232 RURAL DENMARK 



should be put, or 160 in all. This brings up the 

 total expense to ^860, or with extras for legal 

 expenses, &c, to ^900. 



Of this amount, under the Danish system, the 

 houseman or little farmer would only be called upon 

 to put down one-tenth in cash, namely ^90. But if 

 it is agreed that it is desirable that such a person 

 should possess not less than one-third of the capital, 

 the English small-holder who was buying by State 

 aid would be called upon to produce ^300, which he 

 could seldom borrow, as everything that he had down 

 to his hens would be mortgaged to the State. Now, 

 how many intending small-holders in England will be 

 able to count down these three hundred sovereigns, 

 without which the purchase could not be effected ? I 

 imagine not a large proportion, since ^300 takes 

 some saving out of a labourer's wages. 



Therefore it would appear that this attractive 

 freehold system must often be impracticable, in 

 which case the alternative of long leasehold might 

 prove the better course. At 4 per cent, on the cost 

 of the land and buildings and the Government could 

 scarcely ask less the rent payable would then be 

 ^28 per annum, or probably about the same as the 

 amount required to enable the freeholder to purchase 

 the property on the Danish system over a term of 

 nearly a century of time. But the difficulty of 

 stocking, which would cost ^160, still remains, the 

 difference in favour of the small-holder being ^140, 

 the balance of the ^300 which he would be required 

 to find if he bought the freehold. As a leaseholder, 

 however, although the proceeding is not to be advo- 

 cated, he could probably borrow a portion of this 

 ^140, if he did not chance to possess that sum, upon 



