best for one kind of produce, another for another. Certain qualities of land are adapted to small holdings; other qualities are so inappropriate as to spell the ruin of the small occupier. Even where the land is suitable, it does not follow that, because one man has succeeded, there is room for another to succeed in the same parish.

All small holdings are not well cultivated, nor are all large farms well farmed, and vice versa. The produce per acre raised from the one cannot be fairly compared with the produce raised from the other, unless due allowance is made for the fact that the small holding consists of good or fair land, well-situated, while the large farm always contains a proportion of unproductive land, which can only be worked in conjunction with good land and could not be worked at all as a small holding. The nearest approach that can be made to any general principle is to say that there are certain conditions on which the economic success of the small holder most often depends. The land must be suitable in quality— either good in itself, or easily worked and responsive to fertilisers and enjoy convenient access to a market; and the prices of the produce raised must be remunerative. Even then the personal element must be taken into account. More important even than the size or situation of the holding is the holder, or, more correctly, the holder and his wife.

Practical considerations like these illustrate the danger, from an agricultural point of view, of generalising about small holdings. Except in a limited range of produce, small holdings in the hands of individuals rarely afford a better livelihood to the occupier than the earnings of an agricultural labourer; and the remuneration is often more uncertain. The converse is also sometimes true. If a man has other sources of income, a small holding is an admirable supplement to his means of living. But, as a rule, a small holding is rather a good crutch than a good leg. Much is made by the politician of the advantages of ownership over tenancy; they bulk largely in rural programmes at the time of an election. The small holder himself is less concerned with the question. What he generally wants is to be secure in his occupation, to pay as little for it as possible, to be

independent, and to call no man master. If he gets these conditions, he is not inclined to bother about the means by which they are attained. If, in order to become an owner, he has to make a heavier annual payment than he has to make as a tenant, he will probably prefer tenancy, provided that his occupation is secure, and that he cannot have his rent raised on his improvements. He is generally more or less impervious to the argument that, as owner, he will have something to leave to his children. He is apt to observe that posterity has done nothing for him, and to ask why should he do anything for posterity. Nor is it, as an agricultural fact, true to say that owners always farm their land better than tenants. Instances for or against the proposition might be quoted by any one familiar with rural England. The magic of property makes some men slovens, as it makes others tigers of industry. One general proposition is, however, certainly true of ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. Small men cannot afford to pay a deposit as a first step to ownership. They need their capital intact, either to put it into the land, or to keep them going till they can sell their first crop. If ownership is to be introduced, it must be on a system which requires no initial outlay on purchase and provides for the payment of the money by easy instalments.

In point of fact, the advantages of small holdings in individual hands are social rather than agricultural. They breed a race of men whose sturdy independence and self-reliance are a valuable asset to the nation. They are a rigorous school in which children are trained to work hard, value thrift, and live simply. They develope initiative and resource in men, who would go through life with those faculties dormant if they only had to obey orders. They are rungs in the social ladder by which men can hope to rise from the ranks of hired labourers. How valuable they already are in this respect, and the extent to which the opportunities they afford have been seized by the men themselves, is often ignored and misrepresented. The following instances-out of many -may be quoted. On one estate, 3 out of 15 tenants were themselves agricultural labourers; and, of the remaining 12, 2 are sons of labourers. These men are now paying rents ranging from 2001. to 750l. a year. On

another estate under the same management, 10 out of 35 tenants began life as labourers. On two estates managed by another agent similar results are shown. On one of the two properties, 12 out of 22 tenants, and, on the other, 14 out of 36, began life as farm labourers, and are now paying rents ranging from 1107. to 4007. a year. On an estate of 2932 acres, there are 41 tenants of farms, besides the tenants of accommodation land. Fifteen of the 41 began life as farm labourers. Four estates, from their position typical of average properties in a particular county, show the following results. In (A) 36 per cent. of the tenants holding over 50 acres began as farm labourers; in (B) 37 per cent.; in (C) 28 per cent.; in (D) 14 per cent. Similar instances might be quoted in every part of England and Wales. All the examples given have occurred on private estates; all are independent of the Small Holdings Act; and none are taken from men who have acquired holdings under that legislation. They are mentioned here to show that agricultural labourers enjoy, and in many instances use, opportunities of advancement, which are at least as great as those enjoyed by cotton operatives or other factory workers. The facts illustrate once more the danger of too hasty generalisations. Village life has many drawbacks; it is monotonous and dull; but the attribute of dreary hopelessness, on which politicians so emphatically insist, requires considerable modification.

The social advantages, therefore, of small holdings are incontestable, and are proved by experience. But against those advantages must be set some economic and agricultural disadvantages which are equally undeniable. It is in weighing the one against the other that the politician and the social reformer might be useful, especially if they were willing to take both into consideration. Unfortunately they are prone to fix their attention only on the aspect of the question which seems to favour their preconceived opinions.

The wisdom of the policy of extending the smallholding system ought to be partly measured by the proportion of successes or failures. It must, therefore, be tested over a cycle of years sufficiently long to embrace falling as well as rising markets and adverse as well as

favourable seasons. Small men, in every industry, are the first to suffer by bad years. Men with larger capital are better able to weather storms; and an industry like agriculture is fully exposed, not only to fluctuations in prices, but to the caprice of rain and frost and want of sun. Unfavourable seasons are not the only difficulty, especially in the early years of occupation. When a small holder is starting, any sudden glut of the market on which he depends is enough to cause his ruin. Weak powers of resistance to unfavourable conditions are one of the disadvantages of small holdings and small capital. Another disadvantage is the temptation to work too hard and too long, and to exact from the family the same excess of effort. In the struggle for independence physical strength is apt to be overtaxed. Experience in rural districts shows that this danger of excessive labour is too real to be wholly disregarded.

Apart from the narrow margin on which the small holder works, and the tendency to impose on himself and his dependants an excessive strain, there are economic disadvantages which ought to be carefully considered, before the State decides to devote large sums of money to an artificial increase in the number of small holders. As a general rule, small holders only succeed where they can raise from the land two crops in the year. The range, therefore, of agricultural produce, in the cultivation of which they are likely to make their holdings pay, is limited; and the limitations at once suggest, as has been already stated, a question of national importance. It is not merely that farming operations become cheaper as their scale extends, or that machinery is most profitably used on large areas. No small holder can individually embark with reasonable prospects of success on any forms of productive industry in which the gross returns per acre are small, or in which manual labour does not form a relatively high proportion of the total costs of production. In other words, bread, meat, and the wholesale supply of milk lie outside his range. It therefore becomes a serious question for the country to consider, whether, and to what extent, it can allow the limited land of these islands to be cultivated for crops which are not necessary for the maintenance of the essential foodsupplies of the nation. Before a large policy of small

holdings is entered upon, this question must be considered in the light of experience and definitely answered.

Apart from the few men who are able to establish a local milk trade, small holders are practically restricted to the production of vegetables, fruit, and flowers. Even in this direction they are seriously handicapped by the smallness of their capital and the perishable nature of their produce. If they cannot get a market for their garden-stuff at the moment when it is ready for sale, it rapidly deteriorates in value. Corn-growers can afford to wait for a favourable turn in prices, because their produce does not spoil by keeping. Not so the small holder; and unfortunately his capital is too often inadequate to stand the loss. In this connexion it may be useful to consider whether the sale for garden produce, when peace is proclaimed, is likely to be as good as it was before the war. The spending power of the country will be, for many years to come, seriously crippled. People will have to abstain from luxuries. If this is true, then it is an additional reason for caution in the extension of small holdings. Even in the narrow range to which the small holder is limited, though minute and personal attention to details count for much, efficient organisation, combined with effective supervision, counts for more. Occupiers of large holdings are also most likely to command, not only more capital, but more scientific knowledge and greater business capacity, than occupiers of small holdings. They are, therefore, less prone to be timidly conservative, unprogressive and wanting in enterprise. To these advantages the large Occupier adds that of economy in cost. In market gardening, as well as in ordinary farming, large production is cheaper than small. If two areas, one of 10 acres, another of 60 acres, stand side by side in a market-garden district where intensive cultivation is practised, it will be generally found that the larger area is better cultivated than the small area, produces more per acre, and yields greater net profits. No one is more keenly alive to these facts than the successful small holder himself. His great ambition is to obtain more land and so reap the advantage of a larger occupancy.

Wherever his personal labour can be brought into effective play, the individual small occupier can hold his