AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS. 49 



hare-brained land reformers. Lord Milner has used somewhat 

 rash language on this subject. In evidence before Lord Selborne's 

 Committee he stated that ' obviously, from the point of view 

 of National Economy, it was bad policy to have land yielding 

 4 worth of produce an acre if it could yield 8, or even 6 worth.' 

 Such language either shows a complete misunderstanding of 

 the whole problem or it assumes so many unexpressed qualifica- 

 tions that it deserves condemnation for its liability to be mis- 

 understood. 



The real position can perhaps be illustrated by a parable. 

 Mr. Jones, a farmer, has two farms, both of them to some degree 

 undercultivated. He receives a legacy of 500, and he decides 

 to invest it in the development of his land. Now ought he to 

 spend all the money on the one farm, merely because even the 

 last penny of it so spent will increase the crops grown on that 

 farm and add to the income he obtains from it ? Would he not 

 rather, if he is a wise man, consider first the possibilities of the 

 other farm, for it may very well be the case that he will get a 

 higher percentage on his capital if he spends, say, 300 of it on 

 the first farm and 200 on the second ? If he limits his outlook 

 to one farm only and assumes that the increase of his crops and 

 his income proves the wisdom of his decision to invest the whole 

 of the legacy in that farm, he may be throwing part of his money 

 away. For clearly a man who invests part of his money badly 

 so that it brings in less than it might is no better off than the 

 man who has less money but invests it so well that it yields as 

 good an income as the other man gets from his somewhat larger 

 capital. 



It was well to have the economic point of view put thus 

 lucidly by an eminent economist and it cannot be too often 

 emphasised. By constant reiteration a fallacy is apt to 

 ;come current as a truism, but the bald proposition, so 

 )pular at agricultural meetings, that the economic interests 

 farmers and the national interests are identical is un- 

 ranted. The national interest in Agriculture is two-fold, 



1. To secure the maximum output of produce from the 



land. 



2. To maintain the maximum population on the land. 

 The economic interests of the individuals who occupy 

 ricultural land do not necessarily involve the attainment 

 either of these objects. The law of Diminishing Returns 



yverns the farmer, and, speaking generally, it may be said 







