prising-continue to purchase estates. And if it is admitted that all deserve well of their country who conscientiously continue to carry out obligations which must otherwise be assumed by the State, it is worth considering how they can best play their part in the changed circumstances resulting from the war. For though it is generally conceded that the agricultural landlords have done creditably in the past, there is no reason why they should not do even better in the present critical period.

Hitherto the expression 'a good landlord' has too frequently suggested a noble extravagance-it conveys a picture of good farm buildings, low rents, and generous allowances; expensive improvements on the estate, a model home farm, liberal subscriptions for all purposes, good port for the neighbours, and good beer for every one. In a few favoured cases the type may still survive, and has been picturesquely if inaccurately described as the last ditch of the feudal system. This is magnificent, but not estate management. To-day it is a very doubtful benefit to the countryside, for it sets an uneconomic and impossible standard. If the ownership of land can only be carried on upon these lines, the days of the private landowner are indeed numbered.

The pinch of circumstances has impelled the vast majority of landowners to depart from this generous though mistaken tradition; and they may find consolation in reflecting that agriculture probably gains more from business methods applied to estate management than from an indiscriminate liberality. It is a constant reproach against the farmer that he is too conservative in his methods, and for his landlord, too, the time may well have come to recast some of his ideas on estate management. Already experience has shown that surprising financial results may be achieved by estate management on economic lines.

Clearly the first necessity for the reforming landlord is that the agency should be good-if the staff work is bad the whole plan of campaign is frustrated. Under normal conditions the estate office, whatever form it may take, must be the directing power for economies, improvements, and judicious administration: this applies whether the landowner is his own estate office, or

delegates the whole or part of his authority. Land agency, formerly regarded as the happy hunting ground of the amateur, is now a serious profession. Both the Surveyors' Institute and the Land Agents' Society have established qualifying examinations, so that the landowner can be satisfied that any agent who holds these qualifications has at least mastered the technicalities of a profession which requires technical knowledge. This is an undoubted advance on the old idea that the landowner should be represented by a good fellow or a good sportsman, without technical qualifications, who should presumably accumulate his experience at the expense of the estate. At present there is no lack of competent and qualified land agents. It is, however, sometimes difficult for the owner of a small estate to decide on the system of administration to be adopted. A first-class estate agent commands-or should command—a first-class salary, which will make the overhead charges for the ordinary 3000-acre property too high; nor will the duties entailed by such an estate keep a first-class man fully employed. Various alternatives may be adopted in such a case, according to the circumstances or inclinations of the particular owner. He may have sufficient knowledge himself to depend on a young agent, with the necessary technical knowledge, but without experience; he may combine with a neighbouring landowner to employ a first-class agent, or he may entrust the management to a good firm of agents, which is able to employ suitable experts in every branch owing to the extent of their business. The whole problem has been immensely simplified by the advent of the motor-car and the motor-bicycle. It is believed that the Country Gentlemen's Association, as well as several well-known firms of land agents, is prepared to undertake the management of estates in any part of the country at a fixed percentage on the rental. This provides every landowner with a means of ascertaining whether his present system is economical or the reverse. If the cost of management exceeds 5 per cent. of the gross rental, there is at least a case for inquiry.

Needless to state there is no form of economy more false than cheap incompetence in the estate office. Many owners must have discovered that a competent

and

and

the

A

and

Lese

te

ge

the

T

agent can always save far more for his employer than the amount of his additional salary. The mass of legislative enactments affecting land has made it essential that the agent should have a technical knowledge of rating, taxation, tithe, insurance, and the various measures affecting the relations of landlord and tenant. Under any of these headings there may be a direct gain or loss in hard cash. Even more considerable are the indirect gains or losses from good administration. It may also be noted that the business of ho estate management has now been so developed, and admits of such flexibility, that the owner can do as off much or as little as he likes himself, without being stigmatised as an idle landlord, and without detriment to the estate, provided that he adapts his system to his particular case. If other duties prevent him from devoting his personal attention to it, he may nevertheless ensure that the management is just as effective as if he were resident on the estate.

વધુ

er,

10

ed

A pre-war estimate of the normal expenditure on repairs, insurance, and management on an agricultural estate is in the region of 35 per cent. of the rental, the greater part of which is of course absorbed under the heading of maintenance and repairs. Since the war the average proportion of the rental expended on maintenance must be higher, in view of the abnormal increase in cost of practically all building materials, the rise in wages, and the reduction of working hours. Here again, as in the case of agency, there is no absolutely best system for the landowner to adopt. He can choose between various alternatives, according to his inclinations or local circumstances. On a good-sized estate, lying in a ring fence, a small permanent staff can be satisfactorily employed under a clerk of works or working foreman. In other cases it may be preferable to employ local builders, who appreciate the fact that so long as their work is well done at a reasonable price the estate will provide them with a certain annual revenue and cash payments. One landowner may prefer to charge high rents, on the understanding that all repairs are carried out for his tenants, and that they are involved in no expense whatever on this account Another may believe that his tenants will take a more

personal interest in the welfare of their buildings, if they are supplied with material and made responsible for the execution of all ordinary repairs. Haulage of material is not a heavy burden for a farmer, and there are many minor repairs which can be carried out with less expense by his own men than by the so-called 'tradesmen.' The essential point is that all minor defects should be promptly dealt with as they arise, before they develop into something more serious.

The possibilities of reform in the system of insurance to be adopted may also be explored. It is manifestly impossible for every landowner to form his own insurance fund, but much can be done by combination. This can best be realised by considering the proportion of the gross fire insurance premiums paid to an insurance company, which is repaid to the estate over a term of years in the form of compensation for fire-and the proportion of the company's gross receipts which is paid out in the form of dividends and commission.

No branch of estate management has suffered more from the impoverishment of the landowners than the matter of Estate Improvements. The national importance of the improvements made by past generations of landowners has sometimes received scant recognition. The present generation may well hesitate to sink more capital in their estates, with the primary object of increasing the productivity of the land, when it is becoming clear that the immediate remedy generally adopted to meet the present conditions is not high farming but a type of farming which employs less labour and produces less from the land. There is a further consideration. Few sights are more dispiriting to the improving landlord than substantial farm buildings no longer required for the purpose for which they were originally erected, and in consequence wholly or partially abandoned. Yet this is a common experience, and perhaps inevitable, on account of the changing conditions of agriculture. The spacious barns and other equipment for the big arable farm of fifty years ago are not needed when much of the land has been laid down to grass. Some of the stabling has become superfluous: more still may become superfluous if tractor cultivation develops. To take a rather different example-the

the

N

こび

er

ey internal arrangement of a cowhouse which was thought correct twenty-five years ago would not satisfy modern requirements, and must be remodelled. The conventional pigstye-the low brick or stone building and small yard, so constructed that no pig can keep either dry or warm in winter-is useless for any other purpose during the constantly recurring periods when pigs are unremunerative. The lesson from all those monuments of the improving landlords of the past is the same. If capital is to be usefully invested in agriculture it must be continuously utilised and not immobilised. To ensure this less importance must be attached to the stability, and more to the adaptability, of the farm buildings. Good open sheds can easily be adapted for any type of farming: good boxes can be utilised at will for cattle, calves, or pigs. In almost every country in Europe, farm buildings may be seen of which the initial cost must have been far less than that of the ordinary English farm building, but which answer the purpose equally well, and are more easily adapted to meet changing conditions.

T

ce

of

A further point about estate management, which bears directly and indirectly upon its economic aspect is what may be called the personal factor-the landlord's relation with his tenants. Here again a departure may be traced from the tradition of low rents and generous allowances. It is now recognised that low rents frequently produce bad farming-they make it possible for a tenant to exist without much exertion-and it is certainly true that the best farming is often to be found in parts of the country where rents are relatively high. Small-holders generally produce more per acre, and pay more, than the tenants of the larger farms, and this is no doubt because they work longer hours than the agricultural labourer. But overrenting must be an even more serious mistake than underrenting. And under modern conditions it is not easy for landlord or agent to ascertain what is a fair rent, or to arrive at a true understanding of the difficulties of the agricultural tenants, without the first-hand knowledge provided by farming himself.

This brings us to what has so often proved a terrible drain on the revenues of the estate-the home farm in