and new methods of husbandry, the efficacy of the new being far from decided.  The cause of the slow adoption of drill husbandry was the inferiority of the drills hitherto invented.  They were complex in construction, expensive, and hard to procure.  It seemed impossible to make a drill or drill plough as it was called, for such it then was—­a combination of drill, plough, and harrow—­capable of sowing at various depths and widths, and at the same time light enough for ordinary use.  All the drills hitherto made were too light to stand the rough use of farm labourers:  ’common ploughs and harrows the fellows tumble about in so violent a manner that if they were not strength itself they would drop to pieces.  In drawing such instruments into the field the men generally mount the horses, and drag them after them; in passing gateways twenty to one they draw them against the gate post.’  Some of ‘these fellows’ are still to be seen!

Another defect in drilling was that the drill plough filled up all the water furrows, which, at a time when drainage was often neglected, were deemed of especial importance, and they all had to be opened again.

Further, said the advocates of the old husbandry, it was a question whether all the horse-hoeings, hand-hoeings, and weedings of the new husbandry, though undoubtedly beneficial, really paid.  It was very hard to get enough labourers for these operations.  With more reason they objected to the principles of discarding manure and sowing a large number of white straw crops in succession, but admitted the new system was admirably adapted for beans, turnips, cabbages, and lucerne.

However, there were many followers of Tull.  The Author of Dissertations on Rural Subjects[458] thought the drill plough an excellent invention, as it saved seed and facilitated hoeing; but he said Tull’s drill was defective in that the distances between the rows could not be altered, a defect which the writer claims to have remedied.  Young’s desire for a stronger drill seems to have been soon answered, as the same writer says the barrel drill invented by Du-Hamel and improved by Craik was strong, cheap, and easily managed.

The tendency of the latter half of the century was decidedly in favour of larger farms; it was a bad thing for the small holders, but it was an economic tendency which could not be resisted.  The larger farmers had more capital, were more able and ready to execute improvements; they drained their land, others often did not; having sufficient capital they were able both to buy and sell to the best advantage and not sacrifice their produce at a low price to meet the rent, as the small farmer so often did and does.  They could pay better wages and so get better men, kept more stock and better, and more efficient implements.  They also had a great advantage in being able by their good teams to haul home plenty of purchased manure, which the small farmer often could not do.  The small tenants, who had no by-industry, then, as now, had to work and live harder than the ordinary labourer to pay their way.