Viii.—: Profit of the Few at the Expense of the Many.

As in France, a tax on food falling on the majority could be of advantage only to the great landowners in England. This is proved by the Returns as to the number and size of agricultural holdings in England instituted by Mr. Craigie. Leaving out of account the small holdings of one acre and less, the following table has been drawn up:—

Thus the holdings of between 1 and 20 acres represent half the total number of holders, but only some 6 per cent. of the acreage. Those of 100 acres and above, on the other hand, represent less than 20 per cent. of the number of holders, but 70 per cent. of the acreage. Fifty-two per cent. of the small holdings of 1 to 5 acres are grass: the proportion of pasturage relative to land under cultivation is 2 acres to 1. Above 100 acres the proportion is reversed, and in the holdings of between 500 and 1,000 acres cultivated land is 58 per cent of the whole.

Thus a duty on wheat and other cereals would fall on the many for the profit of a very few great landowners—it would be an argument in favour of land nationalisation. Lord Harris’s partisanship of Mr. Chamberlain’s programme was very imprudent.

Taking the division of the population into classes:

Under the term “unoccupied” are comprised retired officials, pensioners, people living on their incomes, and all whose profession is not specified. For all these people cheapness in the cost of living is important, except the very small number who could hope to increase the return of their land. Duties on food would injure 66·3 per cent., or two-thirds of the population. There remains the agricultural population. Even they, as was shown by Messrs. Ritchie and Balfour in their arguments for the repeal of the duty of 3d. per hundredweight on wheat, many of them need cheap wheat and meal to feed their cattle, many, being mere labourers, need cheap food for their own consumption.