THE BREAK-UP OF BIG ESTATES.
THE present position with regard to agricultural pro- perty would be humorous if it were not so serious for many of the persons most intimately concerned. During the past few years Liberal politicians have been devoting a large part of their exuberant energy to denouncing the great landowners, and have been urging as one of the main argu- leents in support of Mr. Lloyd George's land taxes that they would lead to the breaking up of big estates. This result is apparently on the way to be realised, for all over the country the newspapers are chronicling the sale of large properties in smaller lots. One would have imagined that the whole Liberal Cabinet would now be dancing a earma.gnole of joy at the success of the Lloyd- Georgian policy. Strange to say, that is not the case. The member of the Cabinet who is principally concerned with agriculture—namely, Lord Carrington—has been making speeches in which he deplores the very success of the policy which he and his colleagues have carried into effect. He has realised, somewhat late in the day, that if the big estates are to be broken up the security which tenant-farmers have so long enjoyed will disappear. The existing owners who, through themselves or through their ancestors, have had personal relations, often extending for many generations, with the families of their present tenants do not look upon the bond between landlord and tenant as a purely pecuniary one. Both parties have duties to one another which are not discharged by the letting of the land and the paying of the rent. The result
is that the tenant on a, good estate has really greater security than if he were a freeholder, for he has his land- lord's capital and friendly consideration behind him.
This old relation, which has worked well, with some admitted exceptions, over a large part of the country, seems now doomed to extinction. Two causes are co- operating to destroy it. On the one hand, farming is distinctly more profitable than it was twenty, or even ten, years ago. Prices of agricultural produce have risen, and simultaneously the farmers have become better equipped for their profession, with the result that they are able to make profits where their predecessors could barely cover expenses. On this account there is keen competition for every vacant farm. This fact by itself, however, would not necessarily lead to the breaking up of the big estates, for there is abundant evidence that the tenants of a great estate would prefer to pity higher rents rather than see a new landlord take the place of the old one. In one or two notable instances the tenants have in a body offered their landlord to pay a higher rent if he would abstain from selling his property. It may therefore be stated without hesitation that the present breaking up of big estates would not have taken place unless another influence had been at work. The other influence, in plain language, is the attitude of the politician toward the landowner. Not only are many landowners subjected to a higher rate of taxation than the owners of other forms of property, but landowners as a class are denounced as if they were semi- criminals. No body of men can be permanently expected to subject themselves to an economic disadvantage if that involves political obloquy as well. Landowners may be, and are, perfectly willing to accept a low rate of interest on their investments in land, and to discharge the duties expected of an English landowner, provided they receive in return, at any rate, a passive acknowledgment of their public service ; but if, instead of any such acknow- ledgment, they are treated as enemies of the human race, they cannot be blamed for wishing to escape from a doubly unpleasant situation.
We may therefore take it as certain that the process of breaking up big estates will continue. The immediate effect of the process is to destroy the security of the present generation of tenant-farmers. When a landowner wishes to sell, he begins by giving his tenants notice to quit, for the very obvious reason that any possible purchaser will prefer to buy with the right of early possession. The effect on the tenant may be disastrous. The compensation to which a farmer is legally entitled at the termination of his tenancy will seldom suffice to repay a good tenant for all he has put into the land in anticipation of spending his life upon the farm. This he loses if he has to turn out, and he also loses the sentimental ties which bind him to the farm. It is true that the purchaser of the estate may, in many cases, be willing to retain the old tenants, but he will rarely be willing to retain them on the old terms. There is no existing bond of neighbourly kindness between him and them. He has purchased the land as a com- mercial speculation, and in nine cases out of ten will administer it from the commercial point of view. On this account tenant-farmers all over the country are anxiously asking what is to be their fate under the new regime brought about by political influences. Generally the out- going landlord gives his tenants the first opportunity of buying their farms, but there are not many tenant-farmers who have sufficient capital to buy as well as to work their farms, and if they had to borrow the larger part of the money a succession of bad seasons might make it im- possible for them to keep up payments of interest.
A very interesting discussion on this question took place at the Farmers' Club in London last October, when Mr. Anker Simmons pointed out the advantages of tenancy as compared with occupying ownership. His words are worth quoting : " In the course of my business life I have had constant opportunity of studying both systems in practice, and, while I can scarcely call to mind a single case of a man who purchased his farm ever adding to it, I could name numerous instances of men who, commen- cing with less than 250 acres, now occupy as tenant- farmers thousands of acres." Similar evidence to this can be furnished for other countries, and it is hardly too much to say that in those countries where occupying ownership is the rule the owner is often a less prosperous person than the average English tenant-farmer, But we have to face a situation brought about not by the operation of economic causes but by sheer political ignorance, and in view of that situation it is inevitable that the large estates will be broken up, and it is desirable as far as possible to prevent farms passing into other hands than those of their present occupiers. On this account the Committee of the Farmers' Club has drawn up a scheme advocating the use of State credit for the benefit of the English tenant-farmer. Needless to say, the analogy of the Irish Land Acts is quoted in favour of the scheme, but, to the credit of English farmers, we are glad to note that they do not ask for any State charity. The proposal is that the scheme should be entirely volun- tary, and that the terms should be such as to be mutually satisfactory to the State and to the farmer. It is suggested that interest should be calculated at 3-1 per cent., which would certainly be profitable to the State, and that the period of repayment should be extended to 60 years, so that an extra half per cent. would provide the necessary sinking fund. The farmer would thus, by paying 4 per cent•. annually on the capital value of the farm, acquire the freehold in 60 years. Assuming the valuation to have been properly made, the security of the State would be excellent, and the scheme provides that no loan shall be grantedexcept with the approval of the Board of Agriculture. Subject to these conditions it appears to us that the scheme deserves consideration. There are no doubt grave objec- tions to any use of State credit for the benefit of private individuals. However disguised, it means a favour to one at the expense of all, and that in principle is undoubtedly objectionable. But when great social and economic changes are taking place, we are not prepared to assert that there can be no justification for adopting methods which we should hold would be indefensible in normal circumstances. That is the broad justification of the Irish Land Purchase Acts, and would equally serve to defend the much less onerous proposals now made on behalf of English farmers. At any rate, and without finally committing ourselves to the proposition, it deserves, as we have said, to be considered, and considered sympathetically. We doubt whether English agriculture will gain by the change now in contempla- tion but in view of the general insecurity of landed property, resulting from ignorant attacks upon large land- owners, it is politically desirable that property in land should be more widely diffused, and the country must therefore be content to submit to whatever economic loss results from the shortsightedness of its politicians.
Previous page
