THE FALL IN RENTALS.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR.")
Sur,—With reference to your article on the decline in the rental of land, I believe the explanation to be a very simple one. Up to a period the end of which began some twenty years ago, Eng- lish farmers had at their command a supply of agricultural labour which, for their objects, was practically unlimited. Railways spreading into every district have made an end of this, and enabled the younger men in purely agricultural districts to emigrate to neighbourhoods where higher wages were obtainable. All the employers of labour have been, of course, affected by the rise of Wages; but I believe that, in the way I have indicated, the effect upon farmers has, perhaps, been greater than upon any other class of employers. Be this as it may, certain it is that an ade- quate supply of labour can only be retained in agricultural dis- tricts for agricultural purposes by paying such advanced rates of wages as may make it worth the while of the labourer to remain.
The result I take to be this :—Of what I will call, for present purposes, the gross profit of a farm, a larger portion than formerly goes inevitably to the labourer. A smaller portion remains for the landlord. If, when a change of tenure occurs, a landlord is. prepared to make arrangements for accepting the proportion (smaller, probably, than formerly,) which altered circumstances leave available for rent, he will, I believe, find as little difficulty as ever in obtaining satisfactory tenants. Others will judge for themselves. I have myself no doubt that the explanation I have given is the true one. If it be so, the sooner the "inexorable, logic of facts" is understood, the better for all parties.—I
Previous page
