This Land, when it lies flat, and is plowed sometimes one Way, sometimes the other, by cross-plowing, retains the Rain-water a long time soaking into it; by that Misfortune, the Plough is kept out Two or Three Weeks longer than if the same were in round Ridges; nay, sometimes its Flatness keeps it from drying till the Season of plowing, and even of sowing too, be lost. The Reasons commonly given against such Ridges are these following. I. _They prevent the fansied Benefit of cross-plowing._ II. _Farmers think they lose Part of their Ground, by leaving more Furrows betwixt Ridges, than when they lay their Land flat, where the Lands are made much larger than round Ridges can conveniently be; and because also the Furrows betwixt Ridges must be broader, and lie open; but the other they fill up by the Harrows._ The first of these I have already answered elsewhere, by shewing, that Cross-plowing is oftener injurious than beneficial. The Second I shall sufficiently confute, if I can make appear, that no Ground is lost, but much may be gained, by Ridges. What I mean by gaining of Ground, is the increasing of the Earth’s Surface: For if a flat Piece be plow’d up into Ridges, and if in each Sixteen Feet Breadth there be an empty Furrow of Two Feet; and yet, by the Height and Roundness of the Ridges, they have Eighteen Feet of Surface capable of producing Corn, equally to Eighteen Feet whilst the Piece was flat; there will be one Eighth Part of profitable Ground or Surface gain’d, more than it had when level; and this, I believe, Experience will prove, if the thing were well examined into. But against this Increase of profitable Ground, there is an Objection, which I must not call a frivolous one, in respect to the Authors who bring it; yet, I hope, the Desire of finding the Truth will justify me to examine it; and the Arguments brought to sustain it. This Opinion of theirs is founded upon their Notion (which I think very erroneous) of the perpendicular Growth of Vegetables; and is, by Mr. _Bradley_, set in its best Light, in his _Vol._ I. _Pag._ 8. _usque ad Pag._ 13. and in his Cuts, representing Three Hills; but his Arguments seem to be such as all Arguments are, which pretend to prove a thing to be what it is not; _viz._ Sophistical ones. The Hypothesis he endeavours to prove, is in _Pag._ 8. thus: ‘An Hill may contain Four equal Sides, which meet in a Point at the Top; but the Contents of these Four Sides can produce no more, either of Grain or Trees, than the plain Ground, upon which the Hill stands, or has at its Base: and yet, by the Measure of the Sides, we find twice the Number of Acres, Roods, and Poles, which measure in the Base, or Ground-plat; and therefore _Page_ 9. Hills are worth no more than half their Superficial Measure; _i. e._ Two Acres upon the Side of the Hill to pay as much as one upon the Plain, provided the Soil of both is equally rich.’