LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN TENANT-RIGHT.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
Sta,—The Duke of Argyll and Mr. Bear have discussed in your columns and elsewhere the existing relations between land- owners and tenant-farmers, from the points of view of the land- owner and the tenant-farmer respectively. But there is a third point of view, not less important than either of these. What strikes the observer who, being neither landowner nor farmer, looks at the matter in the public interest, is chiefly this. He sees that by the testimony of all the best authorities, the soil of England is far less productive than it ought to be ; that much the greater part of it is not so drained, or fenced, or provided with farm buildings and appliances, that it can be cultivated to the best advantage ; and especially that such applications of capital as are needed to bring out the productive powers of the less manageable soils are made only in exceptional cases. In short, he sees that one blade of grass is in general growing where two blades ought to grow ; and this in a country whose manufac- turing skill is the wonder of the world, and whose capital is so enormous, that there is the utmost difficulty in finding employ- ment for it. The Duke of Argyll tells the public, in your columns, that " the improvement and reclamation of land will often pay 20 and 30 per cent." Yet at this moment, with millions of acres of land in England crying out for improvement and reclamation, cautious capitalists cannot get 4 per cont. for their money, and the more adventurous are ranging the globe, from Texas to Borneo, in the hope (too often unfulfilled) of obtaining, perhaps, from 6 to 10 per cent.
The impartial observer, who sees all this, easily reaches the conclusion that something is wrong somewhere. Where the fault lies may be less obvious. But I think a careful considera- tion of the character, the position, and the legal status of landowners and farmers leads to the conclusion that under the existing system, no large development of the productiveness of the soil can be expected from either of them. Landowners are not an accumulating class. In nine cases out of ten, the income of a country squire barely suffices to keep up the dignity of his family, and to keep down the interest of his incumbrances. If anything is left, there are his younger children to be provided for, to say nothing of Turf, and other extravagances, which im- poverish many landowners. If, then, landowners are either to lay out capital on the soil themselves, or (which, it should
always be remembered, would be quite as difficult for them) to pay large sums to tenants as compensation, in respect of capital so laid out, they must in general raise the money on mortgage, or by sale. Borrowing on mort- gage, which subjects landowners not only to increased payments for interest, but to frequently recurring and very heavy law- costs, they justly dread. Sales they dislike still more. Lord Cairns has, I believe, proposed, if not passed, an act enabling owners of settled estates to sell portions of such estates, and to lay out the purchase-money in improving the remainder. But nobody knows better than Lord Cairns that this power will be exercised
only in exceptional cases. If an ordinary landowner has, say, 4,000 acres of land, producing £4,000 a year, it is of no use to show him that if he will sell 1,000 acres and lay out the pro- ceeds in improving the remaining 3,000, he may increase his yearly income to £4,500 or £5,000. The instincts of his caste are against it. His importance in his county, his influence on the Grand Jury and at Quarter-sessions and at elections, would be prejudiced. So would his shooting, or fishing, or coursing. The very first end and object of life, in the eyes of a landowner, is to keep his estate in the family.
But if the landowners cannot be expected to find capital for the improvement of the soil, what can be hoped, under the existing system, from the farmers ? They come from the same class as do the bulk of our traders and manufacturers, not a few of whom, indeed, are sons of farmers. Want of enterprise in laying out capital where there seems a fair chance of profit, is the very last fault that can be charged on English traders or manufacturers. The farmer would be as enterprising as they, if he had the same opportunities, but he has not. Judgment and intelligence, energy and industry, are just as necessary to a farmer as to a manufacturer, but in the existing state of things they do not lead to the same rewards. Traders and manufacturers, beginning with nothing except the possession of these qualifications, often realise great fortunes ; but farmers rarely, if ever, do so. It would certainly be harder to find a farmer who, by farming alone, has made £100,000, or even £50,000, than to find a manufacturer who has made a million, that is to say, ten or twenty times as much. Large outlays of capital cannot, then, be expected from farmers as a class ; in the first place, because they have not got the means; in the second place, because, as to such capital as a farmer can command, it would be absurd to suppose that if it were laid out in per- manently improving the soil, the farmer would have as good security that he or his family would reap the benefit, as is enjoyed by the manufacturer who lays out his capital in mills and machinery. Under the existing system, therefore, improve- ments on a great scale, like those of Mr. Prout, referred to by the Duke of Argyll in the Contemporary Review, are scarcely possible, except to men who, like Mr. Prout, are their own land- lords.
When once it is made clear to the public that the develop- ment of the soil, under the existing relations between landlord and tenant, is impossible, the revision of these relations, a little sooner or later, will become inevitable. Landowners will have to abandon the mere dog-in-the-manger proposition that though they themselves may not be able to develope the productiveness of the soil, nobody else shall do so either. Men of ability amongst them would, even now, best serve their order if, recognising what is inevitable, they would apply themselves to show how the flow of capital towards the improvement of the soil may be rendered possible with the least practicable inter- ference with existing rights. Consideration for existing rights is sure to carry full weight with English statesmen and Parlia- ments. The Duke of Argyll, unfortunately, prefers to take his stand on the landowner's absolute freedom to make what con- tracts he pleases. Like the Duke of Newcastle of a former generation, he claims to do what he likes with his own. But,
• nevertheless, the Duke must know very well that the Statute- book bristles with precedents for interference with freedom of contract, on the ground of public policy. I will adduce only a single instance. If the Duke of Argyll chose to establish a Bank, hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of persons, having full confidence in his ability and probity, might be quite willing to accept, in exchange for their money deposited with him, the Duke's notes-of-hand, payable to bearer on demand, in such amounts as might be thought convenient. Similarly, persons dealing with the holders of these notes, and having confidence in the Duke, might be willing to accept the notes as equivalent to cash. These transactions would, to borrow the Duke's words,
be " sufficiently profitable to himself;" and of course they would be thought advantageous by the other parties concerned, or they would not be entered into. But the law simply refuses to per- mit such transactions, on the ground that the circulation of notes of private bankers, payable to bearer on demand, is hurtful to. the public interests. My impression is that the Duke of Argyll: is in accord with all the best authorities on the currency, in up- holding this prohibition. But it may be doubted whether even the convertibility of the currency is of greater importance to the- nation than the productiveness of the soil.—I am, Sir, &c., A RETIRED BARRISTER..
Previous page
