Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

Art. 8.-SOLDIERS AND SAILORS ON THE LAND.

1. Part I of the Final Report of the Departmental Committee to consider the Settlement or Employment on the Land in England and Wales of Discharged Soldiers and Sailors. [Cd. 8182.] Wyman, 1916.

2. Agriculture after the War. By A. D. Hall. Murray, 1916. 3. Farm Work for Discharged Soldiers. By Harold E. Moore. King, 1916.

4. The Ex-Soldier, by Himself. By W. G. Clifford (late R.A.). Black, 1916.

THE Departmental Committee on Land Settlement for soldiers and sailors has reported in favour of a system of cooperative colonies; and, at the time of writing, a Bill is before Parliament to carry their recommendations into effect. The Committee suggests three types of settlement, distinguished by the various branches of the agricultural industry for which they will be respectively organised. One is to be for fruit and market gardening; another for dairying; a third for mixed farming. The first two types have been already tried. But the lastnamed is really a new and an interesting experiment. If a cooperative colony of small-holders can successfully compete with a well-organised large farm in the cheap production of bread and meat, one reasonable and indeed formidable objection to the extension of the small-holding movement will be removed. But to make the experiment of any value in this direction it must be strictly conducted on business lines. Colonists and tenant-farmers must be working under the same conditions, or the test will be unfair. The Committee very wisely makes a modest beginning. For the establishment of one of each of the three types of colonies 5000 acres of land are required. Those soldiers or sailors who have been already accustomed to agricultural work will be settled at once upon holdings in their own occupation within the colony; those who have had little or no previous experience will be trained by working at weekly wages. Each colony is to be managed by a resident director; and expert advice, guidance, and instruction are provided by agricultural or horticultural instructors.

The Government proposal strongly appeals to public.

sympathies. Everyone wishes to recognise the inestimable value of the services which our sailors and soldiers have rendered to the nation. Yet a note of warning must be sounded. The present writer has had considerable experience in the working of small holdings, both on a private estate and as a member of a Committee of a County Council which has been active in putting into force the Act of 1908. In his opinion, the utmost care should be taken to study the serious questions involved in the creation of small-holding colonies, before any wide extension is given to the movement. It ought, for instance, to be decided whether cooperative farms of small-holders can be made such efficient instruments for the production of bread and meat as a large farm of the existing type in individual hands. If that question is decided in the negative, then the extent to which the nation can afford to divert good land from the production of its supply of staple foods must also be considered in the light of the present war. These two instances serve to illustrate the gravity of the problems which have to be solved, and the necessity of approaching them without any of the prejudices which have been engendered by years of political strife. In fact, at this crisis of our national development, the most effective as well as the cheapest land-reform, which human wisdom could devise, would be the exclusion of agriculture from the region of party politics.

These reflections naturally arise from the mention of a subject which has been so fiercely fought as Small Holdings. Practical men know that it is impossible in any direction to generalise to any useful extent on such a subject. But it is precisely through wide generalisations, deduced from insufficient particulars, that politicians and social reformers most often go astray. Because small holdings sometimes, and in some places, succeed, they will not necessarily succeed always and everywhere. If all the land of the country were cut up into small isolated occupations, the gross production of all kinds of food would not be increased; on the contrary, we should have to buy from the foreigner larger quantities of bread and meat. There is no magic in size, great or small. It is economically best to have holdings of all sizes, from the allotment to the large farm; one size is

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 110l. to 400l. 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

« PředchozíPokračovat »