230 LAND REFORM 



about twice the size, which was in a most foul con- 

 dition, being covered with thistles and other rubbish. 

 Now, supposing that the farmer paid one pound per 

 acre rent, and that he and the small holder each grew 

 one acre, say, of peas, the latter would be handicapped 

 to the extent of four pounds for a single acre, which is 

 a profit in itself. The other case was that of a man 

 who held three acres at three pounds per acre, while 

 a large farm practically adjoining was let at seven- 

 and-sixpence per acre. So that the small man in this 

 case was charged eight times the rent the farmer 

 paid. 



The ** land hunger " must indeed be great to induce 

 men to pay such large rents and to think themselves 

 fortunate in beinor able to sfet land at all. No doubt 

 the six acres the two men rented at five pounds per 

 acre were worth five times as much per acre as the 

 adjoining field. But it was the industry and skill of 

 the men that made it so, and the question naturally 

 arises, Why should their industry and skill be taxed to 

 the extent of;^24 per annum? The position is best 

 illustrated by thus stating individual cases, provided 

 that the cases are not solitary ones, but are representa- 

 tive of a large class which exists. 



In any scheme for the re-creation of a peasant 

 proprietary such men as these should be sought out 

 and encouraged in every way. They should be dealt 

 with in the same spirit as recruiting and other means 

 of national defence are dealt with, not altogether for 

 the benefit of the men themselves, but for the good 

 and safety of the country. Were these cultivators 

 thus looked upon and their children properly educated 

 and had prospects connected with the soil provided 

 for them, there can be litde doubt that migration to 



