Does ploughing the ground in a proper manner re duce the natural value of the soil? or, in other words, will it hinder land from carrying grass of good quality when it is laid clown again ? So far from that, it is often necessary to convert pasture into tillage, merely that better crops of grass may be afterwards produced. Land, when uniformly kept in one course, tires for want of variety ; and a farmer might as well expect his land to carry good wheat every year, by the force of manure, as look for grass of equal value for a continued space of time. It is found that the two first years of grass, when the land is sown properly clown, afford a greater return than the same number of subsequent years. The grass is considerably earlier, and therefore of greater value ; while, from the natural vigour of the plants, a large additional quantity of pasture is procured.
But allowing, for argument's sake, that land when in grass continues in a progressive state of improve ment, still a eonsiderabie sum is lost co the proprietor from not p.oughing his fields. \Ve mailitain, that land, it has lam a certain number of years iu grass, is able to pay an extra rent. Tilts, by continuing it in the same state, is totally lost ; because if it were ploughed fur sonic years, and teen sown clown clean and in good heart, it would carry noire grass than ever.
A very great foss is sustained by tile public from the practice of this exclusive system. It requires no calcu lation to how, that by breaking up land, at proper inter vals, a great deal more corn would be raised, an additional quantity of manure procured for enriching barren soils, and much employment consequently given to the people at large. These are important matters, and should be seriously weighed by every proprietor who keeps his estate principally in grass.
It may be asked, if the grass grounds are broken up, how are cattle to be fed for supplying the butcher ? We answer, by laying clown the old ploughed fields, which would be as much benefited by a cessation from plough ing, as the others would be renovated by tillage. \Ve apprehend as much grass would be raised in this way as ever, while at the same time the quantity of corn would be greatly increased.
In a word, the benefits which would follow from a general introduction of alternate husbandry, are almost incalculable. Those districts where it is already intro duced, are by far the richest and most populous. It is only in them that farmers can be considered as having arrived at any degree of perfection. The common field
husbandry may be regarded as a remnant of feudal prac tice, not worthy of existing in these enlightened times, when the true principles of agriculture are so well un derstood.
In the last place, the goodness and steadiness of mar kets in Britain, for disposing of the articles of produce raised by the British 'antler, may be mentioned as a principal mean of securing the superiority of our hus bandry over that of other nations. We need hardly employ a single minute in illustrating this position, be cause its truth is abundantly manifest. No trade can prosper when its articles are not in demand ; or, more properly speaking, when the market demand for the article to be vended is inferior to the quantity offered for sale. With respect to the articles produced by the British farmer, the demand generally equals, and often exceeds the quantity which he rears ; he has every en couragement to increase the quantity of his produce, as it may be instantly disposed of at market for money, without lying upon his hands, or giving him unnecessary trouble. Hence a degree of encouragement is given to British farmers, far exceeding what is enjoyed by those of the continent, where prices arc not only more unsteady, but where a regular demand is also wanting for the pro ductions of the agriculturist.
From these considerations it will in some measure appear, that the British farmer is placed in a preferable situation to that of his brethren on the continent. Fo reigners, who visit this country, are often puzzled to assign reasons for the superiority of British farming, when compared with that of other countries. They at once unanimously acknowledge, that greater energy is displayed by the British farmer ; that the land is better ploughed ; that it is more regularly and systematically that the crops raised are heavier, and appa rently more productk e ; and in short, that the agricul turist appears in a inure elevated situation than with them ; but of the causes which occasion the difference: betwixt British and foreign agni Muir'', they at the same time candidly acknowledge theinsc Ives totally ignorant. \Ve have stated these causes, therefore, in a cursory manner : and are confident that the difference might still be rendered wider, were the obstacles to the improvement of British husbandry, hitherto slightly noticed, completely done away, or suffered gradually to diminish.