RACK-RENTING BY COMPETITION I I 3 



exhausting the fertility, and thus compelling a reduction 

 of rent when the farm is " run out." Such " land 

 suckers " outbid the old tenant or the honest new 

 tenant, and ultimately help to bring down the landlord 

 too. 



In Scotland, " at present, under the new leases with 

 breaks at five }'ears, there are a number of men who 

 offer for farms in good condition, on the chance of 

 leaving at the end of five years, and taking all they can 

 out of them. These men compete with good farmers, 

 and offer rents which the latter cannot pay." ^ 



A Wigtownshire farmer says in despair about 

 technical education and scientific farming: " If you are 

 able through improved methods to raise prices, ulti- 

 mately that will all go into the pockets of the landlords 

 through competition." 



Mr Ballingall (Fife) : " Good land I have known 

 gone down almost to wreck from the system of taking 

 the highest rent. I believe in time that no more will be 

 got for land than can be got out of it. By rack-renting 

 you take away a man's hope. The first thing that 

 suffers is the land." This is confirmed by Mr Riddell, 

 who says that " farms let * at the point of the sword ' 

 have, in the end, had a vastly greater fall in rents." 



Again : " I have known plenty of cases where farms 

 have been let at from ;^io to ^^15 over the head of the 

 old tenant, where there was no sufficient reason. There 

 are plenty of good landlords. It is the middling class of 

 landlords I am speaking about. The landlord is in a 

 very different pos'tion to screw rent out of a farm when 

 it is in high condition." In his own case, Mr Riddell, 

 who had enormously enriched his farm, was not allowed 

 to renew it on valuation, but was told he must compete 

 with thejrest, or "bundle and go." 



The enormous number of changes of tenancy in the 

 south-west of Scotland is certainly due largely to rack- 

 renting eating up all possible profits. The balance 

 sheets attached to Mr Speir's report show, he says, 

 " that notwithstanding the capital invested, the remunera- 



' Davidson, 51,026; Riddell, 54,668. 



H 



