RICHMOND COMMISSION ON RENTS 345 



of a " fair rent " as of extreme difficulty (par. 436), when 

 well-known landlords like the Duke of Richmond and Sir 

 Michael Hicks-Beach have indicated clearly that rents 

 should not be fixed by competition but by valuation, and 

 land agents of repute, like Mr Gilbert Murray, have approved 

 the necessity of a careful re-valuation based on prices and 

 productive power. 



Doubt is attempted to be thrown on the contention of 

 tenant-farmer witnesses, and on the inferences drawn from 

 the farm accounts submitted to the Commission. It is a 

 sufficient reply to point out that in an exceptionally bad 

 year, 1892, after thirteen years of progressive depression, the 

 accounts of twenty-nine of the most important estates in 

 England and Wales show a rent actually paid averaging over 

 24s an acre, and a net rent, after deduction of outgoings of the 

 most comprehensive character, including items extraneous 

 to estate maintenance, of nearly 14s an acre. Without 

 further evidence from other quarters, these estate accounts 

 demonstrate that, although agricultural prices are down 

 from 25 to 40 per cent., and the cost of production has 

 increased rather than diminished, an altogether dispropor- 

 tionate share of the value of the produce is still being 

 assigned to the owner, and a fair balance has not yet been 

 struck between the parties. 



I take exception also to the statement in par. 438. The 

 only fair way of estimating the proportion of profits to rent 

 is by taking the average. I have already given reasons 

 and figures which go to prove that the calculations in the 

 Majority Report are misleading ; and that, so far as the farm 

 accounts throw light on the matter, the average profits have 

 nearer 2 than 26 per cent, of the rent. To reach the in- 

 come-tax standard of seven-sixteenths, the average profits 

 should have been, not ^852, but ^^16,331.^ 



The reasoning of paragraphs 440 to 449 rests on the 

 assumptions (i) that tenants in general can and do avail 

 themselves of " the annually recurring opportunities " of 

 getting rents revised ; (2) that " the market price paid for 

 land is the best if not the only available test of its value ; " 

 and, apparently, also (3) that landlords are justified in 

 accepting the competitive rent, without considering for 

 themselves whether it can or cannot be paid out of the 

 actual earnings of the land. 



' pp. 88.92. 



