M.— AGRICULTURE. 221 



landowner who has faced the ordeal of a political contest in a purely 

 rural constituency is conscious of the almost pathetic confidence evoked, 

 not so much by the professions of his political faith as by the fact 

 of his land-ownership, and the assumption of well-informed sympathy 

 which is deemed to be associated with it. He may be stupid or re- 

 actionary, but he inspires respect for his honesty, patriotism, and un- 

 selfish devotion to duty. Yet to the advocates of Land Nationalisation 

 in the mass he appears as an industrial parasite, a mere rent-receiver, 

 who ' reaps where he has not sown, who gathers where he has not 

 strawed. ' He owns, it is true— in the form of land, buildings, and other 

 farm equipment — at least two-thirds of the capital embarked in the 

 industry of agriculture. He may derive ^ per cent, or less from his 

 capital so invested, and live an inconspicuous life of comparative 

 jioverty, while the sale (especially in recent years) of his estate and the 

 investment of the proceeds of sale in Government securities might treble 

 his income and raise him to a condition of comparative affluence. But 

 unless he is himself a farmer (which is seldom the case) he lives a 

 life detached from the industry carried on upon his estate, and often 

 ineffectually seeks relief from his growing poverty by attaching himself 

 to a Property Defence League. He becomes, in fact, a mere property 

 defender, which in a highly democratic State carries little conviction to 

 a preponderantly urban proletariat, and tends to stimulate the activities 

 of revolutionary propagandists. If, on the other hand, he were to stand 

 out in the body politic as a producer, trained for his task as such, and 

 prepared to accept the position of managing director of the great and, 

 if well organised and directed, potentially profitable industry conducted 

 upon his property, his position as a landowner would be far less 

 vulnerable and his utility to the State indisputable. 



The agricultural community in Britain to-day above all else needs 

 enlightened leadership, just as agriculture needs efficient organisation; 

 and the landowner, if, after due training, he would but take his proper 

 position, should be both leader and chief organiser. 



During the last half-century, when the financial resources of the 

 average landowner, even during the great depression of the 'eighties 

 and 'nineties, sufficed to furnish a competence for himself and his 

 family, and before the growing burden of estate duty (against which 

 he often secured the devolution of an undiminished inheritance by the 

 annual payment of an insurance premium) tlu-eatened the dissolution 

 of his estate, he was wont, at least in his youth, to serve his country 

 in the Navy, the. Army, or some other financially unrem-unerative 

 branch of the public service, or to participate unpaid in the conduct 

 of local government. He employed, an estate agent (often a person of 

 no agricultural training), who stood between him and the agricultural 

 activities of his estate, in respect of which he was himself often 

 deplorably ignorant, unbusinesslike, and unprogressive. 



The War has naturally altered his outlook. It is estimated that 

 the present rate of estate duty as levied upon a form of property of 

 which (if adequately maintained) the net income is relatively low and 

 the capital value disproportionately high, will, unless hereafter materi- 

 ally reduced, permit of no landed estate of average size and rental. 



