232 RURAL RECONSTRUCTION 



served directly to produce that easier condition which to a certain 

 extent has caused our eclipse. 



I have dealt with the question of working credit for current 

 purposes in another chapter. For the acquisition of land, however, 

 at any rate in the majority of cases, a different kind of credit 

 is required, which pledges the land. It is of this kind of credit 

 and its popularisation and extension — from the cumbrous and 

 antiquated form in which we actually have it — that I would here 

 speak. 



To the occupying tenant the privilege of using the landlord's 

 land on comparatively easy terms is, after all, only an operation of 

 credit. Instead of lending his money, the landlord lends money's 

 worth in the shape of land. But for the peculiar covenants and 

 other conditions attaching to the payment of hire, the tenant's 

 position would not be essentially different if in the place of " rent ' : 

 he were made to pay " interest." His " rent," indeed, is " interest." 

 The difference between the two things begins when the other 

 responsibilities for the land handed over to him come into account. 

 Now, the question is, whether — however rightfully exacted they 

 may be — those additional impediments do not make the loan granted 

 dear, instead of cheap. The lender of money asks for his interest 

 and nothing more. Under his lease or agreement the tenant finds 

 his hands tied pretty tightly, and foregoes practically very much 

 right to fair consideration and just compensation in the event of 

 giving up his tenancy. Though the nation calls upon him to farm 

 " intensively," and his own interest bids him turn the land to the 

 best possible account, he cannot farm as he pleases. And his 

 improvements, instead of " growing into money " for himself, only 

 " grow into money " for the landlord. Then, is the " cheap " 

 land quite a fair quid pro quo for what he sacrifices ? Would not a 

 plain money debt, supposing that the farmer could obtain it in a 

 convenient form and at a reasonable rate, be after all the better 

 bargain, by leaving him free to farm as he might please and securing 

 his improvements all for himself ? 



It would be a mistake to regard this as a matter merely for the 

 large farmer " farming for business." It, in truth, affects the small 

 man proportionally to a much greater extent, because to him and 

 his family his little holding is his home — which in nine cases out of 

 ten he wishes to preserve for his family. Moreover, in proportion 

 to the area occupied, the small holder is of necessity called upon to 

 farm more " intensively." But " intensive " farming means out- 

 lay. And if our man — which is doubtful — should not put in pro- 



