Agrarian Tenures. 
865 
Now let us see what Mr. Shaw Lefevre’s conclusion on the 
whole matter is. After all that has preceded, it seems somewhat 
impotent. It is that the powers of the authorities under the 
Small Holdings Act should be extended so as to enable them 
compulsorily to purchase land and let the same with fixity of tenure 
in small holdings of from one to five acres each, suitable for culti- 
vation by labourers. It is to be noted that the power of letting in 
holdings of this size already exists under sect. 4, subsect. 2, of this 
Act, and that Mr. Shaw Lefevre’s only proposed addition to the 
present state of the law is the word compulsorily. The reason he 
urges for it is, that it is essential that such holdings should be con- 
veniently near to the villages where the labourers and others live ; 
but he frankly states that in the case of the Allotments Act, for the 
purposes of which proximity is at least as essential, in one case only 
have the compulsory powers of the Act been made use of, though 
he surmises that the indirect effect of compulsory powers in inducing 
landowners voluntarily to set apart land for allotments has been 
very considerable. We are inclined to doubt this latter surmise, 
and to suggest that it will be time enough to apply for compulsory 
powers when it is shown that there is a demand under the Act of 
1892 for small tenancies of the kind recommended, which, owing to 
the absence of compulsory powers, it has been impossible to satisfy. 
We believe, however, that compulsory powers to hire land for the 
purpose of sub-letting it for allotments are intended to be conferred 
upon Parish Councils by the Parish Councils Bill now before Par- 
liament. 
The usefulness of holdings of from two to five acres is, we think, 
open to great question. Much may be said in favour of allotments, 
and much in favour of small holdings or farms of twenty to fifty 
acres in size, but the holding of two to five acres is neither one 
thing nor the other, for it is too large for an allotment, too small for 
a farm. It is quite clear, on the one hand, that it would be impos- 
sible on ordinary land and under ordinary circumstances to make a 
living solely out of two to five acres, and on the other that no labourer 
in regular work could cultivate so much land with the spade. Pro- 
bably half an acre to an acre is the most land which a labourer 
in fairly regular work can manage. If he holds more than this, he 
must either neglect his allotment or his other work. Mr. Shaw 
Lefevre is perhaps wisely silent as to the mode in which he would 
suggest that small holdings of the kind which he advocates should 
be cultivated, or as to what he considers the best mode of turning 
them to profitable account. 
In Chapter XI. the subject of Reform of the Land Laws is dealt 
with, but we cannot say that Mr. Shaw Lefevre has anything very 
original or particularly attractive to offer under this head. He pro- 
poses that land owned by the Crown, the Church, Universities, Col- 
leges, Hospitals, and Charities, should be treated as a corpus vile, on 
which the land reformer should make his experiments. He is also 
in favour of compulsory registration of title and the abolition of 
primogeniture and entail, matters which have been much discussed 
VOL. IV. T. S. — 16 3 l 
