74 Large and Small Holdings 



which desired to prove that the social superiority of the small holding 

 (or in his case the small property) was also an economic superiority, 

 and regarded the personal interest of the small holder and his 

 family as an advantage which quite overshadowed any gains arising 

 from the division of labour as carried out on large farms. But he 

 too overlooked the fact that though this intensive application of 

 labour might be very valuable in regard of certain products it could 

 not compensate for the intensive application of capital in the case of 

 arable farming, which could be carried on to admiration by means of 

 machinery and hired labour. 



In this way there came to be two equally one-sided doctrines as 

 to the unit of holding, both correct in some respects, but false when 

 generalised. Both failed to take account of the fact that the develop- 

 ment of the large unit of management, as it proceeded in agriculture 

 from 1760 onwards, was only the means of bringing to perfection one 

 branch of agricultural production, namely corn-growing, and later 

 pasture-farming so far as it was combined with arable. Both 

 neglected the peculiarity of the existing market conditions, which 

 gave predominance to that particular branch of agriculture which 

 could best be conducted on the large farm. But the history of the 

 rise of the large farm system in England is the history of the 

 increasing profitableness of corn-growing. It was this which revolu- 

 tionised the system of holdings, and brought about the ruin of the 

 small farmers, the disappearance of the yeomanry and the destruction 

 of the landholding labourers, replacing all these classes by the capi- 

 talist large farmer on the one hand, and an agricultural proletariat on 

 the other. All attempts to counteract this process on social grounds 

 failed hopelessly in face of its economic force. The theories in 

 favour of small holdings put forward by social reformers were 

 regarded as simply expressing a ridiculous failure to understand an 

 economic development which a century's experience established as 

 a general law of agriculture. The superiority of the large unit of 

 holding had become an article of faith. 



