The Organisation oj the Industry^. 13 



than they are spending- on the equipment of the land is a 

 highly controversial question, but for practical purposes 

 it is relatively unimportant. Here and there a good case 

 can be made out that the land is under-rented, but taking 

 agricultural land generally, the rents paid at present are 

 as much as the land will bear under the present system. 

 Farmers at any rate will not agree that the landlords' 

 difficulties are to be solved by a general increase in rent. 



What we have to recognise is that the estate system 

 has broken down so far as agriculture is concerned. 

 Capital is not being put into the land to develop it for 

 agricultural purposes, nor are there any indications that 

 the owners of land have sufficient confidence in the develop- 

 ment of the industry to induce them to make the necessary 

 expenditure. The land is being let down because, in the 

 words we hear so often used, " it does not pay to spend 

 money on land." Whatever the reasons alleged may be, 

 there is a general feeling of helplessness and hopelessness 

 on the part of landowners. They are unable to carry out 

 the principal function in agriculture by which they seek 

 to justify their position, the provision of the permanent 

 equipment of the land. 



Nor is their position any better so far as the manage- 

 ment and control of the estates is concerned. When it is 

 remembered that the possession and control of land are 

 sought for social reasons rather than for agricultural 

 reasons, the result should not be unexpected. Their 

 interest is not in the business of agriculture. They do 

 not care to incur the odium of being strict with slack 

 tenants. Their social position and their influence in the 

 county are more important to them than the successful 



