THE METAYER SYSTEM OF FARMING.
Ii is well known that the greater part of Italy, one half of France, and sonic por- sass Mother Southern countries, are cultivated by metayers—a species of farmer for which there is no English name, but meaning a cultivator on joint account
with the proprietor of the land, who supplies him also with capital and stock. This system is as unknown in Britain as its name, and is eertainly not likely to
enter the heads of our landlords with a view to its adoption. It has lately been held up to public reproach by a writer in the Foreign Quarterly Review, whom there is little difficulty in identifying as Professofteee Cuseocn; and as this emi- nent political economist is therein at variance with M. Si se mem, whose abilities as ali historian and political observer entitle his opinion to great reepect, there seems room for a few remarks, by way of supplement, to the article in the Foreign Quarterly. We beg, however, to assure Messrs. Mac Cur:Loci! and SISMONDI, the we speak merely as amicus curiw, and have by no means the presumption attempt to sit as judge between such distinguished combatants. " Non nostrum inter ves tantas coinponere lites."
It is an easy matter to satisfy ourselves that the agriculture of Great Britain is superior to that of France or Italy, but to trace the causes of that superiority is a somewhat more difficult operation : and therein we cannot be too cautious in at- tributing to an individual cause, ally circumstance connected with the general state of particular societies, which may in truth be the effect of many causes.
Neither should we forget that a particular mode of letting land may be both the cause and effect of a particular state.of agriculture, as the use of bad implements of husbandry may arise from the inability to procure better, and at the same time effectually perpetuate that inability.
That the Metayer system is excellent in comparison with the predial slavery w which it succeeded, cannot be doubted ; and so far M. SissioNot may be war- ranted in calling it one of the happiest inventions of the' middle ages. On the emancipation of the villeins attached to the land, the proprietor had no choice but to keep it in ids own hands, or to let it either at a rent certain, or on joint account. To farm a large estate himself, his own means were often inadequate, and never sufficient to do it well: to findtenants with capital enough to pay a fixed rent and defray expenses, was equally impossible ; and the only resource was therefore to divide the lands among metayer tenants. There have never yet ken capitalists sufficiently numerous either in France or in the North of Italy to lake large farms at fixed rents.
There are species of produce which, on account of their peculiar nature, and the uncertainty of their crops, farmers without capital \you'd not venture to cul- tivate on their own account. Such are the vine and the olive, which require at- tention for many years before they begin to yield fruit, and which are often sub- ject to such unfavourable vicissitudes of weather as to entail serious losses upon the cultivators. These plants would moreover be injured by being allowed to bear fruit either prematurely or too luxuriantly, and therefore few landed pro. preteen would risk the trusting them entirely to farmers looking for immediate other than distant profit. Hence the Metayer system necessarily prevails in the
Central and Southern provinces of France, where the vineyards and olive grounds are situated ; and in the article on French agriculture in the l?evite Trimestrielle referred to by the Foreign Quarterly, we are told that the olives are subject to
such fluctuations from the effect of the seasons, that they have in many cases been removed to make room for more certain productions, and that their culture is altogether extremely discouraging. It is reckoned that about one half of France is cul- tivated on the Metayer system ; and when we include in this the greater part of the vineyards and olive grounds, and consider that before the Revolution seven-eighths of the whole kingdom was let to metayers, we cannot but admit that French agri-
culture has made some progress since that period, if tried merely by this criterion. We fully..agree with Professor MAC COLLOCH that the Metayer system may be pronounced a priori to be a bad one. In fact, the description of it by M. SAY would be sufficient to satisfy us almost without resorting to experience. " Ce genre de culture," says the French economist, " appartient th on etat peu avance* de fagriculture, et il est le plus defavorable de tous aux ameliorations des terres;
carcelui des deux, du proprietairs ou tin krmier, qui fait Pamelioration a ses frais, no retire que la tnoitie du fruit de sa depense, puisq'il est oblige d'en partager le produit." But it is not merely this system, but the short duration of leases, which are usually granted for three years only, and the erroneous course of husbandry, that retard the progress of agriculture in France. The practice of Wows, which in this country is entirely out of use, is there generally adopted ; the course being, in general, for the first year, clean fallow ; for the second, winter corn; and for the third, summer corn, as barley and oats. The result is, that the
crops seldom exceed four times the seed, and often are under that proportion. liver readers will refer to the Revue Trimestrielle for April 1828, they will have the whole state of French agriculture, its burdens, and wants, brought succinctly under their notice.
It does not appear that it is the small farms, that are usually the worst cultivated ; quite the contrary is the fact: and it cannot be otherwise until capital shall be diffused far more abundantly than at present through France and other countries
of Europe. There is no difficulty whatever for a great capitalist to procure as :much land as he can farm ; but so long as these capitalists are rare, it seems use- less to talk of the advantage of increasing the size of farms. The division of Property by law among the children of the proprietor, is one of those evils which will correct themselves, as this does continually when one of the children pur- chases the shares of the rest. Upon this question, also, Mr. MAC COLLODI] is at variance with M. SISMONDI, the former being the advocate of the aristocratic, the latter of the democratic principle. M. SISMONDI'S Treatise On Political Economy, though not without its faults, treats this science as it appears to us it ought to be treated, viz, as a means to an end ; and considers the accumulation of property as' only desirable in so far as it diffuses happiness among the people in general. We cannot help thinking that our economists lose sight of this principle; for they are all, (except, we believe, Mr. Moos) advocates of an aristocracy; and that an aristocracy has ever contributed to the happiness of a nation, is a position that history, as well as human nature, flatly contradicts. We should infinitely prefer the situation of a peasant of France or Lombardy, whether proprietor or metayer, to that of an English farming labourer,—whose condition, in the midst of the praises heaped upon our large farms and long leases, seems strangely overlooked. A detailed account of the state of agriculture in Lombardy and Tuscany, with statistical information on the divisions and tenancies of the land, and of the popu- lation, would be a very valuable addition to our literature. Some authorities are quoted by the Foreign Quarterly against the Metayer system in Italy, but the high cultivation and productiveness of the Northern parts of that delightful country are certainly primg facie evidence to show that no great harm has been done by it in those districts. Upon this we do not desire to comment further than we have already done with rarence to the vineyards and olive grounds. The same observations apply in a great measure also to the mulberry plantations. Fully recognizing, then, the bad effects of the Metayer system in general, we have thought it right to state, why, in many circumstances, it seems an unavoid- able evil, and that we are by no means satisfied that the back ward state of French agriculture is attributable either to it, or to the law of equal partition of lands. The public are, however, much indebted to that excellent journal the Foreign Quarterly, for investigating the subject in so able a manner as has been done in time article we have referred to.
Previous page
