CHAPTER VII.

Influence of Improvements—Slowness with which they spread—Beneficial to all Classes—Different methods of Letting Lands—Remarks upon those Methods—Increase and Reduction of Rents—Regulations as to Management—Size of Farms—Influence of the Elective Franchise given to Tenants over Agriculture—Profits of Farmers.

A good deal of misconception has been entertained with respect to the influence of improvements over rent. It has been seen that rent depends on the extent to which tillage has been carried; and the most common effect of improvements being to enable the same quantity of produce to be obtained from a less extent of land, it would seem, on a superficial view, that they are injurious to the landlord. But there is no such opposition between his interests and those of the rest of the community; and it will be found, when rightly examined, that improvements are no less advantageous to the owners and occupiers of land than to others.

1. To have a distinct idea of the operation and influence of improvements, it may be proper to consider them (1st) as applying generally to all sorts of land, and (2nd) to some particular sorts only. In the first case, then, let it be supposed, to illustrate the principle, that the following quantities of produce are obtained from the different qualities of land under cultivation, and the following rents paid, viz.

A	B	C	D	F	Qualities of Land.
100	90	80	70	60	{ Quantities of produce obtained with equal capitals.
40	30	20	10	0	Rent.

Now, suppose an improvement is made which enables ten per cent. more produce to be obtained with the same outlay, and Edition: current; Page: [427] that this improvement extends to all qualities of land, the quantities produced, and the rent, would then be—

110	99	88	77	66	Quantities of produce.
44	33	22	11	0	Rent.

In this case it is plain, provided the demand for corn were increased so as to take off the greater quantity brought to market, that the landlord would sustain no inconvenience whatever from the improvement, but would be immediately as well as permanently benefited by it. He would obtain a greater quantity of corn as rent; and notwithstanding the reduction of its price, it would exchange for the same quantity of other things that the smaller quantity did before. If, however, there were no increase of demand, ten per cent. of the capital at present employed in agriculture would be withdrawn from that business, so that the quantity of produce would be the same as before the improvement; the corn rent would also be the same; though, as corn would, under the circumstances supposed, be ten per cent. cheaper, money rents would fall in that proportion. But it is abundantly obvious that though the demand might not be immediately increased, so as to take off the whole additional quantity brought to market by means of the improvement, it would not remain stationary. It is impossible, indeed, that such should be the case. The consumption of the lower classes, and the quantity of corn given to the horses employed in husbandry, or otherwise, is invariably increased when prices fall; at the same time that the stimulus which the fall gives to population, is sure, in the end, to increase the demand, so as to absorb not only the increased quantity of corn, but to occasion the cultivation of fresh soils.

2. Let it now be supposed that the improvement is partial; that it affects the superior qualities of land only; and that the quantities produced after it has been carried into effect are as follow, viz.:—

A	B	C	D	E	Qualities of land.
110	95	821/2	70	60	{ Quantities of produce after improvement.
50	35	221/2	10	0	Rent after ditto.

Edition: current; Page: [428]

Now it is evident, that if the improvement in the productiveness of the qualities A B C increased the produce brought to market, so as merely to lessen the extent of land of the class E under tillage, without causing its cultivation to be entirely relinquished, it would not affect prices; and the money rents, as well as the corn rents of the proprietors of A B C, would rise so as to enable them to gain the whole advantage resulting from the improvement.

If the whole of the class E were thrown out of tillage, corn rents would be as follow:—

A	B	C	D	Qualities of land.
40	25	121/2	0	Rent.

But in this case, as in the former, the contraction of cultivation would be of very short duration: for, owing to the increased cheapness, the demand would very speedily rise so as to require the renewed cultivation of E; so that any inconvenience that might by possibility arise to the proprietors in the first instance, would at most be only trifling and transitory, while the advantage would be great and permanent.

3. In the third and last case, let it be supposed that the improvement is greatest on the worst lands, and that it decreases as their fertility improves. Thus suppose

A	B	C	D	E	Qualities of land.
100	90	80	70	60	Quantities before improvement.
40	30	20	10	0	Rent before ditto.
100	90	821/2	75	70	Quantities after improvement.
30	20	121/2	5	0	Rent after ditto.

If the improvement were so great as to throw E out of cultivation, rents would be 25, 16, 71/2, 0. But as in this case the fall of price, and consequent rise of profits, would be very great, a proportionally powerful stimulus would be given to population; and the increased demand that would, at no distant period, be experienced, would be such as to bring the next qualities of land, or F G, &c., under cultivation; so that in this, as in all other cases, both corn and money rents would be, in the end, very greatly increased by the improvement.

Edition: current; Page: [429]

These statements sufficiently show, that, supposing an improvement were introduced so rapidly and widely as to occasion an immediate fall of price, and consequently of money rents, these effects would be of very limited duration; for the greater cheapness of raw produce, by increasing the demand for it by the existing population, as well as by stimulating its increase, would not fail speedily to raise prices to their old level, and even to carry them beyond it.

But it is material to observe, that these suppositions have been made merely to illustrate principles, and that, practically, they are never realized. In the vast majority of cases, improvements apply pretty equally to all sorts of soil. They take place principally in machinery, in the rotation of crops, in the breeds of stock, the better drainage of wet soils, the composition and application of manures, &c., which, drainage excepted, are generally applicable not to one or a few only, but to almost every description of land. Improvements, too, rarely precede, but most commonly follow, a rise of prices, occasioned either by an increased demand for raw produce, or by some previous scarcity. Neither do they ever rapidly spread over any considerable extent of country; they make their way by slow, and, indeed, almost imperceptible degrees; and tend not so much to occasion an actual reduction of prices, as to prevent their rising to an oppressive height. Improvements are at first adopted by a few of the more intelligent proprietors and farmers in different districts, and are thence gradually diffused throughout the country. This progress is, however, much more tedious than one not acquainted with the obstacles by which it is opposed might be inclined to believe. Improvements which effect material changes in long-established customs have always been slowly and reluctantly admitted. The agricultural class is the least of all disposed to innovation, and the most peculiarly attached to ancient customs and routine. “The farmer is not so much within reach of information as the merchant and manufacturer; he has not, Edition: current; Page: [430] like those who reside in towns, the means of ready intercourse and constant communication with others engaged in the same occupation. He lives retired; his acquaintance is limited, and but little varied; and unless he is accustomed to read, he is little likely to acquire any other knowledge of his art than what is traditionary—what is transmitted from father to son, and limited in its application to his own immediate neighbourhood.”1

So powerful has been the influence of these circumstances, that notwithstanding the advances in agricultural science during the present century, and the efforts made to diffuse it, there is but a comparatively small portion of England and Scotland where the most improved system of husbandry is followed, while in Ireland it can hardly be said to be yet introduced. Even in some of the counties adjoining the metropolis, practices are persevered in that are utterly inconsistent with all the rules of good agriculture. In the rich soil of Essex, the wretched system of fleet ploughing and whole year fallows is still sometimes followed; the agriculture of Sussex is said to be at least half a century behind that of East Lothian or Norfolk; and in some of the midland counties, it is customary to yoke three, four, and even five horses to a plough for the tillage of light land! “Those improvements that are well known and systematically practised in one county, are frequently unknown or utterly disregarded in the adjacent district; and what is to every unprejudiced observer evidently erroneous and injurious to the land, is, in some quarters, persisted in most pertinaciously, though a journey of not many miles would open to view the beneficial effects of a contrary practice.”2

Practically, therefore, nothing can be more futile and visionary than to suppose that there is the least chance of improvements ever becoming, even for the shortest period, Edition: current; Page: [431] injurious to the landlords, by their causing a fall of prices. There is not the shadow of a ground for supposing that they can ever be so rapidly diffused as to have this effect; and the most extensive and successful improver may prosecute his patriotic labours, without any apprehension that either his efforts or example will be sufficiently powerful to occasion any glut of the market, or fall of price.

It is unnecessary, perhaps, to say more in illustration of the importance and advantage of improvements. We may, however, observe, that were it not for their influence, it is most probable that the progress of society would have been long since arrested. The nearer that the quantity of produce necessarily consumed in carrying on industrial undertakings approaches to that which is obtained from them, the smaller is the rate of profit, and the slower the advance of society; were the two quantities to become nearly equal, or to balance each other, society would be at a stand; and if, under such circumstances, population increased, the standard of competence would necessarily be lowered. But the inventions and discoveries that are every now and then occurring, prevent the progress of society from being arrested in the way now mentioned. No limits can be set to the inventive powers; and the very moment when cultivation seems improved to the utmost, may be distinguished by discoveries sufficient to give a new aspect to the whole business of husbandry, and to carry society forward for many generations.

For reasons similar to those now stated, we contended that the landlords did not really gain anything by the restrictions imposed on the importation of foreign corn previously to 1846; and that their interests would be best promoted by throwing the ports open to the importation of corn, under such a reasonable fixed duty as might suffice to countervail any excess of taxation, if such there were, to which the agriculturists might be subject above what was borne by the manufacturing and commercial classes. We have elsewhere Edition: current; Page: [432] stated, at some length, the reasons which made us look upon this conclusion as little susceptible of doubt or controversy.1 Here it is enough to state, that when restrictions on its importation into a comparatively populous and highly manufacturing country like Great Britain, raise the average price of corn considerably above its natural level, they rarely fail, exclusive of their other ill effects, by depressing the rate of profit, to stimulate the transfer of capital to other countries. And it would be folly to imagine, that a system productive of such results could be really beneficial to those who have so deep an interest in the public prosperity as the landlords. Numerous and affluent consumers, or, which is substantially the same thing, flourishing manufactures and commerce, are indispensable to a flourishing agriculture; and those who impose oppressive burdens on the former in the view of promoting the interests of the latter, contradict and defeat the very purpose they are anxious to forward. Perseverance in such short-sighted policy might eventually, by injuring or ruining those on whom the agriculturists must depend for a market, or driving them and their capital to other countries, seriously injure, if it did not ultimately ruin, agriculture itself.2

But there are other circumstances connected with the influence of a free corn trade over the tenants and occupiers of land, that are entitled to serious attention. It would be needless to attempt to show, by entering into lengthened details, that the freedom of the corn trade has a strong tendency to equalise prices and to lessen the pernicious effects of deficient harvests. A failure of the crops throughout an extensive kingdom is a calamity of rare occurrence; and there is no instance of a simultaneous failure of the crops throughout the commercial world. Such is the order of Edition: current; Page: [433] Providence, that when they are deficient in some countries, they are more than usually abundant in others. It is observed by Gibbon, that “those famines which so frequently afflicted the infant republic, were seldom or never experienced by the extensive empire of Rome. The accidental scarcity of any single province was immediately relieved by the plenty of its more fortunate neighbour.”1 Holland, during the days of her greatest prosperity, was chiefly fed on imported corn; and prices in Amsterdam were comparatively moderate, and fluctuated less than in any other market of Europe. The experience, in a word, of all ages and nations proves that freedom is the best antidote to those sudden fluctuations in the price of corn that are so exceedingly ruinous to the great bulk of the community. But it is seldom that, in such matters, we have pure or unmixed advantages. The most beneficial measures have generally some alloy or drawback; and such seems to be the case with the freedom of the corn trade. Formerly, when the crops were deficient, prices rose to a high level, so that the growers of corn were in great measure compensated for the deficiency of their produce. This, however, is no longer the case. If a failure of the crops be now apprehended, additional supplies are immediately poured in from foreign ports, so that the rise of price, that would otherwise have taken place, is either wholly prevented, or confined within comparatively narrow limits. In this respect, therefore, that free corn trade, which is so beneficial to the other classes, appears to be injurious to the agriculturists. But the injury to the latter, through the circumstances now alluded to, will no doubt be obviated by countervailing circumstances; that is, by varying rents, by leading to the occupancy of land by tenants with capital sufficient to meet the contingency of unfavourable seasons, by raising a greater variety of products, and so forth. The last-mentioned resource is the most easy of adoption, and perhaps Edition: current; Page: [434] the most likely to be advantageous. Farmers who depend principally on the culture of grain crops, are always in a precarious situation. But they may generally combine with the raising of corn, the businesses of cattle and sheep feeding; and if they do this, their position will be vastly more secure. The prices of the different varieties of butchers’ meat are comparatively steady, while in a country like this they are necessarily high. And experience shows that the imports of such articles are not susceptible of any sudden increase, so that a rise originating in a scarcity, should it occur, is much less likely to be checked by importations, than a rise in the prices of corn occasioned by a deficient harvest. The agricultural history of the last 20 years strikingly confirm the truth of these statements. Such farmers of dry or mixed lands as have applied themselves to the fattening of cattle and sheep, as well as to the raising of corn, have been extremely prosperous; whereas those who have occupied heavy clay lands, principally devoted to the growth of wheat and beans, have been in a comparatively depressed situation.

It would lead us too far from the proper object of this work, were we to attempt to enter, at any considerable length, on an examination of the more interesting questions connected with the letting of land. Perhaps, however, there is no single circumstance that has so much influence over the prosperity of agriculture, and the condition of the agricultural class, as the terms of leases, or the stipulations usually entered into between the landlords and those to whom they let or assign the power of cultivating their estates.

The most important of these stipulations are those which respect the duration of the lease, the payment of the rent, and the mode of management.

Though there may be various opinions as to what should be the duration of a lease, and though it may differ in different cases, there is no room for doubt as to the superiority Edition: current; Page: [435] of the plan of letting lands for a number of years certain. When a tenant is secured in the possession of his farm for a fixed and reasonable period, he has every inducement to exert himself, and to apply whatever capital and skill he may possess to its improvement. But a tenant at will, or one who may be turned out of his farm at any time, without having any good grounds for affirming that he has been ill treated, dares not venture upon any outlay. Such a tenant is really, in so far at least as the business of farming is concerned, without the security of property. And having no guarantee that he will be allowed to continue in the occupation of his farm for such a period as would give him the means of reaping the advantage of considerable improvements, he seldom thinks of undertaking any. He continues to move on in the accustomed routine of the district to which he belongs; and if he should be so fortunate as to accumulate a little capital, which is but seldom the case, he either employs it in some other business, or in taking a greater extent of land; but he generally abstains from laying out any thing on improvements, unless they happen to be such as promise an almost immediate return. There can, therefore, be no question that the granting of leases for a fixed and reasonable number of years has been of the utmost consequence to agriculture; and those best acquainted with the business affirm, that it has done more for its improvement than all the other encouragements that have been given to it.

The term “tenants at will” is sometimes rather improperly applied to tenants who have no leases, but who, notwithstanding, either from the custom of the estate or district, or the promises of the landlord, have a pretty good security that they will not be capriciously ejected, and that their rents will not be raised because they have improved their farms. Still, however, the security afforded by such a tenure is far short of what is afforded by a lease. Where the rights of both parties are not clearly defined, disputes may unintentionally arise; the tenant is, in such cases, kept in a state of dependency Edition: current; Page: [436] upon his landlord; and however well he may be treated by the individual now in possession of the estate, he cannot foretell what may be the views and objects of his successor. And hence, as Mr. Loudon has observed, “no prudent man will ever invest his fortune in the improvement of another person’s property, unless, from the length of his lease, he has a reasonable prospect of being reimbursed with profit; and the servility which a holding at will necessarily exacts, is altogether incompatible with that spirit of enterprise which belongs to an enlightened and independent mind.”1

It is, perhaps, needless to add, that the want of leases is, in most cases, as injurious to the interests of the landlord as to those of the tenant. Besides diminishing the value of estates by obstructing improvements, it has the effect, which might not at first be anticipated, of frequently hindering landlords from dismissing indolent, impoverished tenants. There are numerous estates in England without leases, that have been occupied for generations by the same families, the sons succeeding the fathers in an unbroken series. It must, however, unavoidably happen, that several of these occupiers have neither intelligence, enterprise, nor capital sufficient to enable them to farm their lands in the most approved manner; and the interests of the owners of the farms occupied by such persons, and of the public, would be equally consulted by their removal. But the circumstances under which they hold their lands are such, that they can seldom be removed without occasioning much misrepresentation aud abuse of the landlords; whereas, when a farm is let on lease, the landlord may, at its termination, if he be dissatisfied with the tenant, decline reletting the farm to him without exposing himself to any invidious remarks; and may, in this way, select the best and most industrious tenants. The marked preference given to tenants of skill and capital wherever leases are granted, has contributed as much, perhaps, as any other circumstance, to Edition: current; Page: [437] the extraordinary spread of agricultural improvement in Scotland.

The rent of a farm is sometimes fixed in money, sometimes in a given quantity of produce, sometimes in a proportional quantity of its produce, and sometimes in services.

With respect to money rents it may be observed, that when the lease is only for a few years, during which no great change in the value of money or in the price of corn can reasonably be anticipated, they are, perhaps, the best of any; but when the lease embraces a period of nineteen or twenty-one years, which is believed to be the most proper for leases of ordinary tillage farms, it would appear that the safer plan is to fix the rent at a certain quantity of produce, making it convertible into money at the current prices of the day. By this means the disturbing influence of changes in the value of money is averted, at the same time that the influence of such as occur in the cost of producing corn is mitigated. This plan is, however, defective, inasmuch as it obliges the tenant to pay more than the fair value of his farm in scarce years; while, on the other hand, it depresses the landlord’s rents in years of unusual plenty below the proper level. A simple device has, however, been fallen upon, which has gone far to remove these defects. This consists in fixing a maximum and a minimum price; it being declared in the lease that the produce to be paid to the landlord shall be converted into money according to the current prices of the year; but that to whatever extent prices may rise above the maximum price fixed in the lease, the landlord shall have no claim for such excess of price. And to prevent, on the other hand, the rent from being improperly reduced in very plentiful years, a minimum price is agreed upon by the parties; and it is stipulated that, to whatever extent prices may sink below this limit, the landlord shall be entitled to receive this minimum price for the fixed quantity of produce payable to him. This plan has been introduced into some Edition: current; Page: [438] of the best cultivated districts of the empire; but the greater steadiness of prices that has followed the freedom of the corn trade, has rendered these and similar devices of comparatively little importance. Still, however, they may occasionally be of service.

The mode of letting lands for proportional rents, that is for a half, a third, a fourth, or a fifth, &c., of the produce, whatever it may be, is the most objectionable of any. The widest experience shows that tenants rarely make any considerable improvements, unless they have a firm conviction that they will be allowed to reap the whole advantage arising from them. It is in vain to contend that, as the tenant knows beforehand the proportion of the increased produce going to the landlord, if the remainder be a due return to his capital, he will lay it out. Not one tenant out of fifty would so act. There are always very considerable hazards to be run by those who embark capital in agricultural improvements; and if to these were added the obligation to pay a third, or a fourth part of the gross produce arising from an improvement, to the landlord, none would ever be attempted by a tenant, or none that required any considerable outlay, or where the prospect of a return was not very immediate. A flourishing and improving system of agriculture cannot be carried on except by enterprising tenants, ready to avail themselves of new discoveries; and such are only found where they have leases, or are secured in the possession of their farms for adequate periods, and allowed to reap, during their continuance, the entire benefit arising from whatever improvements they may execute. If either of these principles be encroached upon, the spirit of industry will be paralysed. Those who insist upon immediately sharing the benefit resulting from meliorations effected by the capital or labour of their tenants, will effectually prevent them from being undertaken; and if they do not make agriculture retrograde, will, at least, hinder it from making any advance.

Edition: current; Page: [439]

Unluckily, however, it is not necessary to argue this question speculatively. The practice of letting lands by proportional rents, or, as it is there termed, on the métayer principle, is very general on the Continent; and wherever it has been adopted, it has put a stop to all improvement, and reduced the cultivators to the most abject poverty.1

The method of paying rent by services—the last of those previously alluded to—is also very objectionable. This method, which grew out of the feudal system, was at one time spread over almost all Europe, and is still maintained in many countries; but wherever civilization has made considerable progress, and manufactures and commerce been extensively introduced, it has been superseded by money or produce rents. It is needless to dwell on its inexpediency. The labour of tenants on the grounds, or for the behoof of their landlords, is usually performed in a lazy and slovenly manner. Men do not exert themselves with spirit and effect, unless when they work on their own account, and directly reap all the advantages of superior industry and enterprise. In Great Britain these sort of services are now almost wholly abolished; or if any vestiges of them still exist, they are to be found only in a few Highland counties. Their abolition has been of the greatest service to agriculture, and has redounded, in a very high degree, to the advantage of the landlords. The tenants, relieved from every sort of service, secured in the possession of their farms by leases of a reasonable length, and left to pursue their own interest in their own way, subject only to restrictions preventing the exhaustion of the land, have exerted themselves with a degree of energy and success, and have carried agriculture to a pitch of improvement that could not previously have been supposed possible.

Edition: current; Page: [440]

We have already noticed the injurious consequences resulting from the under-renting of land1; and we are well assured that, in very many parts of England, rents might be considerably raised without injury to the tenants, and with great advantage to agriculture. It would, in fact, be among the most effectual means that could be adopted to force the occupiers to profit by those improved processes and modes of management by which the produce of the land is so greatly increased, and the expense of its culture so much diminished. In many extensive districts, especially in the western, southern, and midland counties, a third part of the horses used in husbandry might be advantageously dispensed with. No such useless expenditure could, however, prevail in districts where rents are raised to their proper level; for there every extravagance must be proscribed, and the land be farmed in the most efficient and economical manner. “It is rare,” says Arthur Young, “to see land very high let badly cultivated. Indeed, the very circumstance of high rent is a cause of good husbandry; for without it the farmers must be ruined. They are very sensible that, when a great rent is paid, they must either gain good crops or starve; and this general idea is so strong as to make them uncommonly industrious, and to exert all their abilities in cultivating their farms in a masterly manner. When you see a man with a rent of 300l. or 400l. a year, with not more than as many acres for it, (this was written in 1770,) you may lay it down as a maxim, previously to walking over his farm, that it is well cultivated; that the arable lands are tolerably clean, well manured, drained, and yielding good crops; that the grass is well stocked with a good breed of cattle, and none of it overrun with rubbish. When men pay dearly for their farms, they learn to value land, and let none of it be lost. On the contrary, view the same land let much under value, and twenty to one but the prospect is, in every respect, the Edition: current; Page: [441] reverse. A landlord who boasts of his cheap tenures, boasts of living in the midst of slovens, instead of spirited farmers.”1

Still, however, it is not to be denied that land is sometimes over as well as under rented; and whenever it is ascertained that such is the case, and that notwithstanding the greatest diligence and economy, a skilful tenant cannot pay his rent and gain a fair return for his outlay and trouble—the landlord, if he consult his own interest, should make an adequate reduction. If he attempt to hold the farmer to the letter of his agreement, he will most likely occasion his ruin; but in the efforts of the latter to save himself and his family, the farm is sure to suffer. It will not be properly manured or tilled,—scourging crops will be resorted to; so that though the landlord should succeed in squeezing the stipulated rent out of the occupier during the currency of the lease, the bad state of the farm at its close, and the bad character the landlord will have justly acquired in the vicinity, will occasion a far greater reduction of rent than would have taken place had it been made at the proper period. It appears, also, that when a reduction of rent is necessary, it should be made unconditionally, and for the whole course of the lease, or at least for a reasonable and definite period. Some landlords are in the habit, when their tenants are unable to pay their entire rents, of taking what they can afford, and giving them a receipt for so much on account; but this is a most pernicious practice, and is not more injurious to the tenant than to the landlord. The fear of being called upon, at some future period, for bygone arrears, makes the tenant counterfeit poverty, even though he be not really poor; at the same time that his liability to such claims prevents him from getting assistance from those who might otherwise be disposed to support him. The same effects, though not quite in the same degree, are experienced when the landlord grants an unconditional abatement Edition: current; Page: [442] only for some short period. The consciousness that the farm is too dear, and that he may be called upon, at the expiration of the specified period, to pay the full rent, cripples the energies of the tenant. In this, as in the former case, his credit is at an end; for no one, how much soever he might otherwise feel disposed, would ever think of accommodating so dependent an individual with a loan. A tenant in this unhappy situation invariably becomes dispirited; instead of zealously exerting himself, as he would do were his rent permanently reduced to the real value of the farm, he strives only to take unfair advantages, to defeat the stipulations in his lease as to management, and is, through poverty and inability to pay, protected from an increase of rent.

As soon, therefore, as it is discovered that a farm, let to an industrious tenant, is really too dear, and that neither skill nor economy can make it pay, the rent should be unconditionally abated, if not at once for the whole lease, at least for a period of not fewer than five or seven years, with a stipulation that it shall not even then be raised unless prices have advanced. The estates of those landlords who act on this sound principle are always in the best order, and, at an average, their rents are decidedly higher than the rents of those who refuse to make any abatements, or make them only from year to year. The policy of the latter is quite destructive of the spirit, credit, and industry of their tenants; and where these are wanting, agriculture must be comparatively degraded, and rents, though nominally high, really low and ill paid.

Much difference of opinion has existed as to the expediency of inserting conditions in leases with respect to management. Those who are adverse to them argue, that being in general framed by the landlord, whose knowledge of the practical business of farming is seldom very accurate or extensive, they are exceedingly apt to proceed on mistaken views, and are for the most part either vexatious or impossible; that the Edition: current; Page: [443] strict observance of conditions can rarely be enforced; that if it were, it would reduce the occupiers to the condition of mere machines; that it would prevent them from taking advantage of such discoveries as might be made during the currency of their leases; and that, having no means of escaping from the prescribed mode of management, they would cease to interest themselves in the progress of agriculture, and would become indifferent to every sort of improvement. Adam Smith, who has given the sanction of his authority to these objections, proposes that, in the event of a tax being laid upon rent, it should be made somewhat heavier on farms, the tenants of which are bound by their leases to a prescribed mode of management. Such conditions originate, he says, in the ill-founded conceit entertained by the landlord of his own superior knowledge, and uniformly tend to the prejudice of agriculture.1

But notwithstanding the plausible nature of some of these objections, and the authority by which they are supported, they seem to be, speaking generally, without any good foundation; and the best practical farmers concur in the opinion, that conditions, when judiciously devised, are of great service to agriculture, and that they should never be dispensed with.

This, it must be observed, is not a question that can be decided on the principle of leaving every one to be regulated by his own sense of what is most advantageous; for here we have two parties, the landlord and tenant, each with separate and often conflicting interests. It is for the landlord’s interest that his farm should always be in good order, and more especially that it should be in good order when the lease is about to expire, inasmuch as the rent that it will then bring will depend very much upon that circumstance. But the tenant is in a very different situation: his interest in the farm being limited to the period for which his lease Edition: current; Page: [444] endures, his object naturally is to make the most of it during that period, without caring about the state in which he leaves it. Although, therefore, restrictions as to the mode of cultivation in the early part of a lease of considerable duration may perhaps be fairly objected to, we do not think that any landlord who has a proper sense of his own interest, or who wishes to get his estate restored to him in good order, should ever let a farm without prescribing certain conditions as to its management, which it should be imperative on the tenant to follow during the six or seven years immediately preceding the termination of his lease. These conditions may not, indeed, always be the best that might be devised, but they can hardly be so defective as not to hinder the farm from being over-cropped and exhausted previously to the tenant’s leaving it; and if they do this, they must, both in a private and public point of view, be decidedly beneficial.

Much discussion has taken place as to the proper size of farms. This, however, is not a point as to which it is possible to come to any precise conclusions. A great deal must obviously depend on the purposes to which the farm is to be applied. Farms that are to be wholly employed in pasture may be very much larger than those that are to be employed partly only in that way, and partly in tillage; and the latter, again, than those that are to be wholly employed in tillage And in regard to tillage farms, it is plain that their size must depend on various circumstances, but principally, perhaps, on the amount of the tenant’s capital. But supposing that the tenants offering for farms have sufficient capital, their size had best be determined by considering what extent of land an individual may be able to manage in the best and most approved manner. Most practical farmers, in this country at least, seem to think that this size might run from 400 to 600 acres, or 500 at a medium. This conclusion has, however, been strongly denied; and it has been contended that the public interests are best consulted by letting land in small Edition: current; Page: [445] farms, or in farms of from 15 to 30 or 40 acres. To enter fully into an examination of this question would encroach too much on our limits: it may, however, be observed, that the opinions of the great majority of those who, from their acquaintance with agriculture, are best entitled to decide upon such matters, are exceedingly hostile to the small farming system; and that their statements as to its inexpediency seem to be founded on the soundest principles, and to be consistent with the most extensive experience. It is plain that that system of occupation must, in all ordinary cases, be the best which gives the greatest scope to improvement, which allows the division of labour to be carried to the farthest extent, and which enables the occupier to avail himself of every new improvement and increased facility of production. But it is almost superfluous to say that these objects can only be attained when the lands of a country are divided into extensive farms occupied by opulent farmers. The produce of a farm of 15, 20, or even 50 acres, cannot, after paying rent, do more than furnish the barest subsistence to its occupiers. To suppose that the latter should accumulate capital, or that they should be in a condition to undertake any considerable improvement, is quite visionary. “In England,” says Arthur Young, “there are no persons who work so hard and fare so ill as the small farmers.”1 And “in Scotland it is the rarest thing imaginable to find a small farm, say from 20 to 50 acres, that would not be a disgrace to the cultivators of a century ago.”2

Perhaps it may be thought that it is superfluous to enforce the propriety of letting land in large farms; that the occupiers of such farms are able to pay higher rents than those who occupy small ones; and that, according as capital is accumulated in a country, the size of farms is sure to be augmented. But these statements are by no means so well-founded Edition: current; Page: [446] as we might at first be disposed to conclude. Nothing is so much coveted by a poor man as the possession of a small piece of ground. It goes far to secure him, so long as he holds it, against absolute want; it renders him, in some measure, his own master, and relieves him from the necessity of continuous labour. In consequence, there is often a very keen competition for cottages and slips of land. An individual possessed of capital will not engage in farming unless he expect to realize, over and above a remuneration for his trouble in superintending the business, ordinary profits on his capital. But the offerer for a small piece of ground is not influenced by such considerations; he is anxious to get it, not that it may bring him profits and wages, but that he may live. He is willing, indeed, to pay the proprietor all that it can be made to yield over and above his subsistence and that of his family; and this, not unfrequently, amounts to more than would be offered by a tenant possessed of capital, and capable of farming the land in the best manner. But any advantage that a landlord may occasionally gain, in the first instance, by the adoption of such a system as this, is sure to be more than counterbalanced in the end. The small farmer having no means of disposing of his children when they grow up, they naturally look to the land for support; and if his little possession be not divided during his life, it can hardly escape being divided at his death. In this way the country is overspread with a redundant and wretched population; so that, in the end, rents are not paid, and the whole produce of the land becomes barely sufficient for the support of its occupiers. The splitting of farms, in the way now described, has been carried to a very great extent in Ireland, and has been productive of the most mischievous consequences. Instead of increasing, the size of Irish farms rapidly diminished after 1770, and large tracts were parcelled out into patches of the size of potato-gardens, occupied by the merest beggars; and the evil went on increasing till it was arrested in 1846-47 by the potato rot, and the consequent Edition: current; Page: [447] decrease of the population. Nothing, therefore, should be more cautiously gone about by landlords than a reduction in the size of farms. If they ever allow them to be frittered down into minute portions, they will find that the improvement of their estates is at an end; that they have no security that their rents will continue to be paid; that the poor rates will, most likely, be increased; and that very formidable obstacles will stand in the way of the ejectment of the tenants, and of a return to a better system.

We incline to think, that few things have been more injurious to agriculture than the conferring the elective franchise on tenants. For a lengthened period, most part of the occupiers of land in England and Wales have been entitled to vote in elections for county members; and it would not be difficult to show, that this circumstance has contributed, in no slight degree, to establish the practice of holding at will, or without a lease. In Scotland, however, down to the passing of the Reform Act, extremely few occupiers of land were possessed of the franchise; and there leases of 19 or 21 years’ duration were nearly universal: farms, instead of being subdivided, were gradually increased in size; and, provided the tenants paid their rents and managed their lands according to the most approved systems, the landlords rarely or never made any inquiry respecting their political or religious opinions. But since the franchise was, in an unlucky hour, given to the holders of lands worth 50l. a-year and upwards, it has been altogether different. The landlords, desirous, like other people, of extending their political influence, endeavour to control the suffrages of their tenants, and to multiply the dependent voters on their estates. In furtherance of these objects, numbers of them have not scrupled to resort to intimidation, and to adopt vindictive measures against such tenants as have voted contrary to their wishes. This, however, though the most prominent at the time, is but the least evil resulting from the new state of things. It has already led, in many Edition: current; Page: [448] parts, to a change in the mode of letting land; and there is but too much reason to fear that it may, in the end, go far to subvert that system of giving leases for 19 or 21 years certain, that has been a main cause of the astonishing improvement of Scottish agriculture. It has also occasioned, in numerous instances, a subdivision of farms for the purpose of creating voters; and there cannot, in fact, be a question that, however well intended, the investing the tenants with the elective franchise has been one of the most fatal blows ever struck at their independence, and at the prosperity of agriculture in Scotland. Nor is there anything in this but what might have been, and indeed was, anticipated from the outset. Tenants, as such, whether they hold farms worth 50l. or 500l. a-year, under leases of one year or twenty years’ duration, are, speaking generally, about the very last description of persons to be intrusted with the franchise. Very many of them are indebted to, and dependent, to a less or greater extent, on their landlords; and the few who are independent are so because they have accumulated property, and would in consequence have been entitled to the franchise, had it been vested, as it should have been, in those only who possess a certain amount of realised property. Notwithstanding the existing prevalence of long leases, it is at present, in most parts of Scotland, quite enough to know the politics of a landlord to learn those of his tenants. Some few are, no doubt, occasionally found, bold enough and honest enough to assert their independence; but these, wherever the landlords take an active part in politics, form an inconsiderable minority, not 5 per cent. probably, and certainly not 10 per cent. of the entire number. So complete is their dependence, that instances have occurred of the event of an election having been changed within a few days of its taking place, by the mere purchase of an estate! Hence, if that be, as it undoubtedly is, the best system of voting that brings the greatest number of independent electors to the poll, and keeps back the greatest Edition: current; Page: [449] number of those that are dependent, the giving the franchise to the tenants and occupiers of land must be about the very worst system; for they are, of all classes, that which is most dependent, and most under the command of others.

There can be no doubt, taking every thing into account, that the profits of farmers are upon a level with those of the parties engaged in other businesses. It is generally believed, however, that when estimated in money, they are about the lowest of any. This arises from a variety of circumstances. The healthy and agreeable nature of the business, and the prevalence among the other classes of the unfounded notion, that every man may become a farmer with but little previous learning or education, occasion a very keen competition for land; while the uncertainty of the seasons, the multiplicity of operations and details to which the farmer has to attend, and the difficulty of giving that attention to each which is so very essential, conspire powerfully to increase the hazard, and to lessen the profit of farming. In many places, indeed, the business is carried on according to a system of routine. But wherever an improved plan of agriculture is practised, or where it is carried on by persons of considerable capital farming for a profit, skill and attention are alike indispensable. The farmer has to decide upon the rotation of crops, and the species of stock best fitted for the soil and situation which he occupies; he has to fix the number of horses and labourers that he will employ, so that there may neither be too many nor too few; he has to seize upon the proper moment for performing the various operations of the farm, and to arrange them in such a manner that none may be neglected or cause the neglect of others; and he has to make himself acquainted with the state of the markets, and decide as well upon the most advantageous period for selling his produce, as upon the quantities he should sell. No business, in short, requires greater sagacity or more constant application. The best laid combinations and plans of the farmer are always liable to be Edition: current; Page: [450] overturned by changes of weather, or by prices proving different from what he anticipated; and he should be able to act with promptitude and decision in the altered circumstances under which he may, on such occasions, be placed. To suppose that a successful farmer can be unskilful, indolent, or inattentive, argues an entire ignorance of the practice of agriculture. There is, in fact, no employment where intelligence, industry, and that vigilant activity, “which has no such day as to-morrow in its calendar,” can be less dispensed with. Those who enter on this business in the view of making it profitable, must be ready to say with the poet,

• ————“Steriles transmissimus annos,
• Hæc ævi mihi prima dies, hæc limina vitæ.”

And even with the greatest sagacity, attention, and industry, it is but rarely that farmers make a fortune. The great majority merely manage to live respectably, and to bring up their family. “The few,” says the ablest agricultural writer of the present day, “who do more than this, will be found to have had leases at low rents; indulgent landlords; to have profited by accidental rises in the market or depreciation of currency, or to have become dealers in corn or cattle; and rarely, indeed, to have realised aught by the mere good culture of a farm at the market price.”1 The opinion of Mr. Burke, who, in the estimation of those most capable of judging, stood high both as a scientific and practical farmer, is to the same effect. “The farmer’s trade,” says he, “is a very poor trade; it is subject to great risks and losses. In most parts of England which have fallen within my observation, I have rarely known a farmer (I speak of those who occupy from 150 to 300 or 400 acres) who to his own trade has not added some other employment or traffic, that, after a course of the most unremitting parsimony and labour, (such for the greater part is theirs,) Edition: current; Page: [451] and persevering in his business for a long course of years, died worth more than paid his debts, leaving his posterity to continue in nearly the same equal conflict between industry and want, in which the last predecessor, and a long line of predecessors before him, lived and died.”1

Edition: current; Page: [452]