SMALL HOLDINGS.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE " SPECTATOR."]
Sta,—I have read with great interest the letter on "Successful Small Holdings in England," from Mr. Frederic Impey, which was published in your paper of August 29th. It gives details of one district in England, and especially of one particular case there, which throw some real light on the conditions under which the number of small landowners may be increased. My recollection of the evidence before the Duke of Richmond's Commission in respect to the small owners of the county of Lincoln, is that they are suffering even more than tenant- farmers from the present agricultural depression. But it does not necessarily follow from this that new purchasers might not often succeed where old occupiers have failed. There are, how- ever, some points which I do not clearly understand in the remarkable case of Thomas Bush, mentioned by Mr. Impey, and which he gives as a " fair sample" of the class. In the first place, Mr. Impey says that "holdings above one acre are mostly farmed by men whose sole occupation is the land."
But this does not appear to be the case with Thomas Bush. The facts of his case, as reported by Mr. Impey, are very remarkable. They are as follows :—He began as a labourer, whose wages were 12s. a week. The want of full work, how- ever, even at these wages, " made him wish for land of his own." He was thrifty. His wife also was thrifty. Despite a family of seven children, and despite some want of full employment, he saved £10 a year, until £100 had been accumulated. As this saving is said to have been effected out of a total income of less than £32 a year, leaving only £22 a year for the support of himself, his wife, and seven children, the case is evidently one of extraordinary thrift and self-denial. Probably there must have been some other source of income or of wages; but this supposition does not detract at all from the pre-eminent merit of Thomas Bush and of his wife. He then bought land to the extent of five acres, paying for it £355. Of this sum, 2255 must have been borrowed on mortgage on the property, £100 only being paid in ready-money. His next step was to let three acres out of the total of five acres, thus becoming a landlord with a tenant under him who paid him rent. What that rent was is not stated, but the price he paid for the land (supposing it to have been at thirty years' purchase) would indicate that the rental value of the land must have been about 47s. per acre. Possibly he may have got a tenant to give him more, as no doubt he let his three acres at the highest rent which could be got in the market. Then he is said to have himself worked one and a half acres, leaving another half-acre unaccounted for. But the rent of the three acres which had been let, together with the pro- duce of the acre and a half which he worked himself, does not seem to have been enough to enable Thomas Bush to make farther way. He therefore " got work on the railway, where wages were better, and savings consequently greater." What these wages were is not explained, nor the kind of work which
could be carried on besides the working of one and a half acres of land. But whatever these wages were, " he was able after a while to take all the land into his own hands, and besides to build a house costing £130." Off this land the total sales last year were £47, besides at least £14 of produce consumed. The total produce of the farm is thus said to have been £61,—or, in other words, a gross return equivalent to wages at the rate of a little more than 23s. a week. Against this no other outlay is mentioned than £10 a year for the feeding of pigs. This would reduce the net income to £51 a year, which is less than 20s. a week of wages for the whole family. Yet out of this income Thomas Bush contrived to save enough to pay off his mortgage of £255, which saving, however, he preferred' to spend in the purchase of more land.
Now, on this outline of Thomas Bush's history some diffi- culties occur to me. In the first place, how did he work his land ? Was it entirely by spade-labour, expended by himself and his family ? Was there no horse-power used at any time of the year P If there was any such work done, why is the cost of it not added to the £10 spent on the food of pigs P Again, where did he get his manure ? Was it bought, or was it pro- duced on the farm ? If it was bought, what was the cost of it? If it was produced on the farm, what was the cost of the cows, or the cattle from which it came ? Or did the pigs, costing only £10 for food, produce manure enough for the whole five acres? Again, if there were cows or cattle of any kind, what was the cost of the houses required for their accommodation ? A cottage- fit for a married couple with seven children is of itself not easily built for so small a sum as £135 ; but if it included offices and outhouses fit for a few cows, this sum is wholly inadequate Lastly, what was the outlay on the cows or cattle ? Were there no implements of cultivation P If there were, what was the cost of them ?
Perhaps Mr. Impey would be kind enough to explain in your columns the answer to these questions. I believe that by far the largest possible returns from five acres of rural land in our country are to be obtained by spade-labour, and by the stall- feeding of cows fed upon the crops so raised. Yet there is no allusion made in Mr. Impey's statement to anything of the sort.
I fully agree with Mr. Impey that there may be many men like Thomas Bush who may prefer to own, and to live upon the ownership of, land, rather than to live on wages, or upon savings otherwise invested ; and I know no more important question than that which concerns the methods, and the exertions, and the sacrifices by which they may attain this end. In a case so eminently successful as that of this Lincolnshire labourer, one desires above all things to know how it has been done. Mr. Impey has evidently paid great attention to the subject ; and I, as well as many others, would be most grateful for a fuller explanation.—I am, Sir, &c.,
Previous page
