LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE FARMERS AND TENANT RIGHT.
[TO THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTAT011."]
SIR,—Mr. Bear, in his letter to you, complicates a very simple question by all sorts of confused and impossible illus- trations.
He supposes the case of a man hiring slabs of marble from a marble merchant, on the understanding or bargain that they were to be used for a skating rink, or for some other similar purpose. He then supposes that the hirer, instead of using them for the purposes' intended, cuts them and carves them into chimney-pieces, worth a much larger sum than in the form in which he hired the marble. The supposed case is an absurd one, on the face of it, and has not the remotest analogy with the case of a man who hires land. But even taking Mr. Bear's supposed case as he puts it, his conclusion seems to me as irrational as it is irrelevant. The man who hires marble from another, and gives additional value to it by his labour, would be entitled to so much of that value as he had bargained for, and no more. If he finds that he can cut, carve, and relet his marble slabs or blocks in the form of chimney-pieces at so high a price or rent that he will be amply repaid for his skill and labour, after repaying to the marble merchant a certain large portion of that price or rent, be will be making a bargain which is wise, because it is profitable. On the other hand, the marble mer- chant, if he is in a position to ask such terms, makes a perfectly equitable bargain.
But there is one thing that would be inequitable—grossly in- equitable, in my opinion—and that is that any third party (whether it be Parliament or any other), should step in between these two men and forbid Bach a bargain between them. The
man who hires the marble has a right to make such a bargain, if he finds he can live and thrive by doing so. The owner of the marble has an equal right to dispose of his material on the terms which other men will accept.
I have myself hired land from another man for a lease of thirty years. I have greatly improved it, laying out on it a large sum. Towards the end of the lease, I have been obliged to renew it, at a rent increased by 400 per cent. I did so, calculat- ing that I should be remunerated both in money and in enjoy- ment. It never occurred to me to argue that my landlord had made with me an inequitable bargain.
Mr. Bear may make better bargains, if he can. They will be equitable, if he can make them ; they will not be equitable, if he cannot make them. What he wants is that the law should step in and help him, by prohibiting other men from making bargains which they think equitable, because otherwise he cannot get the bargain he would like.
The argument derived from public policy tells in the same direction as the argument from equity. It is against public policy to interfere with the price of articles in any form. It is against public policy, as much as it is against justice, to prevent or to impede any man from making any bargain as to the hire of land which he is satisfied will be sufficiently profitable to himself, merely because some other men wish to make one which is still more profitable.
The improvement and reclamation of land will often pay 20 and 30 per cent. I know that the enjoyment of that return for a given number of years will repay me amply for my skill and my outlay ; and as that repayment is due largely to materials, and to situation, and to other conditions which are not mine, but the property of the owner, I know that it is as just as it is advantageous to agree to return these to the man to whom they belong, when I have made my calculated profit out of them.—
Previous page
