But  the  operation  of  the  bounty  was  very


different.  It  cannot  be  doubted — the  writei
has,  for  the  first  time,  collected  the  evidence — ■
that  the  bounty  stimulated  corn-growing,  en-
closures, and  to  a  very  limited  extent  arable
agriculture.  But  this  advantage,  such  as  it
was,  was  countervailed  by  mischievous  conse-
quences. In  the  first  place,  it  discouraged  the
spread  of  the  new  agriculture,  i.e.  in  general
terms,  the  substitution  of  the  four-course  for
the  three-course  system,  and  the  abandonment
of  bare  fallows  for  turnip  and  artificial  grass
culture,  and  with  this  the  increase  and  improve-
ment of  cattle  and  sheep  raising.  The  legisla-
ture encouraged  only  one  branch  of  agriculture,
corn  raising,  and  by  implication  discouraged
the  other  branches.  In  the  next  place,  men
gambled  for  the  bounty.  It  was  reckoned  that
in  average  cheap  years,  only  a  thirty-third  of
the  crop  won  the  bounty,  but  it  obviously
affected  the  whole  crop  which  was  raised.  In
just  the  same  way,  in  modern  times,  the  beet-
root crop,  favoured  by  continental  governments,
is  the  most  unsatisfactory  and  disappointing
industry  on  the  continent.
