TENURE 35 



men who Dwn the land are passive partners in the 

 industry ot" ac;ricuhure — mere rent receivers. 



Though many owners depend upon the rental trom 

 the land for their subsistence, few- depend upon the 

 actual cultivation of the land for any considerable 

 portion of their income. In other words, English 

 landowners do not derive their income direct from the 

 land as a result of their own ciTorts — they obtain it 

 vicariously. This does not mean that the owner is in 

 any way a parasite, for in the past he has generously 

 expended his capital to put the land into a condition 

 for the farmer to use. And in the years of agricultural 

 depression he came to the farmer's assistance and bore 

 his full share of the loss. But it does mean that the 

 farmers do not regard the owner as one of themselves, 

 or as directly interested in the cultivation of the land. 



For one important class of the agricultural community 

 to be so little interested in the actual cultivation of the 

 soil is certainly an evil that has helped to bring about 

 unsound conditions. The contrast in the case ot the 

 foreign owner is striking ; he farms as a rule the larger 

 part of his estate, and he farms it on a commercial basis 

 and so successfully that he is regarded as a farmer by 

 the farmers themselves. More than this, he is regarded 

 as the leader of agriculture and the natural person to 

 represent the farming class in the legislature. 



In support of the system of tenancy, it is said that it is 

 much more sound economically for the farmer to rent 

 his land, and keep all his capital for working capital, 

 rather than to sink it in the purchase of the land itself. 

 This is incontrovertible, and no one wishes to controvert 

 it ; but if land banks existed in this country as they do 

 on the Continent the tenant would be able to buy his 

 farm under a system of annual instalments, zvithuut 



