cccv 



will be feimplj ruined ; ho will be turned, in faot, from perhaps a poor 

 ryot into not a solvent labourer, but into a landless labourer without any 

 means or opportunities for procuring subsistence. 



The suggestion to fix a minimum limit to sub-division by legislation 

 is equally impracticable. There is no means of enforcing such a 

 striction, and wherever it has been imposed it is found that the law is a 

 dead letter. The Government might, no doubt, refuse to recognise the 

 sub-division for the purpose of recovery of its revenue, but this does not 

 prevent the holding being practically sub- divided for purposes of cul- 

 tivation, while remaining undivided for purposes of revenue collection. 

 Even if it were thought proper for Government to insist on the holding 

 being the exclusive property of some one of the sharers, and the Gov- 

 ernment granted it away arbitrarily to him, it would be of doubtful 

 advantage to the favored individual who would be burdened with the 

 liability to pay the other sharers the value of their shares ; and the 

 tendency of the legislation would be to compel the sharers to continue 

 as members of a joint family even when they found it advantageous to 

 divide. There would be difficulty also in fixing the minimum limit 

 with reference to the requirements of the several classes of lands, e.g.^ 

 lands in the vicinity of towns, employed in raising market garden 

 produce, which are highly productive and held in small plots. 



Mr. Henry W. Wolff in an article on peasant properties contributed 

 to the Contemporary lieview for May 1891, makes the following remarks 

 on the failure of legislative attempts to regulate the minimum limit 

 of farms in Germany : " Under the modern Saxon law — similar laws 

 exist in other countries — a ' peasant property ' is not divisible beyond a 

 certain minimum area. It is a foolish regulation as the result has 

 shown. For the small plots and the 'rolling' — i.e.^ detachable — portions 

 fetch throughout the highest prices. Protection, after its wont, has 

 inj ured the interest which it desired to benefit. Following in the foot- 

 steps of the Hanoverian Government, most German Governments have 

 introduced what they call a Hoeferolle, a register, i.e., in which peasant 

 owners may inscribe their properties in order to ensure, in cases of 

 intestacy, undivided descent to one heir. That law has in most countries 

 remained a dead letter. One agricultural Minister related to me with 

 glee that he had done better than his short-sighted colleagues. They 

 had left the presumption on the side of division. He had put it on the 

 side of intact descent. But his shrewdness does not appear to have 

 materially altered the result. The fact is that the proprietors know 

 their own interests far better than do })aternal Governments. Theyfind 

 it more to their advantage to curtail their holdings, and to sell at a good 

 price in plots than to retain large showy estates at a loss. Foiled in 

 respect of the HoeferoUe the advocates of larger properties now openly 

 propose such preposterous measures as these — enforced devise of un- 

 divided properties at much less than their real value, a provision securing 

 mortgagors against notice of repayment except by a sinking fund 

 (spread over many years) , and partial exemption from rates and taxes ! 

 Could there be a more complete confession of failure ? These wise 

 people have been fighting very hard against common sense and Provi- 

 dence. Both alike point out very clearly the way in which a plethora 

 of population can and should relieve itself. They know better. But 

 once more the sea has held its own against meddling Canute." In 

 Germany, as in France, the farms appear to be of very small size. 12| 



