SMALL-HOLDINGS AND CO-OPERATION 61 



save perhaps where they chanced to grow sugar-beet. 

 Why this should be so he did not know, but in 

 support of his assertion he gave instances of which he 

 had personal experience. 



He thought that co-operation was at the bottom 

 of the comparative success of Danish agriculture, 

 which caused the price of land to rise in Denmark, 

 whereas in England, where co-operation practically 

 did not exist, it remained stationary or decreased. 

 Co-operation, however, as he believed, could scarcely 

 flourish where the land was hired and not owned. As 

 all co-operative accounts were open to inspection, 

 tenant farmers, if they chanced to be doing well, 

 feared lest their landlords should come to know of 

 their prosperity and take advantage of it to raise 

 their rents. To flourish, co-operation must be prac- I 

 tised amongst freeholders. 



The real, underlying reason of the success of 

 Danish agriculture, however, was that having no 

 other resource the Danish people must rely on it 

 for a living. Denmark had nothing to invest in 

 except its land. In England things were different; 

 there the land and agriculture were but side-issues. 



In talking of the problem of free trade and pro- 

 tection, Mr. Schou remarked that there were no duties 

 in Denmark on any ordinary food-stuffs, except a 

 small one on cheese and on imported fruits such as 

 oranges and apricots. Nor was there any import tax 

 save a slight charge on machinery. The only other 

 duties were 10 ore per lb. on sugar, which is largely 

 produced in the country, and a trifle upon coal. (The 

 excise charged upon the home-made beet-sugar is, I 

 believe, 4 ore (or one halfpenny) per kilo or 2 lbs. 

 Danish.) 



