Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

serious flaw, and the terms of purchase were too heavy. Above all, entail blocked the path, and kept much good land out of the market. The large estates built up in the earlier part of the century were kept large. Family pride decreed this, and the practice of entail ensured that the estate should remain unbroken in the family by compelling the heir in each generation, generally on his marriage, to settle the estate on the first male of the next (still unborn) generation. Hence many landowners—or, to be more precise, life tenants-might wish to sell part of their land, but were unable to do so because it was not their property, but that of their heir. To break the entail was difficult. In 1908 the laws were revised to overcome some of these defects. An unwilling local body could be driven to action by the Board of Agriculture; compulsory powers of purchase were granted, except for entailed land; and the Board of Agriculture set out on an active propaganda campaign. Better results were soon obtained. By 1912 120,000 tenants had secured allotments averaging a quarter-acre each; 130,000 acres had been let or sold to 9,000 small holders. By December, 1914, 47,000 applications had been made for small holdings amounting to nearly 800,000 acres. But all this touched little more than the fringe of the problem. The big estates were still tied up; much land which had passed out of cultivation in the agricultural depression of the eighties remained idle; and although rising prices, improved methods, specialization in dairying, fruit-growing and market gardening, and the extended use of machinery were making farming once more a profitable occupation, the country was in 1914 growing less than one-fifth of its corn requirements. Emigration had skimmed from rural England the cream of its population, and railway, banking, and state policy virtually ignored the needs of agriculture. To most Englishmen the countryside was a place to walk in on Sunday, a vista of possible golf courses, or a dreary stretch of land separating one town from the next.

Effects of the War. The war, and especially the submarine blockade, made the production of food as important as the production of munitions. The acreage under corn was increased, and in 1918 was higher than ever before in the history of British agriculture. The shortage of labour was partly overcome by the introduction of better machinery and tractors, and by employing war prisoners and women. By 1918 over 300,000 women were employed, whole or part time, on the land. The industrial population was urged to take up allotments, of which over 1,400,000 were being cultivated in 1918, in place of 570,000 in 1914. Unused or under-used land was requisitioned. Farmers were offered a guaranteed price for their corn, but the fixing of a maximum price deprived them of that incentive of scarcity high prices which was so powerful a factor in the Napoleonic War. Farm labourers had their wages regulated by wages boards. Agricultural education and research came into favour. Meanwhile, the pressure of the high cost of living and heavy taxation compelled many big landowners to cut up and sell their estates, some of which went into the hands of smaller farmers, some into the hands of the new-rich class of munition contractors. Thus the war affected rural England at almost every point. How deep or permanent these changes are remains to be seen.

Other European Countries. Continental Europe differs in its rural development from Britain in two important respects. (1) Peasant proprietorship prevails over vast areas, small tenancies are numerous, and the British division into landlord, large tenant farmer, and labourer is seldom found.

(2) Continental populations have remained far more agricultural than that of England. The latter country definitely decided in 1846 (when it repealed its Corn Laws) in favour of industry as against agriculture; national policy has been shaped with a view to fostering industry and commerce, and agriculture has been left to sink or swim. Hence at the outbreak of the war only 20 per cent. of the population was engaged in agriculture, and that percentage was steadily declining as rural depopulation became more marked. Nowhere else has agriculture been so abandoned. Even Germany, in spite of her industrial progress, stuck grimly to agriculture, and was therefore able in 1914 to supply 85 per cent. of her food requirements.

Germany. In Germany the peasant proprietor predominates almost everywhere. East of the Elbe-i.e., in Prussia proper-some big estates exist, owned by the junkers, who usually work them, employing large numbers of labourers. But even in Prussia the junker's supremacy is being challenged, for about half the land is in the hands of peasant proprietors; and when one comes to west and south-western Germany the peasant owner is everywhere, especially in Bavaria. Nearly nine-tenths of the soil of Germany is cultivated by its owners; out of 5,750,000 holdings before the war, 5,000,000 were below 24 acres in extent, and of these the great bulk were worked by the owner, aided by his wife and family.

This large class of small owners is largely the result of 19th century legislation. In 1800 Germany, especially east of the Rhine, was still a feudal country. Most of her land belonged to military chieftains, and was worked by peasants, who were virtually the property of the landowner. In the dark days of 1807, Prussia, smarting under defeat by Napoleon, began to reform her internal life. One of the most important reforms, carried through by Stein and his successor, Hardenberg, was the emancipation of the serfs, and the transfer to them of two-thirds of the feudal lands. In western Germany feudalism was abolished and land sold at low prices by the victorious French, and especially by Napoleon. Thanks to these measures vast tracts of land came into the hands of the poor. For a time the peasantry stuck to old methods of cultivation, but gradually, under the influence of co-operation and education, the three-field system disappeared, and gave place to the most intensive cultivation of wheat, tobacco, and hops.

France. A somewhat similar state of affairs exists in France. Of 5,600,000 proprietors, 5,500,000 own less than 100 acres each, and the most common holding is only a few acres. One half of France belongs to its peasants, and one half the population is engaged in agriculture. The French system of to-day is partly the result of the French Revolution, followed by Napoleon's policy of fostering the growth of a peasant class. On the eve of the Revolution there were many small proprietors-and the number was growing-owning at least a quarter of the whole country. The rest was in the hands of the nobility and clergy, and was let out to tenants on conditions which at the best resembled Australian share farming, and at the worst harsh serfdom. The landlords were absentees; they did nothing to foster better agricultural methods, and squandered, amid the gaieties of Paris, the heavy rents paid by their tenants. In addition to claiming rents, the landlord held a monopoly over milling, and compelled the peasants to grind their corn at his mill. The landowner retained the right to keep game, which often devastated the peasants' crops, and the right to hunt over the tenant's land. The vices of feudalism remained in France; the virtues were gone. With

the Revolution these grievances were removed, and the land of the church and the nobility passed to a great extent to the peasantry. Napoleon recognized the value of a contented peasantry, and therefore did everything possible for the welfare of the small man. Hence, although Napoleon fell the land system remained, and the peasants own twice as much land as they did in 1789.

There is one unique feature in the French system. The Revolution abolished primogeniture and entail, and these prohibitions have lasted. Instead, therefore, of the whole of an estate going to the eldest son, it must be shared out equally among all the children, male and female alike. There is one slight reservation: if a man has one child, he can do as he pleases with half the estate, but the other half must go to the child; if two children, one-third is at his disposal; if three or more children, one-quarter. With this one possible modification, equal distribution amongst the heirs and heiresses is compulsory. The results of this system can be easily seen. Every child has a direct interest in his father's estate. Big holdings are eventually cut up into small ones; but after a few generations the unit may be so small that any further subdivision will give an area too small to provide a living. This state of affairs was reached by about 1880, and is partly responsible for the stationary size of the population since that date. In 1886 there were over 38,000,000 people in France. During the next 10 years the increase was only 30,000, and in 1911 the total stood at 39,600,000.

Russia. Russia is pre-eminently an agricultural country, with 85 per cent, of its population dependent upon the soil for a livelihood. Its peasants form probably the largest body of small proprietors in the world. A century ago millions of the people were serfs, bound to the land on which they were born, and to the person who owned it. They were forbidden to leave their village in search of employment elsewhere, and when an estate changed hands its inhabitants were bought along with the land. In return for two or three days' work each week on the landlord's farm they were allowed to rent a few acres for themselves. Then gradually a few more enlightened landlords began to free their serfs, and the famous edict of 1861 abolished serfdom throughout the Empire. By this decree two things were accomplished. (1) Twenty-five million serfs became free men, free to move about the country as they pleased. (2) These free men were enabled to become peasant proprietors. This was accomplished by the Government purchasing about one-third of the nobles' land (350,000,000 acres), which was then sold on a 49 years' instalment plan to the village communities-the mirs. Communal life is strong amongst the Russian peasantry, and the mir was the unit. The mir received the land from the government, and was made responsible for the regular payment of the instalments, which it collected from the peasants. It then shared out the land among its members-i.e., all the villagers, in proportion to the size of each household. This gave to each family about 10 acres of arable, with common rights of pasture. Every 12 years the land was resumed by the mir, and redistributed in accordance with the increased population of the village. The plan did not work very well. Most peasants obtained less land after emancipation than before, and with the rapid growth of population the share obtained by each household became too small to provide a livelihood for its cultivators. Instalments were not paid when due. Faulty administration caused discontent. In 1905, therefore, the peasantry joined in the revolution, not because they believed in

democratic government or free speech, but because they wanted more land and release from further payments for the old land. Both these aims were achieved, and 25 per cent. of the land still held by the big landlords was handed over to the peasantry. This still left the average holdings too small, while considerable tracts of territory remained in the hands of the government, the royal family, and the nobility.

For many years before the revolutions of 1917 the government encouraged the break-up of the communal system and the conversion of the peasant's share in the communal land into private property. This was done partly on the plea that the progressive farmer would thereby be freed from the restraints imposed by communal control, and partly because the communes seemed to be good breeding-grounds for revolutionary sentiments, while peasant proprietors were notoriously conservative. Hence the mirs lost ground more and more, and the principle of private ownership spread over a wider field. This made possible the growth of grades among the peasants; some men built up large holdings, others stood still, and others sold out their land-or were sold out-and became wage-labourers. This division into rich, middling, and poor peasants had an important bearing on state policy after the 1917 revolutions.

The peasants supported, or accepted, these revolutions partly because they were war-weary, partly because they were land-hungry. After the March upheaval peasants in many places seized the land of the ex-governing class, and one of the first acts of the Bolshevik government was to abolish private property in land. The complete enforcement of this decree would have expropriated small as well as large owners, an act which was too big to accomplish at once, and altogether impolitic if the small men were to be kept quiet. A compromise was therefore inevitable. Some big estates were kept intact and worked as state farms; others were handed over to groups of workers drawn from the city and country wage-earners, and by the end of 1919 there were over 6,000 of these communes. The rest was given conditionally to the poor peasants-i.e., those who had formerly been labourers or had owned only small blocks worked by themselves. The rich peasants were regarded as enemies of the revolution; they therefore got very little more land, and might be deprived of what they had; in their capacity as employers of labour they were disfranchised. Thus the result-perhaps the chief result of the revolution was to transfer a still larger proportion of Russia to the poor. In Bolshevik theory the peasant held this land in trust, only so long as he worked it; he could bequeath it to his son if the son would cultivate it properly; and he must sell his surplus produce to the state. This theory however soon broke down; the state had very few manufactured goods to give in exchange for the food, and the price fixed for rural produce was regarded by the peasants as too low. Hence the farmers produced no surplus, or hoarded it, or illicitly sold it to private buyers. Eventually, therefore, in early 1921, the government was compelled to recognize free trade in farm products, and, in effect, to abandon its whole plan of land control.

In all this account of Russian agriculture it must be remembered that the country has not yet had its agricultural revolution. Scientific farming is almost unknown, lack of manure and machinery is acute, and methods of cultivation are medieval. Education is in its infancy, means of transit are poor, the standard of life is low.

Other Countries. What has been said above concerning the prevalence of small farms in France and Germany applies also to most other European countries. Denmark and Holland have for long made it a cardinal point of statecraft to protect the small farmer. Belgium before the war was essentially a land of small farms. One in every ten persons owned land, and of the holdings 95 per cent. were less than 25 acres. The Belgian small cultivator was often an industrial worker as well. He was able to live out in the country, thanks to a scheme of very cheap workmen's season tickets, which made it possible to travel 15 or 20 miles in to work each day almost as cheaply as to travel three or four miles. Hence in slack times he could work on the land attached to his cottage. No country had done so much as Belgium to prevent urban congestion, and every available square yard of her territory was under the most intensive cultivation. In Italy the big estates are gradually being broken up, as Italians return with full pockets from America and buy small holdings. Meanwhile a share system of tenure is very common. The landlord lets a farm to a tenant, and provides everything but the labour. Then at the end of the year one-half of the produce goes to the landlord, the other half to the tenant. By this system, known as métayage, the landlord shares the blessings of good years and suffers equally with his tenants in bad times.

In many parts of Central and South-Eastern Europe, especially Hungary and Roumania, large feudal estates survived in 1914. The Hungarian "red" revolution of early 1919 resulted in the transfer of land to about 1,000,000 peasants, and in nearly all the Central European states reform, revolution, or the sheer pressure of economic necessity strengthened the peasant proprietor class in numbers, in economic power, and in political consciousness. The breakdown of the European industrial and commercial system after 1918 made whole countries dependent on the producer of foodstuffs, and may make him the dominant factor in European politics during the next decade.

The Irish land-workers' desire for land-ownership was partly satisfied by the legislative provision after 1880 of facilities which enabled the British government to buy large estates in Ireland and sell them in small blocks on an instalment purchase system. Thanks to the operation of the Land Purchase Acts a large area of Ireland has become the property of those who cultivate it. In Asia we find similar conditions. Japan abolished feudalism in 1871, and most of her farmers to-day own the one to four acres on which they grow their rice, tea, and silk. Japan is a nation of very small peasant proprietors, who by dint of incessant hard work have carved a scanty living out of the mountain slopes. In China the holding is more like a garden, especially in the thickly-populated parts, and is cultivated with almost incredible minuteness.

Faults of Peasant Proprietorship. Arthur Young once declared that property turns sand into gold; but experience in the countries reviewed above shows that Young was too optimistic. Success for the small farmer depends upon many things, and failure is easily achieved. Thus the peasants in the above countries are often very backward in their methods. The greatest curse of the small man is his lack of capital or reserve. This makes it impossible for him to try experiments, buy the latest machinery, or build a decent home. He lives from hand to mouth, and a bad year means ruin or a mortgage. Often the subdivision of small holdings leaves a man with

B

« AnteriorContinuar »