272 RURAL DENMARK 



Here is an instance taken from a report of a Board 

 of Agriculture inquiry held in the Eastern counties in 

 January 191 1. 



A County Council desired to take thirty acres 

 of land from a certain estate for the purpose of 

 small-holdings. The owner resisted stoutly, with the 

 result that this inquiry was held. How it has been 

 decided I do not know. In giving evidence the 

 owner's lawyer stated that the property had been pur- 

 chased "for the purpose of acquiring a country family 

 residence and for sporting rights," and that his prin- 

 cipal had settled there and spent a very great deal 

 of money " with a view to having good shooting." 

 Also the owner himself stated that he thought the 

 taking of the thirty acres " would altogether spoil 

 the shooting." 



Obviously this gentleman is in no way to blame 

 because he objects to a use being made of his land 

 that in his view will interfere with the purpose for 

 which it was purchased by him. Indeed it appears to 

 me that he deserves some sympathy. Doubtless he 

 bought his property not from philanthropic motives or 

 to multiply small-holders, but, as he says, to enjoy good 

 sport. Probably if he had known that a portion of it 

 was to be seized by the County Council and used as 

 small-holdings, he would have declined to buy. In 

 a sense, indeed, the State seems to have broken an 

 implied, if not an expressed bargain, namely, that he 

 should enjoy quiet and undisturbed possession of his 

 own. I repeat that his case is a strong one. That 

 shooting and small-holdings do not agree together is 

 no fault of his. 



I hope, therefore, the reader will understand that 

 I have not entered on this disquisition without a 



