Metayers and Sharecropping

¹¹ A species of farmers known as Metayers in France gradually succeeded the ancient slaves.

They are called Coloni Partiarii in Latin. They were so long in disuse in England that I know no English name for them at present.

The proprietor furnished them with the whole stock needed for cultivating the farm.

• After setting aside what was necessary for keeping up the stock, the produce was divided equally between the proprietor and the farmer.
• The whole stock was returned to the proprietor when the farmer quit or was turned out of the farm.

¹² The land they occupy is cultivated at the proprietor’s expence in the same way as when it was occupied by slaves, but with one very essential difference.

Such tenants, being freemen, could acquire property.

• They have a share of the land’s produce.
• They are interested to make it produce as much as possible to increase their own share.

A slave who can acquire nothing consults his own ease by making the land produce as little as possible over his own maintenance.

• This is why the king encouraged slavery, out of his jealousy of the great lords.

Gradually, slavery wore out in most of Europe because of this inconvenience.

• The time and manner of its abolition is one of the most obscure points in modern history.
• The Church of Rome claims great merit in it.

As early as the 12th century, Alexander 2nd published a bull for the emancipation of slaves.

• But it was more of a pious exhortation than a law which required exact obedience.

Slavery continued almost universally until it was gradually abolished by the joint interests of:

• the proprietor and
• the sovereign.

A slave who was freed and allowed to possess land, could only cultivate it with the stock given by the landlord.

• Such person must have been a Metayer.

¹³ Metayers could never be interested to use any of their little stock to improve the land because the lord, who spent nothing, would get half of whatever it produced.

The tithe is 10% of the produce.

• It is a very great hindrance to improvement.

A tax of 50% must have been an effectual bar to improvement.

It might be the Metayer’s interest to make the land produce as much as possible using the proprietor’s stock.

• But it could never be his interest to mix his own stock with it.

Metayers still occupy 5 out of 6 parts of France.

The proprietors complain that they take every opportunity to employ the master’s cattle in transportation than in cultivation.

• In transportation, they get the whole profits to themselves.
• In cultivation, they share them with their landlord.

In some parts of Scotland, tenants like Metayers are called s teel-bow tenants.

Chief Baron Gilbert and Doctor Blackstone say that those ancient English tenants were more like bailiffs of the landlord than farmers.

Laws Relating to Farmers

¹⁴ This kind of tenancy was very slowly succeeded by farmers who cultivated land with their own stock.

• They paid a rent to the landlord.

When such farmers lease for a number of years, they may find it for their interest to use their capital to improve the farm.

• They might expect to recover it with a large profit before the expiration of the lease.

The possession by such farmers was extremely precarious for a long time.

• It is still is so in many parts of Europe.

A new purchaser can legally remove them from their lease before their term expires.

In England, even the fictitious action of a common recovery can remove them.

If the farmers were removed illegally by their master’s violence, they could seek redress extremely imperfectly.

• It did not always reinstate their possession of the land.
• It gave them damages which never amounted to the real loss.

Of all the European countries, the yeomanry* was always most respected in England.

• [ Men who held and cultivated small landed estates.]

Ejectment was invented only in 1498.

• It enabled the tenant to recover damages and possession.

The tenant’s claim is not necessarily concluded by the uncertain decision of a single court.

Ejectment was such an effective remedy that, in the modern practice, landlords sue in the name of the tenant, using the writ of ejectment for land possession.

The landlord seldom uses the writ of right or the writ of entry, which are the actions for a landlord.

In England, the security of the tenant is equal to the security of the proprietor.

A lease for life of 40 shillings a year is a freehold.

It entitles the lessee to vote for a member of parliament.

Most of the yeomanry have this kind of freeholds.

• This makes them respectable to their landlords due to the political consideration given to them.

I believe that only England allows the tenant to build on unleased land, trusting his landlord’s honour not to take advantage of the improvement.

Those laws so favourable to the yeomanry have perhaps contributed more to England’s present grandeur than all its boasted commercial regulations taken together.

¹⁵ The law which secures the longest leases against successors is peculiar to Great Britain.

It was introduced into Scotland in 1449 as a law of James 2nd.

• Its beneficial influence, however, was much obstructed by entails.

The heirs of entail were frequently restrained from giving leases for more than 1 year.

A recent act of parliament has somewhat relaxed this restraint, though they are still much too narrow.

In Scotland, no leasehold gives a vote for a member of parliament.

• Their yeomanry are less respectable to their landlords than in England.

¹⁶ In other parts of Europe, it was found convenient to secure tenants against heirs and purchasers.

• And so the term of their security was limited to a very short period.

In France, it was limited to 9 years from the start of the lease.

• It was recently extended to 27 years.
• This is still too short to encourage the tenant to make important improvements.

The proprietors of land were anciently the legislators of Europe.

• The laws relating to land were created for their interest.
• They imagined that it was the proprietor’s interest that none of his predecessors’ leases should hinder him from enjoying his land.

Avarice and injustice are always short-sighted.

• They did not foresee how much this regulation obstructs improvement and hurts the landlord’s real interest in the long-run.