5 8 THE AGRICULTURAL CLUB. 



farmers have organised and are entitled to any increased net 

 return. 



Labour remains at the same percentage, though, of course, 

 double in amount. In actual practice, the percentage may be 

 higher, due to forced production, and this will give one of the 

 measures for arriving at a proper subsidy. The main point, 

 however, is the rent. The farmers may well say we will continue 

 to pay the same rent as at present, and will get our reward on 

 the decreased percentage for this item. 



We are told that there was a loss of 834,000,000 in the 

 capital value of the lands of Great Britain between 1875 and 

 1904. Making a proportionate allowance for Scotland, this 

 would leave approximately 700,000,000 in England and Wales, 

 and would be comparable with the output in these two tables. 

 Who can doubt that an income return on this 700,000,000 

 will be imposed on the agricultural reorganisation plan, if there 

 is any chance to do so ; it is in fact in progress of imposition. 

 At 5 per cent, on this capital the change would be 25 per cent, 

 on the increase I have assumed. The threat of this imposition 

 strikes at the foundation of any organisation of farmers as 

 business men. It appears to me that there are two, and only 

 two, ways of securing a business-like solution. The first is for 

 the landlords to operate the farms direct, and the other is for 

 the farmers to buy out the landlords. Both solutions imply a 

 scrapping of the elaborate paraphernalia of Land Courts, allow- 

 ances to outgoing tenants, and erudite discussion about the three 

 F's. The remedy is a Land Purchase Act giving the cultivator 

 of the soil facilities and the right to purchase. The essential to 

 business policy is that management and ownership shall run 

 together. Imagine Swan & Edgar's at the corner of Piccadilly 

 Circus exposing themselves to a revision of rent based on their 

 earnings every seven years. No staple industry in the world 

 except Agriculture has been attempted on such a basis. It may 

 be urged that landlords are considerate and neighbourly and do 

 not take their pound of flesh. Such an intolerable position would 

 have been ended long ago if they had. But in America we have 

 decided that the potential ability to injure is almost as vicious as 

 actual injury, and our anti-trust laws have been interpreted 

 accordingly. It is intolerable to manhood that the upbuilding of 

 years shall periodically be placed in another man's hands " to 

 touch and remit after the use of kings." Ten thousand kings 

 would upset any business. The English genius for compromise 

 had made it work passably well at times, but it is my opinion 

 that those times have passed. If farmers are to develop their 

 scattered units into an organised industry, the threat of this 

 undefined mortgage on their labours must be removed. If 

 landlords are to organise the business, it is essential that they 



