Essays in Natural History and Agriculture Part 4

For instance, he suggests that the magistrates in quarter sessions a.s.sembled shall have the power to appoint conservators, and that the conservators shall have the power to expend all the money raised by subscription in having water-bailiffs to put up fish- ladders, commencing actions at law in certain cases; and if the subscriptions are not adequate to defray all these expenses, that they (the conservators) shall have the power to levy a rate in aid on the riparian proprietors.

I cannot see how this can be made to work equitably. If the rate be laid on the extent of frontage to the river, one man may have a great extent of no value for fis.h.i.+ng purposes, another may have only one pool, so conveniently formed and placed for netting that he will be able to catch ten times as many fish as the other. Then how are the fisheries in the estuary and just above tideway to be valued? They probably take ninety per cent. of all the seasonable fish. Will they be willing to pay ninety per cent. of the rate?

Again, the college at Stonyhurst claims a right of _several fishery_, both in the Ribble and the Hodder. That is, they exercise a right to fish in both rivers, where they have no land, and they exercise this right so freely that they take more fish than all the other upper proprietors added together. If, then, the tax is laid on the extent of frontage to the rivers, these reverend gentlemen would escape entirely, so far as the right of _several fishery_ extends, and would only pay the rate on their own extent of frontage.

Again, the new bill does not embody the suggestions of the Worcester meeting as to the right of way for the water-bailiffs; but according to Mr. Eden's comment upon it at Chester and elsewhere, a strict surveillance is to be kept on weirs, to which the water-bailiffs are to have free access. Personally I have no objection to this, provided the water-bailiffs are allowed free access to the banks of the river elsewhere; but I have a strong objection to be made the subject of offensive exceptional legislation. Are not gamekeepers as likely to need looking after as mill-owners?

Again, the bill does not touch on minimum penalties. This it ought to do, for in some districts (Wales, for instance) there is a strong animus against all attempts at preserving the Salmon, and notorious poachers, duly convicted of offences against the act of 1861, in some instances have been fined a s.h.i.+lling, in others a farthing.

To W. H. Hornby, Esq., M.P.

REMARKS ON A PROPOSED BILL FOR THE BETTER PRESERVATION OF SALMON.

c.l.i.tHEROE, _August 27th_, 1860.

HENRY GEORGE, ESQ.

DEAR SIR,--I am favoured by the receipt of your letter of the 25th inst., and the accompanying draft of a proposed bill "for the better Preservation of Salmon," and proceed at once to offer such remarks and suggestions as occur to me, and shall be glad to learn that they meet with your approval.

In the third clause (section) you give an interpretation of the names under which you wish to include all fish of the Salmon kind.

Does not this include common Trout? You specially include Char by name. Would it not be better to limit your intentions to all migratory fish of the Salmon kind, to wit, Salmon, Grilse, &c.

&c.? I think also the meaning of a fixed net wants defining more rigorously. As it now stands it appears to me that it would include any net which should be fastened on a root or stone whilst it was being drawn through a pool, if the men employed in doing this were to let go the cords whilst they loosed the net from the obstruction.

Fourth clause.--I quite agree with you on the period allotted to annual close time, but think there ought to be a penalty for buying, selling, or having in possession Salmon roe (save and except for the purpose of artificial propagation).

Seventh.--I do not agree with you at all on the subject of the weekly close time, which in my opinion ought to be for one-half of every day, except Sunday, and the whole of that day. Why should the owners of fisheries at the mouths of rivers, who are at neither trouble nor expense in breeding or preserving the sp.a.w.ning fish, have all the benefit derivable from their increase? Why should the upper proprietors act the part of brood hens for these, hatching and preserving the fish for the benefit of those who take no trouble about these things themselves?

Twelfth.--I do not agree with you as to the size of the mesh: I do not think that a mesh of twelve inches in circ.u.mference, or three inches from knot to knot, at all too large; it would permit fish below six pounds to escape, and this being done, there would under any circ.u.mstances be a fair supply of breeding fish.

Fifteenth.--I think your leister requires a more rigorous definition. A man in this neighbourhood is reputed to have killed a good many Salmon with a hay or a dung fork. Are either of these leisters?

Your sixteenth section is utterly impracticable. How could such hecks or grates be prevented from choking with leaves in the autumn and ice in the winter, thus stopping the wheels? You might as well require a farmer to hedge out the game. Impose a penalty, if you like, upon any millowner who may kill Salmon in his mill lead; and as you give your conservators power to inspect everywhere, you will readily detect such practices. But it will never do to close the mills by pretexts that the fish may be taken or killed there.

Twenty-first.--I do not understand the meaning of this. But taken in its ordinary sense, it seems to me to be very unjust. Many persons have traps in their weirs for the purpose of taking Salmon to which they plead a prescriptive right. Do you mean to do away with these? You may succeed in this, but why should not a man be allowed to fish in the river above the weir where there are no obstructions to the pa.s.sage of the fish? And why should not a man be allowed to fish with a rod and line below the weir, and as near to it as he chooses? I think weirs might be safely divided into two cla.s.ses: those used for manufacturing purposes and those for fishery purposes; that a man should be allowed to say in which cla.s.s his weir should be included. If for manufacturing purposes he should not be allowed to catch Salmon (except with rod and line) within a certain distance below the weir. If he choose to cla.s.s his weir as one for fishery purposes, he should then be compelled to give a free pa.s.sage to the fish for twelve hours every day; but he should be compelled to make his election as to the cla.s.s in which he would include his weir.

Twenty-fifth.--It would never do to allow the commissioners to make bye-laws. Suppose the case of a millowner who got into a dispute with them: he might be utterly ruined by their bye-laws; they might make bye-laws which deprived him of his water-power, under a pretext that they were taking more efficient care of the Salmon.

Thirty-first.--I think the licence to angle should be compulsory, and not at the discretion of the commissioner. That it should be in the nature of a game licence, qualifying and enabling the holder to angle in any river of Great Britain and Ireland, provided he had the consent of the owner of the fishery where he was angling.

(_Additional observations_). Twelfth.--You say that no double net shall be used. Do you mean to prohibit the trammel, which is usually a treble and not a double net? You also prohibit one net behind another, but you do not specify the distance outside of which a second net would be lawful. If neither a series of Scotch nets nor a single trammel is to be used, by what sort of net do you propose to catch the Salmon?

Nineteenth.--You say the sluices which admit water to wheels or factories shall be kept closed from six o'clock on Sat.u.r.day night to six o'clock on Monday morning. How, then, are the repairs of shafting and machinery to be made? These are generally done when the workpeople have gone home on Sat.u.r.days. Besides, what is your object? If the river is low, the Salmon will not be running up the stream, and if it be in flood there will always be an abundant supply running over the weir in addition to that which would be required to turn the wheel. You add that the water may be allowed to flow freely through the waste-gate, provided the opening of such a waste-gate shall not deprive the mill of the necessary supply of water.

Eighteenth.--In this clause you say that in weirs already constructed it shall be lawful for the commissioner, on the application of any two or more persons interested in the fisheries of such river, and at the proper costs and charges of the persons making such application--proof having been first given, &c.--to cause a survey to be made of such dam or weir by a competent engineer, and to direct such alterations to be made therein as shall, in the opinion of the commissioner, be necessary and desirable, &c.

In this clause, which so far as it goes is very desirable, you have omitted a proviso without which it could never pa.s.s into a law. You have forgotten to provide for the legal right of the millowner, which would, or might, be taken away by the alteration made in the weir unless there were some provision in the act which prevented this being done. At present there is no such proviso in your act. Here I have offered for years to allow the upper proprietors to make any alteration they liked in the weir, provided such alterations did not affect the milling power, the stability of the weir, or my legal t.i.tle to the weir as existing at present. And my legal adviser tells me that any alteration made in the weir without a guarantee from the upper proprietors would very probably deprive me of my present t.i.tle.

LETTERS ON AGRICULTURAL SUBJECTS.

ON THE CULTIVATION OF WHEAT ON THE SAME LAND IN SUCCESSIVE YEARS.

_To The Editor of the "Manchester Guardian."_

c.l.i.tHEROE, October 5th, 1843.

SIR,--I PROMISED to send you some details of my attempt to grow wheat on the same soil year after year. These I now forward, and hope they may prove interesting. I was led into these experiments by reading Liebig's book on the "Chemistry of Agriculture;" for, a.s.suming his theory to be true, it appeared to me to be quite possible to grow wheat on the same land year after year; as, according to that theory, the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen, which const.i.tute the great bulk of all cereal crops (both grain and straw), are supplied in abundance from the soil and atmosphere (or perhaps, to speak more correctly, from the latter), and we have only to supply those inorganic substances, which, however numerous, form but a small part of the whole weight of the crop.

With the view of testing this theory, and hoping that I might be able to find out what were the elements which built up and cemented the carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen together--or, in other words, which const.i.tuted fertility--I begun, in the autumn of 1841, to experiment on a field which had been exhausted by a succession of crops, and which had just been cleared of one of oats. I chose an exhausted field in preference to any other, as the only one in which I could test the truth of the theory. It was very foul, being full of couch gra.s.s and weeds of all kinds. It was ploughed up and hastily picked over, for the season was so unfavourable for cleaning the land (from the great quant.i.ty of rain that fell) that I was almost induced to abandon the experiment. Previously to sowing the seed, one-fourth of the field was manured with a compost of night-soil and coal-ashes, at the rate of forty tons to the customary acre (7840 yards); the remaining three-fourths having the seed put in without any manure whatever. The winter was very unfavourable for the plants in our cold wet soil, and in the unmanured part of the field many of them perished, and those that survived made very little progress, from having no stimulus at the roots. Thinking it desirable to apply my experimental manures in moist weather, I waited until the 6th May, when I treated that part of the field which had _not_ been manured (three-fourths of the whole) in the following manner. I applied guano to one-fourth, at the rate of two hundredweight to the statute acre, and the same weight of nitrate of soda over another fourth, leaving one-fourth entirely without manure. The wheat manured with the guano and nitrate of soda grew vigorously, and the ears, more particularly in the part manured with guano, were the finest I had ever seen, but when it came to ripen it shrivelled in the ear, and the sample was very indifferent; the soil being evidently deficient in some property necessary for perfecting the grain. The crop also suffered much from the depredations of the birds.

The portion manured with night-soil produced to the statute acre 32 bushels of 60 lbs. each.

Guano " " 27 " " "

Nitrate of Soda " " 27 " " "

Unmanured part " " 19 2/3 " " "

I give these details to show that the land was in an exhausted state previous to the commencement of the experiment I am now about to detail. After the crop of 1842 was reaped, the land was immediately ploughed up, and the season being very favourable, it was tolerably well cleaned, and the seed was sown (without any manure) about the first week in October. After the wheat came up, it was manured with a dusting of one hundredweight of guano, over the entire field (about one acre, three roods), to keep the plants alive through the winter. In the spring, being divided into three portions, it was manured with the same number of experimental manures, which were furnished to me by Mr. Blyth, of Church, near Accrington, who also a.n.a.lyzed the soil and subsoil for me. These manures were applied about the 10th of April, and the experiment was still further varied by covering a portion of each division with guano a fortnight afterwards, at the rate of two hundredweight to the acre, but all the manure applied to the crop, including the hundredweight of guano put on in the autumn, did not exceed 6 1/2 hundredweight. The crop, which was a very thin one in the spring, improved so much by the application of these manures, that when it came into ear, it was allowed by all who saw it to be the best in the neighbourhood; but the heavy rains of July caused it to lodge in the best part of the field, and there it was attacked by rust, and the sample was very indifferent. In addition to this drawback, there being very little wheat grown in the neighbourhood of the town, and this being much earlier than any of the other fields, was attacked by the birds as soon as the grain was formed in the ear. Notwithstanding all the efforts made to prevent them, they continued feeding upon it until it was cut; and it is a very moderate estimate of the damage, to say that they destroyed one- fourth of the crop throughout the field. That part of the field covered with manure (No. 1) being the earliest, suffered most.

There were patches of several square yards where there did not appear to be a single grain left; and wherever the birds took a grain from the middle of the ear, when in the milky state, the grains on each side of it appeared to grow no more, but shrivelled up in the ear.

I have little doubt that in this portion of the field one-third of the crop was destroyed. All this seems to reduce the experiment to little more than guess-work; and it will, probably, be very difficult to persuade those who did not see the field when it was cut, to credit this report of the devastation made by the birds; even when they are told that c.l.i.theroe is a town of 7,000 inhabitants, and probably as many sparrows, and that apparently they were all a.s.sembled to feed in this field; and they became so accustomed to the good living they found there, that even when our neighbours' wheat was fit to eat, they continued to favour this field with their visits in preference to going elsewhere. I estimate the damage on No. 1 at one-third, No. 2 at one-fourth, No. 3 at one-fifth; this was later than the others, and suffered more from rust than birds.

The following are the results:--From 3,060 yards manured with No.

1, there were obtained 1,042 lbs. of wheat, or 27 1/2 bushels of 60 lbs. each to the statute acre; if we add one-half to this, as we a.s.sume that one-third was destroyed by the birds, it will give 41 1/4 bushels to the statute acre. The weight of straw from this portion was 188 stones 5 lbs., 14 lbs. to the stone. From 2,856 yards manured with No. 2, 962 lbs. of wheat were obtained, and 155 stones 9 lbs. of straw; this is equal to 27 1/4 bushels per acre, or with one-third added, for estimated damage, it is equal to 36 bushels per statute acre. From 2610 yards manured with No. 3, there were 1,067 lbs. of wheat, and 211 stones 7 lbs. of straw, or 33 bushels to the statute acre, to which if we add one-fourth, according to the estimate of damage, it will be equal to 41 1/4 bushels per acre. It will be observed that this portion yielded a far greater weight of straw per acre than either of the others, and from the sort of manure applied, it was expected that this would be the case.

No. 1 yielded straw at the rate of 297 3/4 stones per acre.

" 2 " " " " 246 3/4 " "

" 3 " " " " 392 1/3 " "

Many people may feel inclined to say, that all these apparent data are mere guesses, and that a crop may be made into anything one likes, if they a.s.sume so much for damages; but, fortunately, it is not all guess-work. I have stated previously that I covered a part of each division with guano a fortnight after the application of the manures in April, intending to see what advantage was obtained by the use of it; but, owing to the depredations of the birds, the portions of the first and second divisions manured with guano were not kept separate from those which were left without guano; but the third being later, and, therefore, not so much injured by them, gave me an opportunity of ascertaining the effect. I measured off a land which had been so manured, and reaped and thrashed it out separately. From this land of 100 yards long and 10 feet wide (3,000 square feet), there was obtained 220 lbs. of wheat, or 53 bushels of 60 lbs. per statute acre; and this was far from being the best portion of the field. I don't mean that it was not the best portion of the crop, but I mean that the soil was not so good there as it was in other parts of the field; as I have before stated, in the best part of the field the crop was spoiled by being lodged by the rain, and subsequently attacked by rust.

I communicate this to you, in the hope that the publication of it in your paper maybe the means of stimulating others to try the same experiments. It is not too late yet to try for the next year's crop, and I have no doubt that Mr. Blyth will be happy to supply both material and information to any who may require them from him. It is the duty of everyone to promote the advancement of agriculture; and this is my contribution towards it. I have not yet done, for I have sown the same field with wheat again, and hope, with a favourable season, to reap a still more abundant crop next year.

_To the same._

c.l.i.tHEROE, _October 12th_, 1844.

SIR,--Last October you published an account of an attempt of mine to grow wheat on the same land year after year; and, as I have repeated the experiment this year, I shall be obliged if you will be kind enough to insert the account of it in the "Guardian," as the subject appears to me to be an important one; and, as many persons who may read this letter may either not have seen the former, or may have forgotten it, I trust that a short summary of the former experiments may not be out of place.

These experiments took place in the autumn of 1841, after the field had been cleared of a crop of oats, which was a very bad one; the land being not only naturally poor, but foul and exhausted by long cropping. As the season was very wet, it was indifferently cleaned, and one-fourth of it manured with a compost of night-soil and ashes, and then the field was sowed with wheat.

Two of the remaining three-fourths were manured on the 6th of May, 1842 (the spring being a very dry one, no rain came until that day), one with guano, the other with nitrate of soda, each at the rate of two hundredweight to the statute acre, and the remaining fourth was left unmanured.

The following were the results at harvest:--That manured with night-soil and ashes produced 32 bushels of 60 lbs. per acre; guano, 27 bushels; nitrate of soda, 27 bushels; unmanured, 19 2/3 bushels. When the field had been cleared of the crop, it was immediately ploughed up, and, as the season was favourable, the land was well cleaned and sowed with wheat in October, 1842, without any manure except 1 cwt. of guano, which was scattered over it when the wheat was coming up. The field was divided into three portions, and in April, 1843, was manured as follows:--No.

1, with 90 lbs. of sulphate of magnesia, and 2 cwt. nitrate of soda to the statute acre; No. 2, with a compound from a manufacturer of chemical manures; No. 3, with 60 lbs. of silicate of soda and 2 cwt. of nitrate of soda to the acre; and, with the view of still further varying the experiment, a part of each portion was sowed with guano a fortnight after the application of the chemical manures. The crop promised to be a very good one, but it was much plundered by the birds, and as the summer was wet, it suffered also much from rust. Allowing for the destruction occasioned by the birds, the crop was estimated at: