In the sixth place, the intimate connexion betwixt grass and corn husbandry has been of high advantage to British farming. Ttds union is closer in Britain than in any country in Europe, Flanders excepted, and might still be more firmly cemented, were alternate husbandry brought into general practice. This cannot happen, however, in many districts of England, till all land be held in severalty, and the range of old pastures and mea dows he subjected to the plough. There is little ap pearance at present of these beneficial alterations be ing soon adopted, though few arguments arc required to prove, that numerous advantages would follow, were alternate husbandry generally introduced.
The kinds of land on which alternate husbandry can not be exercised under present circumstances, were the occupiers ever so willing to adopt it, are, let, what is called Common Field, where property is mixed ; and, 2d, what is called Waste Common, where the subsoil belongs to the lord of the manor, and the surface to a class of people having servitude upon it. According to the common field tenure, no new practice can be intro duced, unless w ith the approbation of every one con cerned; and it would be saying too much for the good sense of mankind, to reckon upon such a degree of unanimity in a single instance. As for the waste land, it is condemned to sterility, by the laws of the country supporting a mode of tenure inconsistent with national prosperity. Various attempts have been made by the Board of Agriculture, to procure a law for regulating a general division of common and waste land, though, from the clashing of various interests, unfortunately without success. The advantages which would follow a law of this kind are so numerous, that a wise legis lature would rather cut a knot that cannot be loosened, than suffer the nation to remain without such advan tages.
When a question of this nature is under discussion, the proper way of arguing it is to inquire, whether the holding of land in commontv, or severalty, is most con to the public good or, in other words, whether the ground is most productive under the one tenure o! the other ? It is the improvement ol the country which we ought to have in view, and not the augmentation of inoiv.oual property ; and, even supposing that private rights may he partially injured, yet tl a general division ot mese c.omilion fields and wastes will increase the
quantity ol corn or live-stock, the interest of the country is thereby promoted. Now, as no land can be improved when lying in commonty, it follows, that putting it in that state which allows the proprietor to cultivate and ma nure it as he pleases, must be a necessary measure, and that the object justly deserves the most serious atten tion of the legislature.
The common fields cannot be considered as yielding one half ol their natural value, in the way they arc managed. They arc exhausted by long and continued tillage ; the same rotation of crops has been followed out for time immemorial ;,and in their present situation, improvement is impracticable. To remove every obsta cle to their melioration, is the duty of the legislature ; and experience has ascertained, that without one general bill, which must operate upon all, and which in instances w ill cut the knot that cannot be untied, the public interest must continue to suffer from the unpro ductive state of these lands.
The situation of the waste lands reflects shame on the policy of England ; for, while they continue in their present state, the country derives scarcely any benefit from therm Many of them are susceptible of great improvement, provided the owners were emancipated from those legal obstructions which have hitherto pre vented them from cultivating what ought to be their own property. If the waste lands of Britain were cul tivated in a wise and judicious manner, they would be of more solid value to the nation, than the whole of our West India possessions ; and it presents a melancholy picture, that while we have eagerly contended for the possession of distant countries, we have carelessly ne glected the melioration of at least one sixth part of our home territories, which were undoubtedly of much more importance.
But there is another description of lands, where alter nate husbandry cannot be exercised; and that is the old pastures, which are preserved from the plough with as much care as if the proprietors held their estates under that limitation. As this exclusive system, which pre vails very extensively, is of great detriment to the public, it may be shown, that breaking up these pastures would in no shape hurt the proprietor, but, on the contrary, that the measure would greatly promote his interest.