8 
Large and Small Holdings. 
" I find this unfortunate fact with regard to small farms. 
" From 1875, which was about the last prosperous year, to the year 1880, the 
number of cattle in Norfolk was almost exactly the same — in both these yeara 
it was about 108,000. But the men who held small farms under 50 acres had 
decreased their stock of cattle 2000, which of course is a considerable amount 
for those small holdings. Then, again, as to sheep. In 1875 there were 
728,000 sheep ; in 1880 they had been reduced to 638,000— which is a 
decrease of 90,000—1 suppose mainly in consequence of tlie losses from rot 
experienced all over the country; in some districts clearing them aU off. But 
I find that there were 12,000, or one-third less sheep kept than formerly on 
the farms of 50 acres and under, than upon farms of between 500 and 1000 
acres, where the numbers, 209,000, remained the same. I think the quan- 
tity of live-stock a man keeps upon his farm is not a bad criterion to judge 
of the state of his prosperity. It is, therefore, from these statistics a lamen- 
table fact to find that the small farmers have suffered even in a larger degree 
than the bigger farmers. 
It is very diflficult to state what is the smallest-sized holding a 
farmer can live upon. The licence that a certain poet took with 
ancient history would have us believe that in olden times 
every rood of land maintained its man." The requirements of 
the individual must have been singularly small, or the produce 
of a quarter of an acre something enormous ; but the point is, 
not how little any man will consume, but the smallest acreage 
he can farm to any advantage. Mr. Kebbel, in his excellent 
little work on the 'Agricultural Labourer,' contends that 8 or 
10 acres are a reward for the best class of labourers, but that 
50 or 60 acres are the refuge of the worst class of farmers. To 
put a labourer into a farm of 10 acres of arable land, would be 
to present him with a " white elephant," but in a grass country 
a living is often made off 5 or 6 acres. It is a different matter 
with ploughed land. The smallest arable farmer, who is not a 
market gardener, would be unable, if not ashamed, to dig his 
land. He must use a horse, and a single horse is not a very 
handy animal upon a farm. If he is to till his land properly, 
he must keep two. As was said at the meeting above referred 
to by the same speaker : — 
" There is, perhaps, another question you will ask me : What is the size of 
the smallest farm a man can live upon if he has to get his entire livelihood 
out of the land ? I am not talking of men who are carters, butchers and 
tradesmen in a village who have a little bit of land ; but I am talking of a 
man who is to be a hond fide farmer, occupying arable land. I say that the 
least extent of land that he would require would be 40 acres — from 40 to 50 
acres — so that he can keep and employ two horses fairly and profitably. I 
do not know whether you will accept that ; but such is my definition of a 
small farm — it cannot be less than 40 acres." 
But there are so many smaller holdings in Norfolk, that the 
enquiry will be made, how do these farmers live ? The reply 
will be, that the great majority do not depend upon the land 
for a living ; they 'follow other callings, or they employ their 
