After the Repeal of the Corn- laws 73 



"Men who live in towns" is a euphemism for persons who do 

 not understand agriculture, an accusation often brought against the 

 friends of small holdings both in the period in question and even now 

 in districts where the large farm system is successful. The ground 

 of the accusation is obvious. The defenders of small holdings 

 championed them apparently in face of the clearest contradiction 

 from the economic and agricultural conditions of their time. They 

 regarded the consolidation of holdings as an evil occasioned by the 

 ambition, covetousness and tyranny of certain individuals, and 

 attempted to show theoretically that small holdings were not only 

 socially desirable, but economically profitable. They argued from 

 the particular holdings which they saw either vanishing or still sur- 

 viving before their eyes. As the apologists of the large farm deduced 

 their doctrine from the case of the corn-grower, so they discussed the 

 live-stock, the dairies, the fruit and vegetables etc. of the small farm. 

 They showed how the small holders had the advantage in the pro- 

 duction of these "trifles," or "small objects." Nathaniel Kent, for 

 instance, argued on these lines 1 ; and he fully realised the reason of 

 their advantage. If the defenders of the large farmer pointed to his 

 intensive application of capital, Kent showed how the small agricul- 

 turist, working for himself, worked " more cheerfully, zealously and 

 diligently" than the wage-labourer would ever do. In other words, 

 it is the intensive application of labour which he praises. And 

 intensive application of labour did in fact give the small farm the 

 advantage in the branches of production which he had in view. Cow- 

 keeping, market-gardening, and dairy-work did require that care 

 which was ensured by the personal interest of the small farmer but 

 never given by the wage-labourer. The case was proved in practice 

 by the general neglect of these branches of production on the part 

 of the large farmers. So far Kent had as much right on his side as 

 his opponents had from their own point of view. But, like them, he 

 rashly generalised his conclusions. From the fact that the small 

 farms were superior to the large in certain points he concluded that 

 they were absolutely superior. Like Young and Marshall, he even 

 proceeded to lay down a certain ideal division of an estate, naturally 

 allotting the lion's share to the small holders 2 . At a later date John 

 Stuart Mill argued in a similar way 3 . He too belonged to the party 



1 Kent, Hints, pp. 213 f. 



2 Ibid., p. 217. On an estate of ^1000 a year, he would have one farm let at a rent of 

 160, one at 120, one at 100, two at &o, two at 60, two at ^50, three at 40, and 

 four at .,30. 



8 J. S. Mill, Principles of Political Economy, 6th ed., 1855, pp. 180 rT. 



