THE ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM 69 



gains which fell to the share of the inclosers. A 

 balance-sheet of the inclosure of Kinof's Sedsfmoor 

 (12,000 acres) shows that after Parliamentary and all 

 other expenses are charged, there remains for the 

 inclosers a net profit of ^365,373. 15s. 4d.^ 



Later on, McCulloch, speaking of the advantage 

 of having division of labour on a farm, so that the 

 occupier might avail himself of new improvements 

 and increased facilities for production, adds : " 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."^ In this, and in his opinions of peasant 

 proprietary generally, experience has proved that 

 McCulloch was wrong in every particular. 



Numerous essays have been written by economists 

 on the " Theory of Rent," but a study of the evidence 

 given before the numerous Royal Commissions shows 

 that, whatever might be the "theory," the practice 

 was to get as much rent as the farmer could be in- 

 duced to give, which was in many, if not most, cases 

 more than he could afford to pay.^ Tempted by the 

 high prices which prevailed, competition set in among 

 the farmer class for the possession of the large farms 

 that had been created, and rents in consequence rose 



1 "General View of Agriculture in Somersetshire," by John Billings- 

 ley, of Shepton Mallet, 1798. 



2 " Principles of Political Economy." Third edition, 1842. 



2 The study of these essays on " Rent " is a necessary but a profitless 

 one. Political economists differ on the subject, but their theories, though 

 interesting, are of no practical value. Ricardo states that " Rent is that 

 portion of the produce of the earth which is paid to the landlord for 

 the use of the original and indestructible powers of the soil," and not 

 for buildings and improvements. "Political Economy," p. 46, 1819. 

 McCulloch takes a similar view, and sustains it by pages of bewildering 

 disquisition. Adam Smith's theory, from which the above writers dissent, 



D 



