As the conscience of the nation began to awaken after the period of callous materialism which distinguished the industrial revolution, the social and agra rian consequences of the decline of small holdings aroused atten tion. A few landowners provided facilities for the acquisition of small holdings by offering land in convenient quantities on easy terms. Associations were also formed by well-meaning, but in some cases ill-advised, persons to stimulate the formation of "col onies" of small holdings, the most famous being the National Land Company started by Feargus O'Connor in 1845. This com pany bought five estates in different counties—Oxford, Gloucester, Worcester and Hereford—cut them up into two, three and four acre lots with a house on each, and made the necessary roads and fences. Shares were offered, each carrying the right to ballot for priority in the allotment of land. In three years more than £90,000 was subscribed by 70,000 persons. The financial basis was un sound and in 1851 the company was dissolved and the estates passed into the hands of a receiver. Miss Jebb set out the reasons for failure as follows : (I) the fact of the original settlers being all townsmen ignorant of agriculture; (2) that they were established under conditions in which it would have been impossible even for an agriculturist to gain a livelihood; (3) the purchase of unsuit able estates, partly owing to the want of practical knowledge on the part of the directors themselves and partly to the great hurry in which land was bought to satisfy the clamours of shareholders; (4) the financial difficulties which arose partly from the scare of the thareholders on finding that the company was illegally con stituted. Many other efforts were made, with varying success to provide land for small holdings but the difficulties were great.
One misconception was common among those whose personal knowledge of rural England was restricted. Many of them seemed to think that a small holding was an exotic plant and that the possibility of establishing it in this country required demonstra tion. In fact in many districts small holdings are indigenous. The nature of the country, soil, situation and climate have deter mined from time immemorial that only small farms can be suc cessfully managed. Typical districts of this character are the West Riding and large parts of Devon, Cornwall and Lancaster. In the West Riding 70% of the holdings are under 5o acres. The Evesham district of Worcestershire and parts of the eastern counties afford instances of groups of small holdings which have been naturally formed in recent times by the influence of new economic conditions.
On the basis of the report of a departmental committee of 1899, which reported in 189o, the Small Hold ings Act was passed in 1892. It gave power to county councils to purchase land and adapt it for small holdings which were to be let or re-sold on a deferred payment system. One-fifth of the
purchase money was to be paid down and the rest with interest to be paid off in a term not exceeding fifty years. Any elector could 'petition the county council alleging a demand for small holdings. The council were then to appoint a small holdings com mittee to enquire into the demand and if it was found to be made "in good faith and on reasonable grounds" to take measures to acquire suitable land in the district. They were empow ered to spend a sum not greater than the proceeds of a rate of id in the L. Money could be borrowed from the public works loan commissioners at 31%. If unable to purchase land the coun cil were empowered under certain conditions to take it on lease.
The results of this legislation were in fact disappointing.
A much more comprehensive enactment was the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. This intro duced the principle of central initiative and supervision. The Board (now the Ministry) of Agriculture was empowered to appoint small holdings commissioners who were to ascertain the extent to which there was a demand for small holdings in the several counties, or would be a demand if suitable land were available, and the extent to which it was reasonably practicable to satisfy the demand. With this object the commissioners were to confer with county councils and after due deliberation were to report to the board whether it was desirable to adopt a scheme for the provision of small holdings in the county. If they so reported a scheme was to be prepared by the county council, or in their default, by the commissioners, specifying, inter alia (a) the localities in which land was to be acquired for small hold ings; (b) the approximate quantity of land to be acquired, and the number, nature and size of the small holdings to be provided in each locality; (c) whether and to what extent grazing or other similar rights should be attached to the small holdings. A scheme when adopted and approved by the board was to be car ried out by the county council concerned, the board having power, if the council declined or neglected to do so, to carry it out and to charge the cost to the county fund.
County councils were by this act given power to acquire land compulsorily for small holdings if they were unable to obtain land suitable for the purpose on reasonable terms by agreement.
The financial limitation of the Act of 1892—i.e., that the annual charge on the county should not exceed the amount produced by a rate of id in the £—was continued. Under this act about 14,000 small holders were settled on the land as tenants of county coun cils. One-sixth of the holdings were provided with houses. The sinking fund was included in the rent paid by the occupier and criticism was aroused by the fact that the occupier had thus to pay the purchase money, although the land remained the prop erty of the County Council.