10 
Landmarks in British Farming. 
summer crop till the harvest, when they are grazed by the flocks 
of the village in common. Beyond the meadows and the tillage 
laud begin the sheep common and the cow-downs. Sheep 
are kept for their wool rather than their mutton, and cattle 
are valued for their milking qualities, or their power of 
draught. The common shepherd drives the sheep of the com- 
moners to the downs, or folds them in the common fold upon the 
arable land, or, when they require to be fed, pens and feeds 
them in separate lots, each commoner finding his own food and 
fold. On the cow-downs the common herdsman tends the cattle 
of the community. They begin to feed on the downs in May, 
and continue to graze there till the meadows are mown, and the 
crops are cleared from the arable fields. Then they are turned 
in upon the aftermath, the haulm, and the stubble. Con- 
sequently they are fattest at Michaelmas. For this reason, as 
well as because it is necessary to diminish the live-stock 
during winter, when food is scarce upon open-field farms, they 
are slaughtered at the wane of the year, and salted for the 
Christmas provision. In the height of summer the cattle feed 
in the small marshes by the river, or along the sides of the 
lanes, or are tethered on the turf balks, and are only driven to 
the cow-downs after the evening milking. The rams and the 
parish bull are provided at the joint expense of the community, 
which also pays the wages of the shepherd and the herdsman. 
The disadvantages, from an agricultural point of view, of the 
open-field, common, or intermixed system, are obvious. No 
open-field farmers could farm with spirit. Unless all moved 
together, no one could move hand or foot, and what was every 
man’s business was no man’s business.' They could make no 
use of improved methods of cultivation, new crops, better live- 
stock, or mechanical invention. The land could not be appro- 
priated to the particular use for which it was best adapted ; it 
was cut up and wasted in footpaths to the different closes. 
Lawsuits were almost continuous ; a turn of the plough robbed 
a neighbour of his land, and Dandie Dinmont’s litigation illus- 
trates how fruitful a source of ill-feeling were the “ marches ” of 
another’s property. Cross-harrowing or cross-ploughing was 
impossible, because the strips were too narrow. Farmers, who 
had to traverse the whole length of the parish to reach the 
different parcels of their holdings, wasted their time, destroyed 
their harness, wore out their horses, or, as was the more general 
practice, neglected their land. No drainage could be effected 
unless the universal assent of all the co-partners could be 
obtained ; if one man drained his land or scoured his courses, 
