THE FARMER'S MAGAZINE. 



139 



Bgricultural progreaslon. I would appeal to your own ex- 

 perience whether rents within the last fifty shears have not 

 greatly risen ? That investment in land, which but half a 

 century since paid but 3^ per cent, on the outlay, in many 

 cases now pays C or7 per cent. ; and I believe such will be 

 the result in the future. I firmly believe that such will be 

 the af,'ricultural advancement and progression in improved 

 mechanical appliances, deeper rulture, extended stock far- 

 ming, and increased usefulness of produce, that much land 

 now purchased to pay li^ per cent, will fifty years hen:e 

 almost doul)le its rental return. It is quite a mistake to 

 say that land pays the worst per-centageof any investment. 

 1 know this is a common remark, and it is perfectly true 

 npon a recent purchase ; but it must be remembered that 

 every purchaser of agricultural land purchases at the same 

 time the advantages which will in the future result from in 

 ventioa and improvement in the cheapening the cost of pro- 

 duction, or increasing the returns from laud, that is as far as 

 the area of his purchase is concerned. And if you trace the 

 history cf many an estate in England, owned by the same 

 family for ceniHries, and making all due allowance 

 for the plteration in the value of monej-, you will find in 

 dilferent instances that the return is now upwards of 20 per 

 cent, upon the original and actual investment, inclusive o 

 any after-outlay on the part of the landlord for improve- 

 ments. Why, within the last half-century, the Earl of Lei- 

 cester's well-managed propertj' has increased in rental 

 nearly 50 percent.; and there are instances in Suffolk in 

 which f:irms have increased in rental value within the same 

 period 100 per cent- This is but a sign of advancement, 

 and it is certainly a proof that the great increase in agricul- 

 tural mouey-njaking has ultimately and mainly found its 

 way to the pocket of the landlord. I repeat this is perfectly 

 just, and if any tenant dislikes the natural result of the 

 force of circumstances, he had better curtail his occupation, 

 and become an owner as well as an occupier. But what is 

 the position of the tenant relative to agricultural money- 

 making ? Nearly sixty years ago, P>iirke, in his work, 

 " Thoughts on the present Scarcity," said, " The m.ijoritj' of 

 farmers do little more than subsist." It must be remem- 

 bered that at that time farms were generally small, and I 

 believe such a description is equally true of the small far- 

 mers of the present daj'. With all the agricultural 

 improvements of the past half-centuiy, not forgetting the 

 improvements in the intelligence and standing of tenants 

 generally, the increased size of farms, and the greatly- 

 increased capital now employed, tmants have not iucreased 

 their per-centage returns upon inveitments, and that per- 

 centage in the average of years has been kuT. I am not 

 surprised at this when I consider the tenant's positiou. 

 England's inciea?o in populatiou and wealth, probably to 

 the aai'.unt of 100 [jcr ceut. within the past half-century 

 has not only created an increased demand for the produce of 

 the soil, but it has also created an increased demand for the 

 occupation of the soil itself. V\'ith a gradual diminution in 

 the value of wheat 23 per cent., and a rise in the rental 

 value of laud 2S per cent., with no considerable increase in 

 the amount of cultivated land, but a considerably-increased 

 demand for farms, the tenant has been in no easy position ; 

 he must have improved his holding and advanced with the 

 advancement of the age, or he would literally have quickly 

 l.jst cot only his per-centage return, but his capital also. It 

 i.!, quite clear that the great increase of the wealth and 

 population of the kingdom has been most advantageous to 

 the agriculture of Englaiid; but, at the same time, the 

 greatly-increased competition for farms cannot be advan- 

 tageous to the profits of the tenantry of the kingdom ; and 

 I believe the increas d competition of the present day arises 

 from increased population auii increased wtalth. It is the 

 natural result of supply and demand ; the latter exceeds the 

 former ; and wlidst the real ajjricuUural tenant f.irinj for 

 profit, there are mmy retiring upon the profits of mauu^ac- 

 tiires and trade, or living upon the per centage from trade, 

 ■who engage iu agriculture not for profit, but pleasure. I 

 know it may be said this occurs only in the neighbourhood 

 of towns; but let it be remembered that towns in England 

 exist in evtry loc'lity, aid such competition, regardless of 

 ptofif, increases the difficulty of per-centage returns to the 

 tenantry at heavy odds. Around Ipswich and othtr towns 

 to my knowledge there are several gentlemen connected 



.with manufactures, trade, or professions, who farm simply 

 for pleasure and not for profit. By all means let it be so ; 

 no one can justly complain of the fact ; but it deserves the 

 attention and consideration of those who farm for a liveli- 

 hood. A gentleman very extensively engaged in manufac- 

 tures, at a public meeting at Ipswich, the other day, gave it 

 as his experience upon agricultural profits, that if other per- 

 sons' farming returns agreed with his own, it was an evil 

 that would soon work its own cure. I had the curiosity, 

 only last week, to speak to a gentleman engaged in agricul- 

 tiire, and largely connected with manufiicture?, upon agri- 

 cultural profits. He distinctly said, " I do not expect 

 either profit or per-centage returns; and if I do not lose 

 money, I shall consider myself fortunate." This, gentle- 

 men, is the competition which tends to reduce the tenant's 

 profits below par, and of course but a few thousand farms 

 throughout the kingdom, thus occupied as pleasure farms, 

 considerably increases the competition amongst farmers for 

 the remainder. Again, the farmer who farms regardless of 

 profit, quickly, in the matter of giving the greatest rent, 

 beats the farmer who farms for a livelihood out of the field. 

 For different advertised farms recently, in different cases, 

 there have been fifty applications, and such competition will 

 probabi}' not allow much profit to the hirer. When the 

 mercantile principle of letting to the highest bidder is pur- 

 sued under yearly tenancy and restricted covenants, the 

 tenant's profits are reduced to the lowest minimum. I know 

 there are gentlemen who question these facts— facts, indeed, 

 which are too self-evident to admit of argument to any 

 extent, and who further assert that the money return made 

 by farming is equal to that made by manufactures or trade 

 from the same amount of capital. Within the last half 

 century, manufacturers and traders generally have amassed 

 fortunes, and I say unhesitatingly that trade, and farming 

 as a tenant upon a competitive rectal, are two very 

 different things. The competition in trade is actually 

 less ; and the per-centage in profit is infinite- 

 ly more. Though I hear much on the superior pleasures of 

 farming, I have seen enough of agricultural unsuccess to have 

 arrived at the conclusion that the counting-house or the 

 counter, with success (with the possession or the prospect of 

 a snug villa in the country), is intiui'.ely superior to the ques- 

 tionable pleasures of farming with unsuccess ; for though a 

 man may breathe the fresh air, ride round his farm, and eat 

 the pure viands of country H.^e, yet he may do all this with no 

 joyous heart; and I have seen enough of the stagnation of 

 position and the fruit-less struggles for advancement, to advise 

 my young uninitiated agricultural friends (with but small 

 meaus) to hesitate before they embrace a calling which, wit h 

 the extreme competition of the present day, must allow of but 

 small profit, aud certainly not quick returns. Many a farmer 

 who is now making a good profit has to thank his lanJlord 

 for a large proportion of that prcfit, simply because his farm 

 is liberally let at a moderate rental, and not thrown into the 

 market. With unlimited co.-upetition for farms, and with let- 

 tings by the year, or for short periods, to the highest bidder, 

 whatever the average price of produce, I assert, unhesitatingly, 

 that the profits muit average at a very low rate to the occu- 

 pier. I apeik of it as a principle which must operate uuder 

 such circumstances. I know well enough trade is not all sun- 

 shine, but that there is as hard a battle for existence in some 

 instances— yes, and similar unsuccesses and failures ia trade 

 — as in farming ; but I speak in the main and generally, and 

 the difference is in extent. I know well enough that chance 

 tenants share largely in the profits of agricultural money- 

 making, gain a good percentage, and accumulate property ; but 

 such cases are quite the exception; and, again, when compared 

 with trade, the difference is in extent. It may be supposed 

 I fear competition — such is not my feeling. Competition for 

 farms with long leases and liberal covenants will give the 

 triumph to capital, and capital agriculture still requires. 

 With such a basis of agreement as lettings for long periods, 

 or with security to investment with liberal covenants, time 

 and opportunity are allowed for the investment of capital, and 

 the exercise of skill in progressive and permanent improve- 

 ments, whereby the tenant reaps his reward ; but yearly 

 tenancies, without mutual confidence and without any allow- 

 ance for unexhausted improvements, prevent the outlay of capi- 

 tal, cause stagnation, and extreme competition in such cases 

 has ruined many a man. Though the competition to which I 



