THE “LONDON TIMES” ON THE LAND QUESTION.

Patea Mail, 26 May 1882, Page 2 (Supplement)

THE “LONDON TIMES” ON THE LAND QUESTION.

We print to-day a letter from Mr Caird, in reply to Mr Shaw-Lefevre’s criticisms. This communication from an authority of so much weight will be read with interest, though it deals with a very old question, which was incidentally referred to in his address to the Statistical Society, aud which was discussed at more length by Mr. Shaw-Lefevre. The latter thinks that injustice has been done to the economical merits of peasant properties. It is not correct, he that the British farmer makes, as estimated by Mr. Caird, a profit of £l3O a year on capital which yields the French peasant nnbr £53. The two authorities are one as to the real figures, which *£ must, of course, be more or less conjectural. The correspondence will not conclude the matter in dispute. It renews a discussion continued for a quarter of a century in almost every book on political economy. One writer asserts, with M'Culloch and a dozen other economists, that the English system yields the greatest net produce available for the general purposes of society ; and he contends that to change our system would be, to quote Mr. Caird, “to go back from the power-loom to the hand-loom, from practice with science to practice without it.” On the other hand, Mr. Shaw-Lefevre may say, with Sismondi and many other economists, that the best system is that which yields the largest gross produce. He seems to think he has made good his case when he has proved that “ on an English farm of 168 acres a farmer and five or six labourers would be employed, or three labourers only if pasture land. The same land in France would support eight peasant owners and their families. The very same facts, however, are pressed into the service of those who believe in the superior economy of the English system. This discussion has lasted, and is likely to last, for many years. The latest contributions to it will only confirm the impression that the question cannot be determined by abstract considerations or hypothetical figures, and that it would certainly not be advisable to break up our own system merely because another, constructed upon different lines, had succeeded elsewhere. Obviously it is a fallacy to reason as if the old constitutions of a country could be easily laid aside and had no relation to national character. The English labourer and the French peasant are radically different beings, the products of sets of circumstances wholly dissimilar. They have nothing in common except that they dig and plough; and it is idle to assume that what will suit the one will be expedient for the other. They have not had the same training. They possess quite different standards of comfort. The one is frugal and penurious, the other improvident and wasteful. The one is a small capitalist, the other owns nothing but his hands. A French peasant’s family, that is, himself, his wife, and one or two children, can live on a few acres on which, multiplied ten times, the English labourer with his six or eight children would starve. Our problems in regard to the land ought not to be confounded with those which concern France. While it may be perfectly true that the peasants of Limousin work wonders on their own holdings, it may be none the less expedient for an English labourer who would do well in the world never to think of buying a rood of land. Our task seems to be to take Englandholders, farmers, and labourers L as they are; not to break away from the old lines, but to make the most of existing arrangements, improving yet not destroying them. Even as things are, very much may be done by careful and skilful farming. Though life tenants abound, vast sums are spent upon permanent improvements. Tenants are ready to reclaim land when reasonable terms are offered. Lord Thurlow writes in a sanguine and almost optimist strain about the excellent results which can be obtained without either protection or fresh legislation. His crops have been good, his turnips have recovered miraculously; cattle of all kinds keep up their price, and there is no disease among his sheep. His experience leads him to agree with Mr. Caird in looking hopefully upon the future of English agriculture. But even if Lord Thurlow’s good fortune were shared by many more persons than it is, and if there were no danger of the competition of American produce becoming more pressing than ever, that would be no reason for being indifferent to the influence of ill-advised laws. Agriculture, it is manifest, does labour under some needless disadvantages and restrictions. Their effect may be, as a rule, much exaggerated. They may not be best understood by those who talk most about them. Plenty of sunlight and heat, and rain falling just when needed, may do more for the English farmer than anything which the wisdom of Parliament is likely to evolve; and he will certainly be chasing a will-o’-the-wisp if he be led to suppose that he can overcome his new difficulties by attending meetings and signing petitions. The spectacle of the working of the land Act in Ireland has for a time moderated the zeal of many land reformers. They are in no hurry to see vast estates in this country handed over to SubCommissioners, to be dealt with much

as these, on a more or less inquiry into the facts, think fit. But, after all, there is a general disposition to admit that the English farmer, and, for that matter, the English landholder, does not always stand in a favourable position in which to do bis duty. The latter may be deeply embarrassed, his rent-roll give a delusive idea of his available means. He may be a lifetenant, who would gladly sell one-half of his estate in order to improve the other half. The settlement may be wisely framed, and may contain numerous salutary powers, and the family lawyer may make him acacquainted with all that Parliament has done of late for him. Tet he sometimes feels that he could do better with his estate if he were his own master. The tenant who has capital, and who wants to improve, thinks that he has a grievance. He would risk his own money, he asserts, more freely than he does, and he would be better able to do justice to the land committed to him, if he were not liable to be evicted at six or twelve months’ notice, and if the out-going tenant got fair value for what he left behind. Various schemes for attaining this object are before the country. The Agricultural Holdings Act is, and always was, a dead letter ; and it is for those most interested to shape the rough lines of a substitute, such as would meet the exigencies of the case, and would be sanctioned by Parliament.

There is one satisfactory symptom. Nowhere have the farmers shown any decided inclination to join in the hopeless cry of protection raised by a few persons on their behalf. They have courageously faced the facts of their position. They know that they have to deal with the difficulties of a fickle and unstable climate. They are alive to the enormous growth of acreage under wheat in America, and the increasing facilities for carriage from East to West. A manufacturer of yarns who had tc face new competitors in markets once entirely his own would take counsel and see whether his plant and machinery were as effective as could be got, whether they could not be adapted to making goods in demand, and whether his mill was economically managed, and whether he could not produce more or more cheaply. If English farmers be wise they will act in the same practical spirit; they will examine what is amiss in their condition. If they take good years with bad they will not find themselves in a deplorable position; and they will probably learn that much can be done for the improvement of British agriculture independently of the aid of Parliament. But they may be confident that the Legislature will give careful attention to any practical suggestions for the amendment of the 'aws relating to land. Indeed, in regard to this the landed interest has only to speak with something like unanimity in order to speak with effect. Sir Thomas Acland, in his remarks on Tuesday on agricultural prospects, said that hundreds of thinking men were asking themselves whether our system of landlord, farmer, and labourer was perfect. Unfortunately, the thoughts of most men have stopped at this point. They are not exactly sure as to the imperfections, and still less as to the best remedies. —