use such physical powers as they possessed; (b) they are easy of management under moral influence, not a single complaint, official or otherwise, having been made to the village police-constable during the first four months, when I was intimately acquainted with the work and men on the Colony; (c) probably, at least one-half the number of such men are physically and otherwise competent for rough work upon the land, and, if they only receive maintenance in exchange for their labour, such work can be done at less cost than by paid skilled labourers; (d) a very small proportion possess those powers and experience which would justify their attempting to secure a maintenance by the hand cultivation of a small area of land; (e) a large number possess some useful knowledge or natural gifts which, with competent advice, could be directed into a useful means of subsidiary maintenance, if they had other means of support; and (f) labour on the land would generally improve the condition of such men both physically and morally. Especially was the latter the case with those men going from the Workhouse to the Colony, the change from the labour yard to work on the Hadleigh fruit gardens being productive of much good in both of these ways. As far as the land is concerned the crops now growing on some of the marsh land shew the possibility of getting some return in the first year of cultivation from an area which has been uncultivated for years.

These conclusions seem to shew that it would prove useful if London Boards of Guardians were to employ some of these waste lands as a means of testing and training those who apply for Poor Law relief. The Local Government Board have already shewn their willingness to assist in this direction, and, though the Guardians may not be able to take land themselves, they could, as already shewn, subsidise any farm worked under the control of an honorary local

Committee formed of those who wish to assist men of the class named, for their permanent good. There are reasons why such a Committee would secure better results than if the land were under the management of the Guardians. The period for which each man should be received upon the farm should be strictly limited, so that those willing to continue in a permanently dependent life would not occupy the property, to the exclusion of those men who wished to use it as a means of getting a fresh start in life, either in this country or abroad. Every man on the farm should receive individual assistance from a member of the Committee, to enable him to gain such a position for the future as seems best fitted to his acquirements and wishes.

It would be too costly for such land to be broken up by hand labour, but, when acquired, some part (the area of which should be determined by the number of men available) should be steam cultivated, and the subsequent work almost entirely done by the labour of the unskilled men. I fully agree with the statement contained in Mr. PRINGLE's report that the ordinary method of bringing such land again into tillage, would be by twice steam cultivating, followed by the usual horse cultivation for one year's bare fallow; the total cost being nearly £7 per acre without any return. If, however, the steam cultivation were done in the autumn, and ample hand labour subsequently employed, the cost of the one year's fallow would not be necessary, and a spring crop would be possible. Assuming 200 acres of land were used in the suggested manner, and 50 men sent upon it, the cost of maintenance of that number for one year would be about £800. Steam cultivation, administration costs, and farming expenses, would be a further £800 to £1,000. If, therefore, the improved value of the land were £5 per acre, and the returns from the farm averaged £4 per acre, it might be considered that the men had earned their maintenance. If,

on entry, the land were in better condition, or the improved capital value could not be considered, a subsidy from the guardians would be necessary; such subsidy would, however, probably be far less than the cost of the men if they had been maintained in the workhouses. It must be remembered that, as far as possible, all vegetable and dairy produce to be consumed would be produced on the holding, so that an average return of £15 to £20 per acre might be obtained from the small area given up to the former use, putting the value of the produce at market price.

As to the general system of farming, I am able to support Mr. PRINGLE's recommendation that the Essex land can be used for dairying, not so much for the production of milk for the London market, which is over-supplied, but for making butter and cheese. Moreover, there is no doubt that this must be done by rotation grasses and alternate husbandry, and not by the laying down of permanent pasture. When an uncultivated farm is brought under tillage, this system must be the one to be mainly followed; with the introduction, as far as possible, of those crops which afford employment for hand labour. Care must be taken that the saleable products of farms subsidised by Guardians are not fruit or vegetables, which must compete in a limited market with home-grown produce. If, however, the produce for sale consisted of butter taking the place of foreign imports, or products which need much hand labour in their production or after-treatment, and are not, therefore, now grown by English farmers, no objection to such sales could be raised.

As to the men upon such farms, they should receive their maintenance in exchange for a certain amount of labour upon the land. The time when such labour was not wanted they could have for themselves, and be encouraged to secure some return from proceeds of industrial work in which they might have assistance. In certain classes of labour on the land.

piece work might be introduced, and payment made for any excess done over the required quantity. Allotments for those men who wished to farm them could be usefully introduced.

Independently of the reduction of the cost of Poor Law relief, and the indirect advantages which might follow upon Boards of Guardians placing upon Essex waste land some of those men who might otherwise be overcrowding the workhouses, there is another class which might be assisted upon such land. I have pointed out that a few of those who have been on the London streets, or otherwise “unemployed" appeared to be quite capable of cultivating by hand labour some area of land, growing therefrom what is needed for consumption by themselves and their families. There are a far larger number in our rural districts who are so qualified, but who, in the present condition of agriculture, cannot obtain a maintenance from regular wages. Cannot, therefore, this class be assisted by being provided with land which has been brought into condition for profitable hand culture by unskilled labour?

The majority of those who have given attention to the question of small holdings agree that persons who have been dependent upon small farms of, perhaps, 50 acres, consisting mainly of arable land, are now in a condition of great poverty and distress; while their position is particularly unfortunate if they are freeholders of their farms. Cultivating a small area solely by the labour of the tenant and his family, with the object of raising that produce necessary for their maintenance, is on a different basis. Investigation as to the methods of working small areas in Ireland and on the Continent, with isolated experiments in England, seems to shew that a man can cultivate, by his own labour, an area not exceeding six acres of arable land, and can gain an adequate livelihood upon this quantity, with some area of grass, if well managed, and assisted by a family. The

general system of such an occupier would be to lay out as large a garden as would be necessary to supply all fruit and vegetables required throughout the year, cultivating the remainder of the land generally on the four-course system, growing wheat for his own consumption, roots and grass for a cow, and barley for pigs, his main saleable produce being butter and bacon, with possibly flour, poultry, and minor products not consumed by the family. Such a man would have time for indoor industries, and, in addition to his own harvest, could take harvest labour for large farmers.

Farms, therefore, for which it is difficult to secure a tenant might be used for settlements of this class of occupier, and their mutual co-operation, if a number were settled on one property, would give them great advantages. Such a tenant would have far more comforts than an Irish cotter, but his work would be harder and more anxious than that of an agricultural labourer.

A system somewhat similar to this suggestion has been applied, this spring, to a farm of 290 acres with which I am acquainted. This farm, which would otherwise have gone out of cultivation, was offered to the bailiff and labourers for their sole profit, each having a specified portion of the land and finding his own livestock. Horses and general expenses of the farm are paid for by the owner, who will realise the produce on behalf of the cultivators, and, after realisation, pay them the amount realised from their produce, less the proportion of general expenses, and agreed rent if the returns are sufficient to pay the same. This seems an equitable system of profit-sharing, the risks and responsibilities of the owner being less than if working the farm, while every labourer will put his best work into the land, feeling sure that he will get the full value of any special work or labour which he puts into it. Difficulties may arise in the instance named, owing to the horse labour and to