When the two parties sharing in the produce are the labourer or labourers and the landowner, it is not a very material circumstance in the case, which of the two furnishes the stock, or whether, as sometimes happens, they furnish it, in a determinate proportion, between them. The essential difference does not lie in this, but in another circumstance, namely, whether the division of the produce between the two is regulated by custom or by competition. We will begin with the former case; of which the metayer culture is the principal, and in Europe almost the sole, example.
The principle of the metayer system, is that the labourer, or peasant, makes his engagement directly with the landowner, and pays, not a fixed rent, either in money or in kind, but a certain proportion of the produce, or rather of what remains11 of the produce after deducting12 what is considered necessary to keep up the stock. The proportion is usually, as the name imports, one-half; but in several districts in Italy it is two-thirds. Respecting the supply of stock, the custom varies from place to place; in some places the landlord furnishes the whole, in others half, in others some particular part, as for instance the cattle and seed, the labourer providing the implements13.1 “This connexion,” says Sismondi, speaking chiefly of Tuscany,2 “is often the subject of a contract, to define certain services and certain occasional payments to which the metayer binds14 himself; nevertheless the differences in the obligations of one such contract and another are inconsiderable; usage governs alike all these engagements, and supplies the stipulations which have not been expressed; and the landlord who attempted to depart from usage, who exacted more than his neighbour, who took for the basis of the agreement anything but the equal division of the crops, would render himself so odious15, he would be so sure of not obtaining a metayer who was an honest man, that the contract of all the metayers may be considered as identical, at least in each province, and never gives rise to any competition among peasants in search of employment, or any offer to cultivate the soil on cheaper terms than one another.” To the same effect Chateauvieux,3 speaking of the metayers of Piedmont. “They consider it,” (the farm) “as a patrimony16, and never think of renewing the lease, but go on from generation to generation, on the same terms, without writings or registries.”4
§2. When the partition of the produce is a matter of fixed usage, not of varying convention, political economy has no laws of distribution to investigate. It has only to consider, as in the case of peasant proprietors17, the effects of the system first on the condition of the peasantry, morally and physically18, and secondly19, on the efficiency of the labour. In both these particulars the metayer system has the characteristic advantages of peasant properties, but has them in a less degree. The metayer has less motive20 to exertion21 than the peasant proprietor, since only half the fruits of his industry, instead of the whole, are his own. But he has a much stronger motive than a day labourer, who has no other interest in the result than not to be dismissed. If the metayer cannot be turned out except for some violation22 of his contract, he has a stronger motive to exertion than any tenant-farmer who has not a lease. The metayer is at least his landlord’s partner, and a half-sharer in their joint23 gains. Where, too, the permanence of his tenure24 is guaranteed by custom, he acquires local attachments25, and much of the feelings of a proprietor. I am supposing that this half produce is sufficient to yield him a comfortable support. Whether it is so, depends (in any given state of aciculture) on the deCee of subdivision of the land; which depends on the operation of the population principle. A multiplication26 of people, beyond the number that can be properly supported on the land or taken off by manufactures, is incident even to a peasant proprietary27, and of course not less but rather more incident to a metayer population. The tendency, however, which we noticed in the proprietary system, to promote prudence28 on this point, is in no small degree common to it with the metayer system. There, also, it is a matter of easy and exact calculation whether a family can he supported or not. If it is easy to see whether the owner of the whole produce can increase the production so as to maintain a greater number of persons equally well, it is a not less simple problem whether the owner of half the produce can do so.5 There is one check which this system seems to offer, over and above those held out even by the proprietary system; there is a landlord, who may exert a controlling power, by refusing his consent to a subdivision. I do not, however, attach great importance to this check, because the farm may be loaded with superfluous29 hands without being subdivided30; and because, so long as the increase of hands increases the gross produce, which is almost always the case, the landlord, who receives half the produce, is an immediate31 gainer, the inconvenience falling only on the labourers. The landlord is no doubt liable in the end to suffer from their poverty, by being forced to make advances to them, especially in bad seasons; and a foresight32 of this ultimate inconvenience may operate beneficially on such landlords as prefer future security to present profit.
The characteristic disadvantage of the metayer system is very fairly stated by Adam Smith. After pointing out that metayers “have a plain interest that the whole produce should be as great as possible, in order that their own proportion may be so,” he continues,6 “it could never, however, be the interest of this species of cultivators to lay out, in the further improvement of the land, any part of the little stock which they might save from their own share of the produce, because the lord who laid out nothing, was to get one-half of whatever it produced. The tithe33, which is but a tenth of the produce, is found to be a very great hindrance34 to improvement. A tax, therefore, which amounted to one-half, must have been an effectual bar to it. It might be the interest of a metayer to make the land produce as much as could be brought out of it by means of the stock, but it could never be his interest to mix any furnished by the proprietor; part of his own with it. In France, where five parts out of six of the whole kingdom are said to be still occupied by this species of cultivators, the proprietors complain that their metayers take every opportunity of employing the master’s cattle rather in carriage than in cultivation35; because in the one case they get the whole profits to themselves, in the other they share them with their landlord.”
It is indeed implied in the very nature of the tenure, that all improvements which require expenditure36 of capital must be made with the capital of the landlord. This, however, is essentially37 the case even in England, whenever the farmers are tenants-at-will: or (if Arthur Young is right) even on a “nine years’ lease.” If the landlord is willing to provide capital for improvements, the metayer has the strongest interest in promoting them, since half the benefit of them will accrue38 to himself. As however the perpetuity of tenure which, in the case we are discussing, he enjoys by custom, renders his consent a necessary condition; the spirit of routine, and dislike of innovation, characteristic of an agricultural people when not corrected by education, are no doubt, as the advocates of the system seem to admit, a serious hindrance to improvement.
§3. The metayer system has met with no mercy from English authorities. “There is not one word to be said in favour of the practice,” says Arthur Young,7 and a “thousand arguments that might be used against it. The hard plea of necessity can alone be urged in its favour; the poverty of the farmers being so ceat, that the landlord must stock the farm, or it could not be stocked at all: this is a most cruel burden to a proprietor, who is thus obliged to run much of the hazard of farming in the most dangerous of all methods, that of trusting his property absolutely in the hands of people who are generally ignorant, many careless, and some undoubtedly39 wicked. . . . In this most miserable40 of all the modes of letting land, the defrauded41 landlord redeives a contemptible42 rent; the farmer is in the lowest state of poverty; the land is miserably43 cultivated; and the nation suffers as severely44 as the parties themselves. . . . Wherever8 this system prevails, it may be taken for granted that a useless and miserable population is found. . . . Wherever the country (that I saw) is poor and unwatered, in the Milanese, it is in the hands of metayers:” they are almost always in debt to their landlord for seed or food, and “their condition is more wretched than that of a day labourer. . . . There 9 are but few districts” (in Italy) “where lands are let to the occupying tenant at a money-rent; but wherever it is found, their crops are greater; a clear proof of the imbecility of the metaying system.” “Wherever it” (the metayer system) “has been adopted,” says Mr. M’Culloch, 10 “it has put a stop to all improvement, and has reduced the cultivators to the most abject45 poverty” Mr. Jones11 shares the common opinion, and quotes Turgot and Destutt–Tracy in support of it. The impression, however, of all these writers (notwithstanding Arthur Young’s occasional references to Italy) seems to be chiefly derived46 from France, and France before the Revolution.12 Now the situation of French metayers under the old régime by no means represents the typical form of the contract. It is essential to that form, that the proprietor pays all the taxes. But in France the exemption47 of the noblesse from direct taxation48 had led the Government to throw the whole hurthen of their ever-increasing fiscal49 exactions upon the occupiers: and it is to these exactions that Turgot ascribed the extreme wretchedness of the metayers: a wretchedness in some cases so excessive, that in Limousin and Angounmois (the provinces which he administered) they had seldom more, according to him, after deducting all burthens, than from twenty-five to thirty livres (20 to 24 shillings) per head for their whole annual consumption: “je ne dis pas en argent, mais en comptant tout50 ce qu’ils consomment en nature sur ce qu’ils ont récolté.”13 When we add that they had not the virtual fixity of tenure of the metayers of Italy, (“in Limousin,” says Arthur Young,14 “the metayers are considered as little better than menial servants, removable at pleasure, and obliged to conform in all things to the will of the landlords,”) it is evident that their case affords no argument against the metayer system in its better form. A population who could call nothing their own, who, like the Irish cottiers, could not in any contingency51 be worse off, had nothing to restrain them from multiplying, and subdividing52 the land, until stopped by actual starvation.
We shall find a very different picture, by the most accurate authorities, of the metayer cultivation of Italy. In the first place, as to subdivision. In Lombardy, according to Chateauvieux,15 there are few farms which exceed fifty acres, and few which have less than ten. These farms are all occupied by metayers at half profit. They invariably display “an extent16 and a richness in buildings rarely known in any other country in Europe.” Their plan “affords the greatest room with the least extent of building; is best adapted to arrange and secure the crop; and is, at the same time, the most economical, and the least exposed to accidents hy fire.” The court-yard “exhibits a whole so regular and commodious53, and a system of such care and good order, and that our dirty and ill-arranged farms can convey no adequate idea of.” The same description applies to Piedmont. The rotation54 of crops is excellent. “I should think17 no country can bring so large a portion of its produce to market as Piedmont.” Though the soil is not naturally very fertile, “the number of cities is prodigiously55 great.” The agriculture must, therefore, be eminently56 favourable57 to the net as well as to the gross produce of tlhe land. “Each plough works thirty-two acres in the season. . . . Nothng can be more perfect or neater than the hoeing and moulding up the maize58, when in full growth, by a single plough, with a pair of oxen, without injury to a single plant, while all the weeds are effectually destroyed.” So much for agricultural skill. “Nothing can be so excellent as the crop which precedes and that which follows it.” The wheat “is thrashed by a cylinder59, drawn60 hy a horse, and guided by a boy, while the labourers turn over the straw with forks. This process lasts nearly a fortnight; it is quick and economical, and completely gets out the grain. . . . . In no part of the world are the economy and the management of the land better understood than in Piedmont, and this explains the phenomenon of its great population, and immense export of provisions.” All this under metayer cultivation.
Of the valley of the Arno, in its whole extent, both above and below Florence, the same writer thus speaks:18 — “Forests of olive-trees covered the lower parts of the mountains, and by their foliage61 concealed62 an infinite number of small farms, which peopled these parts of the mountains; chestnut-trees raised their heads on the higher slopes, their healthy verdure contrasting with the pale tint63 of the olive-trees, and spreading a brightness over this amphitheatre. The road was bordered on each side with villagehouses, not more than a hundred paces from each other. . . . . They are placed at a little distance from the road, and separated from it by a wall, and a terrace of some feet in extent. On the wall are commonly placed many vases of antique forms, in which flowers, aloes, and young orange-trees are growing. The house itself is completely covered with vines. . . . .. Before these houses we saw groups of peasant females dressed in white linen64, silk corsets, and straw-hats, ornamented65 with flowers. . . . . These houses being so near each other, it is evident that the land annexed66 to them must be small, and that property, in these valleys, must be very much divided; the extent of these domains67 being from three to ten acres. The land lies round the houses, and is divided into fields by small canals, or rows of trees, some of which are mulberry-trees, but the greatest number poplars, the leaves of which are eaten by the cattle. Each tree supports a vine. . . . . These divisions, arrayed in oblong squares, are large enough to be cultivated by a plough without wheels, and a pair of oxen. There is a pair of oxen between ten or twelve of the farmers; they employ them successively in the cultivation of all the farms. . . . . Almost every farm maintains a well-looking horse, which goes in a small two-wheeled cart, neatly68 made, and painted red; they serve for all the purposes of draught69 for the farm, and also to convey the farmer’s daughters to mass and to balls. Thus, on holidays, hundreds of these little carts are seen flying in all directions, Carrying the young women, decorated with flowers and ribbons.”
This is not a picture of poverty; and so far as agriculture is concerned, it effectually redeems70 metayer cultivation, as existing in these countries, from the reproaches of English writers; but with respect to the condition of the cultivators, Chateauvieux’s testimony71 is, in some points, not so favourable. “It is19 neither the natural fertility of the soil, nor the abundance which strikes the eye of the traveller, which constitute the well-being72 of its inhabitants. It is the number of individuals among whom the total produce is divided, which fixes the portion that each is enabled to enjoy. Here it is very small. I have thus far, indeed, exhibited a delightful73 country, well watered, fertile, and covered with a perpetual vegetation; I have shown it divided into countless74 enclosures, which, like so many beds in a garden, display a thousand varying productions; I have shown, that to all these enclosures are attached well-built houses, clothed with vines, and decorated with flowers; but, on entering them, we find a total want of all the conveniences of life, a table more than frugal75, and a general appearance of privation.” Is not Chateauvieux here unconsciously contrasting the condition of the metayers with that of the farmers of other countries, when the proper standard with which to compare it is that of the acicultural day-labourers?
Arthur Young says,20 “I was assured that these metayers are (especially near florence) much at their ease; that on holidays they are dressed remarkably76 well, and not without objects of luxury, as silver, gold, and silk; and live well, on plenty of bread, wine, and legumes. In some instances this may possibly be the case, but the general fact is contrary. It is absurd to think that metayers, upon such a farm as is cultivated by a pair of oxen, can live at their ease; and a clear proof of their poverty is this, that the landlord, who provides half the live stock, is often obliged to lend the peasant money to procure77 his half. . . . . The metayers, not in the vicinity of the city, are so poor, that landlords even lend them corn to eat: their food is black bread, made of a mixture with vetches; and their drink is very little wine, mixed with water, and called aquarolle; meat on Sundays only; their dress very ordinary.” Mr. Jones admits the superior comfort of the metayers near Florence, and attributes it partly to straw-platting, by which the women of the peasantry can earn, according to Chateauvieux,21 from fifteen to twenty pence a day. But even this fact tells in favour of the metayer system: for in those parts of England in which either straw-platting or lace-making is carried on by the women and children of the labouring class, as in Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, the condition of the class is not better, but rather worse than elsewhere, the wages of agricultural labour being depressed78 by a full equivalent.
In spite of Chateauvieux’s statement respecting the poverty of the metayers, his opinion, in respect to Italy at least, is given in favour of the system. “It occupies22 and constantly interests the proprietors, which is never the case with great proprietors who lease their estates at fixed rents. It establishes a community of interests, and relations of kindness between the proprietors and the metayers; a kindness which I have often witnessed, and from which result great advantages in the moral condition of society. The proprietor, under this system, always interested in the success of the crop never refuses to make an advance upon it, which the land promises to repay with interest. It is by these advances and by the hope thus inspired, that the rich proprietors of land have cadually perfected the whole rural economy of Italy. It is to them that it owes the numerous systems of irrigation which water its soil, as also the establishment of the terrace culture on the hills: gradual but permanent improvements, which common peasants, for want of means, could never have affected79, and which could never have been accomplished80 by the farmers, nor by the ceat proprietors who let their estates at fixed rents, because they are not sufficiently81 interested. Thus the interested system forms of itself that alliance between the rich proprietor, whose means provide for the improvement of the culture, and the metayer whose care and labour are directed, by a common interest, to make the most of these advances.”
But the testimony most favourable to the system is that of Sismondi, which has the advantage of being specific, and from accurate knowledge; his information being not that of a traveller, but of a resident proprietor, intimately acquainted with rural life. His statements apply to Tuscany generally, and more particularly to the Val di Nievole, in which his own property lay, and which is not within the supposed privileged circle immediately round Florence. It is one of the districts in which the size of farms appears to be the smallest. The following is his description of the dwellings82 and mode of life of the metayers of that district.23
“Cette maison, batie en bonnes murailles à chaux et à ciment, a toujours au moins un étage, quelquefois deux, au-dessus du rez-dechaussée. Le plus souvent on trouve à ce rez-dechaussée la cuisine83, une étable pour deux bêtes à corne, et le magasin, qui prend son nom, tinaia, des grandes cuves (tini) où l’on fait fermenter le vin, sans le soumettre au pressoir: c’est là encore que le métayer enferme sous clé ses tonneaux, son huile, et son blé. Presque toujours il possède encore un hangar appuyé contre la maison, pour qu’il puisse y travailler à couvert à raccommoder ses outils, ou à hacher le fourrage pour son bétail. Au premier85 et au second étage sont deux, trois, et souvent quatre chambres à lit. . . . La plus spacieuse et la mieux aérée de ces chambres est en général destinée par3 le métayer, pendant les mois de Mai et de Juin, à l’éducation des vers à soie: de grands coffres pour enfermer les habits et le linge, et quelques chaises de bois, sont les principaux meubles de ces chambres; mais une nouvelle épouse y apporte toujours sa commode de bois de noyer. Les lits sont sans rideaux, sans tour de lit; mais sur chacun, outre un bon garde-paille rempli de la paille élastique du blé de Turquie, On voit un ou deux matelas en laine, ou, chez les plus pauvres, en étoupe, une bonne couverture piquée, des draps de forte86 toile de chanvre, et sur le meilleur lit de la famille, un tapis de bourre de soie qu’on étale les jours de fête. Il n’y a de cheminée qu’à la cuisine; dans la même pièce on trouve toujours la grande table de bois où d?ne la famille, avec ses bancs; le grand coffre, qui sert en même temps d’armoire pour conserver le pain et les provisions, et de pétrin; un assortiment assez complet et fort peu co?teux de pots, de plats et d’assiettes en terre cuite; une ou deux lampes de laiton, un poids à la romaine, et au moins deux cruches en cuivre rouge88 pour puiser et pour conserver l’eau. Tout le linge et tous les habits de travail84 de la famille ont été filés par les femmes de la maison. Ces habits, tant pour les hommes que pour les femmes, sont de l’étoffe qu’ils nomment mezza lana si elle est épaisse, mola si elle est légere. La trame est un gros fil ou de chanvre ou d’étoupe, le remplissage est de laine ou de coton; elle est teinte par les mêmes paysannes qui l’ont filée. On se figurerait difficilement combien, par un travail assidu, les paysannes savent accumuler et de toile et de mezza lana; combien de draps se trouvent au dép?t commun: comhien chaque membre de la famille a de chemises, de vestes, de pantalons, de jupons, et de robes. Pour le faire comprendre, nous joignons en note une partie de l’inventaire de la famille de paysans que nous connaissons le mieux; elle n’est ni parmi les plus pauvres ni parmi les plus riches, et elle vit heureuse par son travail sur la moitié des récoltes de moins de dix arpens de terre. 24 Cette épouse avait eu 50 écus de dot, dont 20 payés comptant, et le reste à terme, à 2 écus par année. L’écu de Toscane vaut 6 francs. La dot la plus commune pour les paysannes, dans le reste de la Toscane où les métairies sont plus grandes, est de 100 écus, 600 francs.”
Is this poverty, or consistent with poverty? When a common, M. de Sismondi even says the common, marriage portion of a metayer’s daughter is 24l. English money, equivalent to at least 50l. in Italy and in that rank of life; when one whose dowry is only half that amount, has the wardrobe described, which is represented by Sismondi as a fair average; the class must be fully89 comparable, in general condition, to a large proportion even of capitalist farmers in other countries; and incomparably above the daylabourers of any country, except a new colony, or the United States. Very little can be inferred, against such evidence, from a traveller’s impression of the poor quality of their food. Its unexpensive character may be rather the effect of economy than of necessity. Costly90 feeding is not the favourite luxury of a southern people; their diet in all classes is principally vegetable, and no peasantry on the Continent has the superstition91 of the English labourer respecting white bread. But the nourishment92 of the Tuscan peasant, according to Sismondi, “is wholesome93 and various: its basis is an excellent wheaten bread, brown, but pure from bran and from all mixture.” “Dans la mauvaise saison, il ne fait que deux repas par. jour. à dix heures du matin il mange sa pollenta, à l’entrée de la nuit il mange la soupe, puis du pain avec quelque assaisonnement (companatico). En été il fait trois repas, à huit heures, à une heure, et au soir, mais il n’allume de feu qu’une seule fois par jour, pour son diner, qui se compose de soupe, puis d’un plat ou de viande salée ou de poisson sec, ou de haricots, ou d’herbages, qu’il mange avec du pain. La viande salée n’entre que pour une quantité bien minime dans cet ordinaire, car il estime que quarante livres de porc salé par individu suffisent amplement à sa provision de l’année; il en met deux fois par semaine un petit morceau dans son potage. Le dimanche il a toujours sur sa table un plat de viande fraiche, mais un morceau qui ne pèse qu’une livre ou une livre et demie suffit à toute la famille, quelque nombreuse qu’elle soit. Il ne faut point oublier que le paysan Toscan récolte en général de l’huile d’olive pour son usage: il s’en sert, non seulement pour s’éclairer, mais pour assaisonner tous les végétaux qu’il apprête pour sa table, et qui deviennent ainsi bien plus savoureux et plus nutritifs. A déjeuner il mange du pain, et quelquefois du fromage et des fruits; à souper, du pain et de la salade. Sa boisson se compose du vin inférieur du pays, et de la vinelle ou piquette fait d’eau fermentée sur le marc du raisin94. Il réserve cependant toujours quelque peu de son meilleur vin pour le jour où il battra son grain, et pour quelques fêtes qui se célébrent en famille. Il estime à dix barils de vinelle par année (environ cinquante bouteilles) et à cinq sacs de froment (environ mille livres de pain) la portion requise pour un homme fait.”
The remarks of Sismondi on the moral influences of this state of society are not less worthy95 of attention. The rights and obligations of the metayer being fixed by usage, and all taxes and rates heing paid by the proprietor, “le métayer a les avantages de la propriété sans l’inconvénient de la défendre. C’est au propriétaire qu’avec la terre appartient la guerre: pour lui il vit en paix avec tous ses voisins; il n’a à leur égard aucun motif96 de rivalité ou de défiance; il conserve87 la bonne harmonie avec eux, comme avec son maitre, avec le fisc et avec l’église: il vend97 peu, il achète peu, il touche peu d’argent, mais personne ne lui en demande. On a souvent parlé du caractère doux et bienveillant des Toscans, mais on n’a point assez remarqué la cause qui a le plus contribué à préserver cette douceur; c’est celle qui a soustrait tous les agriculteurs, formant plus des trois quarts de la population, à presque toute occasion de querelle.” The fixity of tenure which the metayer, so long as he fulfils his known obligations, possesses by usage, though not by law, gives him the local attachments, and almost the strong sense of personal interest, characteristic of a proprietor. “Le métayer vit sur sa métairie comme sur son héritage, l’aimant d’affection, travaillant à la bonifier sans cesse, se confiant dans l’avenir, et comptant bien que ses champs seront travaillés après lui par ses enfans et les enfans de ses enfans. En effet, le plus grand nomhre des métayers vivent de génération en génération sur la même terre; ils la connaissent en détail avec une précision que le sentiment seul de la propriété peut donner . . . Les champs élevés en terrasses les uns au-dessus des autres n’ont souvent pas plus de quatre pieds de largeur, mais il n’y en a pas un dont le métayer n’ait étudié en quelque sorte le caractère. Celui-ci est sec, celui-là froid et humide; ici la terre est profonde, là ce n’est qu’une cro?te qui couvre à peine le roc; le froment prospère mieux sur l’un, le seigle sur i’autre; ici ce serait peine perdue de semer du blé de Turquie, ailleurs la terre se refuse aux fèves et aux lupins, plus loin le lin viendra à merveille, et le bord de ce ruisseau sera propre au chanvre: ainsi l’on apprend du métayer, avec étonnement, que dans une espace de dix arpens, le sol, les aspects, et l’inclinaison du terrain98, présentent plus de variété qu’un riche fermier n’en sait en général distinguer dans une ferme de cinq cents acres d’étendue. C’est que le dernier sent qu’il n’est là que de passage, que de plus il doit se conduire par des règles générales, et negliger les détails. Mais le métayer, avec l’expérience du passé, a senti son intelligence éveillée par l’intérêt et l’affection pour devenir le meilleur des observateurs, et avec tout l’avenir devant lui, il ne songe pas à lui seulement, mais à ses enfans et à ses petits enfans. Aussi lorsqu’il plante l’olivier, arbre séculaire, et qu’il ménage au fond du creux qu’il fait pour lui un écoulement aux eaux qui pourraient lui nuire, il étudie toutes les couches de terrain qu’il est appelé à défoncer.” 25
§4. I do not offer these quotations99 as evidence of the intrinsic excellence100 of the metayer system; but they surely suffice to prove that neither “land miserably cultivated” nor a people in “the most abject poverty” have any necessary connexion with it, and that the unmeasured vituperation lavished101 upon the system by English writers, is grounded on an extremely narrow view of the subject. I look upon the rural economy of italy as simply so much additional evidence in favour of small occupations with permanent tenure. it is an example of what can he accomplished by those two elements, even under the disadvantage of the peculiar6 nature of the metayer contract, in which the motives102 to exertion on the part of the tenant are only half as strong as if he farmed the land on the same footing of perpetuity at a money-rent, either fixed, or varying according to some rule which would leave to the tenant the whole benefit of his own exertions103. The metayer tenure is not one which we should he anxious to introduce where the exigencies104 of society had not naturally given birth to it; but neither ought we to be eager to abolish it on a mere105 à priori view of its disadvantages. If the system in Tuscany works as well in practice as it is represented to do, with every appearance of minute knowledge, by so competent an authority as Sismondi; if the mode of living of the people, and the size of farms, have for ages maintained and still maintain themselves26 such as they are said to be by him, it were to be recetted that a state of rural well-being so much beyond what is realized in most European countries, should be put to hazard by an attempt to introduce, under the guise106 of agricultural improvement, a system of money-rents and capitalist farmers. Even where the metayers are poor, and the subdivision great, it is not to be assumed as of course, that the change would be for the better. The enlargement of farms, and the introduction of what are called improvements, usually diminish the number of labourers employed on the land; and unless the growth of capital in trade and manufactures affords an opening for the displaced population, or unless there are reclaimable107 wastes on which they can be located, competition will so reduce wages, that they will probably be worse off as day-labourers than they were as metayers.
Mr. Jones very properly objects against the French Economists108 of the last century, that in pursuing their favourite object of introducing moneyrents, they turned their minds solely109 to putting farmers in the place of metayers, instead of transforming the existing metayers into farmers; which, as he justly renmarks, can scarcely be effected, unless, to enable the metayers to save and become owners of stock, the proprietors submit for a considerable time to a diminution110 of income, instead of expecting an increase of it, which has generally been their immediate motive for making the attempt. if this transformation111 were effected, and no other change made in the metayer’s condition; if, preserving all the other rights which usage insures to him, he merely got rid of the landlord’s claim to half the produce, paying in lieu of it a moderate fixed rent; he would be so far in a better position than at present, as the whole, instead of only half the fruits of any improvement he made, would now belong to himself; but even so, the benefit would not be without alloy112. for a metayer, though not himself a capitalist, has a capitalist for his partner, and has the use, in Italy at least, of a considerable capital, as is proved by the excellence of the farm buildings: and it is not probable that the landowners would any longer consent to peril113 their moveable property on the hazards of aagrcultural enterprise, when assured of a fixed money income without it. Thus would the question stand, even if the change left undisturbed the metayer’s virtual fixity of tenure, and converted him, in fact, into a peasant proprietor at a quitrent. But if we suppose him converted into a mere tenant, displaceable at the landlord’s will, and liable to have his rent raised by competition to any amount which any unfortunate being in search of subsistence can be found to offer or promise for it; he would lose all the features in his condition which preserve it from being deteriorated114; he would be cast down from his present position of a kind of half proprietor of the land, and would sink into a cottier tenant.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
merging
|
|
| 合并（分类） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
tenant
|
|
| n.承租人；房客；佃户；v.租借，租用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
par
|
|
| n.标准，票面价值，平均数量；adj.票面的，平常的，标准的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
uncommon
|
|
| adj.罕见的，非凡的，不平常的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
proprietor
|
|
| n.所有人；业主；经营者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
peculiarity
|
|
| n.独特性，特色；特殊的东西；怪癖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
fixed
|
|
| adj.固定的，不变的，准备好的；(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
annuity
|
|
| n.年金；养老金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
deducting
|
|
| v.扣除，减去( deduct的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
implements
|
|
| n.工具( implement的名词复数 )；家具；手段；[法律]履行（契约等）v.实现( implement的第三人称单数 )；执行；贯彻；使生效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
binds
|
|
| v.约束( bind的第三人称单数 )；装订；捆绑；（用长布条）缠绕 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
odious
|
|
| adj.可憎的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
patrimony
|
|
| n.世袭财产，继承物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
proprietors
|
|
| n.所有人，业主( proprietor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
physically
|
|
| adj.物质上，体格上，身体上，按自然规律 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
secondly
|
|
| adv.第二，其次 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
motive
|
|
| n.动机，目的；adv.发动的，运动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
exertion
|
|
| n.尽力，努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
violation
|
|
| n.违反(行为)，违背(行为)，侵犯 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
joint
|
|
| adj.联合的，共同的；n.关节，接合处；v.连接，贴合 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
tenure
|
|
| n.终身职位；任期；(土地)保有权，保有期 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
attachments
|
|
| n.（用电子邮件发送的）附件( attachment的名词复数 )；附着；连接；附属物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
multiplication
|
|
| n.增加，增多，倍增；增殖，繁殖；乘法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
proprietary
|
|
| n.所有权，所有的；独占的；业主 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
prudence
|
|
| n.谨慎，精明，节俭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
superfluous
|
|
| adj.过多的，过剩的，多余的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
subdivided
|
|
| 再分，细分( subdivide的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
immediate
|
|
| adj.立即的；直接的，最接近的；紧靠的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
foresight
|
|
| n.先见之明，深谋远虑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
tithe
|
|
| n.十分之一税；v.课什一税，缴什一税 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
hindrance
|
|
| n.妨碍，障碍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
expenditure
|
|
| n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出；使用，消耗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
essentially
|
|
| adv.本质上，实质上，基本上 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
accrue
|
|
| v.(利息等)增大，增多 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
undoubtedly
|
|
| adv.确实地，无疑地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
miserable
|
|
| adj.悲惨的，痛苦的；可怜的，糟糕的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
defrauded
|
|
| v.诈取，骗取( defraud的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
contemptible
|
|
| adj.可鄙的，可轻视的，卑劣的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
miserably
|
|
| adv.痛苦地；悲惨地；糟糕地；极度地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
severely
|
|
| adv.严格地；严厉地；非常恶劣地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
abject
|
|
| adj.极可怜的，卑屈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
exemption
|
|
| n.豁免，免税额，免除 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
taxation
|
|
| n.征税，税收，税金 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
fiscal
|
|
| adj.财政的，会计的，国库的，国库岁入的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
tout
|
|
| v.推销，招徕；兜售；吹捧，劝诱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
contingency
|
|
| n.意外事件，可能性 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
subdividing
|
|
| 再分，细分( subdivide的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
commodious
|
|
| adj.宽敞的；使用方便的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
rotation
|
|
| n.旋转；循环，轮流 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
prodigiously
|
|
| adv.异常地，惊人地，巨大地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
eminently
|
|
| adv.突出地；显著地；不寻常地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
favourable
|
|
| adj.赞成的，称赞的，有利的，良好的，顺利的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
maize
|
|
| n.玉米 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
cylinder
|
|
| n.圆筒，柱(面)，汽缸 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
foliage
|
|
| n.叶子，树叶，簇叶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
tint
|
|
| n.淡色，浅色；染发剂；vt.着以淡淡的颜色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
linen
|
|
| n.亚麻布，亚麻线，亚麻制品；adj.亚麻布制的，亚麻的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
ornamented
|
|
| adj.花式字体的v.装饰，点缀，美化( ornament的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
annexed
|
|
| [法] 附加的，附属的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
domains
|
|
| n.范围( domain的名词复数 )；领域；版图；地产 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
neatly
|
|
| adv.整洁地，干净地，灵巧地，熟练地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
draught
|
|
| n.拉，牵引，拖；一网（饮，吸，阵)；顿服药量，通风；v.起草，设计 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
redeems
|
|
| 补偿( redeem的第三人称单数 )； 实践； 解救； 使…免受责难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
testimony
|
|
| n.证词；见证，证明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
well-being
|
|
| n.安康，安乐，幸福 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
delightful
|
|
| adj.令人高兴的，使人快乐的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
countless
|
|
| adj.无数的，多得不计其数的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
frugal
|
|
| adj.节俭的，节约的，少量的，微量的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
remarkably
|
|
| ad.不同寻常地，相当地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
procure
|
|
| vt.获得，取得，促成；vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
depressed
|
|
| adj.沮丧的，抑郁的，不景气的，萧条的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
affected
|
|
| adj.不自然的，假装的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
accomplished
|
|
| adj.有才艺的；有造诣的；达到了的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
sufficiently
|
|
| adv.足够地，充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
dwellings
|
|
| n.住处，处所( dwelling的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
cuisine
|
|
| n.烹调，烹饪法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
travail
|
|
| n.阵痛；努力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
premier
|
|
| adj.首要的；n.总理，首相 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
forte
|
|
| n.长处，擅长；adj.(音乐)强音的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
conserve
|
|
| vt.保存，保护，节约，节省，守恒，不灭 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
rouge
|
|
| n.胭脂，口红唇膏；v.(在…上)擦口红 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
90
costly
|
|
| adj.昂贵的，价值高的，豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
superstition
|
|
| n.迷信，迷信行为 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
nourishment
|
|
| n.食物，营养品；营养情况 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
wholesome
|
|
| adj.适合；卫生的；有益健康的；显示身心健康的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
raisin
|
|
| n.葡萄干 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
worthy
|
|
| adj.(of)值得的，配得上的；有价值的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
motif
|
|
| n.(图案的)基本花纹，(衣服的)花边；主题 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
vend
|
|
| v.公开表明观点，出售，贩卖 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
terrain
|
|
| n.地面，地形，地图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
quotations
|
|
| n.引用( quotation的名词复数 )；[商业]行情（报告）；（货物或股票的）市价；时价 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
lavished
|
|
| v.过分给予，滥施( lavish的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
motives
|
|
| n.动机，目的( motive的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
exertions
|
|
| n.努力( exertion的名词复数 )；费力；（能力、权力等的）运用；行使 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
exigencies
|
|
| n.急切需要 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
guise
|
|
| n.外表，伪装的姿态 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
reclaimable
|
|
| adj.可收回的，可教化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
108
economists
|
|
| n.经济学家，经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
solely
|
|
| adv.仅仅，唯一地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
diminution
|
|
| n.减少；变小 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
transformation
|
|
| n.变化；改造；转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
alloy
|
|
| n.合金，(金属的)成色 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
peril
|
|
| n.(严重的)危险；危险的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
deteriorated
|
|
| 恶化，变坏( deteriorate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |