defence, while this country has at a much later date been slowly feeling its way towards what may be called an agricultural policy.

19. Thus in the case of Germany, the main preoccupation of the German Government, when the crisis came, was to retain, and if possible strengthen, its peasantry. It would be wrong to overlook the political influence of the Junker, the large landowners east of the Elbe. And it was sometimes urged in Germany by the Opposition that the interests of the peasants, over the whole Empire, and of the landowners, in particular provinces, were not the same. Whatever portion of truth there may have been in this assertion, with regard to particular tariffs at particular periods, there can be no doubt that the peasants did think their interests identical with those of the large proprietors, in face of the competition of the cheap grain of the new lands. There is no doubt, also, that the German administration, with the support of the majority of German economists, were quite sincerely desirous of preventing a catastrophe they honestly feared, namely, the uprooting of a large part of the peasantry from the soil.

20. Of the methods the Government adopted by far the most important was the resort to protective tariffs. By the side of this action, everything else the Government has done was of far less moment. Perhaps the most important of the other measures was the vigorous carrying through of a process of internal consolidation of peasant holdings, which did not aim at increasing their size, but in bringing scattered strips and patches together in more compact fields, and so rendering possible large economies in working. It need hardly be said that this in England had been done long before. Other measures were those for modifying the law of inheritance so as to lessen the tendencies toward undue subdivision of holdings or their undue burdening with mortgage debt; and those for multiplying peasant holdings, especially in the provinces east of the Elbe. The Government also showed its goodwill towards agricultural education and research in a more marked way than the contemporary English Government. No one, however, would attribute first rate significance to the inheritance measures. The movement for multiplying small holders made little headway until after the Revolution of 1918. And German agricultural education has only recently, through the Wanderlehrer, begun to touch the peasants themselves; for a long time it served mainly as the means of conveying to the large landowners of the Eastern provinces the lessons derived from English "high farming." In directing the attention of the larger landowners to the application of science to agriculture, German experts had the advantage of the alkali deposits in which the country is so rich; of the basic slag produced by the German steel industry; and of the beet sugar industry which did in fact thrive under the encouragement of export bounties and of the open English market.

21. The only factor which can be placed by the side of Protection in its effect upon German agriculture was of a non-governmental character in all its earlier stages; and that was the spread of Co-operation among the peasants themselves. Its purpose primarily was to provide short-term credit for the ordinary farming operations, and so to rescue the peasant from the village usurer. It was initiated by the protracted and toilsome propaganda of a few enthusiasts; and it had to make its way for a long time without any Government assistance. Even to-day it is strongest where it has had practically no Government help. But before the end of last century it certainly became a part of the Government policy vigorously to back up co-operative efforts through its local officials; and among agrarian economists and agricultural experts those several elements, tariffs, consolidation of holdings, laws of inheritance, "internal colonisation," co-operation and education, were brought together to constitute a composite working policy.

22. How much German agriculture owed to Protection, how much to Co-operation, is a question on which opinions have differed. The opinion of most German economists has certainly been that the undoubted benefits of co-operation would have been powerless to preserve the peasantry but for the interposition, between them and the cheap foreign corn, of barriers which mitigated the competitive pressure.

23. And with respect to co-operation of the German mutualcredit society type, there are one or two circumstances which must be borne in mind when considering its lessons for England. The one is that England did not possess the same class of landowning peasants, with the ampler basis for credit furnished by the fact of ownership. The other is that Germany did not then possess so widely diffused a banking system as this country. The need for an unoppressive system of short-term credit has never been so conspicuous in this country as in Germany and some other European states.

24. If it be granted, as we think it must, that German policy, and before all else its tariff policy, was for the benefit of German agriculture, two comments must be added. The assertions that Germany kept on the soil a larger population than England and obtained from it a larger production of food should not be taken to mean that German agriculture is more "efficient" than English agriculture; if by "efficient " we mean productive in proportion to cost. In that sense, there is certainly no superiority in German over English agriculture, except perhaps in certain special fields. Germany keeps a larger number of people working on the soil, and gets a greater gross output. This greater gross output is naturally all, directly or indirectly, made use of in maintaining them there. If Germany were to allow most of them to depart, and would be content with a smaller gross output, it might obtain a greater net output. But that has not been the object she has set before herself.

25. It is necessary also to realise that German statesmen decided to support agriculture by tariffs, even though thereby they should impose some check on industrial development. Among their serious thinkers there have been none to maintain that over a relatively short period, say of three or four decades, it is feasible to have the largest possible development of agriculture and also at the same time the largest possible development of industry. Some of them have indeed argued that, in some distant future, a secure agriculture will prove a securer basis for home industry than foreign trade. But, for the future within sight, they have granted that to ask the manufacturing population to pay somewhat more for their food than they could get it for from America or Russia, was to impose some restraint on the growth for export of German manufactures. They could meet more or less effectively the assertion that protective duties on food meant positive harm to the industrial population by pointing to the actual growth in German exports, and to the statistical evidence of improvement in the workman's remuneration. But they did not deny that exports might be larger still and urban remuneration even better if there were no duties on food. What their political and intellectual leaders, like Von Bülow and Professor Adolf Wagner, asserted was that it was worth while somewhat to slacken the progress of German manufacturing industry, if thereby other ends were achieved which they deemed more beneficial to the nation.

26. When we turn to consider France, and the way that country dealt with the situation, we find that there the two methods of Governmental Protection by tariffs, and voluntary co-operation among farmers, stand out no less conspicuously than in Germany. Whatever may have been the cause-perhaps because they were less needed-legislative or administrative efforts to strengthen the peasants' hold on the soil in other ways were hardly attempted. Agricultural education, indeed, has been favoured and supported by the State; and it has been marked by the system and symmetry characteristic of all French official organisation. But this official establishment has been rather remote from the practical needs of the farmers; and more is to be hoped from the voluntary efforts which have been made outside the Government scheme. The prevalent French type of agricultural co-operation has been of the nature of supply associations. To these can hardly be assigned an influence of equal moment with that of the credit associations of Germany; but they have undoubtedly in many districts been of great assistance to their members. On these was built up, by voluntary association, a closely allied organisation of credit associations, federated under regional co-operative banks. Undoubtedly the great body of the peasants who were creating this voluntary self-help organisation were in favour of the government tariff policy, which was taking effect alongside of their societies. The Ministry at the same time supplemented the work of the voluntary credit associations by putting at the farmers'

disposal, through an elaborate state machinery, large supplies of state credit the funds being obtained from the Bank of France, in return for the renewal of its charter. But the use of the state funds was more limited than, in view of the very favourable terms, might have been expected. After the War, they have been much more widely availed of, and it is too early as yet to say what the effect of credit so provided may prove to be.

27. It will not be necessary to say much of other European countries which have resorted to agricultural Protection. In Belgium, co-operation among farmers for supply purposes has been widespread; and this may be thought the more instructive for England because three-quarters of the cultivators of the soil are tenants. But, on the other hand, the influence of the Church in Belgium is remarkably strong; and it is this, in large measure, which has supported the Belgian co-operative organisation. When, however, we come to consider the position in which the Belgian cultivators find themselves, we cannot but recognise that the standard of living and the degree of education among a very large number of them are so unsatisfactory, that it would be wrong to regard Belgium as a model country. There are, however, features in the methods of organisation which are worthy of attention, in particular some of its educational institutions and its effective and widespread system of light railways.

28. The one European country which can be said in any sense to have a thriving agriculture without having resorted largely to agricultural tariffs is Denmark. That country has contented itself with a moderate tariff on manufactured goods and with a duty on one article of food, viz., cheese. Holland, which is also a country of free imports, has a relatively much less intensive agriculture, except in respect of its market-gardening.

29. Denmark, when the crisis began, was, like Germany, a country of peasant owners, so far as three-fourths of the soil was concerned. But it was unlike a large part of Germany in two respects: one was that the rural population was much more sparse; the second, closely connected with it, was that the cultivation was less largely devoted to cereals. That, of course, was due to the fact that there was a much smaller urban population to furnish a near market for corn. The Danish farmer was already becoming dependent on the export of cattle. Accordingly, when prices of grain fell, owing to foreign competition, it was possible for him, without any great change in his methods of cultivation and any loss of work to the existing population, to move more quickly in the direction in which he had already been turning, viz., arable dairy farming. And at this very time, fortunately for Denmark, the growth of the industrial population of Great Britain in numbers and prosperity made it more profitable for English dairy farmers to sell their milk as milk, rather than convert it into butter. Into this new great market for butter, the only one which the tariffs of other countries

left open to it, Denmark was able to enter. That the market was to be found overseas made grading and wholesale transport necessary. These were furnished by the voluntary co-operative dairy societies which rapidly sprang up; and by thus eliminating middlemen's charges, by improving also by voluntary organisation the breed and yield of the cows, and by continuous hard work, the Danish peasant has been able to earn a comfortable subsistence. Denmark has largely converted itself into a butter, bacon and egg factory for one great foreign market, with all the advantages and risks of such a concentration.

66

30. Education has done much to help the Danish peasant; but not the education provided by the State, and not specifically agricultural education. It has been the education provided for young adult men and women of the peasant class by the voluntary People's High Schools." This cannot be compared with any governmental organisation of education in any land, and cannot be simply copied by other lands with different conditions and traditions. It was the overflow into practical life of a great religious and democratic movement, which did not teach the peasant how to cultivate, but aimed at making him an intelligent citizen, and at opening his eyes to the possibilities, for life and character, of the peasant's occupation.

31. This educational movement which did so much to elevate the Danish peasant could only have arisen if peasants remained on the soil; and the same is true of the Danish co-operative movement. And the State, not by one or a few sweeping measures, but by a long-continued policy, has done very much to convert tenants into owners, and to keep them on the soil by prohibiting to this day, in the spirit of the English legislation of Tudor times, the annexation of peasant holdings to demesne farms and the "letting down of houses of husbandry." The most significant governmental action of recent years has been the series of measures for curtailing the few remaining great estates, and planting on the land a larger number of small holders.

32. The tasks before the peoples and governments of the new lands have been very different. They have been three which have followed upon one another in a necessary sequence.

33. First, was the actual settlement of the country. Some of the older lands of Europe have not been altogether without opportunities to plant cultivators on territory not previously used for agricultural purposes; cases in point are the reclamation of the sandy moors of Jutland and of the Landes of South-Western France. But in Western Europe in modern times such opportunities have been very limited. In the new countries the work of settlement has been the great fact of their modern history. The "homestead " laws of the United States and of Canada are of fundamental significance for those countries; and the same is true of the land settlement laws of the Australasian Dominions, which were of a somewhat different character. But they are