ment and the safest and most convenient of savings-banks. He invests his capital and labour in his land, without requiring as high a profit on his capital as the wealthy farmer would, and without expecting as high wages for his toil as would be demanded by the hired labourer. He may through want of machinery, or of knowledge retain methods of cultivation that have been discarded as wasteful by the English farmer. But still he is content and happy. His produce is generally less in proportion to the amount of labour spent in raising it than is the case with an English farm. But his produce per acre is often large, and on the whole he contributes his full share to the agricultural wealth of the country.

1 Chap. vi. § 3.

CHAPTER IX.

TENURE OF LAND.

§ 1. A GREAT deal has already been said incidentally about the tenure of land. In tracing the gradual organization of industry, we noticed how in very early times land was no man's property; how tribes of savages wandered over it and supported themselves by hunting; how, afterwards adopting a pastoral life, they drove half domesticated herds slowly from one pasture to another. We saw how, when agriculture appeared, Îand became the property of village communities. Recent historical research has shewn that in almost every part of Europe, in many parts of Asia, and probably in some other places, the land of each such village community was generally divided into three parts, or to use the Teutonic name, into three Marks.

The Town Mark contained the houses, which were the private property of the several families who lived in them. The Arable Mark was divided into three fields, one of which was left fallow each year, the other two being cultivated. Each family had for its use a lot in each field: so as always to have its proper share of land in cultivation. In most countries the lots were periodically redistributed.

The remainder of the land was the Common Mark. This was not cultivated, and each family had equal rights of pasture and of cutting wood in it.

The system of village communities somewhat modified prevails in Russia and India in the present day. It has some advantages; extreme misery is seldom found in it; men lead peaceful and contented, but monotonous lives. The community watches jealously to prevent any one from adopting methods of cultivation that are opposed to its interests, or even to its habits

and prejudices. Thus grows up in the course of time a network of customary rules, which hampers the freedom and enterprise of individuals, and hitherto has been found to check and hinder agricultural improvement of every kind.

In Western Europe this system was transformed into the military system of Feudalism by the wars and conquest of the Middle Ages. In Feudalism the notions of ownership and government were so blended that the sovereign was regarded as having a kind of ownership of the land. His subjects held it from him on condition of rendering him military service when required. Gradually the rights of the Sovereign to land have fallen into abeyance, and private persons have now practically undisputed possession of it, but even to the present day bargains about land are not determined by free competition in quite the same way as bargains about other things. Each nation has special laws, customs, and sentiments with regard to the transfer and tenure of land.

§ 2. A large part of the Continent is owned by Peasant Proprietors. We have seen how the peasant loves his land as his friend, how gladly he invests his earnings in it; how he gets to know the history of every square yard of it. He may not know of, or may be unable to afford the advanced methods of the rich English farmer. But in some kinds of cultivation he excels; and even though he does not generally turn his labour to the best account, his untiring zeal often raises a large gross produce.

In some portions of Southern Europe the Metayer tenure prevails. The metayer has an hereditary right to cultivate a small piece of land on condition of giving a certain portion of the produce, generally one half, to the landlord. The landlord supplies the whole or a part, according to local custom, of the capital required for working the land'. The metayer resembles the peasant proprietor in having fixity of tenure. But in some other respects he resembles the members of a village community. For he is harassed and hampered by the rules which have grown up to secure the landlord's share of the produce; and since he retains only a fixed portion of the fruits of his labour, he has not as strong an incentive to exertion as the peasant proprietor has.

The land of America is cultivated by those who own it?.

1 With regard to Metayers, Irish Cottiers and Peasant proprietors, the reader is referred to Mill, Bk. II., and Cliffe Leslie's System of Land

Tenure.

2 "The American farmer is at least in nine hundred and ninety-five cases out of a thousand the owner of the land he cultivates." Mr Ruggles' report published by the New York Chamber of Commerce,

The ease with which men get land prevents the growth of any considerable class of agricultural labourers at present, so that the tenure of land in America resembles in many ways that of peasant proprietors. But the farms are not small, and the farmers are generally educated men, full of restless energy. They frequently sell their farms and move westwards to larger farms or richer soil; they are always on the look out for improved machinery and improved methods of cultivation. And in many other ways they present a striking contrast to the patient and unenterprising peasant proprietors of Europe, among whom the land and the method of cultivating it descend with little change from father to son.

The share of the produce that the metayer pays to the landlord is sometimes called "rent." But in this book the word will always mean that payment which the owner of land can obtain by free competition for lending out the use of it to others.

Rich land affords a larger return to the capital employed on it than could be obtained by applying the same amount of capital to the cultivation of poor land. In a populous country in which there is a great demand for food, and in which therefore some food has to be raised at great expense from poor land, the value of the produce raised from the rich land will be more than sufficient to pay the expenses of raising it. This surplus value the owner retains if he cultivates the land himself. But in England and some other countries there are always capitalists willing to cultivate the land with their own capital, and to pay this surplus to the landlord in the form of rent. This system has the great advantage of giving the management of the land to those who have capital, agricultural skill and liking for the work. We have already seen that the advantages of division of labour and of productions on a large scale are of less importance in agriculture than in manufacture: but their importance is increasing. The progress of the arts of agriculture brings with it a continually increasing demand for capital and for highly trained agricultural skill. And the progress of the nation in wealth and intelligence increases the number of able farmers who have a considerable command over capital. The combined action of all these causes is increasing the average size of farms, and raising the status of the farmer. In Scotland and some parts of England there prevails a system of long leases which secures to the farmer nearly the whole benefit of his skill and energy. If his lease is short he receives but scanty protection from the law. But custom so far shields him that he is seldom in great danger of losing all the benefits of the improvements he has made in his farm, through having his rent raised, or being ejected without compensation, by an unscrupulous landlord.

The Irish Cottier pays a rent for the use of his land and cultivates it at his own risk. But here his resemblance to the English farmer ends. The Irish Cottier is a poor and uneducated peasant who rents a small plot of land either directly from its owner or from a middleman who makes a living by subletting land. The ignorance and recklessness of the Irish peasant and his inherited thirst for land often induce him under the stress of competition to undertake to pay a rent higher than he can pay. Some of the smaller landowners and many of the middlemen grasp at such promises; and then the cottier finds idleness his best policy; thrift his worst. He has no Standard of Comfort, no inducement to prudence in marriage; and population is restrained chiefly by poverty, disease and famine. The misery of the cottiers cannot be removed without first removing the causes of their recklessness. This recklessness is to some extent-it is a matter of controversy to what extent due to the bad legislation of our forefathers. There is good reason to believe that it is being diminished under the wise legislation of recent years.

The discussion of the question as to which is the best system of land tenure has been complicated by some uncertainty as to the meaning of the term "the best system." By the best system some mean that which gives the greatest gross produce, others mean that which gives the greatest net or surplus produce after deducting the necessaries of life for the labourers, while others again mean that which contributes most to man's general wellbeing. We have seen reason for thinking that the greatest net produce is on the average obtained under the system of large farms; and that the largest gross produce is obtained in some of those districts in which there is an intelligent and energetic race of peasant proprietors; for their untiring zeal keeps on applying more labour to the land long after the return from it has diminished so far that a capitalist farmer would have ceased from further cultivation.

Economists are not agreed as to what system best promotes general well-being. If a vote could be taken from all Economists throughout the world, it would probably be given in favour of the system under which the land is owned by its cultivator, whether in large farms as in new countries, or in small plots as in old, and this view is adopted now by many Englishmen. But nearly all English Economists of the past generation had a strong preference for the system of large farms. This is partly due to the same causes that have promoted the employment of large capitals in English manufactures', partly to the fact that

1 See Book I. ch. vii. § 4.