396 CONCLUSION 



natural rights, societies to nationalise the land, heroic remedies of 

 illogical half-disciples of Mr. Henry George, might be in themselves 

 of little importance. But when the air was filled with vague threats, 

 the attitude of Ministers remained studiously neutral. Agitators 

 complained of conditions which they themselves rendered chronic. 

 Meanwhile the continued insecurity was rapidly producing results 

 which threatened the subversion of rural society. Fortunately the 

 example has been recently given that a patriotic fusion of political 

 parties for the promotion of national interests is yet possible in 

 party government. That restoration of confidence, which is the 

 indispensable preliminary to agricultural revival, seems aheady to 

 have begun, and to bear fruit m renewed energy. Arguments 

 urged against the artificial creation of a peasant proprietary scarcely 

 apply to their natural growth. . . . Socially the advantages of a 

 class of peasant owners are indisputably great. The rural economy 

 of the nation would benefit by the diffusion of land ownership, and 

 farming offers no exception to the rule that two strings to the bow 

 are better than one. If legislation is only invoked to remove arti- 

 ficial aids to the aggregation of large estates, the process m ill not 

 foster that sense of insecurity which has paralysed the energies of 

 landlords, and rendered chronic the enfeebled state of agriculture. 

 Already signs appear of a tendency towards the multiplication of 

 small tenant-farmers, if not of small owners. Small holdings 

 obstructed progress so long as capital was required for the re- 

 clamation, enclosure, drainage, and equipment of land. But at 

 the present day this argument loses much of its force. So again, 

 while England depended for grain on home supplies, corn could be 

 produced more economically on large farms. Now, when prices 

 render its home production unremunerative, and foreign suppHes 

 are adequate to our wants, another argument for large farms is at 

 least modified. Small farmers, content with small profits, depend- 

 ing on gardens, live-stock, and dairies, commanding the unpaid 

 labour of their own famiHes, may make both ends meet, where larger 

 capitaHsts go through the Court. If agriculture is tending in this 

 direction, legislation must remove aU hindrances to its natural 

 course ; landlords are sufficiently ahve to their own interests to do 

 the rest." ^ 



In 1888 the country seemed to be standing on the verge of some 

 great change. The development of high farming had been arrested 

 ^ Pioneers and Progress of English Farming (1888), pp. 179-180. 



