PROPOSAI^S FOR IvAND REFORM II7 



{2) Tenancy under the State or some other pubUc body. 

 (3) Complete fixity of tenure subject to the control of some impar- 

 tial tribunal such as a I^and Court. 



These methods are discussed in detail, but the Committee dismiss state- 

 aided purchase as impracticable. Since, as we shall see presently and as 

 the Committee itself states, there is a considerable body of opinion in fa- 

 vour of state-aided purchase, it may be well to give, with some fulness, the 

 reasons why the Committee rejects it as a possible solution. 



Under a scheme of which the author is Mr. Jesse Colhngs, M. P., and 

 which has been presented to ParHament in the form of a Bill known as the 

 lyand Purchase BiU it is proposed that the State should advance money at 

 3 ^ per cent., to include interest and sinking fund. In the opinion of the 

 Committee this would be financially unsound, since the State is unable to 

 borro > . at so low a rate as 3 per cent. The so-called Haversham Committee 

 (a Departmental Committee appointed to inquire into the position of ten- 

 ant farmers in the case of the sale of the estates on which they hold land) 

 considered various schemes and eventually decided to recommend as fi- 

 nancially possible a scheme whereby four-fifths of the purchase money should 

 be lent, 3 ^ per cent, being charged as interest and a further 3/^ per cent, 

 to cover sinking fund, expenses and contingencies. From the date of the 

 Haversham Committee's Report, Government securities further depredat- 

 ed, and the Land Enquiry Committee held that the lowest rate at which 

 Land Stock could be issued was 3 ^ per cent. Further, they point out 

 that the ^/^ per cent, to cover sinking fund and expenses of management 

 would only enable a farmer to purchase in 75 years. The scheme of the Hav- 

 ersham Committee, they say, involving the payment of 4 per cent on four- 

 fifths of the purchase price, met with scant favour amongst tenant farmers 

 desirous of purchasing and they argue that at 4 ^ per cent, there would 

 be still less inchnation to purchase. 



Referring to land purchase in Ireland, the Committee argue that it 

 cannot be regarded as a precedent for land purchase in England. 



In Ireland land purchase was based upon considerations of national 

 poHcy and it is being carried out at enormous expense to the taxpayer. 

 Apart from the cost of administration, the total cost to the tax-payer up 

 to March 31st., 1912, in bonuses to landlords and in the loss upon the issue 

 of land-stock below par amotmted to £ 13,410,066, while a further cost of 

 £ 10,000,000 would probably be incurred in the same way on the purchase 

 agreements which had been lodged but not fully dealt with. 



Evidence is given to show that what the farmer desires is not owner- 

 ship but security of tenure, and calculations are presented to show that, un- 

 der a system of State-aided purchase which was financially sound, the 

 farmer would generally be paying an annuity charge higher than the rent 

 he would pay as tenant. The objection is also raised that the purchasing 

 farmer would be sinking a portion of his capital, and would have less 

 capital for working the land. 



The Committee express the view that the extension of pubfic ownership 

 of land would materially advance the solution of the problem under consider- 



