THE RURAL PROBLEM 67 



tenure of land, the education of the rural population, the 

 organisation of the market and the means of transit, the 

 development of co-operation and credit banks, and last but 

 not least the fairer adjustment of local taxation are all 

 matters of vital moment to him. Anything that increases 

 his present skill, anything strengthening his position in the 

 world, is well worth doing for national reasons. Conversely 

 he will participate — not alone, but chiefly — in the benefits ac- 

 cruing from those measures for the fuller development by the 

 State of the resources of the country which are now about 

 to be urged in the interests of all classes alike. 



It may be taken for granted that the agriculture of the 

 near future will be carried on by the two classes — i.e., the 

 large farmers and the small holders — whose respective spheres 

 of industry were discussed in the last chapter; and behind 

 any consideration of what is known as the Land Question 

 there must be some clear idea as to what is the ideal form of 

 land tenure in each case. 



In present-day politics the ideal of ownership is urged by 

 one of the great parties in the State, because it is claimed that 

 the sense of property is so deep-rooted in human nature 

 that in practice the average man will only put his best work 

 into what is his own. The separation of interests between 

 landlord and tenant is bound, they say, to prevent develop- 

 ment ; the tenant is hampered by restrictive covenants and 

 the feeling that his position is ultimately insecure, which is a 

 direct incentive to bad farming. On the other hand, the lack 

 of capital is admitted to be a difficulty in the way of small 

 ownership. The Socialist favours for national reasons the 

 ownership of all land by the State, and claims that tenancy 

 from the State can be so arranged as to give to the tenant 

 freedom, security, and the use of capital, combining prac- 

 tically all the advantages of ownership with none of its 

 disadvantages. 



Theoretically the question is the same for the farmer as for 

 the small holder ; what applies to the one applies to the other. 

 But in practice it is not so. For small holders are being 

 called into being, and their position can be determined, one 

 way or the other, without difficulty. But the tenure of land 

 occupied by farmers is bound to remain as at present for some 



F 2 



