Conclusion. 



I have purposely refrained from attempting to lay down 

 a definite and detailed agricultural policy. By doing so I 

 have laid myself open to the charge that I have been 

 prodigal in criticism but niggardly in construction. I 

 might have anticipated such a charge by detailed proposals, 

 but I am willing to let my critics have the satisfaction that 

 I accept their criticism. The diversity of conditions we 

 have in this country and the scope of the industry make 

 any serious student chary of attempting to formulate 

 definite schemes. All we can do is to lay down a few 

 general principles and leave the working out of these to 

 the experience gained in action. Our greatest need is to 

 accumulate data and to learn by doing, leaving the schemes 

 to evolve in the light of knowledge gained. I shall 

 endeavour, however, to summarise the arguments of the 

 preceding chapters. 



The present system of ownership and control of 

 agricultural land shows a progressive failure to serve the 

 needs of the agricultural industry. The landowner cannot 

 maintain the permanent equipment of the land in a state 

 to enable farming operations to be carried on efficiently. 

 The management of agricultural land is not conducted as 

 a business, but is incidental to the ownership and control 

 of the land for social and political purposes. The 

 community has been increasing its control and management 

 of the land by legislation and administration. I see no 

 hope for any proper management of agricultural land unless 



"5 



