I have had by me for some time a small pamphlet, “The Agricultural
Labourer, by a Farmer’s Son,” [60] kindly sent me by the author. The
matter of it is excellent as far as it reaches; but the writer speaks
as if the existing arrangements between landlord, farmer, and labourer
must last for ever. If he will look at the article on “Peasant Farming”
in the ‘Spectator’ of July 4th of this year, he may see grounds for a
better hope. That article is a review of Mr. W. T. Thornton’s “Plea for
Peasant Proprietors;” and the following paragraph from it may interest,
and perhaps surprise, other readers besides my correspondent. Its first
sentence considerably surprises me to begin with; so I have italicized
it:—
“This country is only just beginning to be seriously roused to the fact
that it has an agricultural question at all; and some of those most
directly interested therein are, in their pain and surprise at the
discovery, hurrying so fast the wrong way, that it will probably take a
long time to bring them round again to sensible thoughts, after most of
the rest of the community are ready with an answer.
“The primary object of this book is to combat the pernicious error of a
large school of English economists with reference to the hurtful
character of small farms and small landed properties.... One would
think that the evidence daily before a rural economist, in the
marvellous extra production of a market garden, or even a peasant’s
allotment, over an ordinary farm, might suffice to raise doubts whether
vast fields tilled by steam, weeded by patent grubbers, and left
otherwise to produce in rather a happy-go-lucky fashion, were likely to
be the most advanced and profitable of all cultivated lands. On this
single point of production, Mr. Thornton conclusively proves the small
farmer to have the advantage.
“The extreme yields of the very highest English farming are even
exceeded in Guernsey, and in that respect the evidence of the greater
productiveness of small farming over large is overwhelming. The Channel
Islands not only feed their own population, but are large exporters of
provisions as well.
“Small farms being thus found to be more advantageous, it is but an
easy step to peasant proprietors.”
Stop a moment, Mr. Spectator. The step is easy, indeed;—so is a step
into a well, or out of a window. There is no question whatever, in any
country, or at any time, respecting the expediency of small farming;
but whether the small farmer should be the proprietor of his land, is a
very awkward question indeed in some countries. Are you aware, Mr.
Spectator, that your ‘easy step,’ taken in two lines and a breath,
means what I, with all my Utopian zeal, have been fourteen years
writing on Political Economy, without venturing to hint at, except
under my breath;—some considerable modification, namely, in the
position of the existing British landlord?—nothing less, indeed, if
your ‘step’ were to be completely taken, than the reduction of him to a
‘small peasant proprietor’? And unless he can show some reason against
it, the ‘easy step’ will most assuredly be taken with him.
Yet I have assumed, in this Fors, that it is not to be taken. That
under certain modifications of his system of Rent, he may still remain
lord of his land,—may, and ought, provided always he knows what it is
to be lord of anything. Of which I hope to reason farther in the Fors
for November of this year.