ORGANIZED LAND SETTLEMENT VERSUS SMALL-HOLDINGS.
BY CHRISTOPHER TURNOR.
I.—SMALL-HOLDINGS.
THE cost of building and equipment is lessening, therefore it is safe to assume that, before long, serious attention will again be given to the placing 0Y men upon the land in small-holdings. how should this be done to secure the best results for the men and for the nation ?
Apart from the Ex-Service Men's Facilities Act, the most important legislation affecting this matter is the Small-Holdings Act of 1908. The Facilities Act is 'not discussed here, since it must be regarded as a war measure. Small-holdings were equipped under it when the cost was prohibitive because there was a pledge which had to be made good.
The questions we have to consider are, has the 1908 Act worked well, and have the results been satis- factory ?
The 1908 Act constituted the County Councils as small-holdings authorities, but the Ministry of Agri- culture kept in touch with the movement through its small-holdings commissioners and retained the power to administer the Act should a Council default.
It can hardly be denied that the 1908 Act was intro- duced from -political • motives rather than to benefit agriculture or to secure to the small-holders that it created the full advantages they should have enjoyed. Few County Councils were enthusiastic over small-holdings, and the members of the small-holdings committees often did not believe in the movement. Nevertheless, the County Councils administered the Act conscientiously and to the best of their ability. From the angle of public finance, results were satisfactory ; arrears in rental or bad debts were few ; and the whole cost of the provision of the holdings is being defrayed by the tenants.
Some years hence, when the last instalment of the sinking-fund is paid, County Councils will be the proud possessors of considerable landed property which has not been paid for out of the rates but by the hard work of the small-holders themselves Without reproaching County Councils, it is right to point out certain shortcomings which, while not affecting the public purse, closely concern the welfare of the small- holders. Even before the War, the amounts spent by County Councils upon cottage buildings and equipment were too large, burdening the enterprise with an unduly heavy capital charge. From £700 to £800 was frequently spent upon equipping a place of between -thirty and fifty acres ; whereas on small-holdings provided by landowners adequate accommodation costs much less, as a rule. An example is given from my own estate :- Cottage (3 bedrooms and parlour) .. .. £225 Building (in wood) for 10 cows .. .. 120 Water supply and fencing .. . • .. 75 Total .. .. £420 County Councils have done little or nothing to encourage co-operation, which is a vital factor in securing success for the small-holder. Nor have they put into operation the section of the Act which enabled them to provide access to credit for their small-holders.
These three points—heavy capital charges, absence of encouragement to co-operation, and absence of credit facilities—are all-important. In other countries these defects have always been avoided in any system for placing men on the land. The presence of these dis- abilities in England forms a strong indictment of the adMinistration. of the Act of 1908. No great outcry was heard over the undue cost of equipment referred to, because very few new holdings were created. Consideration of the results achieved under the 1908 Act leads to discouragement. From 1909 to the outbreak of war, with all the County Councils at work and with an expenditure of several million pounds, only 14,000 applicants were provided with land. In a great many cases these were only applications for a few acres of " accommodation " land for the village black- smith or tradesman to run his horse on. In many cases, also, existing small farms were bought and the newly created small-holder merely replaced a previous one.
Of real new small-holdings—land that had not been divided up before and upon which cottages and farm buildings had to be erected—only 774 were created between 1909 and 1914 !
These 774 are included in the total of 14,000 given above. From the national point of view this result is far from satisfactory. Even taking the total of 14,000 who were provided with land in some form or other, this does not represent a net gain, for the number of existing small-holders who gave up or retired in that period exceeded 14,000. The 1908 Act, therefore, did little to repeople the countryside !
The total number of small-holders (fifty acres or under) in Great Britain is about 230,000. These holders form a most important section of our agricultural community, and from the social and national aspect it is imperative that their numbers should be increased.
The unorganized state of our agricultural industry adversely affects the small farmer more than the large one, and organization, therefore, is of the first import- ance. Our small-holders are at a sad disadvantage compared with those in Scandinavia or Germany. In countries where agriculture is- progressive, conditions are far more favourable, and small-holders enjoy the benefit of organized markets, access to capital, collection of produce, adequate transport, co-operative buying and selling, and general expert advice. Our small-holders have none of these advantages.
When, therefore, the question of providing small- holdings anew comes forward, a policy must be adopted which will, at the same time, improve the conditions for the pre-1908 holders and place the new men on the land under the best possible system. In the recently published Agricultural Policy of the Central Landowners' Association the need for a new system of settlement is clearly recognized.
(To be continued.)
Previous page
