which the higher duty of 12s. 2d. was imposed, the official average price was 35s. 6d., or 6s. 6d. per quarter less than during the previous nine years, when the lower duties of 5s. 2d. to 8s. 9d. were levied.1

It is clear from the foregoing facts that the steady improvement of agriculture in France and its comparative prosperity referred to (up to 1885), cannot be ascribed to soil, climate, or protection. It can only be accounted for by the system of cultivation which exists there-a system based on what has been justly termed "the omnipotent principle-the magic-of ownership."

No doubt over-sea agriculturists supply this country with wheat a few shillings per quarter less than the French people pay for their own home-grown product. Our foreign loaf is therefore slightly cheaper than their French loaf; but in a later chapter other factors will be brought into consideration, and an attempt will be made to show that we really purchase our so-called "cheap loaf" at a ruinous cost.

The French people have not adopted the curse of cheapness as the governing principle in their rural economy. They look on the productive side of the question. Instead of saving a small sum per quarter by the purchase of foreign grain, they prefer to pay a higher price for their own; the difference being-so to speak-an investment in their own land-bank which bears a tenfold interest. They bring their own people and their own soil together, and the result in wealth is marvellous, not only in the form of money, but in that of a prosperous rural population.

Their huge national debt, nearly two-thirds bigger than that of England, is said to be more largely held

1 These calculations are worked out from the figures given in the "Statistical Tables of the Board of Trade" (1903, Cd. 1761).

by the cultivators of the soil than by any other class in France. Mr. Richardson states: "Within the last twenty years fund-holders in country places have increased more than tenfold." No official information as to the proportion held by these classes at the present time appears to be available, but in France it is generally accepted as a fact that the peasant proprietors own an immense part of the government stock. The fact is continually referred to as a great proof of the wide diffusion of wealth, and as a guarantee for the stability of the nation.

M. Tisserand, President of the Agricultural Society already referred to, states that the French look upon the soil as the true source of wealth, and on agriculture as the chief industry, "on the prosperity of which the fortunes of the country depend." Their thriving and numerous rural population, he adds, "is one of the most solid pillars on which social order rests," and their savings "constitute the financial power of France."

These statements are not flights of oratory, but are based on sad experience. It was the rural population that pulled the country through its darkest national troubles. If France, when worsted in her conflict with Germany, had had nothing but trade and commerce to fall back upon, ruin must have followed. It was her multitude of thriving cultivators that enabled her, not only to pay off so quickly the 200 millions mulct imposed by her adversary, but, after the devastations of a great war, to recover her position and prosperity in such a rapid and marvellous manner.1

The indemnity at first demanded was 240 millions. The English Ministry made friendly representations to the German Government as to the excessive character of this demand, and the amount was finally reduced to 200 millions. For particulars see Parliamentary Papers, "Franco-German War," No. 3 (1871).

CHAPTER XV

LAND HUNGER AND PEASANT

PROPRIETARY

Ir is frequently stated-chiefly by those who do not believe in peasant proprietary, or are prejudiced against it-that there is no demand for small holdings. The favourite phrase is "there is no land hunger" among the people of this country.

After ages of successful efforts to squeeze the peasantry off the land and to destroy every link that connected them personally with the soil, there is a fine irony in the statement that there is "no land hunger in England." It is a statement which, if true, is a sad proof of the completeness with which the work has been done. But it is happily not true. In all other countries in Europe the affection for the land is great, even among the poorest. "Our backs are the lords'," said the Russian serfs, "but the land is our own."

With the common people of England, no doubt through the causes referred to, the idea of having a personal share in the soil has very nearly died out. But if a way back were offered on practical and easy conditions, the "land hunger" now latent would be seen to exist, not only among those who still remain on the soil, but among thousands of the former rural population now dwelling in the towns.

In former times the yeoman farmer, the peasant proprietor, and the commoner, lived side by side as

parts of a system. The farmer mainly relied on the other two classes for the labour required on his farm. A letter written in 1785 by one of the class of yeomanry-so numerous at the time-illustrates a common practice. It states:—

"I have now several cottagers at my farm whom I have constantly employed for some years past, and who enjoy the rights of common in the manner I have described. These labourers I take a pleasure in encouraging. I have also an advantage in it, because I can more safely rely on the industry and integrity of such as have some degree of prosperity and character to lose, and who have some distant prospect some time or other of becoming farmers themselves, than the poor devil who is destitute of every kind of property and whose only hope is to be able to work and gain a subsistence from day to day as a slave as long as he lives." 1

present time.' The alleged failure of this measure is continually quoted in support of the statement that there is no demand for land.

The administration of the Act was placed in the hands of County Councils, and no doubt the Government, in doing so, intended the measure to be effective. Lord Onslow, speaking at Glasgow, said :—

"We thought that if we placed it in the power of the County Councils to hire land, and to create small holdings, the result would be that there would be a very large number of applications and a very considerable increase. But if you look at the return to Parliament you will see that what I might call the small holdings movement, through the local authorities, is conspicuous by its failure. I am certainly one of those who, for many years past, have been very desirous of seeing an increase in the number of small holdings, both in this country and in England. I do not think we have gone altogether the right way about it in our well-meant endeavours to increase the number of our small holdings." (Speech at a meeting of the Scottish Chamber of Agriculture, 26 October, 1904.)

The County Councils-with some exceptions which will be noticed-have practically ignored the duty placed upon them. For the most part they have not even appointed advisory committees to consider the

Under this Act County Councils are enabled to purchase land, divide it into small holdings not exceeding fifty acres in extent, nor exceeding £50 in annual value, and to sell or let such holdings to suitable persons who will themselves cultivate them. The purchaser is required to pay down one-fifth of the purchase money and to pay the balance by half-yearly instalments (including interest and sinking fund) during a term of years not exceeding fifty. The County Council may, if they think fit, allow one-fourth of the purchase money to remain unpaid as a perpetual rent-charge on the holding. They may, in consideration of permanent improvements made by the owner, postpone the annual payment for any time not exceeding five years.