106 THE AGRICULTURAL CLUB. 



of farmers are opposed to the nationalisation of rural land ; 

 it could only be done in the face of their opposition. Accord- 

 ing to Mr. Outhwaite, the State should charge far higher ren- 

 tals than are now charged by the present owners. This would 

 hardly tend to lessen their opposition. If nationalisation 

 were forced upon farmers there is no doubt that the result 

 would be to upset them to such an extent that the production 

 of food from the land would be seriously lessened, and this for 

 a long period. 



But we are out to increase the production of food from the 

 land. How, then, justify a measure which would undoubtedly 

 cause serious upheaval in our greatest industry and at the same 

 time produce little or no financial gain for the nation. 



From the social point of view it is desirable that the land 

 should give employment to the largest possible number of 

 people, working and living under proper conditions, that there 

 should be easier access to land than in the past, and undoubtedly 

 that the very large estates should be reduced in size. 



But if nationalising the land would arouse the active hostility 

 of a most important section of the agricultural community, and 

 further, check the development of the industry and consequently 

 lessen employment on the land, it is hard to see how it can be 

 sound from the social point of view. 



Finally, we have taken many centuries to work away from 

 the old feudal conditions when the cultivators of the soil were 

 villeins to their over-lord. The antithesis to this system is that 

 of occupying ownership. 



If the State were to become the single over-lord and owner 

 of all the land in the kingdom, the position of the cultivator 

 of the soil might well return to that obtaining in feudal times. 

 Only in a way it would be worse, for he would be over-ridden 

 with officials and officialdom. 



There is no getting away from the fact that to nationalise 

 the land is to perpetuate the system of tenancy. But it has 

 been shown that on the one hand under the tenancy system 

 our land has reached only some 50 per cent, of its potential 

 development ; on the other hand, that in every other country in 

 the world (new and old) the system of tenancy has been deliber- 

 ately rejected in favour of that of occupying ownership with 

 resulting more complete development and greater inducement 

 for personal enterprise. 



And it must be remembered that in nearly every other country 

 much more thought and care has been given to land questions 

 than with us. We should, therefore, hesitate before we pro- 

 nounce against the results of universal experience. 



As far as the objects of the land nationalisers go, I think I 

 am safe in assuming that most of us are in sympathy with 



