in draught, _merely because it is wheeled_--that, on the contrary,
its draught must be in some small degree increased, other things
being equal, (vol. i. p. 463.) This, we think, is probable, on other
grounds besides those stated by Mr. Slight; yet there appears
satisfactory reason for believing, that some of the wheel-ploughs
which have been made the subject of experiment, have actually been
lighter in draught, when doing the same work, than any of the
swing-ploughs that have been opposed to them. But this does not show
that, in _principle_, the swing-plough is not superior to the
wheel-plough--it only shows that, in _construction_, it is still
capable of great emendations, and that, in this respect, some of the
wheel-ploughs have got the start of it. But the Scotch makers, who
first so greatly improved the plough, are capable still of competing
with their southern rivals; and from their conjoined exertions,
future ploughmen are destined to receive still further aid.

When the ploughs are brought home, and while the winter ploughing is
going on, an opportunity presents itself for laying out, and probably,
as the weather permits, of cutting a portion of the intended drains.
Upon this important subject, Mr. Stephens treats with more even than
his usual skill. How true is the following passage:--

"Land, however, though it does not contain such a superabundance of
water as to obstruct arable culture, may nevertheless, by its
inherent wetness, prevent or retard the luxuriant growth of useful
plants, as much as decidedly wet land. The truth is, that deficiency
of crops on apparently dry land is frequently attributed to
unskilful husbandry, when it really arises from the baleful
influence of _concealed_ stagnant water; and the want of skill is
shown, not so much in the management of the arable culture of the