Sheep husbandry has received considerable attention in some parts of the United States of late years, although it is generally imperfectly understood. The chief object with flockmasters has been to improve the quality of wool, without regard to the carcass of the animal, wool being much dearer than mutton. Many of the sheep are of the Saxony or Merino blood, or a mixture of these breeds; and their wool is now selling at two shillings and sixpence sterling per pound. This high price is owing to sheep husbandry being foreign to the habits and tastes of American farmers, and the limited funds and cleared surface possessed by forest settlers; and, perhaps, a thorough knowledge of the management of sheep can only be acquired from practice. From these causes, the demand for wool in the United States, with a rapidly increasing population, will, in all probability, long exceed the supply.

There is a general belief in Britain, that the American population dislike mutton, which is, however, certainly not the case. I saw many a leg of mutton discussed at table during my tour; and was often assured that good hind quarters of mutton sold as high as the best beef. Good beef is, however, to be had in almost every village, while good mutton is a rare commodity, which is partly owing to the breeds of sheep, and their want of food during winter.

In a communication addressed to the State Agricultural Society of New York, by Henry D. Grove, who resides in Rensseller county, and is a native of Germany, Mr Grove has, by his own account, devoted much attention to wool-growing in Germany, and for five years in the State of New York. In both countries his flock consisted of full-blooded Saxon sheep, and he considers his situation in America, in about forty-two and a half degrees of north latitude, superior to Saxony for growing fine wool. I have no means of judging between the merits of Saxony and the State of New York as wool-growing countries; but from what came under my notice, I think there is no obstacle to sheep-farming in America but what arises from the severity of the winter, which might be obviated by providing shelter and food for the animals.

Mr Grove considers sweet dry pastures, pure water, and pure air, as the chief essentials of wool-growing; and as these exist in many parts of Illinois, and may perhaps be made universal by digging wells, there can be little doubt of its capabilities for sheep husbandry. Not having seen a sheep while in Illinois, I cannot determine if the prairie grasses are calculated to maintain this animal; but as horses and cattle thrive well on them, it is probable sheep will likewise do so. If, however, this should be found not to be the case, it would be an easy matter to convert the prairie into pasturage, composed of clovers and other grasses, by sowing their seeds. The winters in the southern parts of Illinois are so short, that no great quantity of food would be required to maintain sheep while the ground was covered with snow; and the facility with which Indian corn is raised, would render a supply easily attained, if the cultivation of turnip was found unsuitable. There can be no doubt of potatoes and turnips being easily preserved during winter.

I have no certain means of ascertaining the duration of an Illinois winter in latitude 39. Mr Stuart says he found the cattle in this meridian, on reaching the State, fat on the 29th April, but I fear this is too favourable to the climate. I shall, however, assume the ground to be covered with snow for the period of two months, during which it will be necessary to feed sheep artificially. Mr Grove, in the communication formerly alluded to, says, one lb. of oil-cake is equal to two lbs. of good hay; and that for twelve or thirteen years he found his “flock did extremely well whenever he proportioned their food according to nutritiousness, and in such a manner as that two lbs. of good hay would give to each animal.” It may be assumed that Indian corn, which weighs about sixty lbs. per bushel, is as nutritious as oil-cake for feeding sheep. An acre of Indian corn therefore, yielding forty bushels, will maintain forty sheep during winter, with the assistance of straw; and if hay or potatoes were given, a smaller quantity would suffice. If the Indian corn were bought, and the sheep allowed one lb. daily, each would cost seven-pence halfpenny sterling for two months keeping.

Much of the prairies of Illinois cannot be stocked with sheep until the different varieties of the wolf are extirpated, which will be easily effected with an increase of population, and it is only in the neighbourhood of well-peopled places, and with care during night, that they can be safely kept at present. The time will, however, soon arrive when much of the unsold prairies will be covered with sheep, and then perhaps almost the whole surface of occupied farms will be devoted to providing winter-food for the flocks.

The value of wool is remarkable, compared with land. Suppose the fleece of a Merino sheep weighs three lbs., and sells at sixty cents per lb., the wool of one sheep will nearly purchase an acre and a half of land. Wool could be transported from Illinois to the eastern States for three or four cents a-pound, and there can be no question that it costs less labour in producing and carrying to market than any other agricultural commodity whatever.

The climate and soil of Illinois seem favourable to every description of agriculture. The luxuriance and productiveness of Indian corn has been noticed at page 394. If this crop were succeeded by wheat, accompanied by clover sown in spring, the herbage of which to be eaten by sheep in autumn after the wheat is reaped, and ploughed down for manure to Indian corn in the following spring, I have no doubt alternate crops of wheat and Indian corn might be grown without the aid of manures.

In whatever point of view Illinois is regarded, as adapted for herds and flocks, for wheat and India corn, for manufactures and commerce, or for the abode of population generally, it will be found to be one of the most favoured portions of North America, and with the exception of population, possessing all the elements of future prosperity and greatness. Time will supply inhabitants, which the want of at present, however, forms one of the many advantages of the country for agricultural emigration.

When contrasting Illinois and Upper Canada, I shall not again allude to the governments of the countries, or to their channels of trade, but confine myself chiefly to their agricultural peculiarities.

The most northerly portions of Illinois lie in the same latitude with the most southerly parts of Upper Canada; and on a general view of the countries, the one is four degrees to the north of the other. After considering the different published accounts of an American winter, I have been led to conclude, that between thirty-five and fifty degrees of north latitude, the length of winter increases nearly two weeks with each degree of latitude, consequently the winter of Illinois may be stated about two months shorter than that of Upper Canada. Then, in point of climate, Illinois has greatly the advantage in maturing all the valuable products of the soil, and by affording time for cultivating the farm properly. Live stock will also suffer much less during winter, and the artificial supplies of food necessary for this season, are much easier attained.

The settler of Upper Canada has to struggle with the forest before he obtains a site for his house. If he ventures to keep a cow, she must browse on weeds and leaves of trees in summer, and in winter on the boughs of felled trees; the milk and butter which she yields is of the worst quality, and scarcely repays the trouble of roaming after her in the woods. A pig and poultry cannot be maintained at first, and many years must pass away before the farm can furnish mutton and wool for family use. Trees must be cut down, chopped into logs, and burned before even a garden can be formed. The first crops suffer both from the effects of frost and the want of a circulation of air. The plough cannot be profitably used until eight years after the forest is cut down; during the greater part of this period the harrow and scythe move amongst blackened stumps, and there is difficulty in growing sufficient food for a family.

The settler of Illinois places his house on the skirts of the forest or on the open field, as fancy may dictate. The prairie furnishes summer and winter-food for any number of cattle and sheep, and poultry and pigs shift for themselves until the crops ripen. With the preliminary of fencing, the plough enters the virgin soil, which in a few months afterwards yields a most abundant crop of Indian corn, and on its removal every agricultural operation may be executed with facility. The first crops are excellent, and seldom suffer from atmospheric effects. Pastoral, arable, or mixed husbandry, may be at once adopted, and produce of all kinds obtained in the utmost profusion.

In Upper Canada the settler is immersed in the forest with roads that are passable for heavy carriages only when frozen. The Illinois settler enjoys a prospect of wood and plain, and the open prairie affords good roads at all times when the weather is dry. In Upper Canada no part of the surface is productive which has not been cleared. In Illinois the whole of a prairie farm is productive without being cultivated. In Upper Canada the forest settler cannot at first produce his own food, and lives for a time on flour and salt provisions. In Illinois the settler at once raises on his farm almost every thing he can consume. In Upper Canada the farmer is not fully repaid for his first operations until the end of six or seven years. In Illinois the farmer is repaid for his first operations in course of a few months. The farmer’s reward in Upper Canada is many years distant, and in Illinois it is almost immediate. In short, the farmer in Upper Canada at first finds difficulty in growing a sufficiency of produce for his own use, and the Illinois farmer difficulty in consuming his produce.

The positions which I have advanced regarding the farming of the two countries, will appear evident from figures. By consulting pages 117 and 375, it will be found that the expense of bringing an acre of wheat to maturity in Upper Canada amounts to $.24, exclusive of harvesting, thrashing, and marketing the crop. The produce cannot be obtained earlier than eighteen months after entering into possession of the land, and will not exceed in general cases eighteen bushels per acre. By referring to page 448 it will be found, that the expense of raising a crop of Indian corn and wheat on the prairies of Illinois is stated at $4.02, to which $1 must be added for fencing, making $5.02 for both crops, exclusive of harvesting, thrashing, and marketing. The crops will be obtained in eighteen months after entry, and consist of forty bushels of Indian corn and 22½ bushels of wheat, or, in other words, the farmer, with about one-fifth of the labour or outlay on an acre in Illinois, will obtain more than double the produce he could get in the same time in Upper Canada. But if the calculations were extended to the eighth year, the difference of produce would still appear to be greater. During this period an acre in Illinois would, with good management, continue to yield nearly the same produce; while the land in Upper Canada, after yielding two successive wheat crops, would be allowed to produce grass until the stumps rotted. Grass is of little value in Canada, unless near villages where there is a demand for hay, and it would be unfair to allow any thing for the land remaining in pasturage for five years, as in this state it would only be on a footing with the uncultivated prairie. Then, during eight years, an acre of land in Upper Canada would yield thirty-six bushels of wheat, and in Illinois 160 bushels of Indian corn and ninety bushels of wheat.

The result of one acre does not fairly exhibit the real advantages of Illinois. It has formerly been stated that settlers in Canada seldom clear more than six or seven acres in a year; but to place things in a favourable view, I shall suppose ten acres to be cleared, with assistance in logging and burning. In Illinois an industrious settler would have little difficulty, with the occasional assistance of a boy or two, in cultivating fifty acres. On this data, the Upper Canada farmer, at the end of eighteen months, would raise 180 bushels of wheat, and the farmer in Illinois 2000 bushels of Indian corn and 1125 bushels of wheat. During this period the Upper Canada farmer would neither have grass for cow nor sheep, and perhaps scarcely food for a pig; while in Illinois stock of all kinds may have been kept.

In assuming wheat in Upper Canada to yield eighteen bushels per acre when land is first cleared, and wheat in Illinois 22½ bushels, the soil and climate are supposed to be the same in both countries, and twenty per cent has been deducted from the wheat of Upper Canada on account of the surface occupied by stumps. Should it be contended that my estimate of the Upper Canada wheat crop is too low, I would argue my estimate of the Illinois crop is still more so, and maintain, that whatever produce the first wheat crops of Upper Canada may yield, those of Illinois must be twenty per cent better, from the ground being free from stumps. Indian corn cannot be grown on a large scale amongst stumps; and even after they are removed, the effect of soil and climate will render the crop nearly fifty per cent better in Illinois than in Upper Canada.

Mr Ferguson’s calculations seem to me too favourable to Upper Canada; yet if the expenses of harvesting, thrashing, and teaming be added to the expenses of the first wheat crop, as stated by him, the value of the produce, which I think he has greatly overrated, falls L.1, 7s. 6d. short of the expense it has cost in raising; and no statement which I received made the value of the first crop cover the expense of producing it. It is this circumstance which renders the farmers of Upper Canada so poor after first settlement, and time and frugality the only means of escaping from their wretchedness. It is this circumstance, joined to the effects of accumulating interest, which renders inevitable the ruin of every farmer who purchases on credit, and stamps with folly the recent proceedings of government in disposing of land. In Illinois the first crops more than repay the expense of raising them.

The commercial state of the two countries corroborates the nature of the farming. A newly settled district in Upper Canada continues to import flour and salt provisions for many years. In Illinois every farmer, soon after establishing himself, sells produce of all descriptions. The whole population of Upper Canada, with exception of those on the rivers Detroit and Thames, may be said to be fed with fresh or salted animal food from the United States. The difficulties of first settlement in a densely wooded country are so great that the inhabitants of Upper Canada could not have existed without the money of Britain, and the provisions of the western United States.

Viewing soil as a workshop, the prairie farm of Illinois is superior to the forest one in Upper Canada, not only from containing a better supply of the materials forming climate, as described at pages 327, 328, but from being fitted by nature for immediate operations. Place a prepared workshop, and materials for forming another, before any manufacturer whatever, and ask him whether he would commence his profession in the erected shop, or prepare one with his own hands. Such is the situation of the industrious emigrant farmer with regard to the Illinois prairie and Upper Canada forest. If choice is made of the latter, the farmer is like a manufacturer who would erect a workshop with his own hands. The forest settler, after suffering privations, undergoing much toil, and patiently waiting till the stumps decay, will at length find himself in something like the situation of the prairie farmer on his first settlement. Nay, the first ploughing of forest land after the stumps have decayed, is more expensive than breaking up prairie land, and the succeeding crops greatly inferior. I had no opportunity of forming an opinion of the crops immediately after the stumps decay, but a friend, capable of judging, told me a field which I saw preparing under such circumstances, on the banks of the Otanabee, in the Newcastle district, produced a poor wheat crop in 1834, and that such crops will not average more than fifteen bushels per acre. A person in the township of Hinchinbrook, Lower Canada, prepared and sowed a field of stump land with wheat in 1834, the crop of which did not cover the expense of raising and carrying it to market. The capitalist who clears Canadian forest in preference to farming the prairie of Illinois, makes a sacrifice of property, and the industrious farmer who follows the same course throws away ten or twelve years of his labour.

However theoretical the view which I have ventured to take of the first settlers in the two countries may appear to some minds, it will be found to accord with practice. Throughout all my peregrinations in Upper Canada, I did not visit or see a settlement of seven or eight years’ standing possessing a stack nor a herd of cattle. Ten or twelve acres of wheat, which was put into a barn, formed the utmost extent of that crop on one farm, and the patches of Indian corn seldom exceeded a rood. The tables of the farmers were indifferently stored, fried salt pork from the United States being served up in many houses twenty-one times a-week. In Illinois the state of things was very different with new settlers. Wheat and Indian corn were seen every where in abundance, and the tables were amply stored with fresh provisions. In Upper Canada salt pork was the standard dish at all meals, and in Illinois salted meat was never placed before me.

A British farmer can have little idea of the Canadian forest from the trees of his own country, which are mere saplings compared with those of Upper Canada; and his notions of drilled crops and rotations will ill accord with the disgusting black stumps which disfigure the fields. In Illinois he may at once pursue any system and perform any operation. The best breeds of cattle and sheep will find suitable food in the country, and the most improved implements of husbandry may be employed. A reaping machine was used at Jacksonville in 1834, and it is on the lawned surface of the prairie where this and almost every other description of agricultural machinery can be introduced with advantage. On the forest farm of Canada machinery cannot be used, nor stock kept.

Since the prairies of Illinois possess such advantages over Upper Canada in the present state of agriculture, what may not be expected from them with the progress of science? Already the crops on nearly one hundred farms in East Lothian are thrashed by means of steam, and its application to other operations will in all probability be soon effected. The coalfield of Illinois is inexhaustible. With steam power to cultivate the prairie, and to reap, collect the crops of grass and of wheat, and to separate the grain from the straw, who can set limits to the quantity of human sustenance which Illinois is capable of affording? If ever there is such a place as the granary of the world, it will be the prairies of the western United States of America.

It was difficult for me to form an opinion of the price of wheat in Upper Canada when I was in the country, the accounts being so contradictory, and sometimes stated in cash, and sometimes in store pay. I have stated the expenses and merchants’ profit of sending wheat from the township of Nichol to Britain at 3s. 7d. sterling per bushel, and perhaps the average expense of the province will exceed 3s. The wheat of Upper Canada will sell as high in the London market as the best English wheat. The farmer of Upper Canada must, therefore, sell his wheat about 24s. a-quarter below the highest London prices. The Illinois farmer has different markets for his wheat, and can send it to Canada if he pleases. I have no means of calculating the expense of transport from Illinois to Canada, which cannot, however, be very heavy, from the canals being public property, and the dues consequently moderate. The greater produce of land in Illinois will, however, more than pay the expense of sending it to Canada, and I consider myself justified in saying that a farm in Illinois will at all times yield more produce than one in Upper Canada, and that produce realize more money.

The prices of farm produce being high in Upper Canada is disadvantageous to the labouring settler who enters on a forest farm, because, being unable for several years to grow a sufficiency of food for family consumpt, the dearness of what he purchases exhausts his funds. So long as a farmer consumes all the produce which he grows, prices do not in the least affect him, and this is too often overlooked in the Canadas, where it is so difficult at first to grow produce. Fresh beef is said occasionally to fetch twenty-five cents per pound at Quebec, while it can be had in some parts of Illinois at three cents. The settler at Quebec would feel the high price of beef a hardship, and perhaps never reap the benefit of it from the difficulty of fattening cattle in his unfavourable situation. The true value of a crop is expressed by the price and quantity of produce, diminished by the expense it costs in raising and marketing.

I also found difficulty in ascertaining the yearly wages of an agricultural labourer in Upper Canada, from the system of cash and store pay, and the difference of summer and winter wages. Mr Somerville of Whitby states the cash wages of the best labourer in Upper Canada at $80 a-year, while in Illinois they are $100. Whether these sums are perfectly accurate, is of no great consequence, as it is universally admitted over all Canada that wages are lower there than in the United States. Indeed it cannot be otherwise, produce being shared between the farmer and labourer, and land in Upper Canada yielding so much less than in Illinois.

Labour is more easily obtained in Upper Canada than in Illinois, the difficulty with which forest land is cultivated preventing labourers farming on their own account. Whether the agricultural capitalist derives more profit from employing labour in Upper Canada than in Illinois, I cannot satisfactorily determine; but from what has been formerly stated, the investment of capital in clearing forest in Upper Canada does not in the first instance pay, while farming the prairie is at once remunerating. From the great return of produce, it is probable both the capitalist and labourer are better rewarded in Illinois than in Upper Canada. The higher wages in Illinois, however, bring the farmer and hired labourer nearer each other in the command of the necessaries of life than in Canada. But this circumstance ought to form a source of enjoyment to the capitalist, who should prize the bounty of God the more from knowing it is also amply shared by the labourer. The landholder of Upper Canada, who sets himself down in the forest, toils hard for the first nine or ten years, and cannot command the same comforts and necessaries of life as the labourer in Illinois. I refer to page 450 for evidence of the truth of this remark.

As it is the ambition of every agricultural labourer who leaves Britain for America to become a landholder there, I shall endeavour to show what are the chances of attaining his object in Upper Canada and Illinois.

Supposing forest land in Upper Canada to be $3 per acre, and a labourer’s wages $80 a-year with board, he will get the value of about twenty-seven acres of land. In Illinois, land costs $1¼, and wages being $100, the labourer gets the value of eighty acres. But taking into account what has been stated at page 460 regarding the difference of expense in raising crops on forest and prairie land, I am justified in asserting the wages of agricultural labour to be about thirty times higher in Illinois than in Upper Canada, when estimated in reference to land and what it can be made to produce in the respective countries.

Purchasing extensive tracts of forest land is a hazardous speculation in Upper Canada, because it is now selling far above its intrinsic value to actual settlers. The soil continues unproductive while the forest remains, and it has been already shown that land does not repay the expense of clearing for years afterwards. Take for illustration a case where a block of 7000 acres has been purchased at $4 per acre, the block would cost L.7000 currency. Suppose the proprietor clears 100 acres yearly for six successive years, at the termination of which he finds the expense of improvement and his family living has been disbursed by the crops, and I am much mistaken if such an extent of operations and successful issue has ever taken place. The legal interest of the country being 6 per cent, the original purchase money will now amount to L.9520, or a yearly burden on the cleared portion of nearly twenty shillings per acre; and if the purchase money was only $2 instead of $4, the yearly burden would still be ten shillings. Purchasing the prairie of Illinois is very different, because the whole surface is productive without cultivation, and keeping but a single sheep on it per acre, would leave a profit on the outlay. A rise in the value of Illinois land in course of a few years may be held to be certain, and in the mean time it will continue productive. A rise in the value of forest land in Upper Canada for twenty years to come is doubtful, and until then it will remain unproductive. There is no way of escaping from loss in holding a tract of forest land in Canada but by selling it.

A party of friends cannot conveniently settle themselves together in the forest of Upper Canada. Each family would be shut out from the others’ occupying a small clearance, with bad roads of communication, and the larger the party and the extent of each family’s possessions, the greater these and other inconveniences would become. A party may occupy a portion, or the whole, of a prairie in Illinois with the best effects. Each family might settle within sight of the whole party, with good roads of communication, and although the possessions of each might be extensive, circumstances would be the same, with exception of the distance of separation. The skirts of the prairie would afford forest, scattered trees, or lawn for adorning residences, but Upper Canada being an interminable forest, the members of which do not answer to stand when singled out, there is but little choice of natural beauty of situation.

The agriculturists of Britain, who have long been accustomed to obtain high prices for produce, and consequently to finger much cash, may be apt to treat with contempt the idea of farming in a country where prices are so low as they are in Illinois. I have already remarked that the British farmer collects the corn-law tax, the results of nature’s assistance, and part of what flows from his own capital, and the operatives’ labour, all of which he pays in the name of rent and taxes; so it is only that portion of the cash which sticks to his own pocket that is really valuable to him. When conversing on this subject, a farmer once remarked to me that he paid money away as fast as it was received, and derived no advantage from the cash which resulted from high prices beyond the temporary pleasure of looking at it.

It is far from my intention to undervalue the advantages enjoyed by the farmers of Britain, or to ridicule them for discharging, through the medium of high prices, just debts, which I consider to be one of the most pleasing employments in life. But while sensible of the general benefits of cash, let me ask British farmers what is the use of money to them beyond the means it affords of purchasing things? The industrious farmer of Illinois may not perhaps be able to accumulate much money, but although not rich in cash, he cannot fail of being rich in things.

The view which I have ventured to describe of cash and things, as affecting the farmer of Britain and Illinois, is not visionary. Take for illustration a favourable case in Britain. Suppose a farmer to have rented 300 acres for a period of thirty years, during which he has maintained and educated a family, and to die worth five thousand pounds. This sum will do little more than place two sons in a situation similar to what he occupied, that is to say, it will purchase twice the farming apparatus he himself possessed. A farmer occupying the like extent and for the same period in Illinois, might educate and maintain a family in the fullest abundance, and would find no difficulty during his lifetime in placing a dozen of sons in a similar position with himself by the means of things, whatever might be the state of prices. If a son, on attaining his fifteenth year, were to work for hire, or to be industrious on his father’s farm until reaching the age of twenty-one, the results of his own labour would enable him to purchase and stock a farm without assistance from the father. But in a case where the son may not have been industrious, the farmer could have little difficulty in providing him with a farm, when the fleece of a sheep purchases an acre and a half of land. A farm is almost as easily stocked as it is purchased, one ploughing and harrowing being sufficient to procure a crop of Indian corn and one of wheat; while the produce of an acre of the former will furnish seed for 320 acres, and an acre of the latter seed for forty-five acres.

Hitherto the case of farmers and their sons has only been alluded to. It is unnecessary, however, to notice the situations of widows, daughters, and infant-children, after what has been stated at pages 336–7 and 344–5. When a British tenant, who has farmed on lease, is descending the vale of years, with local attachments for the spot where he was born deeply-seated in his heart, the caprice of landholder, agent, or factor may uproot the best feelings of his nature, and set him aside to make room for another. But the farmer of Illinois has the assurance of terminating his days on the spot which has been the scene of his operations in manhood, unmolested by any one.

The farmer may change the scene of his operations from Britain to Illinois, and benefit by the transition, but the like prospect cannot be held out to the Illinois farmer. The following is an extract from a letter lately received from my brother Charles:—“I do not regret the step which I have taken in settling myself on the banks of the Mississippi, and shall be stimulated to active exertion by the thought, that every tree I cut down, every sod I turn, and every animal I rear, brings me nearer Scotland. I have reason to believe these hopes will be realized. Allowing, however, that they will not—that a livelihood is the most I shall obtain, and that I am compelled to spend and end my days here—what of that? at the longest, life is not so very long, and when accompanied with virtue, it has attractions almost any where. But I still look to Scotland as containing all I truly love in this world, and shall never relinquish the hope of being able to end my days at home.” In Britain the state of every thing at present is so different from Illinois, that there is not much prospect of any emigrant farmer realizing such a fortune in Illinois as will enable him to return and live in Britain. The rate of interest in Illinois being nearly three times more, and the price of provisions nearly three times less than in Britain, a change of residence from the former to the latter would be attended with an immense loss of income to the capitalist. On the other hand, a change from Britain to Illinois would greatly augment his income. Britain and Illinois cannot, however, long continue so dissimilar as they are at present. The necessaries of life are likely to approach nearer each other in price, by a rise in the one country and a fall in the other, and ultimately the youthful emigrant of the present day may be enabled to return to Britain in his old age.

Some of the opinions which I have expressed of the Canadas and Illinois, as adapted for agriculture, may be tested by the standard of nature.

From the junction of the north branch of the river Ottawa with the St Lawrence below Montreal, to Goderich in the west of Upper Canada, and from thence to the southern point of Illinois, the eye is only relieved by two inconsiderable eminences in Lower Canada. Lakes Huron and Michigan being situated in the highest parts, and only 589 feet above the level of the sea, this tract of country may be considered an immense valley, the Canadas running from the lakes in a north-easterly direction, and Illinois running south. On a general view, there is so little difference of elevation, that the countries may be considered of the same altitude, and their climates affected only by latitude. The medium latitude of Lower Canada may be stated at 46°, of Upper Canada, 44°, and of Illinois, 40. Supposing winter to increase in duration two weeks with each degree of latitude, the winter of the medium of Illinois may be stated at two months, of Upper Canada at four months, and of Lower Canada at five months. The summers of the countries lengthen inversely with the winters.

Judging from what came under my notice, I am inclined to think the surface of Illinois is superior soil to the Canadas, and the lower province better than Upper Canada. There is, however, much good and bad soil in all the countries, and in order to avoid the semblance of partiality, the soil of the Canadas and Illinois shall be assumed to be similar in quality.

I have formerly denominated soil a workshop; air, moisture, light, and heat, raw materials, termed climate; plants and animals, machinery; certain minerals and labour, oil for the machinery which manufacture farm produce. Nature and man perform distinct parts in the manufacture, and the farmer’s success depends on the aid which he is enabled to afford her. Man is subordinate to nature, and a superabundant or a diminished supply of moisture or of heat, which form part of the materials she supplies, may arrest the manufacture, and impair or destroy the machinery furnished by man.

The workshop or soil of the Canadas and Illinois has been assumed to be similar, but the raw materials of nature are not at all times furnished to the workshops of these countries in the same proportions, and this variation of supply or difference of climate, affects the manufacturing results of the farms, both with regard to the quantity and quality of fabrics.

The winters of Lower Canada, Upper Canada, and Illinois being respectively five, four, and two months in length, manufacturing will be altogether suspended in the countries for corresponding periods. The effects of suspended heat, or presence of cold, on animal machinery, is increased by intensity as well as duration, and labour or furnishing of oil is impracticable in winter. Manufacturing proceeds only when winter is absent, and is increased by the intensity and length of summer, when oil can be supplied. Winter being absent seven months in Lower Canada, eight in Upper Canada, and ten in Illinois, the relative quantities of fabrics manufactured in the workshops are not truly represented by these numbers; and when all the effects of climate and of labour on animal and vegetable machinery are duly considered, the average farming results, as regard quantity, may be stated in Lower Canada at six, in Upper Canada at seven and a half, and in Illinois at ten. But farming depends greatly on the aid afforded nature, and the stated results of the countries are supposed to arise from similar management.

Climate not being alike congenial to all plants and animals, the results of the farm will be affected in quantity and quality by the machinery which is employed and the care bestowed on it. It is almost unnecessary to illustrate this position. The north of Scotland yields finer oats than the south of England, but falls far short in the growth of wheat. The wheat of Lower Canada is inferior to the wheat of the upper province, and the growth of Illinois is superior to the wheat of Upper Canada. Lower Canada does not produce autumn sown wheat, and Upper Canada is not, like Illinois, congenial to the growth of Indian corn, the “meal, meadow, and manure” of the farm. Taking into consideration the winters and summers of the countries, the qualities of their wheat, and the importance of Indian corn, the average farming results, combining the quantity and quality of human sustenance, may be stated in Lower Canada at five, in Upper Canada at eight, and in Illinois at twelve. This calculation is meant to apply to soil under cultivation, and to embrace the results of nature, capital, and labour.

I formerly assumed the results of nature in American farming to be represented by the number 3. They will, however, necessarily vary with the climate of the different parts of the country and the system of management pursued. From what has been already stated regarding the agriculture of the Canadas and Illinois, nature’s part in the produce arising from cultivation may be stated thus—

It has already been mentioned, that a person possessing his own land has nature for his servant; and if the estimates of her assistance in the different countries approximate to accuracy, the farmer in Illinois receives from nature double the assistance of the Lower Canada farmer, and upwards of thirty per cent more than the farmer in Upper Canada.

The assistance which farmers in the different countries derive from nature on first settlement is not fully displayed by the numbers two, three, and four. It has formerly been assumed that a person in the Canadas may clear ten acres of forest land in a year, and reap from it a crop of wheat at the end of eighteen months, and that a person in Illinois may reap in the same time a crop of Indian corn and a crop of wheat from fifty acres. But the stumps of trees in the Canadas will occupy two acres out of the ten, and thereby limit nature’s assistance to eight acres. Nature’s assistance to the farmer in eighteen months after settlement may be thus expressed:—

From the preceding statement, the farmer in Illinois receives from nature twenty-five times the assistance of the Lower Canada farmer, and nearly seventeen times the assistance of the farmer in Upper Canada. But if nature’s contribution to the advantages which the Illinois settler derives from the prairie be estimated, he may be said to receive from nature thirty, and twenty times the assistance of the farmer in Lower and Upper Canada respectively. It is the assistance which the farmer derives from nature in degree, as well as in extent, which gives the prairies of Illinois such advantages over the forests of Canada.

The British emigrant reaches Lower Canada by the river St Lawrence, the navigation of which is closed by ice from November till May. Upper Canada may be reached by the St Lawrence, or by way of New York and the Erie canal. When the emigrant has a delicate family, and is encumbered with heavy luggage, the route by New York is the best, more especially if the place of his destination communicates with lakes Erie, St Clair, or Huron. The routes to Illinois are by the St Lawrence and New York, through the western lakes to Chicago on lake Michigan, or by New York and the canal communicating with the river Ohio and lake Erie. Illinois may also be reached by way of New York, Philadelphia, and from thence to Wheeling on the Ohio, or by way of Baltimore and Wheeling. But the most economical way for a family and luggage to proceed is by way of New Orleans and the Mississippi, navigation seldom being interrupted by this route, and steam-boats leaving New Orleans every two or three days for the town of St Louis and the Ohio.

The expense of the best cabin passage from Liverpool to New Orleans, including bedding and wine, is from L.30 to L.35 sterling, and the passage from New Orleans to St Louis, L.5, 6s. A steerage passage from Liverpool to New Orleans is from L.4 to L.5, exclusive of bedding and provisions, and from New Orleans to St Louis, L.1, 14s.

The agricultural implements of Britain are ill adapted for the forest settler; and as a general rule, the implements of the country are suitable for what is required of them. Cotton goods are nearly as cheap in the United States as in Britain, but woollens are higher.

The household furniture of Britain is unsuitable for agricultural emigrants. Cooking apparatus adapted for the country can be had every where. Crockery, glass, and hardware may be taken, and bedding materials, with exception of feathers.