M.— AGRICULTURE. 227 



date from the time wlien the owner had himself considerable knowledge 

 of the industry and its economic possibilities, represented a higher 

 standard of farming than the tenant would naturally adopt if left to his 

 own uncontrolled inclinations. They have been the subject from time to 

 time of well-merited criticism and of legislative interference on the part 

 of the State, because they became harmful to the industry in conse- 

 quence of their crystallisation by lawyers and their presei'vation when 

 the conditions had changed. It was not so much the stringency of 

 these farm agreements, but their lack of modification and adaptation, in 

 view of the opening up of new markets and the development of fresh 

 means of land fertilisation, which laid them open to censure. It was, 

 in fact, ignorance arising from the owner's increasing detachment from 

 the processes of agricultural production which, by stereotyping the 

 conditions of his farm tenancies, retarded the enterprise of his tenants 

 and degraded the standard of their husbandry. 



It may be suggested that present-day advocacy of the economic 

 activities of landowners, although they be admittedly beneficial to the 

 commonwealthj_ is inopportune in view of the growing impoverishment 

 by taxation of the landowning class and the sub-division of many large 

 estates which might have proved good units for effective industrial 

 organisation. On the other hand, it may be urged that the. sale by many 

 landowners possessing small commercial experience or aptitude of por- 

 tions of their estates, and the investment of the proceeds in joint-stock 

 industrial undertakings yielding at least twice the amount of their rent, 

 has brought home to the minds of many of them that mere rent- 

 receiving proprietorship was not good business, and that by the indus- 

 trial or commercial development of their land more wealth was to be 

 won for themselves and their families. Moreover, the sale or sub- 

 division of estates has added to the landowning class many men 

 possessing not merely great wealth but business acumen and wide 

 commercial knowledge, some at least of whom are able to realise the 

 unprofitableness of undeveloped land, or the political unwisdom of land- 

 ownership detached from industry, and have acted accordingly. Con- 

 spicuous among these are men of the type of the late Lord Manton, 

 who with great foresight and public spirit have applied their surplus 

 wealth to the conduct of research, and to the personal application of 

 scientific discovery to the daily requirements of agricultural industry. 

 There are, however, unfortunately all too many of those who have 

 embarked in the purchase of landed estates wealth derived from urban 

 industries or from mining who are not prepared to employ in their 

 development those business methods which have led in the past to 

 their enrichment. They are the rather prone to treat their properties 

 as playgrounds, or as instruments for the enhancement of their social 

 position. 



The process of territorial disintegration has largely augmented 

 the number of those who combine w^ithin themselves the r6les of 

 occupier and owner — the functions of rent producer and rent receiver. 

 The number of agricultural landowners has thus been at least doubled 

 in several counties by recruits from the ranks of the tenant farmers, 

 and unless compelled by the current fall in prices to sell their 



