1875-1908
AGRICULTURAL DISTRESS AGAIN.--FOREIGN COMPETITION.--AGRICULTURAL
HOLDINGS ACTS.--NEW IMPLEMENTS.--AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONS.--THE
SITUATION IN 1908
About the year 1875 the good times came to an end. The full force of
free trade was at last felt. The seasons assisted the decline, and
there was now no compensation in the shape of higher prices. In the
eight years between 1874 and 1882 there were only two good crops. A
new and formidable competitor had entered the field; between 1860 and
1880 the produce of wheat in the United States had trebled. Vast
stretches of virgin soil were opened up with the most astonishing
rapidity by railroads, and European immigrants poured in. The cost of
transport fell greatly, and England was flooded with foreign corn and
meat. English land which had to support the landlord, the tithe-owner,
the land agent, the farmer, the labourer, and a large army of
paupers,[665] had to compete with land where often one man was owner,
farmer, and labourer, with no tithe and no poor rates. Yet prices held
up fairly well until 1884, when there was a collapse from which they
have not yet recovered. In 1877 wheat was 56s. 9d., in 1883 41s. 7d.,
and in 1884 35s. 8d.; by 1894 the average price for the year was 22s.
10d.[666]
Farmers' capital was reduced from 30 to 50 per cent., and rents and
the purchase value of land in a similar proportion. Poor clays only
fit for wheat and beans went out of cultivation, though much has since
been laid down to grass, and much has 'tumbled down'. In fact most of
the increased value of the good period between 1853-75 disappeared.
The year 1879 will long be remembered as 'the Black Year'. It was the
worst of a succession of wet seasons in the midland, western and
southern counties of England, the average rainfall being one-fourth
above the average, and 1880 was little better. The land, saturated and
chilled, produced coarser herbage, the finer grasses languished or
were destroyed, fodder and grain were imperfectly matured. Mould and
ergot were prevalent among plants, and flukes producing liver-rot
among live stock, especially sheep. In 1879 in England and Wales
3,000,000 sheep died or were sacrificed from rot,[667] by 1881
5,000,000 had perished at an estimated loss of £10,000,000, and many,
alas! were sent to market full of disease. Cattle also were infected,
and hares, rabbits, and deer suffered. In some cases entire flocks of
sheep disappeared. The disease was naturally worst on low-lying and
ill-drained pastures, but occurred even on the drier uplands hitherto
perfectly free from liver-rot, carried thither no doubt by the
droppings of infected sheep, hares, and rabbits, and perhaps by the
feet of men and animals. Apart from medicine, concentrated dry food
given systematically, the regular use of common salt, and of course
removal from low-lying and damp lands, were found the best
preventives.
Besides this great calamity, this year was distinguished by one of the
worst harvests of the century, outbreaks of foot and mouth disease, of
pleuro-pneumonia, and a disastrous attack of foot-rot. The misfortunes
of the landed interest produced a Commission in 1879 under the Duke of
Richmond, which conducted a most laborious and comprehensive inquiry.
Their report, issued in 1882, stated that they were unanimously
convinced of the great intensity and extent of the distress that had
fallen upon the agricultural community. Owner and occupier had alike
been involved. Yet, though agricultural distress had prevailed over
the whole country, the degree had varied in different counties, and in
some cases in different parts of the same counties. Cheshire, for
instance, had not suffered to anything like the same extent as other
counties, nor was the depression so severe in Cumberland,
Westmoreland, Northumberland, and parts of Yorkshire. The rainfall had
been less in the northern counties. In the midlands, the eastern, and
most of the southern counties the distress was severe, in Essex the
state of agriculture was deplorable, but Kent, Devon, and Cornwall
were not hardly hit.[668]
The chief causes of the depression were said to be these:--
1. The succession of unfavourable seasons, causing crops
deficient in quantity and quality, and losses of live stock.
2. Low prices, partly due to foreign imports and partly to
the inferior quality of the home production.
3. Increased cost of production.
4. Increased pressure of local taxation by the imposition
of new rates, viz. the education rate and the sanitary rate;
and the increase of old rates, especially the highway rate, in
consequence of the abolition of turnpikes. Some exceptionally
bad instances of this were given. In the parish of
Didmarton, Gloucestershire, the average amount of rates paid
for the five years ending March 31, 1858, was £26 6s. 3d.,
for the five years ending March 31, 1878, £118 11s. 7d. In
the Northleach Union the rates had increased thus in decennial
periods from 1850:--
1850-1 £5,471
1860-1 5,534
1870-1 8,525
1878-9 10,089
On one small property in Staffordshire the increase of rates,
other than poor rates, amounted to 3s. 6d. in the £ on the
rateable value.
5. Excessive rates charged by railway companies for the
conveyance of produce, and preferential rates given to foreign
agricultural produce; the railway companies alleging, in defence
of this, that foreign produce was consigned in much greater
bulk, by few consignors, than home grown, and could be conveyed
much more economically than if picked up at different
stations in small quantities.
As to the effect of restrictive covenants on the depression, the
balance of evidence did not incline either way.[669]
The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1875 was stated to have done much
good in the matter of compensation to tenants for improvements,
notwithstanding its merely permissive character, as it had reversed
the presumption of law in relation to improvements effected by the
tenant, prescribed the amount of compensation, and the mode in which
it should be given.
As to the important subject of freedom of cropping and sale of
produce, there were diverse opinions, some advocating it wholly,
others not believing in it at all, others saying each landlord and
each tenant should make their own bargains since each farm stands on
its own footing, others again favouring modified restrictions. The
preponderance of opinion was in favour of a modification of the law of
distress.
The Commission further said that the pressure of foreign competition
was greatly in excess of the anticipations of the supporters and of
the apprehensions of the opponents of Corn Law Repeal; if it had not
been for this, English farmers would have been partly compensated for
the deficient yield by higher prices. On the other hand, the farmer
had had the advantage of an increased and cheapened supply of feeding
stuffs, such as maize, linseed and cotton cakes, and of artificial
manures imported from abroad. At the same time the benefit to the
community from cheap food was immense. It seemed just, however, that
as agriculture was suffering from low prices, by which the country
gained as a whole, that the proportion of taxation imposed on the land
should be lessened; it was especially unjust that personal property
was exempted from local rates, contrary to the Act of 43 Eliz. c. 2,
and the whole burden thrown on real property. The difficulties of
farmers were aggravated by the high price of labour, which had
increased 25 per cent. in twenty years, largely owing to the
competition of other industries, and at the same time become less
efficient. As provisions were cheap, and employment abundant, the
labourer had been scarcely affected by the distress. His cottage,
however, especially if in the hands of a small owner, with neither the
means nor the will to expend money on improvements, was often still
very defective.
Farmers were already complaining of the results of the new system of
education, for which they had to pay, while it deprived them of the
labour of boys, and drained from the land the sources of future labour
by making the young discontented with farm work. The Commission denied
that rents had been unduly raised previous to 1875[670]; and in the
exceptional cases where they had been, it was due to the imprudent
competition of tenant farmers encouraged by advances made by country
bankers, the sudden withdrawal of which had greatly contributed to the
present distress. Districts where dairying was carried on had suffered
least, yet the yield of milk was much diminished, and the quality
deteriorated, owing to the inferiority of grass from a continuance of
wet seasons. The production and sale of milk was increasing largely,
so that the attention of farmers and landlords was being drawn to this
important branch of farming, milk-sellers necessarily suffering less
from foreign competition than any other farmers.
Let us turn once more to the hop yards: in 1878 the acreage of hops in
England reached its maximum. We have seen that in the first half of
the eighteenth century hop yards covered 12,000 acres; which between
1750 and 1780 increased to 25,000, and by 1800 to 32,000. In 1878,
71,789 acres were grown. The great increase prior to that year was due
to the abolition of the excise duty in 1862, which on an average was
equal to an annual charge of nearly £7 an acre.[671] This encouraged
hop-growing more than the taking off of the import duty in the same
year discouraged it. In 1882 there was a very small crop in England,
which raised the average price to £18 10s. a cwt.; some choice samples
fetching £30 a cwt.; growers who had good crops realizing much more
than the freehold value of the hop yards. This, however, was most
unfortunate for them, as it led to a great increase in the use of hop
substitutes, such as quassia, chiretta, colombo, gentian, &c., which,
with the decreasing consumption of beer and the demand for lighter
beer, has done more than foreign competition to lower the price and
thereby cause so large an area to be grubbed up as unprofitable, that
in 1907 it was reduced to 44,938 acres. Yet the quality of the hops
has in the last generation greatly improved in condition, quality, and
appearance. Growers also have in the same period often incurred great
expense in substituting various methods of wire-work for poles; and
washing, generally with quassia chips and soft soap and water, has
become wellnigh universal, so that the expense of growing the crop has
increased, while the price has been falling.[672] The crop has always
been an expensive one to grow; Marshall in 1798 put it at £20 an acre,
exclusive of picking, drying, and marketing[673]; and Young estimated
the total cost at the same date at £31 10s. an acre[674]; to-day £40
an acre is by no means an outside price. It may be some encouragement
to growers to remember that hops have always been subject to great
fluctuations in price; between 1693 and 1700, for instance, they
varied from 40s. to 240s. a cwt., so that they may yet see them at a
remunerative figure. 'Upon the whole', says an eighteenth-century
writer, 'though many have acquired large estates by hops, their real
advantage is perhaps questionable. By engrossing the attention of the
farmer they withdraw him from slower and more certain sources of
wealth, and encourage him to rely too much upon chance for his rent,
rather than the honest labour of the plough. To the landlord the
cultivation of hops is an evil, defrauding the arable land of its
proper quantity of manure and thereby impoverishing his estate.'
It was by this time the general opinion of men with a thorough
experience of farming, that in many parts of Great Britain no
sufficient compensation was secured to the tenant for his unexhausted
improvements. In some counties and districts this compensation was
given by established customs, in others customs existed which were
insufficient, in many they did not exist at all. It must be confessed
that often when a tenant leaves his farm there is more compensation
due to the landlord than to the tenant. Human nature being what it is,
the temptation to get as much out of the land just before leaving it
is wellnigh irresistible to many farmers.
In these days, when the landlord is often called upon by the tenant to
do what the tenant used to do himself, the question of compensation to
the tenant must on many estates appear to the landlord extremely
ironical. It is, in the greater number of cases, the landlord who
should receive compensation, and not the tenant; and though he has
power to demand it, such power is over and over again not put in
force.
At the same time there are bad men in the landlord class as in any
other, and from them the tenant required protection. By the
Agricultural Holdings (England) Act of 1875, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 92,
improvements for which compensation could be claimed by the tenant
were divided into three classes. First class improvements, such as
drainage of land, erection or enlargement of buildings, laying down of
permanent pasture, &c., required the previous consent in writing of
the landlord to entitle the tenant to compensation. Second class
improvements, such as boning of land with undissolved bones, chalking,
claying, liming, and marling the land, the latter now hardly ever
practised, required notice in writing by the tenant to the landlord of
his intention, and if notice to quit had been given or received, the
consent in writing of the landlord was necessary. For third class
improvements, such as the application to the land of purchased manure,
and consumption on the holding by cattle, sheep, or pigs, of cake or
other feeding stuff not produced on the holding, no consent or notice
was required. Improvements in the first class were deemed to be
exhausted in twenty years, in the second in seven, and in the third in
two. It was the opinion of the Richmond Commission of 1879 that,
notwithstanding the beneficial effects of this Act, no sufficient
compensation for his unexhausted improvements was secured to the
tenant.
The landlord and tenant also might agree in writing that the Act
should not apply to their contract of tenancy, so in 1883 when the
Agricultural Holdings Act of that year (46 & 47 Vict. c. 61)[675] was
passed, it was made compulsory as far as regarded compensation, and
the time limit as regards the tenant's claims for improvements was
abolished, the basis for compensation for all improvements recognized
by the Act being laid down as 'the value of the improvement to an
incoming tenant'. Improvements for which compensation could be claimed
were again divided into three classes as before, but the drainage of
land was placed in the second class instead of the first, and so only
required notice to the landlord. This was the only improvement in the
second class; the other improvements which had been in the second
class in the Act of 1875 were now placed in the third, where no
consent or notice was required.
The Act also effected three other important alterations in the law;
first, as to 'Notices to Quit', a year's notice being necessary where
half a year's notice had been sufficient, though this section might be
excluded by agreement; secondly, after January 1, 1885, the landlord
could only distrain for one year's rent instead of six years as
formerly; and thirdly, as to fixtures. These formerly became the
property of the landlord on the determination of the tenancy, but by
14 & 15 Vict. c. 25 an agricultural tenant was enabled to remove
fixtures put up by him with the consent of his landlord for
agricultural purposes. Now all fixtures erected after the commencement
of the Act were the property of and removable by the tenant, but the
landlord might elect to purchase them.
This Act was amended by the Act of 1900 (63 & 64 Vict. 50), and has
been much altered by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1906 (6 Edw.
VII, c. 56), which has treated the landlord with a degree of severity,
which considering the excellent relations that have for the most part
existed between English landlords and tenants for generations, is
utterly unwarranted. In several respects indeed he has been treated by
the Act as if the land did not belong to him, while freedom of
contract, until recent years one of the most cherished principles of
our law, is arbitrarily interfered with. The chief alterations made by
the Act of 1906 were:--
1. _Improvements._--By the Act of 1883, in the valuation for
improvements under the first schedule, such part of the improvement as
is justly due to the inherent capabilities of the soil was not
credited to the tenant This provision is repealed by the Act of 1906,
in reference to which it must be said that the latent fertility of the
soil, sometimes very considerable, may be developed by a small outlay
on the part of the tenant for which outlay he is certainly entitled to
compensation. But the greater part of the improvement may be due to
the soil which belongs to the landlord, yet the Act credits the tenant
with the whole of this improvement. An addition is made to the list of
improvements which a tenant may make without his landlord's consent
and for which he is entitled on quitting to compensation, viz. repairs
to buildings, being buildings necessary for the proper working of the
holding, other than repairs which the tenant is obliged to execute.
2. _Damage by Game._ A tenant may now claim compensation for damage to
crops by deer, pheasants, partridges, grouse, and black game.
3. _Freedom of Cropping and Disposal of Produce._ Prior to this Act it
had been the custom for generations to insert covenants in agreements
providing for the proper cultivation of the farm; as, for instance,
forbidding the removal from the holding of hay, straw, roots, green
crops, and manure made on the farm. These and other covenants were
merely in the interests of good farming, and to prevent the soil
deteriorating. In recent times vexatious covenants formerly inserted
had practically disappeared, and where still existing were seldom
enforced. By this Act, notwithstanding any custom of the country or
any contract or agreement, the tenant may follow any system of
cropping, and dispose of any of his produce as he pleases, but after
so doing he must make suitable and adequate provision to protect the
farm from injury thereby: a proviso vague and difficult to enforce,
and not sufficient to prevent an unscrupulous tenant greatly injuring
his farm.
4. _Compensation for unreasonable disturbance._ If a landlord without
good cause, and for reasons inconsistent with good estate management,
terminates a tenancy by notice to quit; or refuses to grant a renewal
of the tenancy if so requested at least one year before the expiration
thereof; or if a tenant quits his holding in consequence of a demand
by the landlord for an increased rent, such demand being due to an
increased value in the holding owing to improvements done by the
tenant; in either of such events the tenant is entitled to
compensation.
This compensation for disturbance is in direct opposition to the
recommendation of the Commission of 1894,[676] and seems to be an
unwarrantable interference with the owner's management of his own
land.
Another benefit, and one long needed, was conferred on farmers by the
Ground Game Act of 1880, 43 & 44 Vict., c. 47. Before the Act the
tenant had by common law the exclusive right to the game, including
hares and rabbits, unless it was reserved to the landlord, which was
usually the case. By this Act the right to kill ground game, which
often worked terrible havoc in the tenant's crops, was rendered
inseparable from the occupation of the land, though the owner may
reserve to himself a concurrent right. One consequence of this Act has
been that the hare has disappeared from many parts of England.
The greatest improvement in implements during this period was in the
direction of reaping and mowing machines, which have now attained a
high degree of perfection. As early as 1780 the Society of Arts
offered a gold medal for a reaping machine, but it was not till 1812
that John Common of Denwick, Northumberland, invented a machine which
embodied all the essential principles of the modern reaper. Popular
hostility to the machine was so great that Common made his early
trials by moonlight, and he ceased from working on them.[677] His
machine was improved by the Browns of Alnwick, who sold some numbers
in 1822, and shortly afterwards emigrated to Canada taking with them
models of Common's reapers. McCormick, the reputed inventor of the
reaping machine, knew the Browns, and obtained from them a model of
Common's machine which was almost certainly the father of the famous
machine exhibited by him at the Great Exhibition of 1851. Various
other inventors have assisted in improving this implement, and in 1873
the first wire binder was exhibited in Europe by the American, W.A.
Wood, wire soon giving place to string owing to the outcry of farmers
and millers. The self-binding reaper is the most ingenious of
agricultural machines, and has been of enormous benefit to farmers in
saving labour. Though the hay-tedding machine was invented in 1814 it
is only during the last thirty years that its use has become common,
the spread of the mowing machine making it a necessity, cutting the
grass so fast that only a very large number of men with the old forks
could keep up with it. The tedder also rendered raking by hand too
slow, and the horse-rake, patented first in 1841, has immensely
improved in the last thirty years.
Another enormous labour saver is the hay and straw elevator, having
endless chains furnished with carrying forks at intervals of a few
feet, driven by horse gear. The steam cultivator invented by John
Fowler is much used, but cannot be said to have superseded the
ordinary working stock of the farm, though for deep ploughing on large
farms of heavy land it is invaluable. Improvements in dairying
appliances have also been great, but the English farmer has generally
fought shy of factories or creameries, so that his butter still lacks
the uniform quality of his foreign rivals.
In manures the most important innovation in the last generation has
been the constantly growing use of basic slag, formerly left neglected
at the pit mouth and now generally recognized as a wonderful producer
of clover.
Most of the suggestions of the Commission of 1879 were carried into
effect. Rents were largely reduced, so that between 1880 and 1884 the
annual value of agricultural land in England sank £5,750,000.[678]
Grants were made by the Government in aid of local burdens, cottages
were improved although the landowners' capital was constantly
dwindling, Settled Land Acts assisted the transfer of limited estates,
a Minister of Agriculture was appointed in 1889, and in 1891 the
payment of the tithe was transferred from the tenant to the landlord,
which generally meant that the whole burden was now borne by the
latter.
Still foreign imports continued to pour in and prices to fall. Wheat
land, which was subject to the fiercest competition, began to be
converted to other uses, and between 1878 and 1907 had fallen in
England from 3,041,214 acres to 1,537,208, most of it being converted
to pasture or 'tumbling down' to grass, while a large quantity was
used for oats. The price of live stock was now falling greatly before
increasing imports of live animals and dead meat, while cheese,
butter, wool, and fruit were also pouring in. Farming, too, was now
suffering from a new enemy, gambling in farm produce, which began to
show itself about 1880 and has since materially contributed to
lowering prices.[679] The enormous gold premium in the Argentine
Republic, with the steady fall in silver, was another factor. As Mr.
Prothero says, 'Enterprise gradually weakened, landlords lost their
ability to help, and farmers their recuperative power. The capital
both of landlords and tenants was so reduced that neither could afford
to spend an unnecessary penny. Land deteriorated in condition,
drainage was practically discontinued ... less cake and less manure
were bought, labour bills were reduced, and the number of males
employed in farming dwindled as the wheat area contracted.'[680] The
year 1893 was remarkable for a prolonged drought in the spring; from
March 2 to May 14 hardly any rain fell, and live stock were much
reduced in quality from the parching of the herbage, while in many
parts the difficulty of supplying them with water was immense.
In the same year another Commission on Agriculture was appointed,
whose description of the condition of agriculture was a lamentable
one. The Commission in their final report[681] stated that the seasons
since 1882 had on the whole been satisfactory from an agricultural
point of view, and the evidence brought forward showed that the
existing depression was to be mainly attributed to the fall in prices
of farm produce. This fall had been most marked in the case of grain,
particularly wheat, and wool also had fallen heavily. It was not
surprising therefore to find that the arable counties[682] had
suffered most; in counties where dairying, market gardening, poultry
farming, and other special industries prevailed the distress was less
acute, but no part of the country could be said to have escaped. In
north Devon, noted for stock rearing, rents had only fallen 10 to 15
per cent. since 1881, and in many cases there had been no reduction at
all. In Herefordshire and Worcestershire good grass lands, hop lands,
and dairy farms had maintained their rents in many instances, and the
reductions had apparently seldom exceeded 15 per cent.; on the heavy
arable lands, however, the reduction was from 20 to 40 per cent.
In Cheshire, devoted mainly to dairying, there had been no general
reduction of rent, though there had been remissions, and in some cases
reductions, of 10 per cent.
In fact, grazing and dairy lands, which comprise so large an area of
the northern and western counties, were not badly affected, though the
depreciation in the value of live stock and the fall in wool had
considerably diminished farm profits and rents. But of the eastern
counties, those in which there are still large quantities of arable
land, a different tale was told. In Essex much of the clay land was
going out of cultivation; many farms, after lying derelict for a few
years, were let as grass runs for stock at a nominal rent The rent of
an estate near Chelmsford of 1,418 acres had fallen from £1,314 in
1879 to £415 in 1892, or from 18s. 6d. an acre to 5s. 10d.[683] The
net rental of another had fallen from £7,682 in 1881 to £2,224 in
1892, and the landlord's income from his estate of 13,009 acres in
1892-3 was 1s. an acre. The balance sheet of the estate for the same
year is an eloquent example of the landowner's profits in these
depressed times[684]:
11:12 AM 7/25/2005RECEIPTS.
£ s. d.
Tithe received 798 5 9
Cottage rents 495 8 6
Garden " 213 5 10
Estate " 7,452 14 8
Tithes refunded by tenants 530 15 2
--------------
£9,490 9 11
==============
PAYMENTS.
£ s. d.
Tithe, rates and taxes 2,964 1 9
Rent-charge and fee farm rents 179 0 4
Gates and fencing 8 7 8
Estate repairs and buildings 4,350 12 8
Draining 170 6 1
Brickyard 170 1 8
Management 936 14 7
Insurances 58 11 5
Balance profit 652 13 9
---------------
£9,490 9 11
===============
In the great agricultural county of Lincoln rents had fallen from 30
to 75 per cent.[685] The average amount realized on an acre of wheat
had fallen from £10 6s. 3d. in 1873-7 to £2 18s. 11d. in 1892[686];
and the fall in the price of cattle between 1882 and 1893 was a little
over 30 per cent. Many of the large farmers in Lincolnshire before
1875 had lived in considerable comfort and even luxury, as became men
who had invested large sums, sometimes £20,000, in their business.
They had carriages, hunters, and servants, and gave their children an
excellent start in life. But all this was changed; a day's hunting
occasionally was the utmost they could afford, and wives and daughters
took the work from the servants. The small farmers had suffered more
than the large ones, and the condition of the small freeholders was
said to be deplorable; a fact to be noted by those who think small
holdings a panacea for distress.[687]
Even near Boston, where the soil is favourable for market gardening,
the evidence of the small holder was 'singularly unanimous' as to
their unfortunate condition. The small occupiers were better off than
the freeholders, because their rents had been reduced and they could
leave their farms if they did not pay; but their position was very
unsatisfactory. From the evidence given to the assistant commissioner
it is clear that the small occupier and freeholder could only get on
by working harder and living harder than the labourer. 'We all live
hard and never see fresh meat,' said one. 'We can't afford butcher's
meat,' said another. Another said, 'In the summer I work from 4 a.m.
to 8 p.m., and often do not take more than an hour off for meals. That
is penal servitude, except you have your liberty. A foreman who earns
£1 a week is better off than I am. He has no anxiety, and not half the
work.' These instances could be multiplied many times, so that it is
not surprising that the children of these men have flocked to the
towns.
In Norfolk, 'twenty or thirty years ago, no class connected with the
land held their heads higher' than the farmers. Many of them owned the
whole or a part of the land they farmed, and lived in good style. All
this was now largely changed. 'The typical Norfolk farmer of to-day is
a harassed and hardworking man,' engaged in the struggle to make both
ends meet. Many were ruined.
However, there were farmers who, by skill, enterprise, and careful
management, made their business pay even in these times, such as the
tenant of the farm at Papplewick in Nottinghamshire who gained the
first prize in the Royal Agricultural Society's farm competition in
1888.[688]. This farm consisted of 522 acres, of which only 61 were
grass, but chiefly owing to the trouble taken in growing fine root
crops, a large number of live stock were annually purchased and sold
off, the following balance sheet showing a profit of £3 1s. 0d. per
acre:
DR. £
Rent, tithes, rates, taxes, &c. 278
Wages 387
Purchase of cake, corn, seeds, manure, &c. 688
Purchase of live stock 2,654
-----
£4,007
Profit 1,589
------
£5,596
======
CR. £
Corn, hay, potatoes, and like product sold 655
Live stock, poultry, dairy produce, and wool sold 4,941
------
£5,596
======
The reductions of rents in various counties were estimated thus[689]:
Per cent. Per cent.
Northumberland 20 to 25 Hereford 20 to 30
Cumberland 20 to 40 Somerset 20 to 40
York 10 to 50 Oxford 25 to 50
Lancaster 5 to 30 Suffolk up to 70
Stafford 10 to 25 Essex 25 to 100
Leicester 40 Kent 15 to 100
Nottingham 14 to 50 Hants 25 to 100
Warwick 25 to 60 Wilts 10 to 75
Huntington 40 to 50 Devon 10 to 25
Derby 14 to 25 Cornwall 10 to 100
This large reduction in the rent rolls of landowners has materially
affected their position and weakened their power. Many, indeed, have
been driven from their estates, while others can only live on them by
letting the mansion house and the shooting, and occupying some small
house on the lands they are reluctant to leave. The agricultural
depression, which set in about 1875, may in short be said to have
effected a minor social revolution, and to have completed the ruin of
the old landed aristocracy as a class. The depreciation of their
rents may be judged from the following figures[690]:
Gross annual value of lands, including
tithes, under Schedule A in England. Decrease.
1879-80 1893-4 Amount. Per cent.
£ £ £
48,533,340 36,999,846 11,533,494 23.7
These figures, however, are far from indicating the full extent of
the decline in the rental value of purely agricultural land, as they
include ornamental grounds, gardens, and other properties, and do not
take into account temporary remissions of rent. Sir James Caird, as
early as 1886, estimated the average reduction on agricultural rents
at 30 per cent.
The loss in the capital value of land has inevitably been great from
this reduction in rents, and has been aggravated by the fact that the
confidence of the public in agricultural land as an investment has
been much shaken. In 1875 thirty years' purchase on the gross annual
value of land was the capital value, in 1894 only eighteen years'
purchase; and whereas the capital value of land in the United Kingdom
was in 1875 £2,007,330,000, in 1894 it was £1,001,829,212, a decrease
of 49.6 per cent. Moreover, landlords have incurred increased
expenditure on repairs, drainage, and buildings, and taxation has
grown enormously. On the occupiers of land the effect of the
depression was no less serious, their profits having fallen on an
average 40 per cent.[691] Occupying owners had suffered as much as any
other class, both yeomen who farmed considerable farms and small
freeholders. Many of the former had bought land in the good times when
land was dear and left a large portion of the purchase money on
mortgage, with the result that the interest on the mortgage was now
more than the rent of the land.[692]
They were thus worse off than the tenant farmer, for they paid a
higher rent in the shape of interest; moreover, they could not leave
their land, for it could only be sold at a ruinous loss. The
'statesmen' of Cumberland were weighed down by the same burdens and
their disappearance furthered; for instance, in the parish of Abbey
Quarter, between 1780 and 1812 their number decreased from 51 to 38.
By 1837 it was 30; by 1864, 21; and in 1894 only 9 remained.
The small freeholders were also largely burdened with mortgages, and
even in the Isle of Axholme were said to have suffered more than any
other class; largely because of their passion for acquiring land at
high prices, leaving most of the purchase money on mortgage, and
starting with insufficient capital.
As regards the agricultural labourer, the chief effect of the
depression had been a reduction of the number employed and a
consequent decrease in the regularity of employment. [693]
Their material condition had everywhere improved, though there were
still striking differences in the wages paid in different parts; and
the improvement, though partly due to increased earnings, was mainly
attributable to the cheapening of the necessaries of life.[694] The
great majority of ordinary labourers were hired by the week, except
those boarded in the farm-house, who were generally hired by the year.
Men, also, who looked after the live stock were hired by the year.
Weekly wages ranged from 10s. in Wilts, and Dorset to 18s. in
Lancashire, and averaged 13s. 6d. for the whole country.
The fall in the prices of agricultural produce is best represented in
tabular form:
TRIENNIAL AVERAGE OF BRITISH
WHEAT, BARLEY, AND OATS PER QUARTER.
Wheat. Barley. Oats.
s. d. s. d. s. d.
1876-8 49 9 38 4 25 6
1893-5 24 1 24 0 16 9
Thus wheat had fallen 53 per cent., barley 37, and oats 34.
TRIENNIAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CATTLE,
PER STONE OF 8 LB.
Inferior quality. Second quality. First quality.
s. d. s. d. s. d.
1876-8 4 5 5 6 6 0
1893-5 2 8 4 0 4 7
Or a fall of 24 per cent. in the best quality, and 40 per cent. in
inferior grades.
The decline in the prices of all classes of sheep amounted on the
average to from so to 30 per cent., and in the price of wool of from
40 to 50 per cent.; that is, from an average of 1s. 6d. a lb. in
1874-6, to a little over 9d. in 1893-5.
Milk, butter, and cheese were stated to have fallen from 25 to 33 per
cent. between 1874 and 1891, and there had been a further fall since.
In districts, however, near large towns there had been much less
reduction in the price of milk.
This general fall in prices seems to have been directly connected with
the increase of foreign competition.[695] Wheat has been most affected
by this development, and at the date of the Commission the home
production had sunk to 25 per cent. of the total quantity needed for
consumption. Other home-grown cereals had not been similarly
displaced, but the large consumption of maize had affected the price
of feeding barley and oats. As regards meat, while foreign beef and
mutton had seriously affected the price of inferior British grades,
the influence on superior qualities had been much less marked. Foreign
competition had been, on the whole, perhaps more severe in pork than
in other classes of meat, but had been confined mainly to bacon and
hams.
The successful competition of the foreigner in our butter and cheese
markets was attributed mainly to the fact that the dairy industry is
better organized abroad than in Great Britain.
The Commission found that another cause of the depression was the
increased cost of production, not so much from the increase of wages,
as from the smaller amount of work done for a given sum. Where wages
in the previous twenty years had remained stationary, the cost of work
had increased because the labourer did not work so hard or so well as
his forefathers.
The following table[696] is a striking proof of the increased ratio of
the cost of labour to gross profits:
Ratio of
Average cost of
Acreage Period Average annual Average labour
of of gross cost of cost per to gross
County. farm. acct. profit. labour. acre. profits.
£ s. d. £ s. d. s. d. Per cent.
Suffolk 590 1839-43 1,577 13 3 773 11 0 26 2 49.03
1863-67 1,545 0 9 836 9 0 28 4 54.07
1871-75 1,725 0 1 1,026 14 8 35 2 59.48
1890-94 728 10 5 973 1 5 33 0 133.50
On a farm in Wilts., between 1858 and 1893, the ratio of the cost of
labour to gross profits had increased from 47.0 per cent. to 88.3 per
cent.; on one in Hampshire, between 1873 and 1890, from 44.4 per
cent. to 184.3 per cent.; and many similar instances are given,
illustrating very forcibly the economic revolution which has led to
the transfer of a larger share of the produce of the land to the
labourer.
On the other hand, this Commission found, like the last, that the
farmer had derived considerable benefit from the decrease in cost of
cake and artificial manure, while the low price of corn had led to
its being largely used in place of linseed and cotton cakes.
Before leaving the subject of this famous Commission it is well to
state the answer of Sir John Lawes, than whom there was no higher
authority, to the oft-repeated assertion that high farming would
counteract low prices. 'The result of all our experiments,' he said,
'is that the reverse is the case. As you increase your crops so each
bushel after a certain amount costs you more and more ... the last
bushel always costs you more than all the others.' As prices went
lower 'we must contract our farming to what I should call the average
of the seasons'; and in the corn districts, the higher the farmer had
farmed his land by adding manure the worse had been the financial
results.[697]
In 1896 the injustice of the incidence of rates on agricultural land
was partly remedied, the occupier being relieved of half the rates on
the land apart from the buildings, which Act was continued in
1901.[698] But the system is still inequitable, for a farmer who pays
a rent of £240 a year even now probably pays more rates than the
occupier of a house rated at £120 a year. Yet the farmer's income
would very likely not be more than £200 a year, whereas the occupier
of the house rated at £120 might have an income of £2,000 a year.
In 1901 and 1902 Mr. Rider Haggard, following in the footsteps of
Young, Marshall, and Caird, made an agricultural tour through England.
He considered that, after foreign competition, the great danger to
English farming was the lack of labour,[699] for young men and women
were everywhere leaving the country for the towns, attracted by the
nominally high wages, often delusive, and by the glamour of the
pavement. Yet the labourer has come better out of the depression of
the last generation than either landowner or farmer: he is better
housed, better fed, better clothed, better paid, but filled with
discontent. Since Mr. Haggard wrote, however, there seems to be a
reaction, small indeed but still marked, against the townward
movement, and in most places the supply of labour is sufficient. The
quality, however, is almost universally described as inferior; the
labourer takes no pride in his work, and good hedgers, thatchers,
milkers, and men who understand live stock are hard to obtain[700];
and the reason for this is in large measure due to the modern system
of education which keeps a boy from farm work until he is too old to
take to it. His wages to-day in most parts are good; near
manufacturing towns the ordinary farm hand is paid from 18s. to 20s. a
week with extras in harvest, and in purely agricultural districts from
13s. to 15s. a week, often with a cottage rent free at the lower
figure. His cottage has improved vastly, especially on large estates,
though often leaving much to be desired, and the rent usually paid is
£4 or £5 a year, rising to £7 and £8 near large towns. The wise custom
of giving him a garden has spread, and is nearly always found to be
much more helpful than an allotment. The superior or more skilled
workmen,[701] such as the wagoner, stockman, or shepherd, earns in
agricultural counties like Herefordshire from 14s. to 18s. a week, and
in manufacturing counties like Lancashire from 20s. to 22s. a week,
with extras such as 3d. a lamb in lambing time. At the lower wages he
often has a cottage and garden rent free.
The improved methods of cutting and harvesting crops have so enabled
the farmer to economize labour that the once familiar figure of the
Irish labourer with his knee-breeches and tall hat, who came over for
the harvest, has almost disappeared. Women, who formerly shared with
the men most of the farm work, now are little seen in most parts of
England at work in the fields, and are better occupied in attending to
their homes.
The divorce of the labourer from the land by enclosure had early
exercised men's minds, and many efforts were made to remedy this.
About 1836 especially, several landowners in various parts of England
introduced allotments, and the movement spread rapidly, so that in
1893 the Royal Commission on Labour stated that in most places the
supply was equal to or in excess of the demand.[702] However, previous
Allotments and Small Holdings Acts not being considered so successful
as was desired, in 1907 an effort was made to give more effect to the
cry of 'back to the land' by a Small Holdings and Allotments Act[703]
which enables County Councils to purchase land by agreement or take it
on lease, and, if unable to acquire it by agreement, to do so
compulsorily, in order to provide small holdings for persons desiring
to lease them. The County Council may also arrange with any Borough
Council or Urban District Council to act as its agent in providing and
managing small holdings. The duty of supplying allotments rests in the
first instance with the Rural Parish Councils, though if they do not
take proper steps to provide allotments, the County Council may itself
provide them.
It is a praiseworthy effort, though marked by arbitrary methods and
that contempt for the rights of property, provided it belongs to some
one else, that is a characteristic of to-day. That it will succeed
where the small holder has some other trade, and in exceptionally
favoured situations, is very probable; most of the small holders who
were successful before the Act had something to fall back upon: they
were dealers, hawkers, butchers, small tradesmen, &c. There is no
doubt, too, that an allotment helps both the town artisan and the
country labourer to tide over slack times. Whether it will succeed in
planting a rural population on English soil is another matter. It is a
consummation devoutly to be wished, for a country without a sound
reserve of healthy country-people is bound to deteriorate. The small
holder, pure and simple, without any by-industry, has hitherto only
been able to keep his head above water by a life which without
exaggeration may be called one of incessant toil and frequent
privation, such a life as the great mass of our 'febrile factory
element' could not endure. And if there is one tendency more marked
than another in the history of English agriculture, it is the
disappearance of the small holding. In the Middle Ages it is probable
that the average size of a man's farm was 30 acres, with its attendant
waste and wood; since then amalgamation has been almost constant.
It is true that the occupier of a few acres often brings to bear on it
an amount of industry which is greater in proportion than that
bestowed on a large farm; but the large farmer has, as Young pointed
out long ago, very great advantages. He is nearly always a man of
superior intelligence and training. He has more capital, and can buy
and sell in the best markets; he can purchase better stock, and save
labour and the cost of production by using the best machinery. By
buying in large quantities he gets manures, cakes, seeds, &c., better
and cheaper than the small holder.
Besides the small holders who have outside industries to fall back
upon, those who are aided by some exceptionally favourable element in
the soil or climate, or proximity to good markets, should do well. Yet
in the Isle of Axholme, the paradise of small holders, we have seen
that the Commission of 1894 reported that distress was severe. This,
however, seems to have been largely due to the exaggerated land-hunger
in the good times, which induced the tenants to buy lands at too high
a price; and under normal conditions, such as they are now returning
to, the tenants seem to thrive. In this district the preference for
ownership as opposed to tenancy is, in spite of recent experiences,
unqualified, though it is admitted that the best way is to begin by
renting and save enough to buy.[704] The soil is peculiarly favourable
to the production of celery and early potatoes; and large tracts of
land are divided into unfenced strips locally known as 'selions' of
from a quarter of an acre to 3 acres each, cultivated by men who live
in the villages, each having one or more strips, some as much as 20
acres, and it is considered that 10 acres is the smallest area on
which a man can support a family without any other industry to help
him.
Yet in the fen districts and on the marsh lands between Boston and the
east coast of Lincolnshire, where the land is naturally very
productive, many people are making livings out of 5 or 6 acres, mainly
by celery and early potatoes.[705] Other districts adapted naturally
to small holdings are those of Rock and Far Forest, the famous Vale of
Evesham, the Sandy and Biggleswade district of Bedfordshire; Upwey,
Dorset; Calstock and St. Dominick, Cornwall; Wisbech, Cambridgeshire;
and Tiptree, Essex. Apart, however, from by-industries, and
exceptional climate, soil, and situation, the small holding for the
purpose of raising corn and meat, as distinguished from that which is
devoted to dairying, fruit-growing, and market gardening, does not
seem to-day to have much chance of success. If farms were still
self-sufficing, and simply provided food and clothing for the farmer,
the small producer even of corn and meat might do as well as the
larger farmer on a lower scale, but such conditions have gone; all
holdings now are chiefly manufactories of food, and the smaller
manufactory has little chance in competition with the greater.
The example of foreign countries is usually held up to Englishmen in
this connexion, and the argument naturally used is that 'if small
holdings answer in France and Belgium, why can they not do so in
England?' On this point the testimony of Sir John Lawes is worth
quoting.[706] 'In most, if not in all continental countries' he says,
'the success of small holdings depends very materially on whether or
not the soil and the climate are suitable for what may be called
industrial crops: such as tobacco, hops, sugar beet, colza, flax,
hemp, grapes, and other fruit and vegetables; where these conditions
do not exist the condition of the cultivators is such _as would not be
tolerated in this country_.' That is the reason probably why small
holdings, apart from exceptional conditions, do not answer in England;
the Englishman of to-day is not anxious to face the hard and grinding
conditions under which the continental small holder lives.
Since Mr. Haggard's tour the black clouds which have so long lowered
over agriculture have shown signs of lifting. Rents have been adjusted
to a figure at which the farmer has some chance of competing with the
foreigner,[707] though the price of grain keeps wretchedly low; stock
has improved, and there is undoubtedly to-day (1908) a brisker demand
for farms, and in some localities rents have even advanced slightly.
The yeoman--that is, the man who owns and farms his own land, perhaps
the most sound and independent class in the community--has,
unfortunately for England, largely disappeared. Even of those who
remain, some prefer to let their property and rent holdings from
others! It has been noticed that the labourer's lot has improved in
this generation of adversity; and well it might, for his previous
condition was miserable in the extreme. The farmers have suffered
severely, many losing all their capital and becoming farm labourers.
The landlords have suffered most; they have not been able to throw up
their land like the farmer, and until quite recently have watched it
becoming poorer and poorer. The depression, in short, has driven from
their estates many who had owned them for generations. Those who have
survived have usually been men with incomes from other sources than
land, and they have generally deserved well of their country by
keeping their estates in good condition in spite of falling rents and
increasing taxation.
No class of men, indeed, have been more virulently and consistently
abused than the landlords of England, and none with less justice.
There have been many who have forgotten that property has its duties
as well as its rights; they have erred like other men, but as a rule
they play their part well. Even the worst are to some extent obliged
by their very position to be public spirited, for the mere possession
of an estate involves the employment of a number of people in healthy
outdoor occupations which Englishmen to-day so especially need to
counteract the degenerating influences of town life. Many of the great
estates[708] are carried on at a positive loss to their owners, and it
may be doubted whether agricultural property pays the possessor a
return of 2 per cent. per annum; which is as much as to say that the
landlord furnishes the tenant with capital in the form of land at that
rate for the purpose of his business. What other class is content with
such a scanty return? They are often charged with not managing their
estates on business principles, and no charge is worse founded. It
would be a sad day for the tenants on many an estate if they were
managed on commercial lines. One of the first results would be that
many properties would be given up as a dead loss. They could only be
made to pay by raising the rents or cutting down the ever-recurring
expenditure on repairs and buildings which are necessary for the
welfare of the tenants. The Duke of Bedford, in his _Story of a Great
Estate_, has said that the rent has completely disappeared from three
of his estates. On the Thorney and Woburn estates over £750,000 was
spent on new works and permanent improvements alone between 1816 and
1895, and the result, owing to agricultural depression and increased
burdens on the land, was a net loss of £7,000 a year; and every one
with any knowledge of the management of land knows that this is no
isolated case, though it may be on an exceptionally large scale. Where
would many tenants be if commercial principles ruled on rent audit
days? The larger English landlords of to-day are as a rule not
dependent on their rent rolls. To their great advantage, and to the
advantage of their tenants, they generally own other property, so that
they need not regard the land as a commercial investment. They can
therefore support the necessary outlay on a large estate, the capital
expenditure on improvements of all kinds, and thus relieve the tenant
of any expense of this kind. The farms are let at moderate, not rack
rents, such as the tenants can easily pay. Also the landlord can make
large reductions of rent in years of exceptional distress.[709] Rents
are generally collected three months after they are due, a
considerable concession; and even then arrears are numerous, for any
reasonable excuse for being behind with the rent is generously
listened to. It is owing to forbearance in this and other matters that
the relations between landlord and tenant are generally excellent.
Where are the best farm buildings, where the best cottages, where does
the owner carry on a home farm often for the assistance of the tenant
by letting him have the use of entire horses, well-bred bulls, and
rams, if not on the larger estates? The restrictions in leases, so
much decried of late years, were nearly always in the interest of good
farming, and their abolition will lead to the deterioration of many a
holding.
Bacon said, 'Where men of great wealth do stoop to husbandry, it
multiplieth riches exceedingly' and wiser words were never uttered.
Yet these are the men who are singled out for attack by agitators, who
are only listened to because the greater number of modern Englishmen
are ignorant of the land and everything connected with it. At a time
when rents have dwindled, in some cases almost to vanishing point,
taxation has increased, and confiscatory schemes and meddlesome
restrictions have frightened away capital from the land. Many of the
landlords of England would clearly gain by casting off the burden of
their heavily weighted property, but they nearly all stick nobly to
their duty, and hope for that restoration of confidence in the
sanctity of property and of respect for freedom of contract which
would do so much towards the rehabilitation of what is still the
greatest and most important industry in the country.
FOOTNOTES:
[665] And an ever increasing burden of taxation.
[666] See Appendix III.
[667] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1881, pp. 142, 199.
[668] _Parliamentary Reports of Commissioners_, 1882, xiv. pp. 9 sq.
[669] _Parliamentary Reports of Commissioners_, 1882, xiv. 14.
[670] The rise between 1857 and 1878 has been estimated at 20 per
cent., and between 1867 and 1877 at 11-1/2 per cent. Hasbach, _op.
cit._, p. 291.
[671] _R.A.S.E. Journal_, 1890, p. 324.
[672] See infra, p. 330.
[673] _Rural Economy of Southern Counties_, i. 285-6.
[674] _Victoria County History: Hereford, Agriculture_.
[675] In one respect the Act of 1883 restricted the rights of tenants
to compensation, for while the Act of 1875 had expressly reserved the
rights of the parties under 'custom of the country', the Act of 1883
provided that a tenant 'shall not claim compensation by custom or
otherwise than in manner authorized by this Act for any improvement
for which he is entitled to compensation under this Act' (§ 57).
[676] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. 96.
[677] _R.A.S.E. Journal_ (1892), p. 63.
[678] _R.A.S.E. Journal_ (1901), p. 33. Cf. infra, p. 310.
[679] _R.A.S.E. Journal_ (1893), p. 286; (1894), p. 677. Sometimes to
artificially raising them.
[680] Ibid. (1901), p. 34.
[681] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv.
[682] Broadly speaking, the arable section, or eastern group, included
the counties of Bedford, Berks., Bucks, Cambridge, Essex, Hants,
Hertford, Huntingdon, Kent, Leicester, Lincoln, Middlesex, Norfolk,
Northampton, Notts, Oxford, Rutland, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwick,
and the East Riding of York; the grass section, or western group,
included the remaining counties.
[683] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1894), xvi. (1), App. B.
ii.
[684] Ibid. App. B. iii.
[685] Ibid. (1895), xvi. 169.
[686] Ibid. p. 164.
[687] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1895), xvi. 187-8.
[688] _R.A.S.E. Journal_ (2nd ser.), xxiv. 538
[689] Ibid. (1894), p. 681.
[690] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. 22. Cf. p.
319 n.
[691] Ibid. pp. 30-1.
[692] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. 31.
[693] Ibid. p. 37:
NUMBER OF AGRICULTURAL LABOURERS
IN ENGLAND AND WALES.
1871. 1881. 1891. 1901.
996,642 890,174 798,912 595,702
The figures for 1901 are from Summary Tables, _Parliamentary Blue
Book_ (C, d. 1, 523), p. 202, Table xxxvi.
[694] According to the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour,
1893-4, the labourer was 'better fed, better dressed, his education
and language improved, his amusements less gross, his cottage
generally improved, though generally on small estates there were many
bad ones still'.--_Parliamentary Reports_, 1893, xxxv. Index 5 et seq.
[695] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. 53, 85. Sir
Robert Giffen suggested that the decline in the price of wheat pay be
partly attributed to the great increase in the supply and consumption
of meat.
[696] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. App. iii.
Table viii. From an examination of the accounts of seventy-seven
farms, the average expenditure on labour was found to be 31.4 per
cent. of the total outlay.
[697] _Parliamentary Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. 106. But see
above, p. 271.
[698] 59 & 60 Vict., c. 16; I Edw. VII, c. 13.
[699] _Rural England_, ii. 539. Yet the census returns of 1871, 1881,
and 1891 gave no support to the idea that _young_ men were leaving
agriculture for the towns. See _Parl. Reports_ (1893), xxxviii. (2)
33.
[700] The author speaks from information derived from answers to
questions addressed to landowners, farmers, and agents in many parts
of England, to whom he is greatly indebted.
[701] It is, however, a fallacy to assume, as is nearly always done,
that the ordinary farm labourer, at all events of the old type, is
unskilled. A good man, who can plough well, thatch, hedge, ditch, and
do the innumerable tasks required on a farm efficiently, is a much
more skilled worker than many who are so called in the towns.
[702] _Parl. Reports_ (1893), xxxv. Index.
[703] 7 Edw. VII, c. 54, amending the Allotments Acts of 1887 and 1890
and the Small Holdings Act of 1892. The Allotments Act of 1887 defined
an 'allotment' as any parcel of land of not more than 2 acres held by
a tenant under a landlord; but for the purposes of the Acts of 1892
and 1907 a 'small holding' means an agricultural holding which exceeds
one acre and either does not exceed 50 acres or, if exceeding 50
acres, is of an annual value not exceeding £50. At the same time the
Act defines an allotment as a holding of any size up to 5 acres, so
that up to that size a parcel of land may be treated as a small
holding or an allotment.
[704] Jebb, _Small Holdings_, p. 25.
[705] Jebb, _op. cit._, p. 28.
[706] _Allotments and Small Holdings_ (1892), p. 19 et seq.
[707] The gross income derived from the ownership of lands in Great
Britain, as returned under Schedule A of the Income Tax, decreased
from £51,811,234 in 1876-7 to £36,609,884 in 1905-6. In 1850 Caird
estimated the rental of English land, exclusive of Middlesex, at
£37,412,000. Cf. above, p. 310.
[708] According to the Commission of 1894, the amount expended on
improvements and repairs alone on some great estates was: On Lord
Derby's, in Lancashire, of 43,217 acres, £200,000 in twelve years, or
£16,500, or 7s. 8d. an acre, each year. On Lord Sefton's, of 18,000
acres, £286,000 in twenty-two years, or about £13,000, or 14s. an
acre, each year. On the Earl of Ancaster's estates in Lincolnshire, of
53,993 acres, £689,000 was spent in twelve years, or 11s. 7d. an acre
each year; and many similar instances are given.--_Parliamentary
Reports, Commissioners_ (1897), xv. 287-9.
[709] Shaw Lefevre, _Agrarian Tenures_, p. 19.