MR. LLOYD GEORGE'S AGRICULTURAL POLICY
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
SIR,—Your leading article on September 26th on the above subject is most interesting as a sketch of Mr. Lloyd George's ideas on Agriculture and the tenure of land, but it does not go to the root of the matter, or exPlain how the writer would act in' order to get more out of the land of the Country than we do under the present system, except by an allusion to the splendid example of Denmark. We " Homecrofters " hope that some millions of additional acres might be producing food for use; at any rate, though not primarily for sale, if every willing allotment-holder and artisan could become the owner of his house and a suitable area of garden on some such reasonable terms as Professor Scott has been advocating in
your columns. .
On that system there would be no question of official inter- ference or supervision ; we should depend on Mill's diction that a willing worker who owns his own bit of land will soon turn " a desert into a garden."
I might add that under the Hindu ,system of what might fairly be called " Nationalization " (i.e., the " ryotwari " system), the ryot is the " occupying owner," and the Govern- ment only takes what is now a very small .percentage of the crop as its share of the produce ; it does not interfere with the work of the cultivator in any way ; it only collects its share of the produce as commuted periodically into money.—I am, Sir, &c., J. B. PENNINGTON. I.C.S. (retd.) [Unfortunately, in an article which attempts to show that a particular policy will not work it is not generally possible —for want of space—to discuss the policies which in the writer's opinion would work. We entirely agree with Mr. Pennington's advocacy of small ownership. The magic of property is never more magical than when it is evoked by the land.—En. Spectator].
Previous page
