which each farmer and land-agent was in general in favour of the
"custom" he had grown up under?

A prevalent idea is that the land is not highly farmed enough, and
that the land of England might be made to yield much more, and that
Government is to cause this to be done. It is most unfortunate to
raise this theory at the moment when land is "down," i.e. when
produce is cheap, labour expensive. Every farmer knows that the only
way to meet these conditions is to farm "lower." In a south country
farm the farmer will sow much less corn, and try to keep more sheep.
In the Western States of America, where produce is very cheap, labour
very dear, the "lowness" of the farming is always abused by the
English traveller (who thus shows that he knows nothing about either
farming or political economy). A farmer, twenty-five years ago, took
a very large and fine corn farm: it had been worked on the five-
course system, i.e. three white crops in five years; the farmer made
a careful calculation whether a four-course husbandry, i.e. two white
crops in four years, would not be more profitable; it appeared to
come to exactly the same thing. At this juncture a rise of a shilling
a week in wages took place; this gave a clear advantage to the four-
course, and the farm was at once worked round to the four course
shift. In this simple case a small rise in wages brought about a
considerable diminution in gross produce, while the loss to the
farmer was small. The remarks in this section have been directed to
the case, common in the South of England, where there has been within
the last twelve years a fall of rent from 25 to 50 per cent. In
pasture farms, in rich land, and in potato farms (wherein you can
keep one-sixth the land in potatoes), the fall in rent has been much
less--sometimes inappreciable.