The Moral of this Narrative. 5 1 9 



or no to this Ave must reflect a little, so as to decide in what 

 fresli light we shall have to regard the landlord in his relation- 

 ship with the community, supposing the latest economic ren- 

 dering of his profits be correct. As a partaker in the processes 

 of agricultural production he is virtually a farmer. To this 

 there is Professor Marshall's objection that his income does 

 not directly suffer like that of the farmer from murrain, or 

 bad harvests. Literally, no doubt, this is true, but indirectly 

 and irregularly the landlord's interests are affected whenever 

 a loss of producer's profits interferes with the proper culti- 

 vation of the soil, even though rents do not actually fall into 

 arrears. Landlord and tenant, therefore, compose a joint- 

 stock company, the proceeds of which they apportion be- 

 tween themselves. The landlord, who is, so to speak, the 

 sleeping partner in the business, leaves his tenant to do all the 

 work, but risks considerably more capital in the undertaking. 

 In some respects this view of the term rents, reminds one of 

 the relationship between landlord and farmer under the me- 

 tayer system. In their aspect to the rest of the community the 

 interests of the landlord and his tenant are inseparable, though 

 in their aspect to each other they are antagonistic. It is the 

 tenant's object to obtain as much of the profits of production 

 as he possibly can, it is the landlord's to defeat this purpose, 

 and therefore it can only have been through an amicable 

 understanding and mutual forbearance that the two interests 

 have hitherto maintained their close intimacy. But any benefit 

 that either the one or the other can wring from the com- 

 munity must be advantageous to both. Having once brought 

 their prey home they can wrangle over it to their hearts' 

 content ; that, however, is no concern of the outside public, 

 being one of those domestic disputes best settled in private. 



How very small then now-a-days must be the influence 

 of rents on prices. It is presumed that nobody will dispute 

 the landlord's claim to the ordinary rate of profit on his ex- 

 penditure, or grudge the farmer his right to make a livelihood 

 out of the soil. But in these times the market prices are too 

 low to provide for these two necessities, so it surel}?- follows 

 that, owing to the large excess of foreign produce in the home 



