has dissolved into a number of independent States, swinging in their relations from extreme hostility to extreme intimacy under the influence of racial sentiment, the most wayward of all ties. But there will be a rude awakening for them when the democratic sentiment that they have ignored and refused to lead is, in its isolation in a Little England, demanding the confiscation of property. Then, perhaps, they will at last understand the unceasing efforts and the uncompromising attitude of those Conservatives and Unionists who believe to-day that this disaster can alone be averted by uniting all classes, in whom the democratic spirit really exists, in the promotion of social reforms, and by providing the means for carrying them out by a reform of the tariff, which will at the same time unite in a common interest the scattered democracies of the Empire.

FABIAN WARE.

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH OUR LAND?

THE importance which the state of our land laws is assuming in contemporary politics, and the Bills passed or contemplated by the present Government, marking as they do the general trend of legislation with regard to agrarian matters, make it desirable to have a clear understanding of our agricultural problems and of the various remedies which have been proposed for their solution.

In order to secure this, it is absolutely necessary to have an exact knowledge of the existing conditions, which, judging from the discussions one hears and reads, is less general than might be supposed. For, important as its agricultural interests must be to any country, the number of individuals engaged in husbandry bears, in an industrial community such as ours, a comparatively small proportion to the mass of the population; and, though most people are ready to express an opinion on these subjects, it is surprising how few there are who do so with any adequate conception of the most elementary facts connected with the matter. This must be my excuse if in the following pages I restate facts well known to all people living on the land and of it, and which may seem to such too obvious to require comment or even mention.

At the present day the agricultural land of this country is mostly in the hands of private owners, who either cultivate it themselves or, in the majority of cases, let it to tenants at a fixed rent. Many people unacquainted with the subject seem to think that this rent, exacted by the landlord, is an arbitrary sum, which he can force up at his pleasure. As a matter of fact, it can only be altered within very narrow limits, being more or less fixed by economic laws, and though these have been set forth in various ways by different authorities, the underlying principle does not vary materially. John Stuart Mill, in his Principles of Political Economy, tells us that the worst land which can be cultivated under any circumstances must return enough to feed the labourer and replace the seed, and he goes on to say:

The worse land which can be cultivated as an investment for capital is that which, after replacing the seed, not only feeds the agricultural labourers and their secondaries [the workmen who build their houses and produce their tools]

but affords them the current rate of wages, which may extend to much more than mere necessaries, and leaves for those who have advanced the wages of these two classes of labourers a surplus equal to the profit they could have expected from any other employment of their capital.

Whatever remains beyond this is

...

what the farmer can afford to pay as rent to the landlord; since, if he did not so pay it, he would receive more than the ordinary rate of profit. . . . No land, rented to a capitalist farmer, will permanently yield more than this, and when it yields less it is because the landlord foregoes a part of what, if he chose, he could obtain.

This (necessarily very much abridged) is the theory of rent as first laid down by Dr. Anderson at the end of the eighteenth century. It was practically rediscovered by Ricardo and since his time has been commented on and amplified by succeeding political economists, but its fundamental principles have remained unaltered.

In practice, however, landlords do not find it expedient to exact so much from their tenants as is indicated above, especially in cases where leases are granted, it being important that in bad years the tenant should not feel tempted to give up his holding, which he can nearly always do in fact, if not technically, and which would result in the landlord's having the farm thrown on his hands, at the very moment when it was most disadvantageous.

The fee simple value of land is usually taken at twenty-five years' purchase of the net rent; this is what the buyer, in ordinary cases, has to pay when purchasing an estate, though naturally the price may run either higher or lower, under any exceptional circumstances. We may therefore assume that in letting a farm to a tenant the landlord receives about 4 per cent. on his capital. Tenancies are either by the year or on a lease for a term of years, the former being most usual in England and the latter in Scotland; though it must not be imagined that our farming population is nomadic in its habits under one system more than the other-even in England the same families often occupy their farms from generation to generation, or if they change remain at any rate upon the same estate.

Out of his rents, the landlord has to pay the costs of management, also for the upkeep of the farms and his share of the taxes, this last a considerable item, land being more heavily taxed than any other form of property. On an estate large enough to be managed with economy, these various charges may possibly be reduced to between 1 and 2 per cent., leaving the owner from 2 to 2 per cent. on his capital. In cases, however, where the landlord does not himself superintend the management, or where, from any other cause, the expenditure is unduly heavy, his percentage of profit is apt to fall far below this figure. This expenditure does not include money spent on demesnes, shooting, or anything which may be considered personal to the landlord, merely what is spent for the benefit of the tenants.

Mr. Munro Ferguson, in a letter to the Spectator written some weeks ago, gives the figures for upkeep on two estates belonging to him. On one, producing a net rental of 4,9951. a year, 73,4181. has been spent since 1880, and on the other, with a net rental of 3,2251., the total expenditure has been 71,0931. since 1882. These figures, though they will surprise no one conversant with the subject, may seem incredible to others, but they can easily be verified, and in fact there are few properties on which the total in fee simple value has not been expended, within the last three or four generations.

Were this money not so spent the returns from land would naturally diminish, and though the same amount, invested in other securities, might possibly more than make up for the consequent depreciation in rents, landlords who take an interest in their properties naturally prefer to spend it on them, as long as they can feel sure of the safety of the investment. The standard for buildings, &c., is thus raised, and all landlords have to follow suit, in order to secure tenants.

It will not surprise anyone, in face of these facts, to find that landlords, more than any other class, have been apt to find themselves in embarrassed circumstances. From whatever cause arising, these have, needless to say, reacted most unfavourably on their properties and their tenants; the case being generally much aggravated by the restrictions of the laws of entail, which constitute them, not the owners, but merely the life tenants of their property. These last gave rise to so many evils, one being the ruinous mortgages on many estates; and the right of what is called' free alienation' was seen to be so important, in the interest of the land itself, that during the latter half of last century various laws were passed, facilitating the cutting off of entails on land. This was an undoubted boon, it being obviously better, when a landlord became too poor to maintain his estate, that he should have power to sell the whole or a part to someone better able to keep it up than he was himself. And, in spite of the poorness of the return, buyers could still be found; the supposed security of the investment, and the attractions of a country life, inducing men, not wholly engrossed by the business side of the question, to sink their money in what, from a commercial point of view, could at best be called an unprofitable venture. Later legislation, however, tending as it has done to increase more and more the burdens on land, the uncertainty as to where these exactions will stop, and the irresponsible statements sometimes made on public platforms, even by statesmen in responsible situations, concerning the position of the landed classes, have at the present time so shaken public confidence in the safety of any money invested in property that estates have once more become practically unsaleable. The seriousness of this to the country in general, and to the agricultural interest in particular, will be better appreciated as we go on; so it need not be enlarged on at present.

A farmer when renting a farm from a landlord requires a certain amount of capital. The land is supposed to be in good condition when he takes it; should it have been let down by the previous tenant, he expects a consideration to be made him in the rent. A dwellinghouse and all necessary farm buildings, proportionate to the size of the farm, also drains and fencing, are provided by the landlord, who undertakes as well to keep all these in structural repair. Should the farmer at any time take more land, and in consequence require more house accommodation, he will expect the landlord to provide this also. These conditions might be expected to prove a fruitful source of disagreement between the two parties to the contract; it speaks well, however, for the working of the system that lawsuits between landlords and tenants are exceedingly rare.

Farmers as a rule prefer to get on to large estates. The reasons for this are obvious. On small ones, the landlord's margin of profit is so small that expenses must perforce be cut down as much as possible. Large landowners also, as a rule, take a good deal of pride in the condition of their tenantry, and it is a well-known fact that on many of the bigger properties, even under good estate management, the landlord's percentage on his capital is as low as 1 per cent. or less. As the same time there is a size beyond which it is not advisable to go; and in that case the land should be—indeed, it generally is— divided and put under separate managements.

The farmer's own capital is what is called the working capital of the farm, and out of it are provided the stock, seeds, manure, farm implements, &c. The amount required varies in different localities and depends also to a certain extent upon the nature of the farm; but about 71. or 81. per acre should suffice for many parts of the country it would be excessive. This the farmer does not naturally expect to lose in the course of his tenancy: he rather looks to see it increase. Thus it will be seen that with a capital of 4001. a man can obtain the use of fifty acres of land, on which he can live in a degree of comfort far greater than he could secure by the employment of the same amount of money in any other venture.

Of all systems of land tenure that have ever been devised, this is the cheapest to the farmer and the most absolutely devoid of risk. As the reader has already seen, the owner's expenditure on his property varies from one third to one half of his income; the farmer, on the other hand, pays about 4 per cent. on the initial value of the farm. Of this he practically gets 1 to 2 per cent. back again, for this is money he would have to spend himself on the farm, if it belonged to him; while in the case of buildings, &c., he probably gets much better value for the money spent than if he did what was necessary himself, as the large amount of work required on an estate enables great economies to be effected, and it is doubtful whether the farmers, even by co-operating among themselves, could get things done to so