566 Abstract Report of Agricultural Discussions. 
sioners for cottcages built on entailed estates were also fulfilled. It 
would be well, be tbougbt, for all landov>ners to consider wbetber it is 
not desirable that, wben cottages are built on tbeii estates, the rules 
laid doiATi by tbe Enclosui'e Commissioners to secure substantiality, 
sliould bo observed. If cottages require constant repairs, tbey are a 
ciu'se, rather than a benefit, to an estate. Assuming that cottages 
v,'cre built in pairs, and in accordance with the views of modern philo- 
sophers as regarded sanitary arrangements, and that the cost per pair 
would be 250/. — and, notwithstanding the greatest regard to economy, 
the expense had run up to 300Z. — the question arose, v/ho was to pay 
for them ? It resolved itself into a question of interest. Nobody 
built houses without looking for a return of six, seven, or eight per 
cent. ; and no landowner would, whatever might be the extent of his 
philanthropy, build cottages without regard to cost. A retm-n of six 
per cent, would require a rent of at least 11. 10s. for each cottage. 
Again, he asked, who was to pay ? The cottager could not atFord to 
pay such a rent. The utmost proportion of his eai-nings v^ hich he 
could afford for rent was a seventh. A man who was earning 9s. or 
10s. a week — and there were a great many men with families who did 
not earn more — could not pay more than Is. 6ci. ; a man who earned 
14:S., could not pay more than 2s. ; and the highest-paid agricultui-al 
labom-ers could not aftord more than 2s. 6d. or 2s. 9c/. Assuming that 
2s. per week was the mean payment for cottage-rent, that made 5/. a 
year, cr only two-thirds of what was required to pay interest on 
capital. Who, then, was to pay the remainder ? He knew no question 
which was more deserving of the consideration of this Society. That 
was the point on which he desired to lay stress, and which had, in fact, 
brought him there that day. He thought that if good cottages were 
built on the farms, the tenants, who had the advantage of having the 
labourer living iq)on the spot, instead of the disadvantage of his losing 
his strength in walking a long distance to it, could afford to pay 
something ; and it was a point well worthy of the consideration of 
tenants whether, under such circumstances, they should not contribute 
a portion of the rent. Then there wag a third party — the owner of 
the estate — of vv'hose farms were improved by the building of cottages, 
and whose property generally derived a corresponding advai\tage. 
Whether the o'W'ners and the farmers were prepared to contribute the 
difference between Is. 6f/. a week, which was about 4/. a year, and 
11. 10s. was another question ; but certain it was that the building of 
improved cottages could not be expected to increase verj-^ largely 
imless that question was well considered and practically answered. 
It was not to be expected that all owners would imitate the Duke of 
Bedford, and Mr. Turner of Lincolnshire, who had built such beautiful 
cottages, but so costly, that he was sui'o no labourer coidd pay an 
adequate rent. 
The CnAiujiAN thought the question before the meeting related to 
the materials for building cottages : he hoped that some day or otlier 
they would have a discussion on the economical view of the matter. 
He could not help remarking that ho knew two or three landlords who 
