60 RURAL DENMARK 



In his opinion long leaseholds in the end meant a 

 system of land nationalisation, since then the State 

 or some other public authority must own the land. 

 This he considered a dangerous innovation and one 

 that might produce consequences at present unforeseen. 

 Therefore the freehold system- seemed safer and more 

 in accordance with the teachings of experience. On 

 *the other hand, the advantage of a leasehold system 

 was that an able and pushing man could move from 

 farm to larger farm. The freeholder, on the con- 

 trary, in most cases remained tied to his freehold. 

 Where he was, there he must stay till death, as even 

 if he had the money to buy adjoining land, so soon as 

 this became known the price would certainly be put 

 up against him. 



He added that in considering this question it 

 should be remembered that a tenant or leaseholder 

 in Denmark held himself to be in an inferior position 

 to a freeholder, and therefore leaseholds would not 

 succeed in that country. The real reason of the 

 demand for their creation was political. Those who 

 advocated them desired the nationalisation of the land. 



Mr. Schou did not consider that in Denmark there 

 is any real risk to the State owing to the possibility 

 of the small-holdings created under the various Acts 

 being ultimately thrown on to its hands. If their 

 owners failed, such holdings were sold by auction, and 

 the loss to the country, if any, was very small. Nor 

 did he consider that the increase of such State small- 

 holdings would adversely affect the labour supply. 



Mr, Schou asserted that the condition of Danish 

 agriculture is prosperous except in the case of the 

 large farms, and that the little men and the small- 

 holders made money, while the large farmers did not, 



