THE COTTAGE. 137 



war. Further, we cannot draw a strict line of demarcation 

 between the various classes of occupiers of rural cottages when 

 fixing rents for a group of identical houses. 



I now want to say a word with reference to uneconomic 

 rents. Let us take, for example, three labourers each paying 

 an uneconomic rent. The first takes a tied house from the 

 employer. In this case the employer is in fact paying a part of 

 his rent. The man gets a larger wage than is apparent from 

 the amount of his weekly earnings. The second labourer gets 

 his house from the landowner. He is in this case subsidised 

 by the landowner. The third labourer is the new type of case 

 where the agricultural labourer rents his cottage from the local 

 authority. If the landowner is able to point to a considerable 

 number of empty municipal cottages in a village near his land 

 which are to be let at an uneconomic rent, either he is able to 

 let his farm at a comparatively high rent without having to 

 put capital into it by building cottages, as he had to build 

 stables, byres, etc., or the farmer is relieved of the necessity 

 based on the cost of building in 1927, when we hope we shall 

 have arrived at the post-war normal conditions, and when 

 costs may have fallen by 30 per cent. Post-war rents must be 

 a great deal higher than pre-war, and it is absolutely necessary 

 to reconsider the figure of 35. which is at present the maximum 

 rent for a tied cottage. It will be impossible to say to local 

 authorities that they should charge 75. rent, and at the same 

 time say to the private builder that he may only charge 35. 

 for an identical cottage in the same area. We must bear in 

 mind the necessity for other houses in rural areas than those 

 for agricultural workers, and we must consider the difficulty 

 which local authorities would experience in attempting to let 

 houses in the same area at different rents. In pre-war days 

 the agricultural labourer would, in many cases, have been 

 prepared to pay a higher rent for a better cottage. While the 

 cost of living has doubled, agricultural wages have more than 

 doubled. On the information available I do not think it would 

 be unfair to say that the initial rent for an agricultural cottage 

 should be at least 75. to los. By this I do not mean that it 

 is desirable that the rent of all the old cottages, many of which 

 are far below our present standard, should go up to the same 

 figure as for good new cottages. In 1927 it will be necessary 

 to arrive at a very substantial increase, and so in all probability 

 there should be an intermediate rise on the proposed initial 

 rents, say in about two or three years' time. The fact is that 

 we must put rural housing on a commercial footing as soon 

 as possible and get away from anything savouring of charity or 

 subsidy. No industry can really exist without being placed 

 upon a sound economic basis, and if the rural exodus and agricul- 



