thirty years, and travelling to an extent of more than twenty thousand miles.’ He formed a fine library on agriculture and economics, dispersed at intervals during the last few years. Much of it is now in the possession of Professor Foxwell of Cambridge.
As a writer Young contributed nothing of permanent importance towards the advancement of political economy; but he remains the greatest of English writers on agriculture. The English landlords of his time were the least imaginative section of an unimaginative people. As Mr. Leslie Stephen has remarked, Young carried into agriculture ‘the spirit which we generally associate with the great revolution of manufactures, as applied to the contemporary development of agriculture.’ He was indefatigable in observation, inquiries, researches, and experiments, collecting by hand the seeds of artificial grasses and sowing them himself, pointing out to the country as a whole practices which were successful in particular neighbourhoods at home and abroad, endeavouring, with the aid of Priestley, to discover the chemistry of soils and to apply science to practice, incessantly attempting new methods, new rotations of crops, and stirring up a widespread and intelligent interest in the development of agricultural science. He thought the most useful feature of his tours was his teaching upon the correct courses of crops. His works were much esteemed at home and abroad, and especially in the two great agricultural countries of Europe—France and Russia. In 1801, by order of the Directoire, his works were translated into French, and published at Paris in eighteen octavo volumes under the title ‘Le Cultivateur Anglois.’ A set of the volumes was sent to Young by Carnot. The Empress Catherine sent him a gold snuff-box, with ermine cloaks for his wife and daughter. In 1804 Count Rostopchin, governor of Moscow, sent him a snuff-box studded with diamonds, inscribed ‘from a pupil to his master.’ His principal works were translated into Russian and German. Breakfasting at Bradfield on one occasion, the Duke of Bedford found him surrounded by pupils from Russia, France, America, Naples, Poland, Sicily, and Portugal. He was an honorary member of countless societies at home and abroad. His correspondents included all the celebrated men of his time. His letters from Washington were published in 1803 (Alexandria, 8vo). Other correspondents were Lafayette, the prince bishop of Wilna, Haller, Arbuthnot, Priestley, Bakewell, Howlett, Thomas Ruggles, Wilberforce, John Howard, Sir H. Davy, Coke of Holkham, Malthus, Boswell, Pitt, Burke, Sir J. Sinclair, Edwin Wakefield, his brother-in-law Dr. Burney and Fanny Burney (Mme. d'Arblay), Lord Shelburne, Lord Kames, Lord Sheffield, Lord Eden, and half the peerage. We detect a little vanity in the care with which he preserved the most trifling notes and invitations from dukes and earls. The king flattered him greatly. ‘Mr. Young,’ he once said to him, ‘I conceive myself more indebted to you than to any man in my dominions,’ and he never travelled without the ‘Annals’ in the royal carriage. Young was a great favourite in society. Vivacious, high-spirited, and well informed, he was an agreeable companion. His characteristics are abundantly manifested in his writings, and there is no lack of material for forming a mental picture of his personality. His portrait was painted by Rising about 1793, and a miniature of him by W. Jaggers was in the possession of Mr. Alfred Morrison. Engravings from these may be found in Sir Ernest Clarke's ‘History of the Board of Agriculture,’ 1898 (Journal of Royal Agricultural Society of England, vol. ix. pt. i.) His tall slim figure, thin features, aquiline nose, and hawk eyes are in keeping with the restless activity of his character. He rose at 5 a.m., bathed in the open air; on one occasion—undaunted experimentalist—he broke the ice in the pond to bathe, and rolled his body in the snow to test the effect. Vivacity is the chief charm of his writings. His racy downright English is one of many points of resemblance between him and Cobbett. Like the contemporary French economists, the pivot of his principles was to promote the maximum net produce of agriculture. Absentee landlords, antiquated methods of cultivation, wastes and commons, small holdings were his pet aversions, and he headed the intemperate crusade in favour of enclosures. But it is almost always possible to contradict him out of his own mouth. Some of the statements in his ‘Tour in France’ suggested that he was in sympathy with the impending revolution. But he defended his consistency by declaring that ‘the revolution before the 10th of August was as different from the revolution after that day as light from darkness.’ In home politics he was opposed to colonial extension. The loss of the American colonies, ‘north of tobacco,’ he thought ‘a good thing.’ Canada and Nova Scotia were not worth colonising. ‘If they continue poor, they will be no markets. If rich, they will revolt; and that perhaps is the best thing they can do for our interest.’ The loss of India ‘must come. It ought to come.’
