land in private ownership, a large part of the value of every improvement passes, after a longer or shorter interval, to the landowners as an unearned increment of value.'

There are many landowners who would admit that this indictment is not wholly unfounded, although they would certainly not admit that it applied to landowners ' as a whole,' or indeed to more than a limited number of them. But, even if it were generally true, it would still remain to be shown that the only, or even the best, cure for defects in the present system is to abolish it. There are other ways of dealing with malefactors besides hanging them.

The other practical objection to the maintenance of the present land system is more fundamental. If it were the fact that under it not only is the production of the land less than it might be, but also that it is being steadily reduced, the argument in favour of trying another system would be, from the national point of view, very strong. It may at once be admitted that the total production of the land could be substantially increased; but there is no country in the world, whatever its land system, of which this cannot be said. But the further charge that production is less than formerly and is steadily diminishing is not proven.

Those who condemn the present system on the ground that under it agricultural production is declining are able to cite authorities in support of the allegation. Indeed the statement has been so constantly reiterated that it has come to be regarded as a truism. Mr Wolff, who, in a chapter entitled 'Shortcomings of our Agriculture,' gives an informative account of the progress of German agriculture, mentions that, when in the German Parliament a deputy 'referred commendingly to some feature of British farming, which he held up as a model, the Chamber resounded with the derisive cry, "British agriculture is bankrupt."' Mr Christopher Turnor states roundly that in 1914 the gross production from the land was practically the same as it was in 1814, and much less than it was in 1840.' And even Sir Daniel Hall observes that 'the history of British farming for the last forty years has been one of continuous decline from the point of view of the gross production of British soil.' As there are no trustworthy statistics of British agriculture

prior to 1867, it is not possible to prove that at some earlier period the gross production of the land was larger than after that date. All that can be said is that, as there is no statistical evidence of any value, it is open to any one to hold any opinion on the subject. When, however, we come to the past forty or fifty years there are data on which a reasoned opinion can be formed.

Assertions that the total output of agricultural land has diminished are founded on the undeniable fact that a considerable area which forty or fifty years ago was under arable cultivation is now under grass. Taking the average of the ten years 1869-78, there were in Great Britain 18,111,000 acres under the plough, whereas in the ten years 1905-14 there were 14,723,000 acres, and in the year 1921, 14,964,000 acres. It may be assumed that the arable area will be less this year than last, and that it is now not greater than before the war. As the production per acre from grass land is less than from arable land, a reduction in total output, in the absence of other factors, appears evident. This would be so if the output from the 14 million acres which have remained in arable cultivation was the same; but if, in fact, a considerable proportion of that area has been devoted to other crops yielding a higher return per acre, it may be that the 14 million acres now are producing as large a quantity of food as the 18 million acres were producing forty or fifty years ago. To take a hypothetical example -if a million acres formerly growing wheat were now growing potatoes, the total output from that area would be increased about five-fold.

This illustrates what, in fact, has happened, although there are no statistics adequate to measure the change. The cultivation of fruit and vegetables now occupies a very substantial proportion of the arable land. Intensive culture is practised on a large scale. The agricultural returns, incomplete as they are in this respect, show that over 170,000 acres of the 'farmed' land in Great Britain are now devoted to fruit and vegetables, in addition to 700,000 acres of potatoes. The earlier returns do not enable any comparisons to be made, except as regards potatoes, which now occupy about 50 per cent. more land than in the 'seventies.' In the case of small fruit, comparable returns were first collected in 1888; and the

increase has been over 100 per cent. since that date. The immense extension of glass cultivation which is evident to the casual observer in the neighbourhood of London and other centres of population—but of which there are no satisfactory statistics-denotes an enormous increase in the output per acre of the land thus occupied.

It is possible to extract from the available statistics a few figures which, at any rate, suffice to expose the fallacy of taking the area of arable land as the only measure of an increase or decrease of total production. If the returns of live stock in Great Britain for the ten years 1869-78 are compared with the returns for the ten years 1912-21, it will be found that on the average cattle have increased by 1,439,000, while sheep have decreased by 5,464,000, and pigs by 80,000. If these figures are reduced to terms of meat supply, they show an increase of about 200,000 tons. The increase in milk supply is still more apparent. Comparing the same periods, there has been an increase of nearly 700,000 head in the milking herd of the country. Corroborative evidence of the increased output of milk is afforded by the fact that, although the population has increased since 1871 by nearly 17 millions, and the consumption per head has certainly not diminished, British farmers still retain a practical monopoly of the market, and the import of fresh milk has been a negligible factor.

The alleged failure of the present land system to maintain the total production from the land must therefore be regarded as not proven; indeed, so far as precise information is available, the evidence points to the conclusion that the output of the agricultural land of the country is substantially larger than it was forty or fifty years ago. Agriculture has adapted itself to the economic conditions, and a considerable change has been made in the relative proportions of its various products, but there is good reason to believe that the aggregate amount of the products has increased. It should be noted that, in the comparisons I have made above, only the output of agricultural land-i.e. land occupied in holdings of more than one acre-is considered. It will not be contested that, if the produce of allotments were taken into account, it would show a large increase during the past half-century.

In constructing the agricultural policy which has so ignominiously broken down, the Government claimed to be guided very largely by the recommendations of the Agricultural Policy Sub-Committee, appointed by Mr Asquith in August 1916. The terms of reference to this Committee were: 'Having regard to the need of increased home-grown food supplies in the interest of national security, to consider and report upon the methods of effecting such increase'; and the Committee at the outset of their Report state that they were informed that the question asked them 'did not refer to war but to post-war conditions.' The Committee was a representative one, including as it did Lord Selborne as Chairman, Sir Ailwyn Fellowes (now Lord Ailwyn), Sir Charles Bathurst (now Lord Bledisloe), Mr R. E. Prothero (now Lord Ernle), Mr E. G. Strutt, Sir Daniel Hall, Sir Matthew Wallace, Sir Horace Plunkett, Prof. Bryner Jones, and Mr G. G. Rea.

Notwithstanding the intimation given to the Committee that they were appointed to consider only postwar policy, they were requested, soon after their appointment, to issue an interim report upon a guaranteed price and a guaranteed wage as matters upon which immediate legislative action might be taken.' They accordingly presented the first part of their Report in February 1917, recommending:

(a) The establishment of a minimum wage for agricultural labourers and the setting-up of Wages Boards.

(b) A guarantee of minimum prices for wheat and oats. (c) A general survey of the condition of agricultural land from the point of view of its utilisation for food-production.

(d) Power to the Board of Agriculture temporarily to supersede owners and dispossess tenants in case of such mismanagement as seriously affects food-production.

(e) Consideration of the improvement of common grazing land.

(f) An increased number of cottages.

(g) The encouragement of sugar-beet cultivation.

Of these recommendations the first four were embodied in principle, if not in precise detail, in the Corn Production Act of 1917; and some effect was also given to the recommendations as to cottages and sugar-beet.

In January 1917, the Committee presented the second part of their Report, emphasising the fact that the two parts were

'not separable policies. They are strictly interdependent and mutually essential parts of one policy. Without the aid of the measures recommended in Part II, the stability of the industry of agriculture and the authority of the State secured by Part I can only produce partial results. Without the armour provided by Part I the measures of reconstruction recommended in Part II are foredoomed to impotence.'

The recommendations contained in Part II cover a wide field. They may be indicated by the following summary:

(a) The re-organisation of the English and Scottish Boards of Agriculture.

(b) Further State aid for agricultural education and research, the establishment of demonstration and illustration farms and the extension of live-stock improvement schemes.

(c) Additional assistance from State funds to Agricultural Organisation Societies.

(d) Extension of facilities for agricultural credit.

(e) Increased facilities for the provision of small holdings and the adoption of the principle of Mr Jesse Collings' Purchase of Land Bill.

(f) Reconstruction of villages.

(g) Development of rural industries, and formation of women's institutes by grants for those purposes.

(h) Stimulation, by legislation, of tithe redemption.

(i) Periodical re-valuation for assessment purposes, and a more equitable apportionment of the cost of national services between local and national funds.

(k) Amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act.

(1) Adoption of the principle of the Evesham Custom for market gardens.

(m) Establishment of Reclamation and Land Drainage authorities, and promotion of reclamation by legislation.

(n) Utilisation of all land suitable for agriculture and forestry, and adoption of a national policy of afforestation.

(0) Legislation to regulate the sale of farm seeds, to deal with injurious weeds, and to eliminate animal pests.

(p) Amendment of law relating to weights and measures for agricultural products.

(q) Improvement of transport facilities.