486 READINGS IN RURAL ECONOMICS 



country like Denmark, where it is so limited in extent, would 

 still rise in value. The point for present consideration, therefore, 

 is whether the State small-holder does or does not succeed as an 

 agriculturist. To me the answer seems to be that undoubtedly 

 he does to a very considerable extent. 



On one subject, however, I am perfectly clear in my own mind 

 that were it not for the elaborate Danish system of co-operation 

 he would fail miserably. By co-operation he lives and moves and 

 has his being. Also I consider that he ought to possess a good 

 deal more than a tenth of the total capital, for if this were so, his 

 struggle would be much less hard and the proportion of failures 

 would be far fewer. These are points that will have to be kept 

 steadily in view should the establishment of such a class of free- 

 holders, or even of leaseholders, aided by State money, ever come 

 up for practical consideration in Great Britain. 



One thing more. The reader of these pages may say with 

 justice that obviously there exists a great body of opinion in 

 Denmark which is altogether adverse to and has not the slightest 

 faith in the State small-holding movement. This is perfectly true. 

 I do not think that I spoke to any large landowner or large 

 farmer for in Denmark the two are practically identical who 

 was enthusiastic about this movement, while most of them were 

 distinctly averse to it. Still this unanimity of hostile opinion 

 should be heavily discounted, for the reason that in every country 

 with which I am acquainted, not excluding England, the large 

 farmer looks on the small-holder with strong dislike and quite 

 apart from the question of whether or no his existence is a ben- 

 efit to the community as a whole. Circumstances into which I 

 will not enter now make it more or less natural that he should 

 do so ; or even if this statement is disputed, the fact remains 

 that he does. 



