TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION K. 



505 



from the Government. To some extent the evil is consequent on the peculiarities 

 of rural human nature, which, without being definitely orposcd to progress 

 and sceptical as to the possibilities of improvement, possesses an inertia of 

 incredible magnitude. It is to be regretted that this inertia in agricultural 

 matters is not confined to the cultivators of the soil, but is equally evident, 

 and probably less excusable, in the landowning class. When one compares the 

 active enthusiasm of this cla«s in the closing years of the eighteenth century and 

 the first half of the nineteenth with present-day indifference, it would be 

 difficult to resist a feeling of pessimism if there were not some signs of an 

 increasing interest in rural affairs on the part of landowners. It is not so 

 much that landlords are oppressive in the economic relation as that, instead of 

 initiating and encouraging schemes of impro-vement, they stand aloof and show 

 no interest in the problem beyond receiving their rents ; or, still worse, by their 

 adherence to the worst features of an outworn system, they discourage all 

 attempts at reclamation. Not long ago we were invited to see some hill farms 

 that had been boxight a few years previously by a gentleman not of the land- 

 owning class. The new owner had been supplying his tenants with slag and 

 other fertilisers, and with drain-pipes ; he paid them bonuses on work done in 

 blasting and removing boulders and in clearing wild land of bracken and 

 hawthorn and gorse ; he sought expert advice as to the treatment of certain 

 local problems, and he communicated the knowledge to the tenants, with the 

 result that hay crops were six times heavier than formerly, grazing areas were 

 extended, and the land itself had quadrupled its value. Frorn the hillside 

 which was thus laboriously being improved one looked down on wide parklands, 

 where all the wide, smooth ground — the best land in the neighbourhood — was in 

 grass; this was let by auction every year and the hay carted off, and this 

 gradually impoverished land had not received an ounce of fertiliser in forty 

 years. The owner does not live there, for the ' house ' is in ruins, and there 

 is not the consolation (?) of good shooting — it seems to be a case of sheer 

 indifference. Not only this, but landlords are often obstructive — they refuse 

 to sell waste land at reasonable prices for reclamation, and in many cases they 

 have refused to agree on conditions that would have made possible large 

 schemes for arterial drainage and pumping. 



On some of the thinner soils timber-growing might succeed. Even if this 

 were not possible as a commercial proposition, the shelter afforded by belts of 

 timber would be of immense service to the cultivator, and other indirect benefits 

 might also accrue. Hitherto it has been impossible to get anything done on 

 the lines indicated ; it is to be hoped that after the war, with the aid of the 

 Development Commissioners, a more fruitful policy will be adopted. 



Lastly, we hope that the authorities will take up a scheme of small holdings 

 which depends not on the taking of already well-cultivated land and giving it 

 to inexperienced men, but on the gradual improvement of the thousands of 

 acres of land now lying waste. Assistance should be forthcoming towards the 

 initial expenses, and the use of the land free of rent and rates should be 

 guaranteed for a number of years. In a word, men should be encouraged to 

 improve the land instead of being penalised for it. Far more use should be 

 made of existing facilities for agricultural education, and a well-considered 

 scheme of extension rlasses (not mere popular lectures) should be instituted 

 where special methods and the principles underlying them should be explained. 

 Most important in this connection would be the extension of facilities and 

 equipment for research in local problems. 



3. On Afforestation after the War. 

 By Sir John M. Stirling-Maxwell, Bart. 



The author remarked on the difficulty experienced in the importation of 

 timber during the war. The consumption of timber in military operations alone 

 was tremendous, and our dependence on foreign countries was a heavy handicap. 

 The bulk of our supplies were drawn from virgin forests abroad. Every year 

 the demand increased, prices rose, and quality deteriorated. He was sanguine 

 enough to believe that the planter in England would get his money back; but 



