Small Holdings. 
91 
six labourers instead of the original seven. In 1870 one more 
labourer quitted his holding, the total number of holdings in 
occupation being eleven. This state of things continued until 
1877, when, although the number of holdings remained at 
eleven, the number of labourer-holders fell to four. In the year 
following labourer-holders numbered only three, and in 1882 
only two labourers remained upon their holdings. These 
proved to be the last representatives of the labourer-holders of 
the land, for after 1887 they also disappeared, while at the 
same time the total number of small holdings declined to five. 
At the present time the small holders number four, a publican, 
a blacksmith, a baker, and a carrier, who occupy the whole of 
the original two hundred and fourteen acres ; and none of them 
would have retained their holdings but for the support afforded 
them by the combination of business. The total rent through the 
forty-four years fell from 439/. per annum to 20GZ. 
It has been seen that from 1849 to 1882 the number of small 
holders only fell from fifteen to eleven ; but these thirty-three 
years, with few exceptions, were years of good prices and general 
agricultural prosperity, while during the earlier of them holders 
obtained the full yield of land which had been handed over 
to them in a good state of cultivation. But the period between 
1882 and 1893 has witnessed, as farmers too well know, a 
continued decrease in prices ; and there is, therefore, 'small matter 
for wonder that all the labourers and the small tradesmen, 
handicapped as they were by insufficient capital, should have 
been forced to relinquish their holdings. Bad harvests as well 
as bad prices have mainly contributed to the unfortunate result. 
But another evil contended with in the later years was the 
smaller yield of the land, resulting from the absence of restric- 
tion concerning cropping and the sale of produce, which has 
been mentioned. Such advantage was taken of this absence of 
restriction that, if the land had not been above the average of 
Hampshire, it could not have withstood the extreme drain to 
which it was submitted. 
There were other instances of really bad farming, due 
rather to lack of capital than to laziness or ignorance, the land 
of some of the tenants being in a continued state of foulness. 
But, taking the small holders generally, it may be stated that 
neither the yield of their crops, nor the numbers and quality 
of their stock, ever bore comparison with those of the larger 
tenant farmers. As might have been expected, the small 
holders occasionally displayed some amount of business as well 
as farming incapacity. But they have been to a great extent 
crippled by causes for which they cannot be held accountable, 
