4,1 



yield to eucli pressure he pays a heavy bill for improvements 

 in which he never benefited ; the farm is thrown on his hands ; 

 he risks its being unlet. Suppose that he has not obtained a 

 tenant when the former occupier leaves. He has, as landlord, 

 to pay compensation on some of the twenty-three improvements 

 of the Agricultural Holdings Act ; he is lucky if he escapes 

 litigation with an opponent who is advised by a speculative 

 attorney and is prepared to go bankrupt if the law decides 

 against him. Against this pressure sees. 29 and 39 of the Agri- 

 cultural Holdings Act afford no adequate protection or relief. 

 The glebeowner has also to take to the valuations as if 

 he was the incoming tenant. At the end of three or six 

 mouths he finds a tenant ; the latter pooh-poohs the valuation, 

 refuses to take to the fallows which the former tenant set off 

 against his rent, and probably demands to hold the farm for 

 nothing during the first half-year of the tenancy. 



Already the long-continued agricultural depression has made 

 the Act comparatively valueless. It was framed to encourage 

 capitalist farmers who were eager to lay out money on their 

 holdings. Where are they now, and where is their capital ? The 

 boon is extended too late. It is like the cheap loaf offered to 

 artisans who cannot earn wages. What will be shortly required 

 is an Act to deal with small, not large farmers, with men who 

 have little money of their own, rather than with capitalists. 

 The probable outcome of the distress will be a large increase of 

 small holdings, and the practical disappearance of the middle- 

 sized farm of from 150 to 600 acres. The eye and hand of the 

 master or the capital of the machine-owning farmer will alone 

 overcome the difficulties of existing conditions. If the prophecy 

 proves correct, there is some hope that the position of the 

 glebeowner may be considered ; he will no longer stand alone. 

 The Agricultural Holdings Act of 1883 is framed, so far as the 

 glebeowner is concei'ued, in the expectation that the tenants 

 will effect improvements. On many glebe farms more pasture 

 is urgently required. But laying land down to grass is an 

 expensive process ; glebe tenjints cannot find the money. So 

 again by breaking up middle-sized farms into smaller holdings 

 glebe lands might be let. But here again a large expenditure is 

 required, and the small farmer cannot afford the outlay. In 

 both cases the glebeowner would, I believe, sink his private 

 capital, supposing him to possess it. But if he does, he is 

 absolutely without any security for his investment. Who can 

 expect poor men to face the risk? 



Much has been done to remove the stigma of bad farming 

 which rests upon glebe-lands ; but much remains to be done. 

 Large sums of money, raised by charges or out of private capital, 

 have been expended on farms and buildings, but a considerable 



