( 3 )
are still bound to be on the look out for whatever can deliver us from undoubted present and anticipated evils. Now, it seems to me that there is a wide difference between keeping manure in proper receptacles, and diffusing it through the earth in an even manner, from allowing it to lie in close proximity to dwellings, or in the midst of a dense population. Were I a farmer or an architect, I might discuss the question of the relative superiority of different manures, or the kind of structures in which the more unpleasant kinds should be stowed; but my object is rather to draw attention to the advantages of making use of products which are not merely waste at present, but very destructive to human life under the existing system. In a country so rich in peat as Ireland, the use of peat-charcoal at once suggests itself as an efficient agent both in deodorizing and increasing the usefulness of such sewage products as may be applied to agricultural purposes. It does not appear that small quantities of decaying matter are ever productive of any injurious effects when exposed to the breezes of heaven, or when mixed with the soil in even pretty large amount. What is complained of, and whose fatal effects cannot be denied, is the concentration of decomposing matters wherever situated, but especially in the midst of human habitations. Who can wonder at the unwholesomeness of the French "cabinet," when only emptied about once a year? of the dung-heap and stagnant duck-pond, close to the door of many an Irish cottage? or of the sweltering tide of corruption which rolls unceasingly in the midst of the modern Babylon? But we have got so used to these "household words," that we consider them as almost a part of the British constitution! Again, let us look at the subject under another aspect. If it is no longer necessary to keep cattle in order to render arable farming profitable, it is quite plain that one great inducement to the breeding of cattle is removed; and would not that be injurious to Ireland as a grazing country? I believe that less cattle would be raised, and also that meat would not be consumed in this country to so great an extent as it is now. But would the land, therefore, lie idle? Would a fewer number of labourers be employed in agriculture? By no means. But, on the contrary, tillage would be more profitable, and we should import less food from abroad. To feed a given number of mouths by raising cattle would require more land than to raise any kind of crop which is suitable for human food; and, therefore, the people would be better fed with less occupation of ground, and we should also be less dependent upon our neighbours for food in time of war.
No doubt the colonies of Great Britain are a great safeguard against famine, even were we at war with the whole world; but we should remember that we import enormous quantities of corn from many countries with whom we have not always friendly relations, and not a little flour from a neighbouring state, at present acting in a manner calculated to raise the suspicions of all her allies. Would it not then be a desideratum to be able to raise enough of food without ever requiring a grain of corn from a foreign port? I believe that enough of vegetable produce might be raised for this purpose, and that men would be able to fight as well in time of need upon it as if fed upon animal diet. I merely throw
