380 THE COUNCIL'S DIFFICULTIES 



appear to have done their best to put the Act into 

 operation : 



' . . . Even had they been able to come to an 

 agreement with the owner, your Committee would 

 have felt it their duty to bring before the most 

 serious consideration of the Council the question 

 whether it is expedient for the Council to purchase 

 land especially, as in the present instance, arable 

 land when the Petitioners, or the greater number 

 of them, apply to be allowed to lease, and not to 

 become owners of, their holdings. If this course 

 is followed, the Council may in course of time find 

 itself the landlord of a number of small properties 

 scattered over the whole county, having in its 

 service no officers to watch the cultivation or even 

 to collect the rents, continually liable to loss from 

 the non-payment of rent, from the deterioration of 

 land, from bad cultivation (and while many of the 

 small holders will cultivate their land well, this 

 cannot be expected in every instance), from loss 

 also when compensation has to be paid to an out- 

 going tenant, which the incoming tenant either 

 cannot or will not meet. 



' The Act requires that the county shall incur no 

 loss from putting it into operation, and, to guarantee 

 it against loss, a rent will have to be put on the 

 land that few applicants for small holdings will 

 be disposed to pay, while, in the case of sale, no 

 more need be asked than is sufficient to recoup the 

 Council in the expense actually incurred. 



*The Small Holdings Act also clearly contem- 



