that he had, on the land, an opportunity of making, by his own efforts, a livelihood and a life for himself? And that this is no mere surmise the present writer believes, because he knows how many of the small-holders of his acquaintance have some town-dwelling brother or cousin anxious to return to the land. Be that as it may, it is clear that an inducement of the strongest sort is given to a man either to stay on or return to the land, if he is to have there the chance of independence and the profound satisfaction which being his own master gives. To restore the population and the prosperity of Britain's country estate is a soldier's battle. Only by calling in aid the rank-and-file of the people and by giving them new opportunities can it be won.

And it is only thus, too, that the urban population will feel that the development of Britain's country estate is their concern. The town worker feels-and perhaps rightly feels that there is little advantage to be gained in increasing the number of agricultural labourers, for the town worker is inclined to despise the country labourer; but to give men something of their own, to give them independence, is a policy which the townsman approves. And, further, the towns, in the last three years, have shown very clearly that they will have nothing to do with a policy for the land which is based on assisting the capitalist farmer, and that they feel no twinge of compunction or pity if help solemnly pledged to him is, as in 1922, of a sudden withdrawn. To commend itself to the urban democracy, the policy of rural development must be a democratic one also. Then like calls to like. It is one of the most characteristic qualities of the working-class that they are anxious to secure benefits for their fellows, even if they do not understand why these fellows should desire these benefits and although they themselves do not share the desire. The feeling is closely akin to the proverbial 'kindness of the poor for the poor.' It is in that kindness of the poor for the poor that the statesman will find ready to his hand a motive force of sufficient drive and impulse to enable him to carry through the development of Britain's country estate, and the recolonisation of British land. Nor is it only the town population which would respond to such a policy. The country community, slow, per

haps, as it is to move in opinion, is beginning to recognise the necessity for closer land settlement. The English landowners, as is made clear in the admirable memorandum recently issued by the Central Landowners' Association, now fully appreciate its importance. The farmers, who have, in the past, been inclined to scoff, are coming to see that by a system in which groups of small-holdings are mingled with the larger farms, the problem of extra labour will be largely solved. To the agricultural labourer in England, the farm-servant in Scotland, the opportunity of becoming in his middle life the master of a piece of land, brings what without exaggeration may be called a new horizon and a new hope.

And land settlement, moreover, has an imperial as well as a national aspect. The Dominions cry out for men, nor is it townsmen immigrants they require. That cry must largely remain unanswered, or be answered only at excessive cost to Britain, if the only source from which the demand can be met is our present attenuated rural population. But the recolonisation of Britain would produce a reservoir for the colonisation of the Empire.

The policy of land settlement, in short, not only harmonises with our general economic structure; it raises a rural policy from a sectional to a national level. And if a small-holding system of intensive cultivation harmonises with the general interests of Britain, not less does Britain offer unequalled promise for such a system's success.

Only a fanatic, of course, would suggest that smallholdings should become the sole and universal system of farming in Britain. But in supplementing the larger farms, wherever soil, climate, accessibility to markets offer favourable conditions, an immense prospect for the development of small-holdings and of intensive cultivation is opened up. For in dairying, in arable stockfarming, in the production of home-grown meat, of milk, butter, cheese, bacon, eggs, fruit, and vegetables, special opportunities for British agriculture lie; and it is in these departments that intensive cultivation of small parcels of ground, combined with a co-operative system of purchasing, manufacturing, grading and selling is at its most productive and more profitable. This Denmark dis

D

covered when the crash came, and to this conclusion would British agriculture have been forced long before The now, had the farmer not in fact been largely maintained - in his evil days by the consideration and the capital of the landowner. And the fall was also broken to him, because, unlike the light, sandy soils of Denmark, much British arable land could be converted into permanent pasture. But the landlord's capital has disappeared now, and the movement from corn to common, which was in the 'eighties averted in Denmark by methods the Scottish and English farmer was not then obliged of necessity to adopt, is, as it has been suggested above, now in full swing here. The result has been that Britain has allowed other countries to supply her with the very agricultural produce she could have produced for herself; and to-day, it is from overseas that the bulk of our bacon, butter, cheese, and eggs come to us, while our urban population is condemned, since round it lie halfempty the fields of England, to nourish itself and its children on condensed and tinned milk. And though in England, wheat-growing may always remain the special province of the larger farm, it must be emphasised that small-holdings are no enemy to corn production. Belgium is largely supplied with wheat grown by smallholders, while it is perhaps the most remarkable feature of Danish agriculture that, free trade as is Denmark's fiscal system, and though the change over to dairying, egg, and bacon production was based upon the collapse of its wheat-growing, the development of intensive cultivation has actually caused the wheat yield to increase. Yet in Denmark out of 206,000 holdings, 178,000 are less than 75 acres in extent, and of the 5500 which exceed 150 acres, only 1335 contain more than 300 acres. And in England, Cambridgeshire, for instance, furnishes many examples of arable small-holdings, where, in the ordinary rotation, wheat is grown with success and profit.

That a small-holding system replenishes the fields with stock as well as with men is beyond contradiction. It is needless to quote the figures that Germany or Denmark among Continental nations afford. From home experience of the constitution of small-holding groups comes ample proof. Let the 2570 acres of Cheshire land already referred to be cited. Before conversion into

Se

0

t

small-holdings, the stock of cattle carried was 1242, after ho conversion, 2506; of horses, 73 before, 195 after; of pigs, Sr 330 before, 1338 after; of sheep, a slight increase; of poultry, 850 before, 3710 after. Again, in Wiltshire, on 582 acres, which, as two farms before, and as 15 smallholdings after conversion, were used for dairy farming, the increase of dairy cows shows how the industry has been intensified. For their number was increased by the change from 98 to 165, or an increase of 67 per cent. And these results have been attained in the early days before the close and continuous care of the land, which is characteristic of the small cultivator, has had time to bear its full fruit.

But the impression is sedulously spread, first, that the proportion of failures is so high amongst smallholders, and secondly, the cost to the State of a policy of land settlement necessarily so heavy that, though there may be individual successes here and there, any extension of the system would be futile and wasteful. The impression that small-holdings are unsuccessful is too often spread by men who, from their own experience, should know better. The value of the existing small farm is admitted by farmers both in England and Scotland. Indeed, necessarily so, because among the most successful farmers in both countries are many men who have worked their way up from a small farm of from 50 to 70 acres to large farms requiring correspondingly large capital for their successful working. These little farms, without the advantages of co-operation, worked by their cultivators in isolation, are in every generation the nursery of prosperous farmers. It is not without cause that they are called 'ladder-farms.' But integral a part as they are of our existing system, their bearing upon the question of land settlement is overlooked. And indeed, the Lancastrian plain, with its high cultivation, its large agricultural population, its small-farm system; Western Cornwall parcelled out into vegetable and fruitgrowing small-holdings; the Vale of Evesham, as well as the success that attends many of the small farms which have existed for years in almost every part of England and Lowland Scotland, show clearly how well adapted is this country for closer land settlement and make such criticism valueless. There have been two main small

f

olding efforts made in England by the State-under the mall Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908, and the Land Settlement Act of 1919. Under the first, the operation of which has been superseded since the outbreak of the war, 14,000 small-holdings were constituted. The failures amount to some 4 per cent. of the whole, and this is the more striking inasmuch as the rent payable by the holders was of an amount sufficient not merely to pay interest to the County Councils for the capital involved, but also to refund the price paid by the Councils for the land. Ninety-six per cent. of these holders i have succeeded, that is to say, despite being forced to buy the land for their landlord, and having, thus, to support a financial burden unknown to any other tenant. It is hardly necessary to add that, thanks to their success, even in these circumstances, the loss, approximately 400,000l., has been trifling.

But this very remarkable achievement has been lost sight of in the anxieties which have attended post-war land settlement. Every element of the situation combined here to add to the difficulties. Speedy settlement of ex-service applicants was deemed essential. Just because the men settled were, in practice, almost exclusively ex-soldiers, a certain proportion of unsuitable and unskilful men slipped through the net. Further, the bulk of them had to buy their stock when prices were high, and in the first critical years of their new occupation were met by an all-round slump. Even so, the failures may be reckoned at some 10 per cent. of the 17,225 holders settled in England and of the 2160 in Scotland at under 5 per cent.,* and those first settlers who failed have frequently been followed in the holdings by men, luckier in their send-off and more suitable in themselves, whose prospects are very different. Speaking generally, the great bulk of the post-war holders are now definitely beginning to make good.'

First,

Unquestionably, the cost has been heavy. building and equipment had to be hurried through when prices of land, labour, and material were at their highest;

*These percentages, for which I am indebted to the Ministry of Agriculture and to Sir Robert Greig, Chairman of the Scottish Board, are approximate only.