RISKS TO THE STATE 243 



would conclude that a farm in possession of an owner, 

 who knows every inch of his land, and whose eye 

 is on every operation connected with it, could be 

 managed at probably half the cost in proportion to 

 the expense of management of a huge estate. In 

 arguing this matter, it must be borne in mind that 

 there is no question of competing for trade among 

 British agriculturists. The demand for the produc- 

 tions of the soil is practically unlimited, and the sole 

 question is how to meet it. The only competition is 

 with the foreigner. A powerful agrarian party in 

 England, while knowing that it would be impossible 

 to get protection — in the old sense of the term — for 

 their industry, would very properly ask for — and would 

 probably secure — measures of defe^ice against what- 

 ever is shown to be unfair and illegitimate in foreign 

 competition. 



Every attempt to protect the tenant farmer by 

 legislation has more or less failed. In Ireland dual 

 ownership was tried, with disastrous effects on the 

 landlord, and with no ultimate good to the tenant. 

 The legal fixing of rents was almost equally unsatis- 

 factory. As far as Ireland is concerned, we have had 

 statesmen who — discarding the policy of tinkering — 

 were bold enough and wise enough, by the Irish Land 

 Purchase Act, 1903, to adopt the only possible solution 

 of the difficulty. 



In England the various Agricultural Holdings Acts 

 1875-1900 have practically failed in their object. 

 Even the last Act (1900) is regarded by nearly all of 

 the best farmers as quite insufficient.^ These Acts 



^ The late Mr. Clare Sewell Read, a most competent authority on this 

 subject, wrote as follows : " I contend that the valuers of Norfolk, instead 

 of having carried out the Act as they ought to have done, have avoided 



