22 
Land & Water 
February 21, i 9 1 8 
^^mTSf?^n ?^:^} V2 :}y^\h .. ^rT rrrrrrrw^ 
Position of the Landowner: By Sir H. Matthews 
" Where nun ol greal wealth do stoop to husbandry it muUiplieth 
riches exceedingly." — Bacon. 
HOW little do the crowds that throng the 
streets of our towns and cities realise their 
indebtedness to the landowners of this country. 
Even to-dav, although the home production 
of food, which was made possible by the 
sacrifices of this class, has stood between these crowds 
and shameful humiliation, how many are aware of 
what they owe to the senior partner in the business 
of agriculture ? Had it not been for Coke of Norfolk. 
Lord Townshend, the Earls and Dukes of Bedford, Lawes and 
Gilbert and scores of others, whose far-sightedness and practical 
cnergj' were devoted to improving their estates, and to in- 
creasing produ&tion from the land, we must have sued for peace 
with our enemies. The brilliant example set by these pioneers 
was generally followed by the rank and file of owners, until 
the amount expended in buildings, drainage, fences, and roads, 
aggregated hundreds of millions sterling. Of course their 
object was primarily to increase the value of their property, but 
incidentally they made our agriculture what it is — as good as 
any, and better than that of almost any other country in the 
world. They and their descendants reaped the benefit of en- 
hanced incomes, and a flourishing tenantrj^' for many years, but 
of course with certain exceptions— always putting back into 
the property in the shape of new equipment and renewals, 
.\ large percentage of their income. 
In the late 'seventies, however, the severe agricultural 
depression began, accentuated by the calamitous year of 
1879, with its ruined harvests. Tenants felt the full effects 
of this first, because the heavy drop in the price of all their 
produce — except milk — lessened their returns much faster 
than their outgoings could be reduced. They went bankrupt, 
pr retired from farming, in scores of thousands in a very few 
years, and then owners had to bear the bnmt of it. Farms 
were left vacant in a deplorable condition, and capital had to 
be found to work them ; while such tenants as remained were 
only induced to do so by huge reductions in rent. More 
buildings, or expensive alterations, were demanded to equip 
them for dairying (the one branch of farming not swamped 
, by dumped fann produce), heavy outlay for laying down land 
to grass, and for the consequent fencing was incurred, and 
such repairs as had been done by tenants were taken over by 
owners, whereas mortgages, settlement charges, and similar 
outgoings, remained at their old levels, while taxation, and 
especially death duties, were heavily increased. 
The result has been that owners with incomes derived 
from other sources kept up their estates in the old way, and 
poured money into them without getting any return. Scores 
of properties showed no net income whatever, and the great 
majority have done no more than give from i.l to 2 per cent, 
on outlay for recent equipment. Others less fortunately 
placed sold their estates at greatly depreciated rates to wealthy, 
business men, many of whom lx)ught for spwrting purposes, 
and devoted the land to game. Others still let their houses 
if they could, or shut them up if they could not, and 
turned their attention to more profitable businesses. 
In previous articles it has so chanced that the topics dealt 
with mainly concerned the tenants, but the senior partner, as 
I venture to call him, deserves more attention than he has 
yet received. The landlord (it is the agricultural owner 
that is referred to throughout this article, not the town land- 
lord) occupies a position in this country which is not generally 
understood. He is very seldom the mere rent-receiver, 
enacting homage from trembling tenants, as pictured by 
certain political papers. Looked at in an economic sense he 
happens to be a capitalist, owning stock in the shape of land. 
Other smaller capitalists wishing to become food producers 
offer him a certain percentage per annum for the use of a 
definite portion of his stock, in order that they may be enabled 
to use their own capital to the best advantage. If they 
cannot find an owner willing to lend them such stock, their 
only alternative, if they persist in their desire to produce 
food, is to purchase land themselves. The principal difference 
between the owner of land stock and other capitalists is that 
the former is usually prepared to accept a much smaller return 
on his capital than are other owners of wealth. That is the real 
relation between agricultural landlords and tenants. Arising 
out of the greater intimacy between them than is possible 
b 'tween urban owners and tenants, a feeling of friendship 
has generally grown, which has developed into a paternal 
interest on the one hand, and too great a tendency to look 
for help on the other ; unfortunately this paternal interest 
has been carried so far that a certain type of tenant has 
come to look upon what are in fact only acts of generosity 
as their right. This will be referred to later. 
It is peculiarly difficult for the general public to know 
anything about owners collectively. They are not known as 
such in official reports, or books of reference ; even the Census 
Returns which make such searching investigations into our 
private affairs, ind label us into groups, ignore owners 
of land as a class. The Income Tax Office knows more of him 
than anyone else, but this knowledge is not used to benefit 
the landowner, or for the gratification of public curiosity. If 
we are to believe socialist speakers and writers, or the politi- 
cian who is out for urban votes, a personality will be conjured 
up which is as much unlike the Average as it is possible to 
conceive. If on the other hand we look for any statement 
by owners as to any part they have taken, or are taking now, 
in the industry of agriculture, we find little to guide us. With 
very few exceptions (mention must be made of the Duke of 
Bedford s book, A Great Agricultural Estate) agricultural 
landlords have just carried on, regardless of financial results, 
and have treated political mud-throwing with silence. 
It would be almost impossible to form any association of 
owners which could represent most of the land of England, 
because they are so frequently not individuals at all. Thus 
the County Councils collectively are believed to be the largest 
owners in the country. Municipal authorities. Urban District 
Councils, Colleges, Hospitals, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 
Insurance Companies, Building Societies, and various charities 
all own large areas of land, and the Crown itself is not quite a 
small owner. These soulless landholders make it still more 
difficult to describe owners as a group. 
An interesting point in this connection is that these absentee 
landlords, who are mere rent-receivei"s, have no votes, as" 
owners, and consequently a very large area of land is actually 
disfranchised. The " Land Taxers " arc fond of saying that 
most of the land of this country belongs to a very small number 
of individuals. No figures are quoted here, because the 
numbers vary according to the taste of the speaker or writer, 
but if it is true the peers will account for a large proportion 
of this land. But they too have no votes. Some owners 
have inherited properties so far apart that it is physically 
impossible for them to record their votes for some portion 
of them. Taken altogether, it is evident that a very large area 
of the country is disfranchised, so far as the owners' votes are 
concerned. In every constituency owners, even if a homo- 
geneous body, are so few that they do net hold the balance of 
I 
\ 
