264 RURAL DENMARK 



one to the owner, one to the farmer, and one to 

 the labourer. I suggest that the first two of these 

 might with advantage be amalgamated as they are in 

 Denmark. The owner should be the farmer or the 

 farmer the owner. 



As I need scarcely add I am well aware that even 

 if such were the case the difficulties would not be done 

 with. Thus if the owner farms he must find the 

 capital to enable him to do so. All that he would 

 gain would be the tenant's profit, whatever that may 

 be. In the same way, if the farmer owns he must 

 provide or borrow the purchase price of his land, the 

 interest on which would thenceforth represent his rent, 

 unless, indeed, he can persuade the State to do this 

 for him, as the Irish have done. 



The beneficial results of a change from tenancy to 

 ownership therefore would be but gradual. But, as I 

 believe, these would follow certainly, if slowly, and not 

 the least of its indirect benefits would be the spread of 

 general co-operation. I am told, however, that the 

 tenant as a class has no wish to buy, that he prefers 

 "a generous landlord." If this be so there is nothing 

 more to be said. But on the other hand, I observe 

 that the Central Chamber of Agriculture and, I be- 

 lieve, over a hundred other Chambers have passed 

 practically unanimous resolutions in favour of Mr. 

 Jesse Collings's Land Purchase Bill. This seems to 

 suggest that farmers, after all, do desire to own the 

 land they till. In any case, far be it from me to 

 presume to criticise the judgment of others or to offer 

 them advice ; indeed I hope it will be understood that 

 I have no such intention in anything I may have 

 written in this book. I deal merely with facts and 

 principles, and do but set out for consideration 



