6

being scarcely ever properly worked, it becomes foul, and is kept in a very indifferent state. There is a great want of in'dustry and method among the agricultural classes.'-(P. 308.)

The agriculture of Oxford, Sussex, Surrey, Berks, and several other counties, is not much more advanced. Even the metropolitan county, Middlesex, is distinguished by the backward state of its tillage. Mr Loudon observes of the arable land, that it is wretchedly managed;' and he farther states, that the farming implements are all bad, and the ploughs barbarous.'—(Encyclop. of Agriculture, 2d ed. § 7777.)

Notwithstanding, too, that the best cultivated lands in the Lothians, Northumberland, Lincoln, and Norfolk, are all ploughed by two horses, nothing is more common than to see in the vicinity of the metropolis, and throughout most parts of the south and west of England, three, four, and still more frequently five, stout horses, yoked in line to a plough, even where the soil is light and sandy, and when probably a field in fallow is receiving a second or third ploughing! And as a driver is always necessary when above two horses are used, there cannot be a doubt that more than double the labour and expense is laid out on ploughing, where this practice prevails, than in the counties where it has been abandoned; and it is obvious, too, that it occasions the keeping up of a much greater number of horses, during the whole year, than are required for any thing except ploughing. Need we, therefore, wonder at the extraordinary discrepancy of rents in different parts of the country?

In Wales, agriculture is in a still more backward state than in the least improved of the English counties. It was recently, and perhaps still is, by no means uncommon in Anglesea to take five corn crops in succession; and throughout the Principality, the arable land is, with few exceptions, wretchedly managed. The soil of "Caermarthenshire is very fertile, consisting generally of a sandy loam; nor is there finer land anywhere in Great Britain, than is to be found in some parts of this county, either for the growth ' of turnips, or for the feeding of sheep. These advantages, however, are not here of much avail; as whatever requires a little trouble, or is over and above the natural productions of the land, is thought quite unnecessary, and is totally neglected. There never, indeed, existed a country more erroneously conducted, as 'to its agriculture, than Caermarthenshire; nor does Wales in general produce half what it is capable of doing under proper 'management.'-(Vol. i., p. 169.)

We believe, however, that the latter part of this statement is not much less applicable to England than to Wales. In fact, we have been assured by the highest practical authorities, that were England in general as well cultivated as Northumberland and

Lincoln, it would produce more than double the quantity that is now obtained from it; and that, not with a greater, but with a less proportional outlay. But, taking the increase at only a third, which is certainly a good deal within the mark, every one must be impressed by a deep sense of the vast importance of the more general diffusion of improved processes and methods of management.

It is not very easy to give a satisfactory explanation of the extreme slowness with which an acknowledged and signal improvement spreads itself over the country; and for that rooted disinclination evinced by the generality of farmers to leave established practices, even after experience has clearly demonstrated the superiority of others. There is not, we incline to think, the smallest ground for ascribing it, as many have done, to the influence of tithes, poor-rates, or other public burdens. These affect the whole kingdom, and press with the same, or perhaps greater severity, on the farmers of Northumberland, Lincoln, and Norfolk, as on those of Worcester, Somerset, Sussex, or Wales. Certain vicious practices in the letting of land, to which we shall afterwards allude, have had, we believe, considerable influence; and a good deal of the better management, and more rapid spread of improvement, in some districts, must probably be ascribed to accidental and inappreciable circumstances. There is, besides, a much greater aversion to precipitate changes, and a more resolute adherence to whatever has been long practised, among the occupiers of land, than amongst any other class of persons. It has been truly observed by Dr Rigby, that, 'improvements which affect material changes in long 'established customs, have, under all circumstances, and in all countries, ever been slowly and reluctantly admitted. It requires no little effort to quit the common routine of practice, and still more to relinquish long maintained opinions. The general cir'cumstances affecting agriculture are, moreover, little favourable 'to great, and more especially to sudden alterations: the farmer is not so much within reach of information as the merchant and 'manufacturer; he has not, like those who reside in towns, the 6 means of ready intercourse, and constant communication with 'others engaged in the same occupation. He lives retired; his 'acquaintance is limited, and but little varied; and, unless in the ⚫ habit of reading, he is little likely to acquire any other knowledge of his art than what is traditionary-what is transmitted from 'father to son-and limited in its application to his own immediate 'neighbourhood.'*

6

* Preface to the Translation of Chateauvieux on the Agriculture of Italy.

VOL. LIX. NO. CXX.

2 c

The able writer from whom we have borrowed this paragraph appears to think, that the obstacles to the more rapid diffusion of agricultural improvements will gradually be overcome through the ready access that is now afforded to all sorts of information, and the multiplication of useful works. We confess, however, that we are by no means sanguine in our expectations on this head. The lethargy in question depends partly on other causes than those stated by Dr Rigby, and is too deeply seated to be got rid of by such gentle means. Hitherto, the agricultural clubs and shows, the premiums that have been given, the libraries that have been established in country towns, and the books and tracts that have been distributed, have had (we shall not say none, but) extremely little influence; and we see no grounds for concluding that it will be greater in time to come. The extraordinary growth of the town population, and the consequent increase of demand for all sorts of farm produce, but more especially for butcher's meat, has been the mainspring of all the improvements that have been made in husbandry since 1763. That this increase of demand should not have had a greater influence, is owing to certain circumstances peculiar to England, which, until obviated, oppose an all but insuperable barrier to the spread of improvement. Of these, the want of leases of a reasonable length, and containing proper stipulations as to management, is by far the most important; and we agree with the able authors of the work before us, in thinking, that the granting of such leases would do ten times more to accelerate the progress of improvement, than will ever be done by all the other means it is possible to devise.

It is believed, that, at present, not more than a third part of England is occupied by tenants holding under leases. Surely it cannot be necessary that we should enter into any lengthened disquisition to show the extreme inexpediency of such a state of things. Every one is ready to admit, as a general proposition, that without security there can be neither industry nor accumulation. But a tenant at will has either no security that he will be allowed to reap the fruit of any improvement he may make, or he enjoys it only in a very inferior degree. Under such circumstances, it would be absurd to suppose that he should adventure upon any new or expensive undertaking. He confines himself to the routine practice of his district, and passes from the cradle to the tomb in the same dull and beaten track that had been trodden by his unambitious ancestors. To render a man really enterprising and inventive, he must be morally certain that he is not labouring to serve others, but that he will himself reap all the advantage derivable from outlays of capital, or

from the exhibition of superior skill or industry. If he be not impressed with this conviction, he becomes little better than a mere machine, and does not make a single step in advance of those around him. 6 Unless,' say the authors before us, a tenant is ' allowed to hold the land he occupies for a term of years sufficient to enable him to remunerate himself for the outlay of capital in improvement, it is in vain to expect any change for the better. It is true, that, in some quarters, though holding nominally at will, the tenant considers himself as secure as if he had a lease; 'but it is obvious that this security cannot extend beyond the ' lives of the parties; that, in the event of the estate descending to a minor, his guardians or trustees must act according to law, ' without any reference to such an understanding; and that in case of the decease of the tenant, his executors or administrators may be ousted, and much loss sustained by his family. The only efficient and available security for a tenant who lays out money on improvement, is, of course, a lease for a sufficient length of term to enable him to realize an adequate profit, ' which every trader or manufacturer naturally expects in return ' for the employment of his capital.'-(Introd. p. 9.)

The only plausible objection that ever has been made to the granting of leases for a reasonable number of years, takes for granted that the contract is really binding on the landlord only. It is contended that if a farm be too low rented, the tenant continues, during the currency of the lease, to enjoy that advantage; whereas, if it happen to be too high rented, it is next to certain that the landlord will be compelled to reduce the rent to what the farm is really worth. A transaction of this kind throws, it is alleged, all the risk on the landlord, and ensures all the advantage to the tenant; so that the only fair plan is to let from year to year, or, at most, for very brief periods. But, though specious, this reasoning will be found, on examination, to be without any good foundation. The complaint that a farm is too low rented, is one that can hardly ever be made with any degree of justice at the commencement of a lease; and if it were made, it ought not to be attended to; for, as the proprietor might either let or not let the farm, and as he has in most instances a choice of tenants, it is pretty certain that he would not have let it, unless the stipulated rent had been, at the time, about, or believed to be about, its full value.

It is true, the rent may become too low; or rather it may happen that the farm would let for more after a few years of the lease have expired, than the sum actually paid for it. If the rent be a money rent, it will, of course, be affected by changes in the value of money; but if it be, as it ought, a certain quantity of

produce convertible into money according to the prices at the time, the fair presumption is, if the farm become worth more during the lease, that the increase of value is chiefly to be ascribed to the fact of a lease having been granted. The security which it gives to the tenant encourages him to lay out capital on the land, to follow the best system of cropping, and to execute various improvements which add to the permanent as well as to the immediate productiveness of the soil. Although, therefore, the rent of a farm let for a corn rent, and for a reasonable number of years, should appear to be inadequate towards the middle or during the latter part of the lease, the landlord must not imagine that he has, by letting the farm, deprived himself of an advantage he would otherwise have enjoyed; for the truth is, that in nine cases out of ten the apparent inadequacy of the rent arises out of improvements effected by the tenant, and which would not have been so much as thought of but for the lease. Hence, in granting it, the landlord has not made any sacrifice; but, on the contrary, while he obtained all the rent for his farm that it was worth at the time, the security which the lease afforded to the tenant, by tempting him to make improvements, and to meliorate the farm, will ensure to the landlord a decidedly larger rent at the termination of the lease than he would otherwise have realized.

It is really, therefore, no more than equitable that all the advantages to be derived from a lease of moderate length should belong, during its currency, to the tenant; for these advantages are, in the vast majority of cases, the result of his industry, skill, and capital. And although it be not possible, or, if possible, exceedingly inexpedient, for a landlord to attempt to compel a tenant to pay the stipulated rent for a farm when it materially exceeds its real worth, there are no substantial reasons for impeaching the contract of lease on the ground of its not being founded on a fair principle of reciprocity. The inadequacy of a corn rent convertible into money at the prices of the day, is, in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases, merely apparent, or is a consequence of improvements effected by the tenant. The landlord cannot complain that he is prevented from participating in these until the expiration of the lease; because had the tenant not been secured in the exclusive possession of the farm for the term in question, the improvements would not have been made, and the rent would not have seemed inadequate. All, therefore, that can justly be said with respect to the want of reciprocity in the contract, is this, that if a landlord should through accident or simplicity let a farm for less than it is worth at the period when the lease is entered into, he will not be able to get the rent raised during its currency; whereas, if a tenant should, from too an