Metayers are always found ready to accept a subdivision[of land]……Their multiplication,as we have seen in the case of France,usually goes on till they are stopped by the smallness of their maintenance,or,as more often happens,by the policy of the proprietors refusing to subdivide lands,already supplied with labor beyond the point they deem most advantageous to themselves.[22]
Following this track one expects that Jones would go on to say that,at least in some cases,nonland inputs relative to land inputs were equally intensive（or output yields equally high）under metayage as under fixed-rent farming or owner cultivation.But he did not,and instead he concluded:
If the relation between the metayer and the proprietor has some advantages when compared with……the serf……,it has some very serious inconveniences peculiar to itself.The divided interest which exists in the produce of cultivation,mars almost every attempt at improvement.[23]
It is difficult to say whether Jones's conclusion contradicts his earlier statements.By improvement or what they called"stock"in the land,classical economists seem to mean"investment"in land,but exactly what they did mean is not clear.According to our convention,investment is the balancing of consumption over time;that is,present sacrifice for future benefit.A man is investing when he tills the soil today for corn tomorrow,pulls a weed,or removes a rock.The various time lengths of the investment returns are treated in a general framework.And it is conceptually the same whether the work is done by a man or a horse,or through the use of more fertilizers,better irrigation,or other assets.It is only within the framework of a timeless input-output model that we do not speak of investment.Under our convention,therefore,to say both that the intensity of labor input（which can be used to improve land）can be freely adjusted and also that"the divided interest mars almost every attempt at improvement"is contradictory indeed.
But to Jones and his contemporaries,and even to Mill and others after him,the concept of"improvement"or"investment" was ambiguous on two counts.First,they failed to distinguish farming inputs at one moment in time from investment over time.Thus it is not always clear whether they laid the blame on the product sharing or on the nonperpetual lease.Second,instead of viewing labor and nonlabor inputs as different physical entities performing different functions in production,they viewed them as different conceptually.To them,"labor"is"short"and non-labor is"long,"and"improvements"were made only by"capital"and not by"labor."
Even accepting their convention in vague terms,however,Jones might have seen that since"labor"could be adjusted so could"capital,"or that"labor"could be traded for"capital."But Jones did not.Indeed,one cannot help but speculate that his abrupt conclusion was drawn not from logical reasoning,but from the preconception that the British system was superior.And it is a matter of conjecture whether Jones would have altered his conclusion had he considered the accounts on the Italian metayers written by Simonde de Sismondi some fifteen years earlier.Sismondi was himself a metayer landlord,and,of course,he wrote favorably of the system:
The system of cultivation by metayers……contributes,more than anything else,to diffuse happiness among the lower classes,to raise land to a high state of culture,and accumulate a great quantity of wealth upon it……Under this system,the peasant has an interest in the property,as if it were his own……The accumulation of an immense capital upon the soil,the invention of many judicious rotations,and industrious processes,……the collection of a numerous population,upon a space very limited and naturally barren,shows plainly enough that this mode of cultivation is as profitable to the land itself as to the peasant.[24]
This exuberant endorsement of metayage is quite contradictory to Young's condemnations.But it was not until John Stuart Mill tackled the issue that arguments were taken from both sides.[25]
With an impressive coverage of the literature,Mill noted that"the metayer system has met with no mercy from English au-thorities."[26] He claimed"that the unmeasured vituperation lav-ished upon the system by English writers,is grounded on an extremely narrow view of the subject."[27] Mill's own analysis is essentially a modification of Jones's,and,more explicitly,he also treated labor input and improvement of land as two conceptually different things.
Mill quoted and accepted Smith's view that share rent is analogous to a tax,and therefore felt that the tenant would not be interested in making"improvements."[28] Thus,"the improvements must be made with the capital of the landlord,"but"custom"is"a serious hindrance to improvement."[29] In regard to labor input,Mill's argument goes from"not enough"to a possibility of"too much,"which may appear inconsistent at first sight:
The metayer has less motive to exertion than the peasant proprietor,since only half the fruits of his industry,instead of the whole,are his own……I am supposing that this half produced is sufficient to yield him a comfortable support.Whether it is so,depends on the degree of subdivision of the land;which depends on the operation of the population principle……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 superfluous hands without being subdivided;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 immediate gainer,the inconvenience falling only on the laborers.[30]