Metayersarealwaysfoundreadytoacceptasubdivision[ofland]……Theirmultiplication,aswehaveseeninthecaseofFrance,usuallygoesontilltheyarestoppedbythesmallnessoftheirmaintenance,or,asmoreoftenhappens,bythepolicyoftheproprietorsrefusingtosubdividelands,alreadysuppliedwithlaborbeyondthepointtheydeemmostadvantageoustothemselves.[22]
FollowingthistrackoneexpectsthatJoneswouldgoontosaythat,atleastinsomecases,nonlandinputsrelativetolandinputswereequallyintensive（oroutputyieldsequallyhigh）,andinsteadheconcluded:
Iftherelationbetweenthemetayerandtheproprietorhassomeadvantageswhenparedwith……theserf……,,marsalmosteveryattemptatimprovement.[23]
Itisdiffi”stock”intheland,classicaleconomistsseemtomean”investment”inland,,investmentisthebalancingofconsumptionovertime;thatis,,pullsaweed,,orthroughtheuseofmorefertilizers,betterirrigation,,therefore,tosayboththattheintensityoflaborinput（whichcanbeusedtoimproveland）canbefreelyadjustedandalsothat”thedividedinterestmarsalmosteveryattemptatimprovement”iscontradictoryindeed.
ButtoJonesandhiscontemporaries,andeventoMillandothersafterhim,theconceptof”improvement”or”investment”,theyfailedto,insteadofviewinglaborandnonlaborinputsasdifferentphysicalentitiesperformingdifferentfunctionsinproduction,,”labor”is”short”andnon-laboris”long,”and”improvements”weremadeonlyby”capital”andnotby”labor.”
Evenacceptingtheirconventioninvagueterms,however,Jonesmighthaveseenthatsince”labor”couldbeadjustedsocould”capital,”orthat”labor”couldbetradedfor”capital.”,onecannothelpbutspeculatethathisabruptconclusionwasdrawnnotfromlogicalreasoning,sionhadheconsideredtheaccountsontheI,and,ofcourse,hewrotefavorablyofthesystem:
Thesystemofcultivationbymetayers……contributes,morethananythingelse,todiffusehappinessamongthelowerclasses,toraiselandtoahighstateofculture,andaccumulateagreatquantityofwealthuponit……Underthissystem,thepeasanthasaninterestintheproperty,asifitwerehisown……Theaccumulationofanimmensecapitaluponthesoil,theinventionofmanyjudiciousrotations,andindustriousprocesses,……thecollectionofanumerouspopulation,uponaspaceverylimitedandnaturallybarren,showsplainlyenoughthatthismodeofcultivationisasprofitabletothelanditselfastothepeasant.[24]
Thisexuberanakenfrombothsides.[25]
Withanimpressivecoverageoftheliterature,Millnotedthat”themetayersystemhasmetwithnomercyfromEnglishau-thorities.”[26]Heclaimed”thattheunmeasuredvituperationlav-isheduponthesystembyEnglishwriters,isgroundedonanextremelynarrowviewofthesubject.”[27]MillsownanalysisisessentiallyamodificationofJoness,and,moreexplicitly,healsotreatedlaborinputandimprovementoflandastwoconceptuallydifferentthings.
MillquotedandacceptedSmithsviewthatsharerentisanalogoustoatax,andthereforefeltthatthetenantwouldnotbeinterestedinmaking”improvements.”[28]Thus,”theimprovementsmustbemadewiththecapitalofthelandlord,”but”custom”is”aserioushindrancetoimprovement.”[29]Inregardtolaborinput,Millsargumentgoesfrom”notenough”toapossibilityof”toomuch,”whichmayappearinconsistentatfirstsight:
Themetayerhaslessmotivetoexertionthanthepeasantproprietor,sinceonlyhalfthefruitsofhisindustry,insteadofthewhole,arehisown……Iamsupp,dependsonthedegreeofsubdivisionoftheland;whichdependsontheoperationofthepopulationprinciple……Thereisalandlord,whomayexertacontrollingpower,,however,attachgreatimportancetothischeck,becausethefarmmaybeloadedwithsuperfluoushandswithoutbeingsubdivided;andbecause,solongastheincreaseofhandsincreasesthegrossproduce,whichisalmostalwaysthecase,thelandlord,whoreceiveshalftheproduce,isanimmediategainer,theinconveniencefallingonlyonthelaborers.[30]