, and a crop of turnips taken and either consumed on the ground or housed for the winter. A single department (that of Zealand) obtains by the culture of madder alone, an annual profit of six millions of florins; while that of Brabant boasts its twenty thousand bee-hives; in a word, this commendable nation, upon an extent of surface not exceeding seventeen hundred square leagues, (the greater part of which has been redeemed from the ocean) counts two hundred and forty-three thousand horses, seven hundred and sixty thousand horn cattle, about a million of sheep, from ten to twelve thousand goats, four hundred and eighty-nine thousand hogs, and about three millions of poultry, of every species. Their stock of manure is necessarily great, and is both well understood and well managed."
9. The same causes, physical and moral, operate against the existence of a productive agriculture in Denmark and Sweden—severity of climate, poverty of soil, and vassalage of tenants.[2]—Their resources are also alike, and exist principally in manufactures and commerce, and in mines, forests and fisheries. The former boasts fine pasturage and cattle, in Holstein.
[2] To give to despotism the air of freedom, the serfs of the crown were liberated at the revolution—but the example was neither approved nor followed.
10. Under the common name of Germany, we include Prussia, Saxony, Austria, Wurtemburg, and Bavaria, and shall say a few words of each, calculated to give a general idea of their husbandry. It was not to be expected that the great Frederick of Prussia (so devoted to national glory and strength) would disregard the interest of agriculture; and the less so, as in theory he considered it "Les mamelles de l'elat." We accordingly find him employed in draining marshes of great extent,[3] in filling them with industrious colonists, and in converting barren sands into fertile fields, by placing his capital in the midst of them. But amongst these good works, he forgot that the hands of the labourer, to be efficient, must be free; he found the peasants slaves, and left them such.
[3] In the Dollart what was lost by the sea was regained, and the marshes on the Netz and the Warth at Friedburg and in Pomerania were drained, and the country rendered habitable.
The Saxon peasant, on the other hand is free and protected by the law; he holds his farm on lease, which he sells or transmits to his children at will: and this is the principal cause of the flourishing state of Saxon agriculture. In Lusatia, a different legislation produces different effects; but for some years past, the government and great proprietors have concurred in changing the vassalage of the peasants into a mild and salutary dependence. Saxony is remarkable for its grain products, and Lusatia for its stock—the latter counts four hundred thousand head of sheep of the merino race.
Geographers give to Austria and her dependencies 1965 leagues in circumference. In a surface like this, there is necessarily a great variety, as well of climate as of soil; but in general, both are favourable to agriculture. "In the districts of the Inn, of Lower Stira, of Istria, and of Carniola, the land is of good quality, well cultivated and very productive. In the last, they have two crops in the year; sowing buck-wheat on wheat or rye stubble, and millet on that of hemp and flax.—They every where cultivate Indian corn, and in Styria (as in Virginia) it forms the ordinary bread of the country." In Bohemia, Moravia, and Galitia,[4] the soil is uncommonly rich, and under proper management would be very productive. Austrian Silesia is less fitted for the production of grain, but excels in forage and cattle. Hungary, Transylvania and Croatia, abound in every species of agricultural produce. Their flocks and pasturage are not inferior to those of the Ukraine; and wheat, buck-wheat, Indian corn, millet, rice, hemp, flax and tobacco, yield immense harvests to very small degrees of labour. Yet is agriculture far from being in a flourishing condition!—Writers on political economy ascribe this fact principally to two causes—
[4] Geographic Math.
1st. The degradation and oppression of the labouring part of the community; and