3 io 



AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS 



in land, he could make a profit of 10 per cent by using it in 

 stocking a farm. 1 



There is evidence that many landowning farmers became 

 tenant farmers because they found it more profitable. For 

 example, before the new agriculture was introduced there were 

 many small owners in Norfolk who cultivated their own land. 

 Instances are noted of parishes which had at one time been 



1 James Anderson is the author of a short article published in Hunter's " Georgical 

 Essays," Vol. VI, p. 213 (York, 1804), which is entitled, "The Bad Consequence 

 of a Farmer Lessening his Capital by the Purchase of Land." The article reads as 

 .follows: "Those who are fond of political calculations may have here full scope for 

 their ingenuity, by supposing that two men of equal spirit, knowledge, and capital, 

 set out in the agricultural line. One of them as a farmer, on a lease ; and the other 

 as a small proprietor, or yeoman. Let the capital be taken any how at random; 

 say, 2000. The yeoman, we shall say, lays out 1500 of that sum in the purchase 

 of a farm, which at thirty years' purchase [that is, thirty times the annual rent or 

 annual value] would be worth 50 a year, and he has 500 left for stocking and im- 

 proving it. The other leases a farm, which, at a fair rent, is worth 200 a year. 

 Let us follow out the calculation, first, in regard to the profits that the different 

 occupiers themselves can enjoy, and the rate at which their families can afford 

 to live ; and, second, with regard to the augmentation of agricultural produce that 

 each of them could afford to the state; and let this calculation be continued for a 

 considerable number of years. Then strike the balance, and see what an amazing 

 difference I" 



Again, in recent times when the subject of restoring the old order of yeoman 

 fanners was being agitated, James Caird (J. R. Agr. S. E., Series III, Vol. I, p. 27) 

 gives a very clear statement of the problem suggested by James Anderson three 

 quarters of a century earlier. Caird writes : " There are two capitals employed in 

 British agriculture; that of the landowners and that of the farmer. The first, 

 which is the land itself, and the permanent improvements upon it, had hitherto 

 been certain and safe, and, therefore, yielding a small, but regular, return; the 

 other, the livestock and crops, subject to risk of seasons, and speculations, and 

 liable to compensation prices, requiring a much larger percentage to cover risk. . 

 The capitalist is content with 3 per cent for his heretofore secure investment, which 

 carried with it also influence and social position. A farm worth 50 an acre for 

 the freehold needs a further capital of 10 an acre to provide the farmer's capital 

 for its cultivation. The landowner is satisfied with a return of 3 per cent on his 

 50, while the tenant looks for 10 per cent for management and risk and interest 

 on his 10. Let us suppose that the farmer has a capital sufficient to buy 100 acres 

 at this price, and stock them; he would get for his 5000, invested in freehold, 

 150, and for his 1000, farm capital, 100; together, 250. But if he followed 

 the custom of his country and used the whole of his capital in cultivating another 

 man's land, he would with his 6000 hire 600 acres, on which his returns ought to 

 be 600. He, in truth, thus trades on the capital of the landowner, practically, 

 let to him at the moderate rate of 3 per cent, which he converts into a trade profit 

 on his own capital of 10 per cent." 



