"A STREAM OF FACTS."
MANY of our readers will doubtless recollect that at the beginning of the Boer War a certain Radical M.P., now dead, was anxious to attack the Government. With that object in view, he wrote to a. correspondent in South Africa asking him or her—we think it was her—to send him a "stream of facts." In exactly the same spirit Mr. Lloyd George and the gentlemen who supply him with money have instructed an army of unknown investigators to collect a stream of facts with a view to a new land campaign. The instructions given to these investigators are—on paper—admirable. It is laid down that" accuracy as to facts is of first importance," and the investigators are specially warned to be "careful to check information supplied by persons who advocate some particular remedy." It does not seem to have occurred to the ingenious gentle- men who drafted the instructions that these warnings apply to the whole scheme of the present investigation. The investigation is definitely "for the object of pro- viding information for a Liberal Government." It is only by chance that the nature of the inquiry has been revealed to the public. The circular containing instruc- tions to the investigators, from which we have already quoted, is a, secret circular marked "Private and Con- fidential," and there can be no doubt that its authors are extremely annoyed that it should have found its way into the public press. But if their object was, as they profess, to get at the truth, there was absolutely no reason for any secrecy in the matter at all. On the contrary, the only way to secure truth is to insist upon publicity. This is so elementary a principle, both of civil and of criminal justice, that it seems almost superfluous to insist upon it, We fancy that even the authors of this secret circular would be up in arms if, on being accused of any offence, they found themselves subjected to a trial conducted with closed doors. Yet, in effect, they are proposing to submit the landowners of Great Britain to such a secret trial, and this intention absolutely cancels all the fine sentiments expressed with regard to the necessity of accuracy and the avoidance of prejudice.
Having said this, let us frankly admit that the inquiry itself, if it were conducted by responsible persons, with the advantage of full publicity so that any statement made could be subjected to examination, would be of immense value. Even under these conditions, however, the scope of the inquiry would have to be somewhat restricted. It is defined in the secret circular as being "to obtain an accurate and impartial account of social and economic conditions in the rural parts of Great Britain." No mechanism exists for carrying through such an extensive inquiry in any reasonable time, but it would be possible by means of a Royal Commission to ascertain, at any rate in typical rural districts, certain definite facts with regar& to the tenure of agricultural land, and the social and economic condition of farmers and labourers. Many points of extreme importance are still a matter of eternal dispute solely because there is insufficient information as to the actual facts. For example, there is the primary question of the relative merits of ownership and. tenancy. This question is not merely a political issue at the moment between Liberals and Conservatives, but it is also a matter of extreme doubt among economists who have no political axes to grind. Theoretically, there is much to be said on both sides. The occupying owner has the consciousness that every improvement he makes in the land will accrue to his own benefit or to the benefit of his heirs. On the other hand, the , tenant farmer has the advantage of a larger amount of capital in proportion to the acreage cultivated, for he has not been compelled to diminish his own capital by pur- chasing the freehold. He is in fact working partly with his landlord's capital, on which in many cases the interest- paid falls as low as 1 or 2 per cent., and partly with his own capital, on which he expects to get 9 or 10 per cent. Further than that, he has in the majority of cases the advantage of being able to obtain assistance from his landlord in cases of special need, such as an exceptionally bad harvest. These two conflicting con- siderations do not, of course, settle the problem, for other issues arise, as for example the question of social status, which in turn involves the question of political outlook. There is a general belief that ownership tends to make men conservative, in the etymological as well as in the political sense of the word, and that consequently the creation of a larger number of rural freeholds would add to the stability of our political institutions. There is a good deal to be said for this point of view, but it is well not to exaggerate its importance. Suppose that 50,000 additional freeholders were created in rural districts, which is certainly as many as could be expected within any reason- able period, would this additional 50,000 rural voters be of much weight in a predominantly urban electorate which already exceeds 7,900,000? It is clear, however, that before any attempt is made to dogmatize on this funda- mental issue further information ought to be collected.
Among other points of importance very properly set down in Mr. Lloyd George's list of instructions are the conditions of tenure. On this matter, of course, there has been an immense amount of legislation in recent years, nearly all of it with the object of giving the tenant greater security. It may be that this legislation has not yet gone far enough. On the other hand, a good many people are inclined to think that in certain specific directions it has gone too far, and has enabled dishonest tenants to rob the landlord and to rob the land. Another point is the ques- tion of sport. The following is one of Mr. Lloyd George's questions : "Is there any land in your neighbourhood withheld from its most profitable use for the purpose of sport ? " This question requires further elucidation. Does "profitable " mean profit to the landowner or profit to the nation ? Many cases may and do arise where the land- owner can obtain a bigger rent by letting his land for sport than by letting it for tillage or grazing, but it does not follow that it is always to the interest of the nation that be should be allowed to do so. Some Radicals would say that it is never to the interest of the nation that land should be set aside for sport; but they would probably not insist upon that extreme view if they were to visit the mountains of Scotland, where high rents can be obtained for sporting rights from land which is practically worthless for any other purpose. The question is clearly one of degree, and most sportsmen would themselves admit that their pleasures must not be allowed to stand in the way of the cultivation of land that is fairly worth culti- vating.
A kindred question is 'with regard to the damage done by game. In the case of ground game, the tenant farmer has of course full protection under the existing law, if he chooses to exercise his rights ; but it may be, as Mr. Lloyd George's secret Committee suggests, that in some cases be is deterred from claiming his legal rights by economic pressure. We are inclined to believe that such cases are rare, but the question is obviously one for impartial investigation. It must indeed be admitted that the rapid growth of urban wealth in the last generation or so has developed a large class of rich men who like to amuse themselves with rural sports, and who are willing to pay very large sums of money for that pleasure. Many keen agriculturists—Conservatives even more perhaps than Liberals—are beginning to assert that agriculture is suffering seriously from an excess of sport.
A still larger question is with regard to the size of holdings. Both parties of late years have rather run away with the idea that small holdings are a panacea for every agricultural trouble. But the merits of small holdings, though in many cases great, may easily be exaggerated. The small holding does give an opportunity to a careful and capable man to rise in the world ; on the other hand, it is often a temptation to a man who has not got sufficient ability to risk his savings in a business which he cannot manage. The great economic disadvantage of small hold- ings is insufficiency of capital. The man who has enough capital to work a small holding as it ought to be worked will generally be sufficiently ambitious to want a bigger holding. But here again the question is one of evidence. There is no doubt that in many parts of the country, and for many kinds of crops, small holdings are extremely valuable. But there is considerable danger that they may be—especially since the County Councils have been entrusted with the business—multiplied beyond the real needs of the country. On this point it is to be noticed that Mr. Lloyd George's Committee seems less anxious to collect information than on many other points of more remote interest. The recent action of County Councils in establishing small holdings on a very considerable scale, sometimes at the expense of excellent pre-existing farms, is a matter which requires to be carefully watched, and it would be most desirable to have an authoritative report as to the rents paid by the smallholders and as to their condition compared with that of the class from which they spring.
But all these questions, if they are to be answered honestly, must be submitted, not to a political coterie, but to a public Commission. Such a public inquiry is, how- ever, the last thing that Mr. Lloyd George is likely to propose. His object is not to get at the truth, but to stir up political hatred. He starts from the Henry-Georgeite theory that the ownership of land is a crime, or something akin to it, and he wants to prove that the people of England are down-trodden because of the prevailing system of land tenure in this country. He and his friends also would like to prove, if the task were not too big for them, that the owners of land absorb all the wealth of the country, leaving the rest of the community a mere starvation wage. But that proposition is so palpably false that even Mr. Ure has abandoned it.
Previous page
