FARMING, PAST AND FUTURE 83 



wished to increase production by turning grass-land 

 over with the plough, and this, besides reducing the 

 rent he received, involved putting up farm buildings 

 at considerable capital outlay. Parliament, as an act 

 of common justice, had remitted half the charge for 

 local taxes on the /and, but new buildings constructed 

 for increased food production would have had to carry 

 their whole share, for, unlike the land, the buildings 

 of the farm receive no reduction. The ill effect of 

 such a system of taxation must strike anyone who 

 reflects for an instant. Grass-land farms, with their 

 higher letting value, require little capital outlay on 

 buildings, few of which are required for this class of 

 husbandry. The local taxes on land are halved, but 

 the rates on buildings are left by our countrymen at 

 their old high level. Was this system not likely to 

 prevent grass-land being brought back to the plough? 

 For under it a landlord, by putting his capital into 

 buildings and having his meadows and pastures 

 ploughed up, could only expect a reduction of rent; 

 the farmer taking the plough-land farm could only 

 expect his local taxes to be higher. Does my audience 

 wonder that those of us who for some years have been 

 preaching a retum-to-the-plough sermon have had to 

 be content with apathetic congregations? And yet, 

 as regards production, the plough-land will always be 

 the greater national asset: every authority knows that 

 arable land yields more produce than permanent grass. 

 The whole question would require more time than I 

 can give it, even had I, which I have not, the expert 

 knowledge with which to bring it in detail to your 

 notice, but I have knowledge enough to tell you 

 briefly that, as regards local taxation, the strategy of 

 the future must be guided by ideals of increased pro- 

 duction rather than by visions of vote-catching among 

 the dwellers in the towns. 



