iAJ»- 
 
 
 I'^m 
 
 i 
 
 «^ 
 
 ^^•^
 
 
 L I 
 
 U N 
 
 or 
 
 B RA RY 
 OF THE 
 IVERSITY 
 ILLI NOIS
 
 /^ /:A; fory^ 
 
 /
 
 LIMITED OWNERSHIP OF LAND. 
 
 R E M ARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 |^ou0e of 1lortr0 
 
 ON 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF LAND. 
 
 (1873) 
 
 By WILLIAINI FOWLER, i££. 
 
 CASSELL, PETTER & GALPIN 
 
 London, Paris & New York. 
 
 1874.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 Ix the following pages I have not referred to the 
 distinction between real and personal estate, and 
 several other points which I have discussed elsewhere ; 
 as my object has been not to repeat the whole 
 argument on this occasion, but merely to consider 
 the principal points raised in the Report, and in 
 the evidence appended to it. The text of the Report 
 will be found in the Appendix, 
 
 92, Eaton Place, 
 1874.
 
 « ufuc : 
 
 ^"chfA^
 
 REMARKS 
 
 ON THE 
 
 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS 
 
 ON 
 
 IMPROVEMENT OF LAND. 
 
 The appointment last session by the House of Lords 
 of a Select Committee, " to inquire into the facilities 
 afforded by the existing law to limited owners of 
 land, for the investment of capital in the improve- 
 ment of such land ; and to report whether any 
 alteration of the law is requisite in order further to 
 encourage such investment," must be regarded as 
 an important epoch in the history of what is known 
 as the " Land Question." The appointment of the 
 Committee was moved by the Marquis of Salisbury, 
 a typical, or rather the typical, modern Tory — a man 
 of vast property as well as great intelligence — and 
 he presided over the Committee during its sittings 
 with much assiduity. Such a motion by such a man 
 seems to imply that owners of land are not satisfied 
 with the law as it stands ; and I propose now to 
 consider how far the Committee has succeeded in 
 proposing adequate improvements of the law. 
 
 The circumstances under which this appointment 
 has been made are not, I believe, fully understood 
 by the public. ]\Iany years since, the position of 
 limited owners of land was seen to be very hard
 
 6 REMARKS Oy REPORT OF NO USE OF LORDS. 
 
 inasmuch as they could not raise money for the 
 purpose of improving their estates, except by 
 insuring their Hves, or some other extravagant 
 process ; and first for Scotland and afterwards for 
 England and Ireland, Acts were passed enabling 
 such owners, with the consent of the Court of Session, 
 or the Court of Chancery, or the Enclosure Com- 
 missioners, to borrow money for the purpose of 
 improvements, sometimes by creating a permanent 
 rent-charge to repay interest only, but generally by 
 creating a charge which is so arranged as to repay 
 principal and interest within a moderate term. Such 
 charge has priority over all other charges, so that no 
 expense is incurred by the lenders in investigating 
 title. This system has been in full force in England 
 for several years, and in Scotland for a much longer 
 period. Companies have been formed under the 
 Acts, who are empowered to borrow money and lend 
 it to limited owners on certain terms, which vary in 
 the different Acts. The Companies charge in general 
 5 per cent, for allowing the landowner to use the 
 Act, besides some other charges, and these have to be 
 added to the principal money, which has to be repaid 
 with interest. Under the Act of 1864 a landowner 
 can advance his own money, and keep a charge on 
 the estate without the aid of a Company. 
 
 The Enclosure Commissioners charge about 30s. 
 per cent., which has also to be added. The result is 
 thus stated in the Report, Section 3 : — " The interest 
 " at which the Land Companies lend is usually 4} per 
 " cent. The sinking fund, calculated to repay the loan 
 ** in twenty-five years, together with the interest and 
 *' sinking fund on the preliminary expenses, bring up
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. J 
 
 *' the average payment upon the effective outlay to a 
 *' Httle more than 7 per cent." "^ But in the cases of 
 
 * Mr. Ryder (893) says that the totalannual charge of the 
 Lands Improvement Company (besides the Commissioners' 
 charges), including repayment, is ^7 is. per cent, when the 
 interest is 5 per cent., £6 14s. id. when it is 4^ per cent., 
 £6 I OS. 8d. when it is 4X per cent. 
 
 Mr. Randell (1,226) mentions a case under the same 
 Company w^here the rent-charge amounted to " £7 4s. 6d. per 
 *' cent, on the sum actually laid out on the improvement." 
 
 Mr. Ashdown says (3,234), " I think the expenses incurred 
 " are something like from 10 to 12 per cent, actual loss." 
 
 The jMarquis of Bath (p. 15) mentions a case where "the 
 " sum raised is ;!^2,686 for building ; of that the Company's 
 "charges are first £12^, then advertisement and stationery 
 "(again a Company's charge), £2, 15s. ; legal charges, £6 los. 
 " (again a Company's charge) ; amounting to ^140 5s." 
 
 If w'e may judge from a letter which appeared in The 
 Times of January 9th, 1874, w^hilst these remarks were passing 
 through the press, Mr. Ryder considers the charge made by 
 the Companies very moderate; but the next day appeared a 
 letter from the Marquis of Huntly, which tells a different tale. 
 It is, so far as relates to this matter, as follows : — 
 
 '> 
 
 "to the editor of 'the times.' 
 
 " Sir, — Mr. Ryder, in his letter of yesterday, assumes that 
 " because the applications to the Enclosure Commissioners for 
 "buildings and cottages were more numerous in 1873 than in 
 *' the previous year, therefore the landowners of this country 
 *' approve the machinery of the Enclosure Office and the Lands 
 " Improvement Companies. There cannot be a more false 
 " argument. 
 
 " During the last year or two landowners have felt it their 
 *' duty to build improved cottages for labourers ; and if they 
 "wish to charge the cost upon their estates, they are 
 " obliged to have ' recourse to the Enclosure Office and the 
 ** Companies.' 
 
 "But does this prove that the landowners of this country
 
 8 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 small loans I per cent, more has to be added, as the 
 per-centage of the preliminary expenses is very heavy. 
 
 "(represented by the 260 applicants in 1873) are satisfied 
 " with and approve the machinery they have to put in motion ? 
 
 " Mr. Ryder frequently attended, and gave evidence before, 
 " the Lords Committee on the Improvement of Land last 
 " session ; and doubtless he has perused the evidence given 
 " before that Committee, which clearly shows that great 
 " dissatisfaction exists among many landowners at the working 
 '• of the existing system, under the Enclosure Office and the Land 
 " Companies. 
 
 " Nothing can be found in the Report of the Committee to 
 ** corroborate Mr. Ryder's statement that the clamour against 
 "the Enclosure Office is 'groundless.' 
 
 " I fully agree with Lord Portsmouth that the requirements 
 " of the Office are ' costly,' and the procedure of the Companies 
 " far from economical. 
 
 " The Enclosure Commissioners are supposed to protect 
 " the heir-apparent from having to pay for works upon his estate 
 " that are not bo?id Jide improvements. In four cases out of 
 " five they fail, either by allowing too extravagant undertakings 
 " to be carried out, or by refusing applications (say for thorough 
 '' repairs of buildings, or draining at three feet where an outfall 
 " cannot be got at a lower level, &c.) which would be beneficial 
 " to the estate. 
 
 " The greater the outlay incurred by the landowner the 
 " better for the Office and the Companies, as the per-centage on 
 ' the loans supports the Commissioners, and, I believe, leaves 
 •' a balance in hand at the end of the year, besides enabling 
 "four or five Companies to pay very handsome dividends, 
 " keeping up stafts of directors and clerks, and by the fees charged 
 " maintaining bodies of architects, engineers, surveyors, &c. 
 
 " Surely this system could be economised, and some of this 
 " enormous annual income that is taken from the land be given 
 "towards its improvement/' 
 
 Mr. A. White, in his evidence (Q. 4,035), expresses an 
 opinion that the Companies' " commission of 5 per cent, is most 
 excessive."
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 9 
 
 See Section 9, Subsection 3, where the Report says 
 that no great '' zeal for improvement can be looked 
 " for" in such cases. It is hardly necessary to remark 
 that the power of borrowing cheaply is even more 
 important to the small than to the large owner. 
 
 It comes, therefore, to this, that an ow^ner in fee 
 can usually borrow for about 3 per cent, per annum 
 less than the tenant for life ; because the latter is com- 
 pelled to repay principal as well as interest year by 
 year, and can only borrow by a process which involves 
 heavy preliminary expenses. 
 
 Underthe powers thus conferred, the Commissioners 
 have sanctioned an outlay of about ^10,000,000 — 
 ^8,000,000 in drainage, and ;^2,ooo,ooo in buildings — 
 but, as the Report says, Section i, "the progress has 
 " not been so rapid as was desirable, and what has been 
 ** accomplished is only a small fraction of what still 
 " remains to be done." The Report goes on to quote 
 (with the qualification that they are " speculative ") 
 the estimates of Mr. B. Denton, that only 3,000,000 
 acres in England and Wales have yet been drained, 
 out of 20,000,000 acres which require it ; and of Mr. 
 Caird, that only one-fifth of the required improve- 
 ments of all sorts have yet been effected. The present 
 position of the question is thus fairly stated in the 
 Report, Section 2 : — " The case for Parliamentary con- 
 " sideration lies in this : that the improvement of 
 " land, in its effect upon the price of food, and upon 
 " the dwellings of the poor, is a matter of public 
 " interest ; but that as an investment it is not 
 "sufficiently lucrative to offer much attraction to 
 " capital, and that, therefore, even slight difficulties 
 *' have a powerful influence in arresting it."
 
 lO REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 Now, it cannot be disputed that the whole 
 " difficulty," or the main difficulty, which we have 
 to consider, arises from the fact of the existence of 
 limited ownerships and their peculiar incidents ; but 
 the proposal to get rid of these ownerships, as the 
 cause of our *' difficulties," is dismissed in this Report 
 in a very summary, not to say perfunctory, manner. 
 It is not said that this change would not so enlarge 
 the powers of such owners of land as to enable them 
 to make improvements without difficulty ; but it is 
 asserted that a landowner is led to improve his land 
 ** more by solicitude for his descendants than by hope 
 " of personal gain, but the prohibition of settlements 
 "would make this solicitude idle. It would therefore 
 *' remove one of the chief motives by which improve- 
 " ments of land are now dictated." (Report, Section 7.) 
 
 In the passage just quoted are contained two 
 propositions — (i), that the "chief motive" which 
 impels men to improve their land is solicitude for 
 descendants, and not care for their own interest ; and 
 (2), that an ovvner in fee, without power of entailing 
 his land, cannot or will not act on the motive so 
 described. 
 
 Now I venture to deny both these propositions, as 
 utterly opposed to the well-known facts of the case. 
 It is admitted, in the evidence printed with the Report 
 of the Committee, and it requires no proof, that no 
 one improves more freely than the owners in fee who 
 have purchased their own lands, as well as owners in 
 fee who have inherited land ; but it is assumed that 
 they do this for the sake of their descendants, and 
 that they would not do it if they could not entail the 
 property on those descendants. But is this credible.
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. II 
 
 when It is so well known that land when left unim- 
 proved is the worst possible investment to the present 
 owner, and that no one is more interested than him- 
 self in the development of his property ? The Tables 
 given by Mr. Ryder in the Appendix are sufficient to 
 prove this, if proof were needed, but the fact is no- 
 torious.^ A man buys neglected land wath the very 
 object of so improving it as to get a fair return on the 
 money laid out, as well as on the money given for 
 the land. This process is going on every day ; and 
 then w^e are told by a Committee of the House of 
 Lords that he does this purely for the sake of his de- 
 scendants, and from no self-regarding motive. Such 
 an owner has absolute authority. He may resell, or 
 he may devise the land to whomsoever he may please. 
 He has every motive for improving it, even supposing 
 he may have no *' descendants." To many such men 
 the mere occupation of '' improvement " is very fas- 
 cinating. It is not like buying and selling Stocks ; 
 because the improvement is visible, not merely in 
 figures in a book, but on the face of the country, and 
 displays the skill and enterprise of the improver to 
 the whole neighbourhood, and often to the whole 
 kingdom. It is said that such improvements are 
 not a good investment ; but w^hen all things are 
 taken into account — actual money return, health of 
 
 * In forty cases mentioned by Mr. Ryder, involving a total 
 expenditure of ^194,730, and an average expenditure of ^4,868, 
 the average increase per cent, on the rental in eight or ten 
 years, between the " first and the last application," was 26X« 
 The average is much reduced by the comparatively small 
 increase arising from new buildings, as com.pared with the large 
 increase resulting from drainage. (See Appendix to Report.)
 
 12 REMARKS O.V REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 body and mind, and social consideration — it may 
 well be doubted whether the return is not far more 
 satisfactory than that of many far more " profitable " 
 investments. 
 
 Nor is this merely a matter of speculation. In 
 a well-known case in the last generation, a nobleman, 
 who was perhaps the greatest improver of his time, 
 is said to have left his estate to the present holder of 
 the title in fee, thereby showing very little of that 
 peculiar kind of " solicitude for descendants " of which 
 we hear so much. If he had much " solicitude " of 
 this sort, he would surely have entailed the estate 
 on his son. It is said that the present peer is very 
 sensible of the benefit which he has derived from the 
 existing arrangement. Again, some of the greatest 
 improvers have had no '* descendants," in the sense 
 in which the word is commonly used. One of the 
 most enterprising land-owners of our time has a child- 
 less daughter as his only descendant ; and yet he buys 
 and improves continually, to the great benefit of 
 himself and his country. 
 
 But it is said, This may be all true ; but how do 
 you know that men would do what they now do, if 
 they were unable to entail their land, and only allowed 
 to divide it by will as fee-simple estate } Of course, 
 it is impossible to prove what would happen in a 
 hypothetical case ; we can only argue from the actual 
 to the probable. It is most obvious that a man may 
 have " solicitude for his descendants " or successors, 
 may desire to leave them well ofT, may wish to leave 
 them his estate in an " improved " condition ; and yet 
 not have any anxiety to leave them merely owners 
 for life with remainders over.
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 1 3 
 
 How constantly we see men in commerce slave 
 for their descendants to their last moments, and 
 yet leave their property to them entirely free from 
 settlements, although the law enables them to 
 settle personal estate for the same period as land ! 
 Why should not a man do the .same in the case of 
 land ? His anxiety for his children may show Itself 
 in his labours to improve his estate, but not In a desire 
 to limit their powers over the land after he is gone. 
 A man who has been owner In fee, and, therefore, free 
 to do as he wills, manifests a curious sort of kindness 
 to his child when he leaves the land he has so 
 enjoyed not as he had It, but crippled and limited 
 by the terms of a strict settlement. Solicitude thus 
 develops Into distrust, to the great Injury of families. 
 But, as a matter of fact, no one Improves more 
 heartily than the purchaser of a small property, to 
 whom the thought of an entail and strict settlement 
 is quite foreign ; and the cases I have mentioned prove 
 that even amongst the class to whom entails are 
 thought to be natural, and amongst whom they are 
 certainly usual, men may have abundant motives for 
 improvement without having any desire to "settle" 
 their property. 
 
 It is utterly unproved at present that the pro- 
 hibition of settlements would make solicitude for 
 descendants " Idle ;" and It might with more safety be 
 asserted that an owner in fee is more likely to feel a 
 solicitude for successors of his own choice than Is 
 a limited owner, whose successor may be a distant 
 relation, taking under a settlement made before he 
 was born, and is often not the successor chosen by 
 himself, though he may be the person he would
 
 14 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 have chosen. It is certainly a most important 
 observation, that an owner in fee may always choose 
 those whom he cares for to take his property after 
 him ; whereas a limited owner has no choice in the 
 matter, and, in too many cases, has a solicitude rather 
 to injure than to benefit the next taker. 
 
 But supposing, for the sake of the argument, that 
 the abolition of settlements would in some degree 
 discourage purchases of land by that class who are 
 said to buy chiefly with the object of founding 
 families, and who care little for the improvement of 
 the land, either as an investment of capital, or as an 
 object of the greatest national importance ; it may 
 fairly be questioned whether this result would not be 
 beneficial to the country. The absence of the intense 
 competition for land, which is supposed to be caused 
 by purchasers of this class, Avould, if this argument 
 is sound, cause a sensible decline in its value, 
 so that those who buy as a matter of business, 
 and not for family or social reasons, would be able 
 to obtain the land on more reasonable terms. If in 
 this way it should come about that more land should 
 be held by capable men of business, such a result 
 could only be regarded with satisfaction by political 
 economists. 
 
 But it may well be doubted whether such a class 
 of purchasers really exists. The motives which 
 lead men to choose land as an investment are for 
 the most part mixed motives. Some men may be 
 bitten with the desire to found families ; but hardly 
 any man can be found who has this sole motive 
 for choosing this peculiar investment. The change 
 in the law here advocated would not affect the
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 1 5 
 
 minds of most investors, for it would leave the 
 security of the inheritance as great as ever ; and 
 it would neither diminish the social influence of 
 the owner of land, nor the attractions of land for 
 purposes of residence or of amusement — attractions 
 very powerful to most Englishmen, and not least 
 powerful to those who have won their way in the 
 pursuits of commerce. In a country so rich and 
 so populous as ours, and where wealth increases so 
 rapidly, land is sure to be in great and increasing 
 demand, and it would be the height of folly to 
 retain any law of injurious tendency merely for the 
 purpose of attracting or retaining investors in an 
 article of such prime necessity. If more land were 
 sold, and land were more easily saleable by reason 
 of a more simple law, the price would probably be 
 increased rather than diminished ; but that increase 
 would be natural, and the result of an increased 
 return, and not the consequence of a forced ac- 
 cumulation in a few hands. Two classes would 
 compete for the land in the case supposed. First, 
 many farmers would gladly buy the land they occupy. 
 Often in Ireland of late years farmers have given 
 astonishing prices for their farms. Many parts of 
 the estate of the Marquis of Waterford were, it is 
 said, recently sold for forty years' purchase, and what 
 has happened in Ireland would, I believe, happen in 
 England. The purchase of land on such terms may 
 seem to be a very bad investment, but it has a great 
 attraction to this class, who know the real value of 
 their land, and their competition would often be found 
 serious by intending purchasers. Secondly, ver}' rich 
 men will ever find land an attractive investment ;
 
 l6 REHTARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 because, not only is its annual return extremely 
 secure, but also this security of income is coupled 
 with a probable advance in the value of the invest- 
 ment itself The funds are safe as to income, but the 
 purchaser cannot depend on the return of his principal 
 intact should he be disposed to sell ; whereas a man 
 may fairly look for a profit on the purchase of 
 land. Such men do not buy from '* solicitude for 
 " descendants," but from solicitude for themselves ; 
 and they are an important and probably an increasing 
 class. 
 
 The Committee proceeds to say that a "more 
 " formidable objection " to the abolition of settle- 
 ments is the fact that the existence of mortgages 
 is even a greater hindrance to the limited owner 
 than that of settlements, and that even were settle- 
 ments abolished mortgages would remain and 
 increase. It is truly wonderful that such men should 
 solemnly put forth so illogical an argument. Mortgages 
 would remain ; but, as the real improvement of the 
 land would improve the security of the mortgagee, 
 there would be nothing unjust in giving priority over 
 the mortgage to a charge created for the purpose 
 of improvements. This is done by the existing 
 Acts, and we are told that " many owners in fee 
 ''take advantage of the powers given to the land 
 " Companies." By all means continue this power to 
 encumbered owners in fee, so that they may raise 
 money for the purposes of improvement on the best 
 possible terms ; but how the need of such a power can 
 prove that it is also needful to continue the system of 
 settlements is to me quite incomprehensible. The two 
 things are entirely unconnected, and the whole sentence
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. I J 
 
 in which this point is stated seems to be one of the 
 most remarkable instances of confusion of thought 
 in an important pubHc document which we have seen 
 for many years. Owners " Hmited by mortgage " 
 require " facilities " as well as owners ** limited by 
 " settlement." Let us admit this, and that they will 
 require the same facilities when settlements shall be 
 abolished ; but how does it thence follow that the 
 abolition of settlements would do harm ? It is not 
 asserted that the abolition of settlements would do 
 everything required, and the proposal to continue 
 these facilities to encumbered owners in fee may be 
 very wise; but, still, the abolition of settlements maybe 
 an important step in the right direction. If there are 
 two hindrances to improvement, and you can only get 
 rid of one, it does not follow that you must retain both 
 just because you cannot get rid of both at a blow. It 
 would seem as if noble Lords who can propound such 
 an argument as is contained in this section of the 
 Report can have but very small respect for the intellect 
 of ordinary men. 
 
 Having in the way above mentioned disposed, to 
 their own satisfaction, at any rate, of the proposal to 
 abolish the system of settlement, the noble Lords 
 proceed to suggest their own remedies for the ad- 
 mitted defects of the present law. 
 
 The evidence taken by the Committee extends to 
 371 pages. All sorts of witnesses were examined by 
 their Lordships, and the utmost diligence displayed in 
 cross-examining and examining, so that everything 
 might be extracted from every witness. And what is 
 the result of all this commendable labour.^ I will 
 venture to say that a milder Report was never made 
 B
 
 1 8 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 by any Committee. It would seem as if limited 
 ownerships in land were a sacred ark, not to be touched 
 by any man. As one reads these recommendations, 
 one feels that the system cannot be mended ; it must 
 either continue very much as it is, or be swept away 
 altogether. To those who have been long contending 
 against this sort of ownership, it is a great satisfaction 
 that there has been so exhaustive an inquiry with so 
 slender a result. It has always been vaguely sug- 
 gested by onlookers that surely something might be 
 done to improve our present plans, without going so 
 far as to remove altogether so ancient and respectable 
 a system. But such a feeling cannot, I think, now pre- 
 vail. If such a Committee could suggest nothing 
 more than what is set forth in this Report, it is diffi- 
 cult to suppose that any other set of men would be 
 more successful. As one reads the questions and 
 answers, one perceives a leading thought in the minds 
 of all parties to the inquiry, viz., that, at all hazards, 
 the inheritance must be protected from the vagaries 
 and extravagance of the tenant for life ; and the exist- 
 ence of this thought in the minds of the majority of 
 the Committee fully accounts for the mildness of their 
 proposals. Granted that the tenant for life is not to 
 be trusted, and that the heir is especially to be con- 
 sidered in all your laws, it follows that any change 
 which would materially increase the powers of the 
 limited owner must be extremely dangerous to the 
 estate, and therefore injurious to the public interests. 
 As one reads question after question, in which this idea 
 is reiterated and put before witness after witness in 
 various forms, one cannot help asking how it is that the 
 Committee do not propose to take care of the sue-
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 1 9 
 
 cessors of owners in fee-simple. The heirs or devisees 
 of such owners are forced to take the land as left to 
 them, and subject to all the injury which the ex- 
 travagance or ignorance or neglect of the owner may 
 have inflicted on it. But no one proposes to care for 
 their interests, which are, so far as I can see, just as 
 sacred and important as the interests of the successors 
 of tenants for life. If the Committee be right, they 
 ought, as a matter of good sense and logic, to propose 
 to curtail the powers of owners in fee, so as to prevent 
 their borrowing too much for the purpose of making 
 wasteful improvements, and thus injuring alike the 
 heir and the public. 
 
 Of course, it may and will be said that, because it 
 is impossible to curtail the powers of owners in fee, 
 it does not thence follow that we should abolish 
 tenancies for life. But the answer is plain, that 
 one or the other system must be the better of the 
 two for the whole country ; and that it is the 
 business of Parliament to decide which is pre- 
 ferable, and to make that the general tenure of the 
 kingdom. 
 
 A very good illustration of the points at issue 
 will be found in the discussion as to planting timber. 
 The witnesses insist much on the great importance of 
 planting for profit as well as for shelter. Especially 
 do Mr. Caird and Mr. Ridley, two of the Enclosure 
 Commissioners, reiterate their strong feeling that 
 planting ought to be very profitable in many parts both 
 of England and Scotland. When the land is held in 
 fee there is no difficulty. The owner plants, and 
 fences, and thins, and borrows money to do it, if 
 compelled so to do, and there is nothing to hinder
 
 20 REMARKS OX REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 him, except the fact that the return may not come 
 in his own time. But where the owner is only 
 tenant for life, Mr. Ridley and Mr. Darby see 
 endless difficulties, and they cannot see their way 
 out of them. The tenant for life cannot be trusted 
 to fence and to thin properly, and then the price of 
 timber fluctuates very much, so that after all the heir 
 — the great object of anxiety — may get very little 
 good from a so-called improvement ; and so, unless 
 the tenant for life can find money of his own, the 
 Commissioners would not help him, however clear it 
 may be to every one that the property will yield a 
 good return if planted, and in no other way. 
 
 The difficulties of the worthy Commxissioner are 
 really quite amusing. It is Mr. Darby who speaks 
 (p. 53). "I think that where planting is for shelter, 
 " and really and truly it is profitable to the land and 
 '* to stock, which we know it is, there it is an agricul- 
 •' tural operation ; but if you mean by way of 
 " speculating in timber, I am most decidedly against 
 " it. I might take this opportunity of saying that I 
 " saw Mr. Ridley. He said he had been thinking it 
 " over ; and although he is a great man for planting, 
 " he said he would have the consents in writing before 
 " it was allowed to be done, instead of allowing it if 
 *' the specified dissents were not given. 
 
 " The Chairman : He did not say that yester- 
 " day. 
 
 " If he did not, he wished to say so. 
 
 " Did Mr. Ridley desire you to say that } 
 
 "Yes, he did. If you plant larch it does improve 
 " the ground, but some other trees, ash especially, 
 " seriously impoverish it. Then comes this question :
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 21 
 
 '* within my own life I have known oak timber wortli 
 '' £9 a load, and another period when you could not 
 " sell it at £^. The remainder-man may come into it 
 " with fluctuating value in timber. There is another 
 ** thing : supposing a man lives for a long time, there is 
 " nothing more difficult to manage than timber whilst 
 " growing ; there is nothing catches cold so easily as 
 " timber if you cut it improperly. On the other hand, 
 '' if you do not thin timber so that you do not allow 
 " the roots of the trees to be perfectly developed, you 
 " may have the timber, but it is good for nothing, and 
 " three years will do it. It is a very difficult question, 
 " that timber question." 
 
 No doubt it is difficult, and it will not be solved 
 by such timorous advisers as Mr. Darby, vainly 
 endeavouring to enable the tenant for life to improve 
 his land without the shadow of a risk to the re- 
 mainder - man. The difficulty is solved daily by 
 owners, who have run all the risks so pathetically 
 described by Mr. Darby, to the great profit of them- 
 selves or their successors. 
 
 What, then, are the changes recommended by 
 the Committee, after duly weighing all these con- 
 flicting considerations .'* 
 
 (i.) Limited owners, with the consent of trustees, 
 to be empowered to spend trust money on the 
 improvement of their estates on redeemable mort- 
 gage. 
 
 This is a way of getting the money required more 
 easily, and at a cheaper rate in certain exceptional 
 cases, for it only applies where the trustees have 
 money in hand. There is no proposal to enable 
 trustees to borrow money for the purpose of making
 
 22 REMARKS O.V REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 improvements, as proposed by Mr. A. White"^ (pp. 333. 
 334), so that tenant for life and trustees are to have 
 the same powers as owner in fee, only if there should 
 chance to be any trust money, and not further or 
 othenvise. The trustees stand in the place of the 
 Enclosure Commissioners, as guardians of the in- 
 heritance. There is nothing said about paying off 
 principal and interest in a short period. A little 
 more confidence in tenant for life, and he will blossom 
 into an owner in fee. By this proposal the great 
 properties would obtain another important advantage 
 over the small and poorer estates, which are less 
 likely to have a surplus of trust money, but which 
 especially need improvement. 
 
 (2.) Limited owners may charge their estates 
 
 * The following extracts from Mr. White's evidence may be 
 interesting : — 
 
 "4,023. The broad principle on which you go would be 
 '• that the trustees are to be looked upon as the guardians of 
 " the remainder-man, and that whatever they assented to, he 
 " was to be looked on as assenting to ? — Perfectly. 
 
 " 4,024. Would you not go a step further, and allow that to 
 "be appUed to borrowed money ? — Certainly, I do propose that. 
 " The power I am alluding to expressly authorises the trustees to 
 " borrow up to a certain amount for the purpose of improvement. 
 
 "4,025. And that, then, their approval shall bind the 
 "remainder-man? — Entirely. 
 
 ******* 
 
 "4,029. A limited OAMier under your proposition would be 
 " absolutely as free, supposing he obtained the assistance of his 
 " trustees, as an owner in fee would be to improve. — Quite so." 
 
 Compare Mr. Parkin (2,513). "I am a great advocate for 
 "giving limited owners ever>^ facility for the improvements of 
 *' estates, which they certainly have not at the present moment^ 
 •' under any existing Act."'
 
 REMARKS OX REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 23 
 
 with improvements ; the charge to be redeemable 
 within a period exceeding by ten years the owners' 
 expectation of Hfe, but the term not to be less than 
 twenty-five, nor more than forty years. 
 
 This is merely a change made to meet the different 
 ages of improvers, so that a young man may have a 
 long term and a lower interest ; and an old man can 
 only have a short term, and must, therefore, pay a 
 higher interest. This may be quite fair if the present 
 system is maintained, but such a change does not pro- 
 fess to meet the principal objections to that system. 
 
 (3.) An improvement to be charged as above with 
 consent of trustees, on certificate of a surveyor 
 appointed by the Enclosure Commissioners or the 
 Court of Chancery, that it is beneficial, and that the 
 works have been properly carried out. 
 
 This is purely a matter of machinery, and not in 
 any way of principle. It is intended merely to get 
 rid of the interference of the Land Companies, where 
 the improvements are passed as beneficial and 
 suitable by a competent surveyor. It is probably a 
 very good suggestion, but it in no way affects the 
 main argument as to the character and incidents of 
 life tenancies. 
 
 (4.) That even the certificate of the surveyor may 
 be dispensed with (unless refused by encumbrancers) 
 where the limited owner acts with the consent of 
 tenant in tail, being of full age ; and in this case the 
 repayment may be spread over forty years. 
 
 The same remark applies to this proposal. It is a 
 pure detail of machinery, assuming the system to be 
 unchanged, and it would not seem to be of very great 
 importance.
 
 24 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS, 
 
 (5.) Trustees to be at liberty, at the cost of the 
 estate, to defend the inheritance at law, or in Parlia- 
 ment, with leave of the Court of Chancery. 
 
 This seems to be a very fair proposal, and would 
 relieve a limited owner from a real hardship. But 
 he would have no such hardship were his term 
 enlarged to a tenancy in fee. When owners in fee 
 are attacked, they are supposed to be able to take 
 care of themselves, and are left to their own devices, 
 without assistance from any one. 
 
 I think the reader will now be disposed to agree 
 with the statement above made, that a milder result 
 was never obtained after so elaborate and careful 
 an inquiry ; and that the conclusion must be that 
 the system in question must either remain much as 
 it is, or be absolutely abolished. 
 
 It will be interesting, at this point, to make 
 some remarks on the character and the results 
 of the evidence printed in the Appendix to the 
 Report. 
 
 The witnesses are for the most part men interested 
 in the present system, and, therefore, their testimony, 
 so far as it favours important changes, is entitled to 
 peculiar weight. 
 
 As admitted in the Report, the problem before 
 us is not altogether an easy one. We want to 
 encourage improvements in agriculture, without which 
 a greatly increased return from the land is impossible ; 
 and yet, in very many cases, we must not, we are told, 
 look for a large and immediate return on the money 
 laid out in improvements."^ As a commercial specu- 
 
 * It is to be observed that the difficulty tends to increase, 
 because the best land is improved first, and the cost of improve-
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 25 
 
 lation, there are many investments which might seem 
 more tempting to men of capital, and yet, in a 
 national point of view, no investment can be half so 
 important. We import as much corn as^we grow, to 
 say nothing of great quantities of cattle, cheese, butter, 
 eggs, and other like products, the price of which has 
 largely increased, and still increases with an increasing 
 population ; and our only chance of keeping pace with 
 the demand for these productions is to be found in a 
 rapid improvement of our agriculture. The highest 
 authorities say that there is ample scope for this 
 improvement, and this Report is full of evidence which 
 confirms their statements."^ But yet some of the 
 most necessary improvements will only pay indirectly 
 
 ment increases. This point is well put by Mr. M'Lean, a 
 Scotch agent. 
 
 " 3,191. Lord Ettrick. — I understand you to say that the 
 *• expense of improvements has so considerably increased, that it 
 " is desirable to get the money on easier terms ; but is it not also 
 ** the case that the improvement had already been effected upon 
 " the best and most remunerative description of land, and that 
 "the land which is to be dealt with in the future will, for the 
 "most part, be of an inferior description,'' — No doubt the best 
 " has been taken up first. 
 
 " 3,193. At the present moment the problem is that money is 
 " dearer, and that the land to be improved is worse ? — Yes. 
 
 "3,194. Therefore, a fortiori^ it is desirable to get the money 
 " as cheaply as possible ? — Perfectly," 
 
 * Take the following from the Qua7-te7-ly Review, Januar}--, 
 1873, P« 160: — "Although, on favourable soil, farmed by men 
 " of capital, our system of stock farming has offered to the world 
 " an unparalleled example of industry in that department, 
 " productive farming of that description is as exceptional as it is 
 " conspicuous, and the average amount of agricultural capital, 
 " and the average yield of the land, are lamentably small. '^
 
 26 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 and with comparative slowness. For instance, the 
 witnesses all agree that cottages must be built at once 
 and in large numbers ; and yet that they cannot pay 
 directly, but only because, without them, the necessary 
 labour cannot be procured. Therefore the landowner 
 must waive an immediate return on the outlay, .in 
 order to maintain his existing return, or in the 
 expectation of getting higher rents and better tenants 
 in the course of time. Differing on other points, the 
 witnesses are all of one mind on this point. It is 
 beyond argument. The days of bad cottages are 
 past. The cottages must be such as to attract and 
 keep the labourers ; and they must be situated on the 
 farm, or very near it, so that the labour of the men 
 may not be wasted in long walks to and from their 
 work. It is not merely that there is a changed feeling 
 among the labourers about their dwellings, but good 
 farmers insist on having a good supply of labour close 
 at hand, and, as a necessary consequence, they demand 
 a sufficient supply of wholesome cottages suitable for a 
 good class of labourers. But the witnesses unite also 
 in the admission that cottages do not pay — that having 
 regard to the increased cost of building, labourers 
 cannot afford to pay anything but a most moderate 
 interest on the money expended. About 2 J percent, 
 is all that can be expected from new cottages, and 
 from cottages pulled down and rebuilt the return is 
 next to nothing. Mr. Randell mentions one case 
 where about £% a year were received on an outlay of 
 ^8,000. 
 
 But as cottages are necessary on moral as well as 
 material grounds, and yet they do not " pay," it would 
 seem to follow that the landlord should be enabled to
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 2 J 
 
 borrow money for the purpose of building them, at as 
 cheap a rate as possible. If not, it is manifest that 
 the discouragement to the owner of land must be most 
 serious. If he is to pay much, and receives little, he is 
 in the worst possible position. Now the evidence is 
 quite clear on this point. As mentioned before, the 
 tenant for life pays about 7 per cent, per annum for 
 all moneys laid out in cottages, whereas the tenant in 
 fee can borrow at 4 per cent. Spite of this hindrance, 
 much has been done by the tenants for life ; but who 
 can doubt that much more would be done were the 
 circumstances different, and were all owners able to 
 borrow on the best terms }* There are some tenants 
 
 * The following letter from Lord Portsmouth appeared in 
 TAe Times of Januarys 7th, 1 874. The days are past for loans by 
 Government to landlords, or any other class ; but the testimony 
 of such a man as to the present position and requirements of 
 his order is very important and interesting. 
 
 "LABOURERS' COTTAGES. 
 
 "TO THE EDITOR OF 'THE TIMES.' 
 
 "Sir, — I think Mr. Caird deserves the thanks of most of 
 " your readers for his very able letter on the present position of 
 " the agricultural labourer. There is no doubt that the farmers 
 " in the South and West of England now find a difficulty in 
 " getting a sufficient supply of labour to cultivate their farms, 
 "and are beginning to put pressure on their landlords to 
 " provide comfortable cottages and gardens, so as to attract 
 " labourers to their employment. 
 
 " To grapple with this sudden pressure, Government should, 
 "by loans to landlords, &c., at low interest (3!^ per cent., with 
 " sinking fund of i|-5 for thirty years), and by dispensing with the 
 " costly checks of the Enclosure Commissioners, encourage the 
 " building of decent dwellings for the working class. Why not 
 "advance ;^ioo for every dwelling containing a viiniimim 
 " amount of space, with four rooms, and complying with certain
 
 2S REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 for life so rich that the cost of borrowing money is 
 not material. There are others so self-denying, and so 
 sensible of their duty to the labourers, that they will 
 endure privation to themselves rather than delay this 
 improvement of their estates. But these men must 
 be exceptions ; and as to the mass of such owners, we 
 must expect them to act on the ordinary motives which 
 actuate ordinary men, and to refuse or to delay to 
 make such an outlay on such terms, however necessary 
 it may be for their own interests, and the good of 
 their successors.'' 
 
 " sanitary requirements, built substantially of brick, stone^ or 
 " concrete, to the satisfaction of the county surveyor, whose fee 
 " for inspection might be fixed by the magistrates at Quarter 
 " Sessions ? Let it be a first charge on property, like a drainage 
 *' loan, and the interest could be collected by the officers of 
 " Inland Revenue. Now, thanks to the costly requirements of 
 ^' the Enclosure Commissioners, and the costs of lawyers and 
 " surveyors, few landlords are tempted to encumber their estates 
 " for cottage building, except for their own employes. Therefore 
 " the difficulty is not met, while, from its great importance, it 
 "really deserves the careful consideration of the Legislature. 
 
 '• This question affects not only the large landowner, but 
 •' more particularly the small landholder, who has to meet this 
 *' pressure with less resources. 
 
 " I remain, Sir, yours, faithfully, 
 
 " PORTSMOUTH. 
 
 " Eggesford House, North Devon, Jan. 4." 
 
 * Mr. Caird (4,317 j referring to the condition of cottages in 
 England, and the extent to which they have been improved under 
 the Acts, says, " I do not think the Acts can have had much to 
 " do with it ;" and this he proves by the fact that only 2,500 cot- 
 tages have been built under the sanction of the Commissioners, 
 whereas there are 500,000 families in England and Scotland
 
 REMARKS Oy REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 29 
 
 It is very easy for people to say that this makes 
 no difference, that improvements go on in much the 
 same degree on estates held by one tenure as on es- 
 tates held on another, but no man of sense can 
 possibly believe any such statement."^ It may be 
 
 engaged in agriculture. So that, he concludes, " We have done 
 " very little in the way of building cottages for that population." 
 Compare Lord Portsmouth in T/ie Times of January 13th, 
 1874, where he says that all the applications for building in iZi^ 
 " are a drop in the ocean, and tend to prove that the system 
 '*' only induces lodges to be built for the coachman, gardener, 
 " and gamekeeper." 
 
 ■♦See Mr. Randell's evidence: — 
 
 " 1,276. You have stated that the tenant in very few cases, 
 " or in no cases within your experience, is inclined to pay the 
 " 7 per cent, to which the rent-charge commonly amounts ? — In 
 " no case. 
 
 " 1,277. Is there any great difficulty experienced in obtain- 
 " ing the 5 per cent. ? — No, not on drainage ; on buildings 
 " there is. 
 
 " 1,281. Do you think that the march of agricultural im- 
 " provement, as far as it is possible in your part of the country, 
 " would be accelerated if a limited proprietor could obtain money 
 " at 45 and 5 per cent, for these purposes, instead of having to pay 
 " practically 7 per cent. ? — I do, when those improvements are 
 " required, and the land is in the hands of limited owners. I do 
 " think, if any means could be devised by which the improvement 
 " could be carried out costing the landowners no more than 5 per 
 " cent., very little would be left undone." 
 
 Compare Mr. Burd : — 
 
 " 2,017. I have about 60,000 acres under my management. 
 " I have been laying out money in improvements on buildings and 
 '' drainage, for which I have been charging 6 per cent. 
 
 "2,018. To the tenant? — To the tenant. The tenants 
 " came to me in a body, and said, ' Now these improvements are 
 " ' a great advantage to us ; but we cannot pay 6 per cent., we can 
 " * only pay 5.' For some time I did not listen to that ; but I found
 
 30 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 honestly made, but it can only be a speculative opinion. 
 Many men do not want to believe it, but, to the im- 
 partial observer, the contrast is very marked in most 
 parts of England between the estate of the man who 
 can do as he will, and the estate of the man who is 
 protected from himself by the law of his family settle- 
 ment. Where do you see the nice cottages, the new 
 farm buildings, and the abundant produce ^ On the 
 estates of men like Lord Overstone, who have bought 
 their land themselves, and can sell or borrow on the 
 best terms, instead of being driven to pay off principal 
 and interest together, lest the next generation should 
 suffer from the extravagance or want of discretion of 
 the present.^ It is said, and truly, that cottages will 
 
 *• I had no applications for improvement at the 6 per cent., and I 
 '' consented to reduce it to 5 per cent. I have now great calls for 
 '■ improvements, and great opportunities of affording them. 
 '' Therefore, I think that 5 per cent, is really the limit that a 
 " landowner can afford to pay, and his tenant can afford to pay." 
 
 Compare the same witness (2,187), when he asserts it as a fact 
 that hmited owners do not use the Acts — (i), on account of the 
 charges ; (2), on account of the forms required to be complied 
 with. And he recommends a charge of 5 per cent., including the 
 sinking fund, and that the money should be advanced on the 
 certificate of the agents of the tenant for life. 
 
 Compare further Mr. M'Lean (3,062). " Do you think that 
 '• if money could be freely obtained by the proprietors of 
 ^•entailed estates in your country at the market value for 
 " permanent improvements, that is to say, 4 per cent., it would 
 *' give a great impulse to agricultural improvement in its various 
 *' forms ? — I do not doubt it." 
 
 * Of course, I freely admit that there are many cases where 
 tenants for life have such vast property that their incomes en- 
 able them to improve their estates thoroughly, as well as to pro- 
 vide for younger children, and perform the other duties incident
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 3 1 
 
 not last for ever, and that a permanent charge may 
 be unfair to the next heir. But what shall be said as 
 to the effect of permanent neglect ? If the law is so 
 arranged that the tenant for life does nothing, as is 
 so often the case, almost as a matter of necessity, 
 is not the heir far more injured than he would be 
 by having to pay his share of an outlay, without 
 which a full return cannot be procured from the 
 land ? It is easy to speak of the hardship inflicted 
 on the next generation by the vagaries of the present ; 
 but it seems to me that far greater injury is really 
 done by those timid legislators; who may be com- 
 pared to a nurse, who, in her mistaken kindness, 
 deprives a child of the use of his limbs by refusing 
 to allow him to walk. 
 
 Mr. Caird lays down the general proposition that 
 each generation should pay as it goes, leaving the 
 estate '' free " for the completion of further improve- 
 ments by the next generation ; and that the creation 
 of a permanent mortgage, for the purpose of making 
 improvements, " would act as a very great drawback 
 ^' to future agricultural improvement." For my part, 
 I think the " drawback " to improvements arising 
 from the present law is far greater than that which 
 could result from the creation of a permanent charge. 
 The question really is, does the exercise of their powers 
 of charging by owners in fee so encumber the land that 
 such properties are in a worse state than estates 
 where the owners can only charge their life interest .•' 
 
 to their position. All that I say is, that these cases are 
 exceptional, if we take the country as a whole, and cannot be 
 depended on in argument .
 
 32 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 Is not the contrary the notorious fact ? This inquiry 
 has been made because of the need of improvements 
 on the estates of limited owners ; whereas, if Mr. 
 Caird's argument be correct, such estates ought to be 
 remarkable for their excellent condition, seeing that 
 for centuries each generation of owners has passed on 
 the land " free " to the next. ^ 
 
 Mr. Caird seems also to have forgotten the diffi- 
 culty which arises from the position of the younger 
 children of limited owners ; and this partial view of 
 the subject has led him, I venture to think, into a 
 very important error. 
 
 Much the same observations may be made as 
 to buildings. The evidence is somewhat various as 
 to the amount of increased rent which tenants will 
 pay for such improvements. In many cases the 
 existing rent cannot be maintained without the 
 erection of new buildings. The former generations 
 have done nothing, and thus the work of restoration 
 falls on the present generation. The farm must go 
 out of cultivation unless the buildings are put up, 
 and so there is a return for the money laid out ; but 
 there is no money return, in the shape of increased 
 rent. In such cases the discouragement of paying 
 the additional interest is felt by the limited owner 
 just as much in reference to buildings as in reference 
 to cottages, f In other cases, and those not a few, 
 
 * Contrast with Mr. Caird's view that of Mr. M'Lean, who 
 would enable owners of entailed estates to charge suitable 
 improvements permanently on the estate, so strongly does he 
 feel the danger of neglect (3,076, 3,077, 3,078). 
 
 t The following, from Mr. Darby's evidence (O. 471), is a 
 good illustration of this point : — He is asked whether the Com-
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 2)Z 
 
 the tenant is willing to pay 4 per cent, or 5 per 
 cent, on the money laid out in buildings as an 
 additional rent. It would seem that very rarely will 
 he pay more than 5 per cent. The loss, therefore, to 
 
 missioners require the owner to lay out some money before 
 sanctioning the expenditure of borrowed moneys. He says, 
 " No, because that is just what we cannot do. You will find 
 " that a great many of these enormous charges arise from this : 
 " a man comes into a large estate, we have had many instances 
 " of it ; it is reported to us that perhaps the predecessor lived 
 " a very long time, and had done nothing on the estate, and the 
 " buildings are in ruins, and if they are not put up they cannot 
 " let the farms. There is case after case of that sort. It seems 
 " a very large expenditure, but they cannot let the estate until 
 " that is done." 
 
 Mr. Keary confirms the statement of Mr. Darby : — He says 
 (1,694), explaining that the owner cannot get back the whole 
 interest on the cost of buildings from the tenant : " The fact is, 
 " that the landowner has so neglected his property that the 
 " whole thing has become a wreck, and the tenant cannot be 
 " expected to pay 7 per cent, for restoring that which he could 
 " not do without. Unless that expense were incurred the rents 
 " could not be maintained at all." 
 
 Compare the evidence of Mr. H. Burd : — He is asked by the 
 Marquis of Bath (2,077) whether he would advise outlay in 
 draining, unless the improvement " was worth 7 per cent, of the 
 annuity," and he says, " I should recommend it ; but a tenant 
 " for life would not adopt it, because he would say, ' You take 
 " ' so much out of my income.' " And then (2,080) he goes on to 
 say, " The great point, I think, is this : here you have, I may 
 " say, 500, or 600, or 1,000 acres comparatively unproductive. 
 " An owner in fee-simple, who has means, is willing to lay 
 " out his money to increase that production, and looking to 
 " the future." 
 
 And, again (2,118), after stating that a great deal of land is 
 undrained which could be profitably drained, and that such 
 land is chiefly the land of " limited owners," he says, " The 
 " owner in fee certainly does more than the tenant for life." 
 C
 
 34 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 the limited owner in these cases is not more than 
 2 per cent, on the outlay. This may not seem very 
 serious ; but if the amount is large, and the family of 
 the limited owner is large and expensive, such a 
 burden is not without its influence. In very many 
 cases it is so much drawn from the portions of 
 younger children, and added to the already excessive 
 share of the eldest son in the family property ; so 
 that a man is discouraged from the outlay by feelings 
 of justice, as well as by the desire to limit expenses."^ 
 Agriculture is a business, and farm buildings are 
 essential to the conduct of that business. Their 
 erection should, therefore, be encouraged by the law 
 in every way, and not in any way hindered or 
 discouraged. The essence of success in business is 
 freedom in the man who conducts it — freedom to 
 apply his capital just as he pleases. He may some- 
 times fail, but he is far more likely to succeed if left 
 to himself, than if he is in any way directed by 
 the law what he shall or shall not do. But in the 
 case of agriculture, the possessor of land who is a 
 limited owner is ordered about by the Enclosure 
 
 * The following extract from the evidence of Mr. Barclay, 
 M.P., illustrates this point : — 
 
 " 3j95S. Do you consider there is not sufficient accommodation 
 " for the people in Aberdeenshire ? — Certainly there is not for 
 " the labouring population. 
 
 " 3j959- Do you attribute that to anything connected with 
 " the state of the law ? — I have gone to two entailed proprietors, 
 " asking them to lend me money to improve farms I happen to 
 " hold, and one of them said, ' I have not got the money ; I 
 " ' cannot lend ; I am just robbing my family for the benefit of 
 " ' my eldest son. I have not facilities for getting money to lay 
 *' ' out on the improvement of the estate.' "
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 35 
 
 Commissioners, and directed as to every detail of his 
 operations,"^ and finally compelled to pay an exorbitant 
 interest on the money laid out, in order to save the 
 next generation from paying any part of the outlay. 
 Buildings, like cottages, wear out, and therefore it is 
 argued that the expense of erecting them cannot 
 
 * Mr. Parkin, a solicitor, gives a curious illustration of the 
 difficulty of providing for all cases in an Act, and the in- 
 convenience which results from interference with owners in the 
 endeavour to protect them from themselves. 
 
 " 2,540. Reasonably or unreasonably, people do think that 
 "interference with a man when he is improving his own 
 " property is disagreeable and unnecessary ? — Yes." 
 
 ''2,543. Can you tell me at all in what class of improve- 
 "ments it is, in your experience, that the dislike of the existing 
 "system has shown itself.^ — I think in farm buildings principally. 
 " At present, the whole scope or object of the Acts tends only 
 " to agricultural improvements, and we have often found great 
 
 " difficulties arise Take the instance of mines in the 
 
 "Midland Counties. The gypsum works are becoming of very 
 " great importance. I think a limited owner ought to have the 
 "opportunity, under some public Act, of building cottages for 
 " miners and workers upon the mines. At present, a limited 
 " owner cannot raise money for that purpose, because the Acts 
 " simply say that the cottages must be built for agricultural 
 " pui-poses." 
 
 "Again (2,549). So I would extend it to roads and sewers, 
 " on estates where the existing powers do not give the limited 
 " owner the power. Railways now turn an agricultural estate 
 " into a town estate ; and it is veiy hard that the limited owner 
 "cannot raise the money upon that estate to construct the 
 "roads or to lay out sewers. He must put his hand into his 
 " own pocket, at his own risk, and, consequently, to the frequent 
 " detriment of his younger children, to lay out sewers ; or else 
 "some speculator comes in and takes a long lease of the land, 
 "and makes all the profit out of it which the limited owner 
 " ought to derive." Compare the remarks of Lords Huntly and 
 Portsmouth in the letters quoted above.
 
 36 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 fairly be imposed as a permanent charge on the 
 inheritance. But, as remarked above in reference to 
 cottages, far more harm is done to the inheritance by- 
 allowing existing buildings to decay, or not putting 
 up those which are required, than by expending 
 money even on erections which will not last for ever. 
 In the one case loss is immediate, and continuous, and 
 inevitable ; in the other it is contingent, and the gain is 
 certain. Of course, a man may neglect to keep up the 
 buildings when erected, and his successor must suffer 
 for his omission ; but we need not assume that he will 
 do so, and act as if he was certain to fail in the per- 
 formance of his duty. But this is what is done by 
 the present law ; principal and interest are charged on 
 the present owner, so that in twenty-five years nothing 
 may remain to be paid. As a matter of economy, 
 such an arrangement might be excellent, if it could 
 be shown that it would not discourage the making of 
 an essential outlay ; but if the argument on which the 
 law is based be correct, the same law ought certainly 
 to be extended to owners in fee, so that they, too, 
 may pay off charges with rapidity, and leave their 
 estates without encumbrance. That would be, I sup- 
 pose, an unpardonable interference with the rights 
 of property. But I fail to see why one owner of 
 land should be left free and another tied down by 
 a stringent law- 
 
 When we come to the question of drainage, the 
 facts are somewhat different. It appears that in 
 most cases the tenant is willing to add to his rent 
 the full amount of the annual charge paid by the 
 limited owner. At first sight, therefore, it might 
 seem as if the position of the limited owners would
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 37 
 
 not discourage the outlay of capital in draining. But 
 this is far from obvious ; because where the money is 
 borrowed by a limited owner the annual charge to 
 be paid by the tenant is £2 los. to ;^3 per cent, 
 on the outlay more than need be charged to him, 
 were the borrower an owner in fee. It seems 
 difficult to believe that such a difference will not 
 act as a discouragement in many cases to a class 
 so proverbially cautious as are tenant farmers. 
 Speaking generally, they are willing to run the risk 
 of paying the charge incident to works of drainage ; 
 but, of course, they would rather pay £^ los. than 
 £'/ per cent. ; and there must be many instances 
 where such a difference would turn the scale, and 
 hinder, if not prevent, a most useful and profitable 
 undertaking.^ It appears, moreover, from the evi- 
 dence of Mr. Keary, that there are large areas 
 where drainage has failed for want of a further outlay 
 of £/\. or ;^5 an acre in peculiar manures; and the 
 witnesses say it would be impossible to allow the 
 limited owner to borrow money for the purpose of 
 
 * See Mr. B. Denton's evidence. 
 
 "825. When proprietors invest money in the improvement 
 " of land, they generally look to the immediate repayment of 
 " the charge thereby incurred by the farmer in the form of an 
 " increased rent. Is not that so .'' — It is so. . 
 
 " 826. Is it indifferent, then, to the farmer whether he pays 
 " in the one case 4 per cent, or in the other case 6 per cent.,? — 
 " Certainly not ; he would rather pay 4 per cent, than 6 per 
 " cent. ; but the question is whether that would be right to 
 " charge estates in perpetuity." 
 
 The veiy same question arises as to estates held in fee, but 
 Mr. Denton does not appear to propose to take from owners 
 in fee the power to charge their lands in perpetuity.
 
 38 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 such an expenditure. This is a good illustration of 
 his difficulties. An owner in fee in such a case could 
 at once raise a further sum, and so relieve his tenant 
 and himself from a most embarrassing position ; but 
 the petted limited owner, unless he have independent 
 resources, must be content to witness the failure of 
 his schemes, and the probable ruin of his tenants. 
 
 Again, there are not a few cases where the tenant 
 only repays 5 per cent, out of the 7 per cent, paid by 
 the owner ; and of course in these cases, as stated in 
 the Report," the investment presents itself to him as 
 *' one involving loss to himself with a gain to his 
 *'heir contingent upon the success, proper execution, 
 " and subsequent maintenance of the improvement." 
 (Section 4.) In such cases it cannot be surprising if 
 the limited owner should shrink from making an 
 outlay which, were he owner in fee, he could make 
 without loss. 
 
 So far I have referred almost entirely to the 
 discouragement caused by the expense of making 
 improvements under the present system. But pace 
 Mr. Ryder, there is another head of discouragement. 
 Owners are discouraged from making improvements 
 by the necessity of obtaining the consent of the Com- 
 missioners, and of conforming to their rules. I need 
 not refer to the evidence in detail. The following 
 passage from the Report itself (Sections 10, 11) will 
 suffice: — "Control of any kind, however wise the 
 ''controlling power may be, especially if it comes 
 " from a public office, is distasteful to men in the 
 "management of private affairs; and when the 
 ** profit of an operation is small or problematical, 
 *' the necessity of submitting to such control may be
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 39 
 
 ' sufficient to deter men from undertaking it. The 
 'witnesses connected with the Companies or the 
 'Commission insisted strongly that the plans and 
 'specifications enforced by the inspectors were 
 ' better than those the landowners would have chosen 
 
 * themselves. But, reasonably or unreasonably, land- 
 ' owners will prefer their own. The same class of 
 ' feelings which leads men to give for their land far 
 ' more than its commercial value will induce them, if 
 
 * they are left free, to attempt improvements not 
 ' lucrative enough to tempt them if they are merely 
 'the instruments for carrying out the plans of 
 ' others. . . . It is an anomaly that private trans- 
 ' actions should be submitted to the control of a 
 ' Government officer, and it is difficult to see how 
 'this anomaly can be justified, except where it is 
 ' necessary to protect the interests of the remainder- 
 ' man and mortgagee." And, accordingly, the Com- 
 mittee proceed to recommend that a limited owner 
 need not in all cases get these consents before setting 
 to work, but may, with consent of his trustees, charge 
 the estate with work already done on getting a 
 certificate from a surveyor, approved by the Court of 
 Chancery or the Commissioners, that the improve- 
 ment is beneficial, and has been properly carried out. 
 
 The remedy proposed appears to me to be 
 wholly insufficient, but the admission on this high 
 authority of the defect of the present law is complete.* 
 
 * It is just worth while to refer to the evidence of Mr. 
 Ashdown, one of the agents of the Duke of Cleveland. He 
 says (3,339) that he thinks improvement is checked by the 
 Acts, and (3,352) that no considerable number of landlords have 
 used the means given by the Acts ; and when asked why, he goes
 
 40 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 I think it has been shown in the course of these 
 brief remarks — 
 
 (i.) That the evidence given to the Committee 
 strongly corroborates the assertion that our present 
 system of life tenures of land operates to the 
 discouragement of improvement. 
 
 (2.) That the remedies proposed by the Committee 
 are utterly insufficient and illusory, as not grappling 
 with the real cause of the mischief 
 
 (3.) That the objections made by the Committee 
 to the proposal for the abolition of settlements do not 
 show that this proposal would be insufficient as a 
 remedy for the evil complained of, nor that it would 
 create other inconveniences so important as to make 
 it dangerous to the well-being of the proprietors of land. 
 
 If this be so, the labours of the Committee must 
 be considered as strongly corroborative of the opinions 
 of those who propose a fundamental change in our land 
 laws, and are not content with mere palliatives. The 
 cause of the disease must be discovered, and that cause 
 must be removed. It will not suffice to remove some 
 of the symptoms in a few cases, leaving most of the 
 cases entirely untouched. Courage is needed to form 
 the character of a skilful healer, provided always 
 that courage do not degenerate through ignorance 
 into rashness. It is not as if I asked for the intro- 
 duction of some new principle into the law. I merely 
 ask to extend the operation of that maxim of the law 
 which professes a horror of perpetuities ; a maxim in 
 
 on to say (3,533), " I think it is the delay and expense .... 
 " I know gentlemen who have charges upon their estates now, 
 " who feel very much aggrieved at the manner in which the money 
 " was expended, where they have now to pay the rent charges." 
 
 I
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 4 1 
 
 the wisdom of which our law-makers have not yet 
 shown entire confidence. I ask for the minimum of 
 interference and the maximum of freedom in our laws 
 as to the tenure of land, just as in our laws as to 
 contracts between man and man ; and the Report of 
 this Committee makes me feel more sure than ever 
 that freedom will work wonders as great in the 
 world of agriculture as in the world of trade. We 
 need never fear the effects of laws which are sound in 
 principle. There are always found prophets of evil 
 whenever any change is proposed ; but these gloomy 
 predictions ought not to affect the minds of sensible 
 men, who know by experience that the good tree 
 never brings forth corrupt fruit, and that no laws have 
 been so useful as those which have removed from 
 the freedom of men's actions the shackles which were 
 forged in times of ignorance and prejudice. 
 
 But it is said in the Report (and the remark lies 
 at the root of very much that is said on this side of 
 the question) that any such change as the abolition 
 of settlements would be opposed to the '^ habits and 
 " feelings of the nation." It might be opposed to the 
 habits of a certain class, and to the feelings of some 
 parts of that class. But if habits are bad, and feelings 
 are erroneous and prejudiced, we cannot make too 
 much haste in getting rid of both. The habits may 
 be inveterate, and therefore only laws can deal with 
 them ; but this is not an argument against such laws, 
 but rather in their favour as being necessary. And if 
 the habits be eradicated, probably the feelings will 
 soon pass away with them. But it is a pure assump- 
 tion to say that the nation approves of these " habits." 
 True it is that rich men who buy land often follow
 
 42 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 the example of other rich men as to their mode of 
 disposing of lands they may buy, but this proves 
 nothing as to the *^ feeling " of the " nation." People 
 are accustomed to see a certain mode of succession to 
 land, and they may have got to regard it almost as a 
 law of Nature ; but it does not follow that they will 
 approve of this proceeding as invariably the best, 
 when once they understand the subject. '' The 
 *' nation" is probably very ignorant of the real bear- 
 ings of the question ; and the people at large are 
 assumed to approve of a law because they submit to 
 it, inasmuch as they do not see clearly how it affects 
 themselves. But let it be once seen that a bad system 
 of land law injures every inhabitant, although not 
 himself owning or likely to own an acre, and we may 
 find that very different " feelings " will prevail. If I 
 am right, we ought to have other habits and feelings ; 
 or, at any rate, if men are determined to give all their 
 lands to one child they should do it as a matter of 
 deliberate choice, and with all the responsibility 
 attaching to such choice, and they should not excuse 
 themselves as having no choice in the matter. When 
 their habits and feelings are appealed to, it is some- 
 times meant that men ''like" to keep their lands 
 as they received them, whole and undivided, and 
 that popular feeling confirms them herein. It may 
 be so in some cases. The change I propose would 
 not prevent this. It would merely make it incumbent 
 on each man fully to consider the position of his 
 family before taking this course ; and in many cases 
 he would not deliberately choose the eldest son as 
 the sole recipient of his lands, and the "feeling" of 
 his neighbours would confirm his judgment. These
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 43 
 
 vague words about habits and feelings are very mis- 
 leading. Let us not be frightened by them, but act 
 boldly, if once we are convinced that we have arrived 
 at a basis of sound principle ; being sure that habits 
 can never be injured nor right feelings outraged by 
 wise legislation. 
 
 In connection with these "habits and feelings," it 
 is sometimes argued that to take away the power 
 of settling land is really a diminution of the liberty 
 of the owners of land — an invasion of their "freedom." 
 This is true, if we assume that it is an inherent right 
 in the owner of the land to dictate as to its ownership 
 for many years after his death, but this is just the 
 question in dispute. Entire freedom during life, and 
 entire freedom to alienate by deed or will, seems 
 to be the utmost power that " freedom," in the strict 
 sense of the word, could demand. There may be 
 other reasons for giving a man further powers after 
 his death, and such powers our law has given him. 
 But surely it is an abuse of language to say that a man 
 is not '' free," merely because he is not able to take 
 away the freedom of those who come after him. The 
 change proposed would diminish his powers when 
 dead, but not his freedom of action while living. In 
 fact, there can be no doubt that, as regards owners as a 
 class, in fifty or perhaps thirty years they would be far 
 more "free" than they are now, because they would 
 be for the most part owners in fee, instead of being 
 merely owners for life. Therefore, those who favour 
 " freedom" ought to support this proposal, remember- 
 ing that the power of one generation to " settle" and 
 cripple the land means in the result that the next 
 generation are not " free " in any true sense of the
 
 44 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 
 
 word, but are at the mercy of instruments framed 
 long before their circumstances and requirements 
 could be known by any one. 
 
 There remains one point to be considered. It 
 may be asked, are there not some benefits resulting 
 from the system of life tenancies, apart from mere 
 "habits and feelings.''" One or two of the witnesses 
 have stated that there are such benefits, but their defi- 
 nition of them is very vague. They all resolve them- 
 selves into one point, viz., that it is well that the land 
 should remain in the hands of the old families who have 
 been accustomed to hold it, and should not be often 
 changing hands. No one wishes to compel any family 
 to part with an ancient inheritance ; but the question 
 is, whether either old families or the people at large 
 are benefited by a law which compels men to hold to 
 land as an investment long after it has ceased to be 
 suitable to their means and position. Even assuming 
 that families of position are in some cases preserved 
 from ruin by such a law, it may well be questioned 
 whether they are not just as often greatly injured by 
 so unnatural an arrangement. And as regards the 
 public, what is needed is, not that the land should be 
 held by any class or set, but that it should be held by 
 men who have, or can easily procure, the capital with- 
 out the use of which every one admits that land is a bad 
 investment, and cannot be improved into a good one. 
 It is not a question of large estates or small estates, 
 but of the means of the owners, whatever the size of 
 their holdings may be. To maintain an ancient family 
 may be good ; but it should not be maintained at the 
 expense of the community. Families, like individuals, 
 should feel that their position depends on themselves,^
 
 REMARKS ON REPORT OF HOUSE OF LORDS. 45 
 
 and that the law will not be twisted to protect them 
 from the natural consequences of their mistakes. 
 The more clearly this is understood the fewer will 
 those mistakes be ; and in this way a change of the 
 law may be probably of use even to the very class 
 which is supposed to be so much assisted by our 
 present system. 
 
 The more I have looked into it, the more difficult 
 I have found it to discover any benefit resulting to 
 any class from the law as it stands which can at all 
 compensate for the evils which flow from it to every 
 class. If the argument of this paper be sound, the 
 remedies proposed by the House of Lords are insuf- 
 ficient and illusory. They do not profess to attempt 
 much, and would probably effect far less than they 
 attempt ; and, therefore, I venture again to urge on 
 all classes of Englishmen that they should demand a 
 fundamental reform of our land laws, a reform which 
 would leave all natural forces to work out their proper 
 results with perfect freedom, so that our vast wealth as 
 a nation may be used in the development of our soil 
 unhindered by laws which are unworthy of a free and 
 intelligent people."^ 
 
 * In some interesting remarks by Mr. Fawcett, M.P., in the 
 Fortnightly Reviciu for January, 1874, 3-s to the amounts of 
 money lent by Englishmen to foreign governments, he considers 
 that wages have not risen in proportion to the increase of wealth, 
 and that one cause is the fact that so much of our accumulated 
 capital is not used at home. If the argument of this paper be 
 correct, one reason of the non-user of our money at home is the 
 state of our land laws ; and so those laws, as I have insisted on 
 former occasions, are very injurious to the poorest of our people, 
 by diminishing their wages, as well as by curtailing the produc- 
 tion of the soil, and so increasing the cost of food.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 REPORT BY THE SELECT COMMITTEE 
 
 ON 
 
 ' IMPROVEMENT OF LAND. 
 
 ORDERED TO REPORT, 
 
 I. That the Committee have met and have taken the 
 evidence of the Enclosure Commissioners, of officers con- 
 nected with Land Companies, and of various surv^eyors, 
 solicitors, land agents, and occupiers, who are familiar with 
 the operation of the Improvement Acts. The general result 
 of the evidence is to show that considerable use has been 
 made of the Acts, and extensive improvements have been 
 effected under them ; but that the progress has not been so 
 rapid as Avas desirable, and that what has been accom- 
 plished is only a small fraction of what still remains to be 
 done. Mr. Bailey Denton, who has given especial attention 
 to this subject, states, as the result of his calculations, that 
 out of 20,000,000 acres of land requiring drainage in Eng- 
 land and Wales, only 3,000,000 have as yet been drained. 
 Mr. Caird, the Enclosure Commissioner, speaking not only of 
 drainage, but of all kinds of improvement, estimates that we 
 have only accomplished one-fifth of what requires to be done. 
 It is, however, admitted that the difficulty of obtaining
 
 48 APPENDIX. 
 
 labour would, in many districts, impede a very rapid 
 extension of drainage ; and it is right to note that, in the 
 absence of specific information, these estimates are of a 
 speculative character. 
 
 2. The Committee have inquired at some length into the 
 profit which may be expected from the improvements to 
 which these Acts refer ; for the extent to which Parliament 
 may be willing to interfere in order to encourage them must 
 depend very much upon the extent and the certainty of the 
 gain that may be expected from them. If the profit which 
 they bring in is both considerable and secure, the further 
 attention of the Legislature is scarcely needed for them ; the 
 ordinary motives of self-interest may be trusted to bring 
 capital to a really lucrative investment. No Parliamentary 
 powers have been required to encourage the opening of 
 mines or the development of building land, beyond the mere 
 permission to grant leases. The case for Parliamentary con- 
 sideration lies in this : that the improvement of land, in its 
 effect upon the price of food and upon the dwellings of the 
 poor, is a matter of public interest ; but that as an invest- 
 ment it is not sufficiently lucrative to offer much attraction 
 to capital, and that, therefore, even slight difficulties have a 
 powerful influence in arresting it. 
 
 3. The commercial value of agricultural improvements, 
 under the conditions prescribed by the present Acts, is best 
 arrived at by comparing the terms on which the owner 
 borrows with the actual or prospective income which he de- 
 rives from them. The interest at which the Land Companies 
 lend is usually 4^ per cent. The sinking fund, calculated 
 to repay the loan in 25 years, together with the interest 
 and sinking fund on the preliminary expenses, bring up the 
 average payment upon the effective outlay to a little more 
 than 7 per cent. The charge to the landowner is of course 
 the same, whether the money has been laid out upon drain- 
 age or upon buildings ; but the return which it yields to him
 
 APPENDIX. 49 
 
 differs considerably in the two cases. In the case of drain- 
 age, it appears that sometimes, though not in all cases, 
 the tenants will pay back to the landowner in the form of 
 rent the full 7 per cent, which he pays to the Company. In 
 that case the landowner is, for 25 years, neither a gainer nor 
 a loser upon the transaction. At the end of that time, if the 
 drains are still effective, he gains the whole 7 per cent., but 
 this condition is by no means a certainty. In estimating 
 the profit which drainage ought to yield, it is necessary to 
 bear in mind that it is exposed to the risks of ordinary 
 industrial undertakings ; it must take its rank, not with the 
 investments that are absolutely secure, but with the invest- 
 ments that depend for their yield upon the attention, the 
 skill, and the good fortune of the investor. Drains which 
 were laid 30 years ago, by the inventor of the present system 
 of pipe drainage, are useless now, because the pipes were 
 only one inch in diameter. Drains which were laid 20 years 
 ago, under the superintendence of the engineer of one of the 
 Land Companies, have become worthless since, and have been 
 taken up and relaid. Over large breadths of pasture land 
 expensive drainage has been found to be useless, if not in- 
 jurious, apparently because it has not been followed by a 
 system of manuring which would cost from £^/\ to £,^ per 
 acre in addition. Drainage again has been found to fail, 
 where the tenant has neglected to aid it by subsoil plough- 
 ing ; where he has failed to watch the outfalls ; where the 
 soil is ferruginous ; where it is gravelly ; where it is sand}' ; 
 where it is so porous as to encourage the do\vnward growth 
 of the roots of trees ; and even where it is favourable to the 
 growth of particular kinds of weeds. The investment, there- 
 fore, has in it a speculative element, and is not one of abso- 
 lute security. Men will not be tempted to make it by the 
 rate of interest which would satisfy a mortgagee ; they must 
 receive interest enough to insure them against the occasional 
 risk of complete or partial failure. 
 D
 
 5© APPENDIX. 
 
 4. But this return, whatever hazards may attach to it, 
 appears, according to our evidence, to be more than the 
 landlord receives in a great number of cases. A frequent 
 arrangement is, that the landlord only receives from the 
 tenant 5 per cent, on the eftective outlay, to reimburse him 
 for the 7 per cent, which he pays for 25 years to the Com- 
 pany. Practically, therefore, the investment presents itself 
 to him as one involving loss to himself, with a gain to his heir 
 contingent upon the success, proper execution, and subse- 
 quent maintenance of the improvement. 
 
 5. The profit of farm buildings is less easily susceptible 
 of calculation, because the erection of them frequently repre- 
 sents rather the discharge of accumulated arrears of main- 
 tenance than an improvement properly so called. It is 
 difficult, therefore, to say how much additional value they give 
 to the rental, without knowing to what point the rental would 
 have fallen if they had not been supplied. But without such 
 a correction, they stand in a position less advantageous than 
 drainage. In many cases it appears that they do not add 
 even 5 per cent, to the rent of a farm. j\Ir. Sanderson puts 
 it at a rate little exceeding 3 per cent. Any deduction 
 from the rate of 5 per cent, would bring the transaction 
 hazardously near to the point at which it must involve a loss. 
 If for the sake of obtaining, even in perpetuity, without any 
 cost of maintenance, an addition to his rent of 4 per cent, on 
 the effective outlay, the lando\n"ier accepts a charge of 7 per 
 cent, he must inevitably be a loser. On a loan of ;^i,ooO} 
 he would for 25 years pay /^^"jo, and receive £^0; in other 
 words he would annually lose ^30. After the expiration of 
 the term of 25 years, he would annually gain £,^,o. But by 
 the 4 percent, tables, the value of an annuity of ^^30 for 25 
 years is jQ^d^^ which is the sum that he would lose. The 
 value of an annuity of ;£"4o, commencing 25 years hence, is 
 -3o375) which is the sum that he would gain. He must, there- 
 fore, in such a case be a loser of ;!f 93, even on the assumption
 
 APPENDIX. 51 
 
 that his fami buildings lasted without repair for ever. If the 
 most favourable case occurred, and the farmer gave him 5 
 per cent, instead of 4 per cent., he would on the ;£"i,ooo 
 loan be a gainer of a capital sum of ;£"i58 ; but the interest 
 of this sum would have to defray landlord's repairs for ever. 
 The margin of profit, therefore, even if everything succeeds, 
 is very small. 
 
 6. On the balance-sheet of cottage building it is unneces- 
 sary to dwell. All witnesses agree that, apart from any land 
 that may be attached to cottages, no pecuniary profit is to 
 be obtained from building them. A^^iatever return they 
 yield must be found in the more available laboura nd the 
 better class of labourers which good cottages will secure 
 The average rent which they will bear, after provision for 
 maintenance, appears not to exceed 2 J per cent, on the 
 cost of building them. The replacement of bad cottages 
 by good is an even less remunerative operation. Mr. 
 Randall mentions a case within his experience where 
 ^8,000 was spent on a single estate in the improvement 
 of cottages, and the consequent addition to the rental was 
 p^8 17s. The Committee are, however, so sensible of the 
 amount of improvement which still remains to be effected 
 under this head, of the increasing importance of good habi- 
 tations in fixing the residence and raising the character and 
 working power of the labourer, and of the indirect benefit 
 which may be thus imparted to landed property, that they 
 cannot recommend that the construction of cottages neces- 
 sary to the actual or improved cultivation of the estate 
 should be dealt with on any less liberal system than that 
 which applies to drainage and farm buildings. 
 
 7. It appears probable that this state of things will be 
 rather aggravated than improved by the present movement 
 in prices. Drainage which 30 years ago cost from ^4 to 
 ^5 an acre, now costs jQi in some parts of the country, 
 j[^\o in others. The cost of building has also risen
 
 52 APPENDIX. 
 
 very largely ; so that cottages which could fomierly have 
 been built for £,Z'^o the pair now cost from £2>^o to 
 ;£"4oo. The general price of agricultural produce has not 
 risen nearly in the same proportion. If, therefore, the 
 Legislature desires to quicken the advance of agricultural 
 improvement, it is important to examine whether any alter- 
 ation can, without injustice, lessen the difficulties to which 
 limited owners are subject who desire to make capital 
 expenditure upon their estates. In doing so, it may be 
 desirable first to remove a misaj^prehension which seems to 
 prevail in some quarters upon this subject. It is sometimes 
 said that all the difficulties of limited owners might be solved 
 by prohibiting settlement, and so removing the limitation 
 under which they lie. Even if this prohibition were com- 
 patible with the habits and feelings of the nation, it would, 
 for two reasons, fail to afford any effectual relief The 
 improvement of land, like property in land, would not possess 
 much attraction as a merely commercial investment. A 
 landowner is led to it more by solicitude for his descendants 
 than by hope of personal gain ; but the prohibition of settle- 
 ments would make this solicitude idle. It would, therefore, 
 remove one of the chief motives by which improvements of 
 land are now dictated. A second and more formidable 
 objection to this projDosed solution is to be found in the fact 
 that settlements are not the most serious limitation under 
 which the limited owner lies. Mortgages, of which it has 
 never been proposed to get rid, and which, in the absence 
 of settlements, would have a probable tendency to increase, 
 are a hindrance to charges on estates for capital expenditure 
 which cannot be sumiounted except by special legislation. 
 Many owners in fee take advantage of the powers given to the 
 Land Companies. Their object is to obtain for their improve- 
 ment charges priority over the mortgages on their estates. If 
 they cannot do so they cannot bon-ow on advantageous terms. 
 The inability to obtain priority will raise the interest of the
 
 APPENDIX. 53 
 
 money borrowed to 5 per cent. ; a rate which is sufficient in 
 many cases to swallow up the slender profit obtainable 
 from improvements. Legislative facilities for improve- 
 ment are therefore as much needed for owners who are 
 limited by mortgage as for owners who are limited by 
 settlement 
 
 8. The complaints which we have received do not call 
 in question either the ability or the zeal of the Com- 
 missioners, or of the other officers who have the supervision 
 of these improvement charges. The two chief objections 
 are that the terms on which the loans are offered are too 
 high, and that the control exercised by the Commissioners is 
 sometimes embarrassing ; and it is in these directions, if any, 
 that relief must be afforded. 
 
 9. The annual payments charged on lands in respect of 
 improvement loans consist of three elements. There is — 
 
 I St. Interest upon the outlay. 
 
 2nd. Instalments of sinking fund on the outlay. 
 
 3rd. Interest and sinking fund on a variety of prelimi- 
 nary charges made by the Companies and by the Commission, 
 which are added as capital to the main charge. 
 
 (i.) The interest upon the outlay must depend mainly 
 upon the state of the market, and cannot be materially 
 affected by legislation. Some relief might be afforded by 
 encouraging owners to lend their own money for this 
 purpose, by extending the operation of the Act of 1864. 
 Money cannot be obtained from the Companies habitually at 
 a lower rate than 4^- per cent. Owners might be willing to 
 mvest the money saved for younger children's fortunes at 4 
 per cent. 
 
 Two solicitors of eminence, Mr. Parkin and Mr. White, 
 recommend that trust money should be available for this 
 purpose. These funds are generally invested in securities 
 not having a higher rate of interest than 4 per cent. ; and 
 permission is usually given in settlements to employ them
 
 54 APPENDIX. 
 
 for paying off mortgages. To make them applicable to 
 improvement mortgages at a rate of 4 per cent, would^ 
 therefore, be a very slight enlargement of the existing 
 practice. 
 
 (2.) The annual burden of the sinking fund must depend 
 entirely on the length of time over which the repa}Tnent is 
 to be spread. The pa}'ment could be, of course, altogether 
 escajDed if the mortgages were made perpetual. This 
 proposal, however, is strongly deprecated by nearly all the 
 ^vitnessses. The West of England Drainage Company 
 obtained from Parliament the power to charge lands in 
 perpetuity with drainage loans advanced by them, in priority 
 of all other charges, and without any security whatever being 
 taken that the improvement should add to the value of the 
 land. It deserves the consideration of Parliament whether 
 such a power ought to be allowed to remain on the Statute 
 Book. The Committee certainly cannot recommend that the 
 power of making a perpetual charge for improvements shall 
 be granted to any one else. The General Land Drainage 
 Company has power to charge for a period not exceeding 50 
 years. The private landowner, under the Act of 1864, can 
 only charge for 25 years. The Committee see no sufficient 
 reason for maintaining this distinction to its full extent ; and 
 they would be disposed to confine the shorter term to those 
 cases where the remainder-man is largely interested. The 
 existing law recognises no difference between the cases 
 of borrowers at difterent periods of life. The interests of 
 the remainder-man are far more deeply involved by a charge 
 made when the limited owner is old, and his expectation of 
 life is short, than by a charge made under opposite 
 conditions. It would be just to recognise this distinction. 
 So long as an owner was involving no more, or little more, 
 than the period during which under ordinary circumstances 
 he was likely to continue in possession, it would be un- 
 necessary to limit the term of repayment he chose to fix..
 
 APPENDIX. 55 
 
 The Committee would recommend that all owners should be 
 enabled to spread the repajment of the charge over a period 
 equal to lo years more than their o\m expectation of life, 
 according to tables to be selected ; the period being in no 
 case greater than 40 years, nor less than 25 years. The 
 effect of this provision would be to give an extension of 
 time, increasing with their youth, to all persons under the 
 age of 58. In the case of persons of the age of 36 
 and under borrowing at 4 per cent, the annual pa}Tnent, 
 including the sinking fund, would not exceed altogether 
 ;^5 IS. per cent. This very closely approximates to the 
 rate which, according to our evidence, tenants are willing to 
 pay for improvement; and the improvement would, con- 
 sequently, be effected in these cases without loss of income 
 to the landowner. The number of persons succeeding to 
 entailed estates at an age not exceeding 36 is probably not 
 inconsiderable. 
 
 (3.) The preliminary charges necessarily vary in their 
 severity, according to the amount of the sum borrowed. 
 There is no ground for believing that any undue exaction is 
 made either by the Enclosure Commission or by the Land 
 Companies. It is inevitable that small borrowers, whose 
 loans involve as much trouble and expense as large bor- 
 rowers, should have to pay a much heavier proportion on 
 the amount of their loan. But, nevertheless, the burden is 
 severely felt. While the average cost is 7 per cent, upon 
 the loan, and in the case of some very large borrowers the 
 work has been done at 4f per cent., in the case of small 
 borrowers it has reached the amount of more than 15 per 
 cent. This latter charge amounts to an addition of full 
 I per cent, to the yearly payment. With the present 
 machinery this cost is hardly to be avoided. It can only 
 be escaped by small borrowers in those cases where it is 
 possible to dispense with the Land Companies and the Com- 
 mission. But no great zeal for improvement can be looked
 
 56 APPENDIX. 
 
 for in them, if, in addition to paying 7 per cent, annually 
 for effective outlay, they have to pay i per cent, more 
 annually for financial machinery. 
 
 10. The other complaint against the existing system 
 is directed to the functions of the Commissioners. That 
 they have performed their duties both with ability and with 
 courtesy is disputed by no one ; but, nevertheless, objection 
 has been taken by many witnesses, in some cases very 
 earnestly, to the kind of control which they exercise. A 
 needless minuteness, and a rigour which refuses to bend to 
 local requirements, are imputed to it. It is manifest, indeed, 
 from the evidence of the Commissioners and their inspectors, 
 that the latter claim a control so complete over the exe- 
 cution of works as to leave little discretion to the land- 
 owner or his agent. In the selection of sites, in the 
 arrangement of plans, in the choice of material, in the 
 drawing up of specifications, it is no unusual thing for 
 the inspector to take a view opposed to that of the land- 
 owner and his agent ; and whenever that contingency 
 arises the landowner must give way. Mr. Parkin and Mr. 
 Freshfield, both solicitors in large practice, give evidence 
 of the discontent with which this control is endured. It is 
 not necessary to suppose that the inspectors are generally 
 unreasonable^ in order to account for this discontent. Mr. 
 Parkin puts the objection simply : "I find from my 
 '' experience that landowners do not like the interference ol 
 " surveyors and inspectors sent from public bodies." Control 
 of any kind, however wise the controlling power may be, 
 especially if it comes from a public oftice, is distasteful to 
 men in the management of private affairs ; and where the 
 profit of an operation is small or problematical, the 
 necessity of submitting to such control may be sufficient to 
 deter men from undertaking it. The witnesses connected 
 with the Companies or the Commission insisted strongly 
 that the plans and specifications enforced by the inspectors
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 57 
 
 were better than those the landowners would have chosen 
 themselves. But reasonably or unreasonably, landowners 
 will prefer their own. The same class of feelings which 
 leads men to give for their land far more than its com- 
 mercial value, will induce them, if they are left free, to 
 attempt improvements not lucrative enough to tempt them 
 if they are merely the instnmients for carrying out the 
 plans of others. The problem is how to reconcile their 
 freedom with the interests of the remainder-man and the 
 mortgagee. 
 
 II. It is an anomaly that private transactions should be 
 submitted to the control of a Government officer ; and it is 
 difficult to see how this anomaly can be justified, except 
 where it is necessary to protect the interests of the remainder- 
 man and mortgagee. The Committee recommend that 
 a limited owner, with the consent of his trustees, should be 
 permitted to charge upon his estate, with a term of repay- 
 ment fixed as above mentioned, any improvement as defined 
 by the Act of 1864, being only required to endorse the 
 charge with a certificate from a surveyor approved by the 
 Court of Chancery or the Enclosure Commissioners, that 
 the improvement is beneficial to the estate, and that it has 
 been properly carried out. The Committee desire to draw 
 attention to the evidence of Mr. Bailey Denton and Mr. 
 Caird, as to the expediency of extending the powers ot 
 charge to the storage and conveyance of water for 
 agricultural and sanitary purposes. 
 
 12. One other extension of the power of charging 
 requires to be noticed. It has been stated to us that 
 limited owners, especially those who have property in the 
 neighbourhood of towns, are subjected to very severe 
 hardships from the aggressions of wealthy corporate bodies 
 prosecuting plans of pubHc improvement. They have to 
 defend at a ruinous cost their properties from being 
 swallowed up by waterworks, or railways, or sewage
 
 38 APPENDIX. 
 
 schemes. Under the present law, we are informed, the 
 cost falls wholly upon the tenant for life. It appears to the 
 Committee to be unjust that the tenant for life should be 
 mulcted in order to defend the interests of the inheritance ; 
 and the system is inexpedient, because the result must be 
 that, with the prospect of an expenditure of ^2,000 or 
 ;^3,ooo, the tenant for life will often leave the inheritance to 
 take care of itself. Some protection, however, would be 
 required against the extravagance of litigious trustees ; the 
 Committee would, therefore, recommend that trustees 
 should be empowered to defend the inheritance, either 
 in Parliament or at law, after having obtained the con- 
 sent of the Court of Chancery by summary process, and to 
 charge the costs, under the control of that Court, upon the 
 estate. 
 
 13. It will be convenient to sum up the recommenda- 
 tions that have been made. 
 
 (i.) Limited owners, with the consent of trustees, shall 
 be empowered to spend trust money upon the improvement 
 of their estates, on redeemable mortgage. 
 
 (2.) Limited owners may charge their estates with im- 
 provements ; the charge to be redeemable within a period 
 exceeding by 10 years the owner's expectation of life; so 
 that no such term may in any case be less than 25 years, 
 or more than 40. 
 
 (3.) An improvement to be charged as above, with con- 
 -sent of trustees, on certificate from a surveyor approved by 
 the Enclosure Commissioners or the Court of Chancery that 
 it is beneficial to the estate, and that the works have been 
 properly carried out. 
 
 (4.) That where the limited owner acts with the consent 
 of the tenant-in-tail, being of full age, the certificate of a 
 surveyor may be dispensed with, unless refused by encum- 
 brancers after notice given ; and the repajTnent of charge 
 may be spread over a period of 40 years.
 
 APPEXDIX. 59 
 
 (5.) Trustees to have liberty to defend the inheritance 
 either at law or in Parliament, with leave of the Court of 
 Chancery first obtained, and to be allowed to charge on the 
 estate costs approved by the Court. 
 
 14. And the Committee have directed the Minutes of 
 Evidence taken before them, together with an Appendix, to 
 be laid before your Lordships. 
 
 m July, 1873. 
 
 The following Peers formed the Committee. 
 
 Duke of Richmond. 
 
 Duke of Bedford. 
 
 Duke of Cleveland. 
 
 Marquis of Salisbury. 
 
 Marquis of Bath. 
 
 Earl of Derby. 
 
 Earl of Airlie. 
 
 Earl Grey. 
 
 Earl of Kimberley. 
 
 Lord Dinevor. 
 
 Lord A^ernon. 
 
 Lord jMeldrum. 
 
 Lord Colchester. 
 
 Lord Stanley of Alderley. 
 
 Lord Egerton. 
 
 Lord Houghton. 
 
 Lord Kestevkn. 
 
 Lord Ettrick. 
 
 Lord Hanmer. 
 
 CaSSELL, Petter & Galpin, Belle Sauvage Works, London, E.C.
 
 
 
 
 
 »,i.'-y. 
 
 •. •%. 
 
 
 .#*» 
 
 ^ 
 
 f V 
 
 ^.wV»>^^vV.