LANDLORDS IMPROVEMENTS I 23 



and repairs, on Lord Tankerville's (20,000 acres) about 

 17 or 18 per cent. 



Mr Pringle says of South Durham and the North 

 Riding, that the landlords have spent large sums on 

 permanent improvements. The comparative escape 

 from the worst consequences of this long and severe 

 depression is largely due to the way in which landlords 

 have provided the best equipment for stock farming on 

 economic and profitable lines, with covered yards, 



Mr Spencer says of Oxfordshire, Gloucestershire, etc., 

 that the average outlay ranges from 10 to 36 per cent, 

 of the gross rental in those counties, is greater on large 

 properties, and is generally maintained in spite of heavy 

 reductions, and in some cases considerably increased 

 since the depression. Much of the tenant's liabilities 

 under covenants to repair has also been transferred to 

 the landlord, who practically takes the whole cost. 



The proportion of gross rent thus employed is in some 

 cases prodigious. Thus Mr Hall,i on his Cambridgeshire 

 estate of 5600 acres, expended in 1892 — "a medium year" 

 — on improvements and maintenance, ^^275 3 out of 

 ^5105 gross rent, or over 54 per cent. On his estate 

 in Bucks — 2583 acres — the expenditure is £iigi 8s Qd 

 out of ;)^2940, or over 40 per cent. 



The " Particulars of Expenditures and Outgoings on 

 certain Estates " show that — 



On the Tollemache estate in Cheshire, improvements, 

 repairs, drainage, etc., have taken about ;^5000 a 

 year out of about ;^33,ooo, or 15 per cent. 

 On the Holkham estate of Lord Leicester, between 

 1872 and 1892, in 21 years ;^i 53,234 was spent out 

 of ;^ 1, 109,3 14 gross rent received, or 1372 per cent. 

 The outlay has considerably fallen since 1884. 

 On -the Thorney and Wansford estates, out of 

 £750,738 gross rent for 21 years (1872-92), 

 ^385)192 has gone to permanent improvements, 

 drainage rates, etc., over 50 per cent. 

 On estates of about 27,000 acres in Beds and Bucks, 

 out of ^^890,444 gross rent received, ^^^233,239 

 ' Vol. VL, App. III. and IV., pp. 462, 463. 



