OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP 7 



I have received many private letters giving strong 

 opinions on this point. The following two are typical 

 of the whole, and are selected as coming from men 

 well known in the agricultural world, and who are 

 considered to be good farmers : — 



" 15 October, 1903. 



*' I welcome every effort to rid farmers of the mill- 

 stone always round their necks, I dare not farm v/ell, 

 or my rent may be raised, or I may not be able to get 

 the reductions off, which any of my neighbours can 

 who never put more into their land than the next 

 crop will take out. There is nothing so disheartening 

 as to feel that one cannot safely make the land pro- 

 duce all it can, and though I have felt it best to do 

 all one can in spite of the bad system, I have been 

 paying ten to fifteen shillings per acre more rent than 

 my neighbours, whose farms used to be higher rented 

 than mine." 



"23 December, 1903. 



" I am heartily in favour of making it possible for 

 tenants to own their occupations. The present system 

 of tenancy is a premium on bad farming. Whenever 

 any change of ownership or other cause involves a 

 readjustment, the good farmer, in most cases, has to 

 pay an increase of rent, and the bad farmer gets a 

 reduction." 



In looking for a remedy for this state of things it is 

 wise frankly to consider the facts of the situation. 

 Under our present system it is difficult to see how 

 any sufficient help can be given to agriculture. Small 

 advantages such as are given by the "Agricultural 



possible, because the cultivating owner on the Continent utihzes every 

 patch of ground. He grows corn on land that would not be used for 

 that purpose in this country. He gets a less number of bushels per 

 acre off such land and thereby lowers the total average yield, but the 

 cultivation pays him and is a gain to the community. 



