240 RURAL DENMARK 



them successful, and that they would be still more so 

 were the proportion of capital to be provided by the 

 small-holder raised to one-third, or at any rate to one- 

 fifth. In short, to take two examples only, I endorse 

 the views of Mr. Schou and of Mr. Niels Pedersen- 

 Nyskov, which have already been quoted. 



Still this does not mean that every Danish small- 

 holder succeeds. As to the proportion of success or 

 failure, indeed I believe that Mr. Ole Larsen, himself 

 \ one of them, spoke the exact, or at any rate the 

 *- approximate truth. He said that about half of them 

 succeeded, about one-third just lived, while the rest failed ; 

 adding that everything depended upon the individual. 



If, as I think, this basis may be accepted as correct, 

 it cannot be held that the Danish Government was 

 mistaken in establishing these small-holders in view 

 of the benefits which the multiplication of such a class 

 must confer upon any country. On the contrary, the 

 effort was good, and will prove fruitful of good. 

 Therefore it would seem that Great Britain would 

 be wise to follow the example on a large scale, 

 provided that such holdings can be made to pay. But 

 without Housemen's Credit Unions, schools, and Co- 

 operation, can they be made to pay in bulk ? At present 

 the circumstances of the two countries are quite differ- 

 ent, and there is therefore a fear that even if the State 

 advances the money, what only just succeeds in Denmark, 

 which is already a community of co-operating small- 

 holders, may in England prove little short of a fiasco. 



Indeed, as I have shown, here the small-holder 

 either has no will or no funds to buy. At present he 

 prefers to remain a tenant. Therefore it would appear 

 that the movement can be best developed on the lines 

 of tenancy, at any rate until the conditions change. 



