88 LAND FOR FOOD PRODUCTION 



he is to be guarded against in the same way as any other 

 exploiting tenant who goes about looking for a good 

 arable farm, only that he may run it out. The relation 

 of owner and tenant is one of partnership, and the onus 

 is always on the owner to see that his working partner 

 does not dilapidate his property. Though the latent 

 value is there in the grass land it is not productive, and 

 does not in the maj ority of cases cause the land to bring 

 in more rent ; as long as there is reasonable security 

 that the land will remain under arable cultivation and 

 will continue to earn the same rent, the owner is not 

 put in a worse position by the conversion of grass into 

 arable. He may have paid something for the laying 

 down of grass as a permanent improvement, but his loss 

 is only realized if it becomes impossible to continue the 

 arable farming and he is called upon to restore the grass. 

 But under our cardinal assumption the extension and 

 continuance of the arable farming are necessary to the 

 welfare of the State, so that the loss should never accrue, 

 and in any case a mode of insurance or guarantee can 

 be devised against the possible replacement of the 

 grass. The landowner has doubtless a just claim that 

 he and not the tenant only ought to have the benefit 

 of the latent fertility in old grass land. A tribunal 

 would therefore appear to be necessary to assess 

 this value in cases of dispute, and also to decide to 

 what extent the owner's restrictive covenants against 

 the ploughing up of grass land should be allowed to 

 stand. 



Let us now consider the method in which the land 

 now under cultivation is distributed among the various 

 crops, and the cropping that might be obtained if we 

 could bring about a return to the same acreage of arable 



