222 RURAL RECONSTRUCTION 



dared to call for enfranchisement. A different method must be 

 tried. The dog's ears must be clipped in bits. There wa.s held to 

 be unassailable justice in the old traditional argument, that landlord's 

 land, being let at a cheaper rent than what tenant's money might 

 be expected to fetch in other employment, in the shape of interest, 

 constituted a greater benefit to the cultivator than freedom to use 

 that land in the most productive possible fashion ; and the proposi- 

 tion that he must either be assured full time for the return of his 

 labour for himself, or else be guaranteed against loss, was simply 

 laughed at. As for the further consideration, that land let in tenancy 

 cannot fail to be impoverished by being worked out in the last years 

 of the term, that was not yet thought of. 



Thus stood the matter about a generation ago. However, 

 farmers began to detect the wrong done to them, and clamour 

 became too great to be ignored. There had been spirited discussion 

 already in the 'sixties. I well remember those debates. Then the 

 Farmers' Alliance took the field, and wisely, but still timidly, 

 yielding to those strident demands, in 1875, Mr. Disraeli brought 

 in and carried his at the time much belauded " Agricultural 

 Holdings Act." Of the crying inadequacy of that measure the 

 many tinkerings which have been proceeded with since, to patch it 

 up into something like a satisfying condition and prop it up to give 

 it stability, are eloquent, incontrovertible proofs. And yet, after 

 all that tinkering, the grievance is found still to remain. Here is 

 what the minority of the " Royal Commission appointed to inquire 

 into the Economic Prospects of the Agricultural Industry," consisting 

 of nearly half of the full number of members, state in the Interim 

 Report published early in the past year : " It is a significant fact, 

 that, almost without exception, the farmers who have given evi- 

 dence before us have insisted on the necessity for greater security 

 of tenure being given to farmers. This insistence is quite as strong 

 on the part of the farmers in Scotland, where the leasehold system 

 is prevalent, as on the part of the farmers of England and Wales, 

 with their yearly tenancies. ... It is impossible not to recognise 

 that there is no subject on which farmers are so unanimously in 

 agreement." The remaining twelve of the said Commission say : 

 "If Parliament so desires and farmers are required to take the 

 greater risks and responsibilities arising from increased corn pro- 

 duction, we think that a corresponding obligation rests upon the 

 State to preserve them from the possibility of loss due to a sub- 

 stantial fall in cereal prices. Much may no doubt be done in the 

 future to help the farmer to reduce his costs of production by 



