FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTIONS 1 33 



unless made within a reasonable period," and could not 

 go back to these outlays of half a century or more ago. 

 And, thirdly, it seems to be quite forgotten that many 

 of the items which swell these vast accounts are 

 temporary and evanescent. Much that goes down as 

 " repairs " consists of recurrent and transient payments. 

 It is of the nature of the mere replacing of the wear and 

 tear of the machine, or instrument which is let on hire, 

 and which is unworkable and useless without this 

 constant attention. If a jobmaster spends money year 

 by year in keeping a carriage he lets out on hire in good 

 order, he naturally does better business and is able to 

 let his carriage on better terms than another man who 

 neglects repairs, but it would be absurd for him to add 

 up year by year his outlays on repairs as a species of 

 cumulative investment, increasing for ever and ever, and 

 expected to yield an interest on the wholly fictitious 

 total of investments thus created. It would very soon 

 exceed the selling value of the carriage. Much of the 

 reasoning as to rents not producing a fair interest 

 on landlord's outlay is equally unsubstantial and fal- 

 lacious. 



When the claims of tenants for their improvements 

 are considered, the time limit of exhaustion is rigidly and 

 jealously guarded. The proposals of all the Scotch 

 tenant farmer witnesses, and of many of the English 

 tenant farmer witnesses, that compensation should be 

 given for long continued good farming, resulting in what 

 they term " cumulative fertility," have been repudiated 

 by witnesses representing the views of landowners and 

 agents. But, at the same time, statements are made 

 which imply the claim by landlords and their repre- 

 sentatives to treat the landlord's outlay as a matter on 

 which time has practically no effect whatever. 



By the Lincolnshire custom a tenant is only allowed 

 fifteen years for drainage, after which time it is assumed 

 that no value worth pecuniary recognition is thought to 

 remain. On what principle can it be justly held that, 

 on an exactly similar outlay, a landlord should have a 

 right to interest extending over generations ? 



