412 On Grass Land. 



A question then arises, whether it is most for the advantage 11 

 of the parties interested, and of the public, that one-half of a 

 farm should be in perpetual grass, and the other half in per- 

 petual cultivation ; or the whole alternately under grass and 

 grain, and subjected to the convertible husbandry ? 



The objections to the division of a farm, one-half into per- 

 manent grass, and the other half into permanent tillage, are 

 very great. The arable is deteriorated by the abstraction of 

 the manure which it produces, if applied to enrich the grass ; 

 while a part of the manure thus employed, is wasted ; for 

 spreading putrescent substances upon the surface of a field, 

 if done at an improper season^ is to manure, not only the soil, 

 but the atmosphere ( 3l 3 ). The miserable crops of corn pro- 

 duced, where this system prevails, sufficiently prove its mis- 

 chievous consequences. 



So injurious is the plan of impoverishing the arable land, 

 for the sake of the grass, that in the opinion of experienced 

 farmers, the landlord loses one-fourth of the rent he other- 

 wise would get, for every acre thus debarred from cultiva- 

 tion ; while the public is deprived of 3| bushels of grain, for 

 every stone of beef or mutton thereby obtained ( 3l4 ). 



This is a point that cannot be too much inculcated, in a, 

 country increasing in population, and which finds it neces- 

 sary to import foreign grain, for the maintenance of its in- 

 habitants. For with the exception of the richest pastures, 

 arable land is, on an average, superior to grass-land, with 

 respect to furnishing articles of human food, in the propor- 

 tion of three to one( 315 ); and consequently every piece of 

 land, unnecessarily kept in grass, the produce of which will 

 only maintain one person, is depriving the community of 

 food capable of maintaining two additional members ( 3l5 ). 



Landlords, in many parts of England, are apt to be ap- 

 prehensive, that their interests may suffer from a change of 

 system ( 3l? ); and it is much to be lamented, that the law 

 scarcely affords them adequate protection for their pro- 

 perty against tenants, who are inclined to break through 

 their engagements. Were it not for this circumstance, the 

 interests of the landlord might be sufficiently guarded against 

 injury, by judicious covenants, and by prescribing an im- 

 proved management. A regular system of convertible hus- 

 bandry, might thus be established, by which the value of 

 landed property, would not only be greatly augmented, 

 but the true interests of the country most essentially pro- 

 moted. 



The principal objection, to the conversion of old turf into 



