THE FARMS and ESTATES of OXFORDSHIRE

Home , Oxfordshire

UNIVERSITY OF /READING

Department of Agricultural Economics

THE FARMS AND ESTATES of OXFORDSHIRE

T. W. GARDNER, M.A (Corn.), Ph.D.

MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES No. 5

PRICE 5/- UNIVERSITY OF READING

Department of Agricultural Economics

THE FARMS AND ESTATES of

OXFORDSHIRE

T. W. GARDNER, M.A (Com.), Ph.D.

MISCELLANEOUS STUDIES No. 5

PRICE 5/-

BRADLEY dk SON, LTD., READING. CONTENTS.

Page CHAPTER I •• • INTRODUCTION • •• •• • •• • ... 5

CHAPTER II •• • CLASSIFICATION OF HOLDINGS 1. General Trends ••• ••• ••• ••• . 10 2. Size Distribution in 1941 ... ••• ••• 12 3. Amalgamation of Holdings ... ••• ••• 13 4. Ring-fence and Scattered Holdings ••• 15

CHAPTER III •• • CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPIERS 1. Economic Status ... ••• ••. ... 18 2. Length of Occupation ••• ••• ... 22 3. Owners and Tenants ••• ••• 24 4. Multiple Ownership ...... 27

CHAPTER IV •• • CLASSIFICATION OF ESTATES AND LANDOWNERS 1. Definition and Number of Estates ...... 29 2. Size of Estates ••• ••• ••• ••• 30 3. Occupation of Estates by Their Owners ... 33 4. Classification of Landowners ...... 35 CHAPTER V •• • PRIVATE ESTATES 1. Classification of Private Landowners ••• 37 2. Farmer Landowners ...... ••• ... 38 3. Principal Landowners ••• •. • ... 39 4. Business Group of Landowners ••. ... 40 5. Private Residents as Landowners ••. ... 41 6. Undefined Landowners ...... 42

CHAPTER VI •• • PUBLIC ESTATES 1. Classification of Public Landowners ... 43 2. Oxford Colleges and University ... ••. 43 3. Other Educational Institutions ...... 45 4. Ecclesiastical Landowners ••• ...... 45 5. Government Landowners .•• ... ••• 46 6. Charities ... ••• ••. ••. ... 47 CHAPTER VII •• • COUNTY COUNCIL SMALLHOLDINGS ESTATE 1. Growth of the Estate ••• ••• 48 2. Geographical Distribution of the Estate ... 51 3. Applicants for County Council Smallholdings 54 4. Tenants of County Council Smallholdings... 57 5. Length of Occupation of Holdings by Tenants 59 6. Rents ... 64 CHAPTER VIII ... SALES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND 1. Land Ownership in 1873 and in 1941 67 2. Sales of Agricultural Land, 1918-1941 ..• 69 3. Influence of Land Sales upon Ownership ... 72 4. Influence of Land Sales upon the Farm ... 74 5. Three Case Studies ...... 75

CHAPTER IX •• • CONCLUSION •• • •• • •• • 78 LIST OF TABLES.

Page I Division of Oxfordshire into Six Districts showing Total Area, Number of Holdings and Population Density ...... 6 II Size Classification of Oxfordshire Holdings, 1895-1939 ...... 11 III Size Classification of 2,555 Oxfordshire Holdings, 1941 — ••• 12 IV Degree of Fragmentation on 111 Oxfordshire Holdings of 500 acres and over, 1941 ••• ...... 16 V (a) Classification by Economic Type of the Occupiers of 2,555 Oxford- shire Holdings, 1941 — ... ••• ••• ••. ••• ••• 18 V (b) Proportion of Occupiers of each Economic Type in each District in Oxfordshire, 1941 ...... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 19 VI Relation between Size of Holding and Economic Type of Occupier, 2,555 Oxfordshire Holdings, 1941 21 VII Tenure Status of the Occupiers of 2,555 Oxfordshire Holdings, 1941 26 VIII Classification by Acreage of 2,605 Oxfordshire Estates, 1941 31 IX Classification by the Number of Holdings or Part Holdings per Estate, of 2,605 Oxfordshire Estates, 1941 ••• ••• ••• 32 X Relation between Size of Estate as measured by Acreage and by the Number of Holdings (or Part Holdings) provided,2,605 Oxford- shire Estates, 1941 ••• ••• 33 XI Proportion of 2,605 Oxfordshire Estates occupied by their Owners, 1941 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 34 XII Distribution of 2,605 Oxfordshire Estates between Public and Private Owners, 1941 ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 35 XIII 2,368 Private Oxfordshire Estates classified by Acreage and by Number of Tenures per Estate, 1941 ... ••• ... 37 XIV Land held for Smallholdings by the Oxfordshire County Council, various dates, 1908 to 1945 50 XV Classification of Oxfordshire County Council Smallholdings Tenants by Area rented and Type of Employment, 1913 and 1941 58 XVI Length of Occupation of Holdings by 536 Oxfordshire County Council Smallholders grouped by Date of Entry and Type of Tenant 60 XVII Rents payable to the Oxfordshire County Council for Small- holdings, classified according to the Buildings provided, 1914 and 1939 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 64 XVIII Average Rents of Oxfordshire County Council Smallholdings classified by Size Groups, 1914 and 1939 ... 66 XIX Land Ownership in Oxfordshire in 1873 and in 1941 68 XX Sales of Agricultural Land in Oxfordshire, 1918-1941 ... 70

LIST OF MAPS.

1. OXFORDSHIRE-District Boundaries, Main Towns and Railways. ... 7

2. OXFORDSHIRE-Average Agricultural Rents and Rental Values in each Parish, 1941. ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••

3. OXFORDSHIRE-Proportion of Agricultural Acreage owned by Occupiers in each Parish, 1941. ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 25 4. Distribution of Oxfordshire County Council Smallholdings Estate. 52 THE FARMS AND ESTATES of OXFORDSHIRE

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.

This study is primarily devoted to an examination of the pattern of occupation and tenure of agricultural land in contemporary Oxfordshire, and to some consideration of the changes which have moulded that pattern. Down the centuries there have been a number of surveys of agricultural property in England. But not until the Return of Owners of Land, 1873, is there a complete record of landowners which can be compared with the modern position. Unfortunately, the information about ownership in the 1873 Return is unsupported by any other details concerning either agriculture or the tenantry. In the present century information about the tenure of their land was collected from farmers and published annually for each county in Agricultural Statistics up to the outbreak of war in 1914 and again for the four years from 1919 to 1922. These statistics, however, gave no information about the owners of agricultural land but merely indicated the extent of owner-occupation and of tenancy. The National Farm Survey which was carried out early in the second world war collected information about the ownership of every holding of five acres and upwards in England and Wales, in addition to a great deal of other material. The broad national picture which this information made possible has been presented in the National Farm Survey of England and Wales A Summary Report prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. But this national report used only a part of the information collected, and there is abundant material in the records of the Survey for more detailed research into the tenure of agricultural land. The present study of the farms and estates of Oxfordshire is based, in the main, on the records collected for the National Farm Survey. The study is concerned, inter alia, with the following matters: the size, lay-out and rents of the agricultural holdings in the county; the economic status of the occupiers of the holdings and the type of tenure by which the holdings are held; the number and size of agricultural estates and the different categories of landowners; the sales of agricultural land in the inter-war years.

5 Since much of the statistical part of the study is based upon an examination of the National Farm Survey records for each agricultural holding in the county it is necessary, at the start, to make clear what is meant here by an "agricultural holding." Very simply an agricultural holding has been taken to mean an area of agricultural land of five acres* or more in extent used by its occupier as a single or self-contained unit of land. It has been calculated that in 1941 there were in Oxfordshire 2,555t such agricultural holdings covering a total of 381,000 acres. These 2,555 holdings with their occupiers and their owners constitute the raw material for the study. It has been found convenient to present much of the statistical evidence separately for each of the six Districts into which the county was divided for war-time agricultural administration. The boundaries of these Districts are identical with those of the Rural Districts of Banbury, Chipping Norton, Ploughley, Witney, Bullingdon and Henley, except that the urban areas are added to the appropriate Districts. The first four Districts cover the north of the county, whilst the Bullingdon and Henley Districts cover the south. The total area, number of agricultural holdings and population of each of these six Districts is given in Table I. TABLE I. Division of Oxfordshire into six Districts showing total area, number of holdings and population density.

4 AREA. NUMBER OF POPULATION (1931). AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT. Per cent. HOLDINGS Total Per 100 Agricultural (1941). Total. Acres. acres. Land (1941).

Banbury ••• 64,151 87.0 443 26,923 42.0 Chipping Norton 90,412 82.0 444 19,367 21.4 Ploughley ... 81,590 84.5 388 15,717 19.3 Witney ...... 86,244 85-2 466 21,079 244

North ... 322,397 83.5 1,741 83,086 25.7

BullingcIon ... 102,148 76.5 550 105,070 103-3 Henley ...... 54,679 61.0 264 21,465 39.2

South ... 156,827 71.3 814 126,535 80-8

County ... 479,224 79.5 2,555 209,621 43.7

Although most of Oxfordshire is still typically rural and agricultural, the south of the county has come increasingly under urban and industrial influences. Thus in the north 83-5 per cent. of the land is devoted to agriculture and the density of population is only 25-7 persons per 100 acres. In contrast,

* Holdings of less than 5 acres were omitted from the National Farm Survey. t This number was arrived at after a careful scrutiny of all the records collected for the National Farm Survey.

6 Map 1.-OXFORDSHIRE-DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, MAIN TOWNS AND RAILWAYS.

PRINCES RISBORO

Railways. District Boundaries. DISTRICTS. 1. BANBURY. 4. WITNEY. 2. CHIPPING NORTON. 5. BULLINGD ON. 3. PLO UGHLEY 6. HENLEY. the south of the county has a population density of 80.8 persons per 100 acres, and agricultural land accounts for only 71.3 per Cent. of the total area. The higher concentration of population in the south is associated with the presence there of Oxford and Henley together with Thame and the outskirts of Reading. The extensive Chiltern woodlands in the Henley District account for the fact that in that District only 61 per cent. of the total area is devoted to agriculture.

7 Apart from Oxford, the only town with a population exceeding 10,000 in 1931 was Banbury and this accounts for the Banbury District having the second highest rate of population density in the county. It is not necessary here to enter into any detailed description of the type offarming in the county. In Oxfordshire, soil and climate have probably exerted a greater influence than the market in determining variations in farming systems. In general the upland areas of the Cotswolds and the Chilterns have lighter soils than the valleys, and this makes them relatively more suitable for arable farming. The predominantly arable farms in these districts tend to be larger than others in the county. The valleys, in addition to having heavier soils, are subject to mists from the rivers and consequently crops do not ripen so quickly there.. For these and other reasons dairy farming has tended to develop more readily in the valleys. Although the various types of farming which are found in association with particular soils in Oxfordshire might almost be described in traditional terms as (1) arable with sheep on the corn- brash, (2) dairying on the clay farms, (3) mixed farming on the loams, and (4) arable and dairying in the Chilterns, the dominant impression is one of variation and exception to rule, and above all of a very gradual general spread of dairy farming. The summary report of the National Farm Survey gave a figure of 21/- per acre as the average rent for Oxfordshire, a lower figure than for any of the surrounding counties.* If all the returns are used, instead of a sample as in the National Farm Survey Report, and rough grazing is adjusted—as through- • out this study—at the rate of six acres being equal to one acre of cultivated land, the average rent for Oxfordshire works out at 22/6d. per acre. The map giving the average rent for each parish shows that the average county figure embraces a wide range of rental values. On the whole, rents are lower in the three central Districts than in the Banbury District in the north and in the Bullingdon and Henley Districts in the south. The average rent in each of the six Districts is as follows:— Banbury ... ••• ••• ▪ 26/8 per acre. Chipping Norton •• • •• • .• . 19/7 Ploughley ••• ••• 20/6 Witney ••• • 20/10 „ Bullingdon ••• ••• • 24/5 Henley ••• ••• ••• ••• 25/2 Areas of high or low rents are, generally, fairly compact. In the Banbury and Bullingdon Districts the areas of high rents are associated with grassland dairying in the river valleys. Population density also appears to be a factor,

* National Farm Survey of England and Wales A Summary Report, Table A.4, p. 94, gives the following figures of average rent based on crops, grass and adjusted rough grazing: Berkshire ...... 23/- per acre. Oxfordshire ... 21/- per acre. Buckinghamshire ... 26/- „ Northants ... 25/- Gloucestershire ... 28/- „ Warwickshire ... 28/- „

8 especially around Oxford, Henley, Banbury, and, to a lesser extent, in the parishes of Chipping Norton and Witney. Areas of low rent, on the other hand, tend to be far from the population centres and to be characterised by arable or mixed farming rather than by dairying. There are two such regions of low average rents: one stretches from Chipping Norton across to the Ploughley District and south through the Witney District; the other runs along the borders of the Bullingdon and Henley Districts.

Map 2.-OXFORDSHIRE-AVERAGE AGRICULTURAL RENTS AND RENTAL VALUES IN EACH PARISH, 1941. CHAPTER II.

CLASSIFICATION OF HOLDINGS.

1. GENERAL TRENDS. In general the agricultural holdings of Oxfordshire are large compared with those in the rest of England. Thus,according to the report on the National Farm Survey the average size of Oxfordshire holdings in 1941 was approximately 149 acres as compared with 89 acres for the whole of England. In fact, Oxford- shire ranks fifth when English Counties are arranged in order of the average size of holdings, the four counties having larger average holdings being Northampton, Northumberland, Rutland and Lincoln (Kesteven). There is evidence that the tendency for large holdings to be prominent in Oxfordshire goes back a long time. Thus the history of enclosure shows that certain parts of Oxfordshire were enclosed early and that before 1634 "thirty- four townships (were) entirely given over to residential estates."* These townships, covering 84 per cent. of the area of the county, with their extensive parks, were often the precursors of large agricultural holdings. But enclosure was fairly late in other parts 37 per cent. of Oxfordshire open-field arable remaining unenclosed as late as 1758,** whilst some 50 years later there were still nearly 100 unenclosed parishes. t It has been pointed out by Dr. Levy that the great corn-growing period (1750-1880) and the growth of large-scale holdings by enclosure were coincidental4 Since the typical mode of farming which developed in Oxfordshire, on the land above the river valleys, was a combination of corn-growing with arable sheep the relevance of fairly late enclosures is clear. Richard Davis provides some evidence of the creation of large holdings at enclosure in his survey of the county in 1794. Although he considered Oxfordshire holdings, "generally speaking," to be smaller at that date "than in most parts of England," he complained that "it is a common but narrow policy in land-owners to throw several bargains into one, in order to save some expence in buildings."§ The existence of numerous large estates

* H. L. Gray, English Field Systems, p. 121. **H. L. Gray, English Field Systems, p. 114. t Arthur Young, View of the Agriculture of Oxfordshire, pp. 87-88. H. Levy, Large and Small Holdings, Chapter I. § Richard Davis, General View of the Agriculture of the County of Oxford, pp. 11 and 32.

10 is shown by the report of the enquiry into land ownership published in 1875* according to which there were 22 estates in the county in excess of 3,000 acres each. As compared with five Oxfordshire estates noted by Arthur Young as yielding upwards of £5,000 annually in 1807,t nineteen estates had gross rents in excess of £5,000 in 1873. Whether the large estates arose from early or late enclosure, their existence made possible the subsequent provision of large tenant holdings more easily than if the ownership had been subdivided.

TABLE II. Size classification of Oxfordshire holdings, 1895-1939.

1895. 1914. 1920. 1930. 1939. SIZE GROUPS. Total. Per Total. Per Total. Per Total. Per Total. Per cent. cent. cent. cent. cent.

1- 5 acres ... 1,016 22.9 984 22.2 802 19.4 628 17.0 522 15.4

5- 50 „ ... 1,636 37.0 1,642 37-1 1,554 37.7 1,281 34-8 1,103 32.6

50-100 „ -) i 492 114 462 11-2 493 13.4 495 14.6 I 1 100-150 „ 1,381 31.2 / 306 6.9 331 8.0 356 9-7 352 10.4

150-300 „ j 617 14.0 605 14.6 577 15.7 552 16.3

Over 300 „ ... 394 8.9 382 8.7 376 9.1 348 9.4 362 10.7

TOTAL ... 4,427 100.0 4,423 100.0 4,130 100.0 3,683 100.0 3,386 100.0

The official agricultural statistics which are summarised in Table II show the trends in the size of holdings during the present century Thus during the first forty years of the century the total number of holdings decreased by almost one-quarter. Practically the whole of this decrease occurred, however, after the first world war. From 1920 onwards the number of holdings under 50 acres declined markedly and continuously, and to a lesser degree the number of holdings over 150 acres also declined. Medium-sized holdings (50-150 acres) actually increased in number, and by 1939 formed 25 per cent. of the total compared with 19 per cent. in 1920. This growth in the relative importance of medium-sized holdings was general in England and Wales4 and occurred in all the counties surrounding Oxfordshire. Although the trend was relatively strong in Oxfordshire, it would appear that the changes in size distribution of agricultural holdings before 1939 should, therefore, be attributed to general and not to local circumstances. Nevertheless after 1930 there was some increase * Return of Owners of Land, 1873 (C. 1097-I). t Arthur Young, View of the Agriculture of Oxfordshire, p. 16. I E. Thomas, "Changes in the Size of Agricultural Holdings in England and Wales during the past 100 years." Proceedings of the First International Conference of Agricultural Economists (1929), p. 145.

11 in Oxfordshire in the number of holdings of over 300 acres in size, and a similar increase occurred in the neighbouring counties. For England and Wales as a whole, however, the number of these large holdings continued to decrease right up to 1939. The trend in Oxfordshire and the surrounding counties was probably associated with the agricultural depression which was especially severe in areas of arable farming. In particular the dearth of applicants for the smaller farms provided the occupiers of the large arable farms with the chance to increase the size of their farms by incorporating the smaller holdings which fell vacant.

2. SIZE DISTRIBUTION IN 1941. The position in 1941 is shown in Table III where the 2,555 holdings are classified in seven size groups. Holdings of under five acres are not included since, as already stated, these were outside the purview of the National Farm Survey. TABLE III. Size classification of 2,555 Oxfordshire holdings, 1941.

NUMBERS. AREA.

SIZE GROUPS. No. Per cent. Acres. Per cent.

5 and under 25 acres ... 630 24.6 7,200 1.9

25 „ „ 50 „ ••• 314 12.3 11,400 3.0

50 „ „ 100 „ ••• 413 16.2 30,400 8.0 "

100 „ „ 150 „ ... 307 12.0 38,000 10.0

150 „ „ 300 „ ... 505 19.8 107,800 28.3

300 „ „ 500 „ ••• 270 10.6 101,800 26-7

500 acres and over ...... 116 4.5 84,400 22.1

TOTAL ••• ••• 2,555 100.0 381,000 100.0

In spite of what has been stated above about the relatively large average size of Oxfordshire holdings Table III shows that, nevertheless, small holdings are numerically predominant in the county. Thus 36.9 per cent. are under 50 acres, but holdings of over 500 acres account for only 4.5 per cent. of the total. But to obtain a correct perspective of the position it must also be remembered that the 36.9 per cent. which are under 50 acres account foi. less than five per cent. of the total agricultural land, whilst nearly half the agricultural land is in holdings of 300 acres and above. The same general size distribution holds for each of the six Districts, though there is some variation from District to District. In the two Districts

12 in the south of the county—Bullingdon and Henley—holdings of under 25 acres account for roughly a third of the total. This is partly explained by the greater opportunities which exist for small farmers to supply the urban markets for milk and market-garden produce which are located in these Districts. In addition, the Chilterns and the lower reaches of the Thames Valley have been popular for residential purposes, and the many small paddocks and fields attached to the houses have been returned as agricultural holdings. In contrast there is in the Witney District a relatively high proportion of the very large holdings of 500 acres and over, a proportion which would have been still higher were it not for the creation of two smallholding estates at Minster Lovell and at Black Bourton. The large holdings in the Witney District are situated on the light soils of the Cotswolds which lend themselves to large-scale arable cultivation. Similar conditions obtain, also, in parts of the Chipping Norton and the Henley Districts. 3. AMALGAMATION OF HOLDINGS. It has been shown that the number of holdings in Oxfordshire has decreased since the first world war, but that the average size has risen. It is clear, therefore, that there has been a process of amalgamation of holdings, though it is very difficult to measure its extent. Some information can, however, be gleaned from a sorting of the June returns which formed the basis for the National Farm Survey. In the first place clear evidence of amalgamation exists where an occupier made more than one return in respect of land actually occupied by him as single or self-contained farming units. An examination of the records showed that 405 June Returns were made for land which was worked as 173 holdings. The proportion of holdings which show this evidence of amalgamation increases with each size group, rising to almost two-thirds for holdings which exceed 1,000 acres. Of the 173 amalgamated holdings, 139 were a combination of two separate returns; 22 of three returns; six of four returns ; two of five returns, and two six; one combined seven, and another eight, returns. Whilst the figures relating to amalgamated June returns are, perhaps, the only ones which can be presented concisely and without ambiguity, it is possible to obtain further evidence of the process of amalgamation. In the National Farm Survey material there are four other indicators which may point to a holding having been built up from previously separate portions: (I) On the June return or on the Farm Survey record the names of two or more farms may appear this would point to the probability of their separate existence at an earlier date. (2) The 1941 June returns should show whether different parts of the holding were taken over at different times. Absolute accuracy is unlikely in this part of the return and it needs to be used in association with other evidence, but it is particularly valuable in tracing the growth of amalgamated holdings. (3) Two or more landowners may be shown for a single

13 holding. Of itself multiple ownership does not necessarily indicate amalgamation; but in conjunction with other information, such as different dates for the commencement of tenancy, it probably points to an amalgamation. (4) Where two or more farmsteads are shown on the Farm Survey map of any holding there is strong presumption of an amalgamation. Unfortunately, the Farm Survey maps were generally completed later than the descriptive record which means that in cases of intervening changes of farm boundaries or occupation the evidence of the map may be invalidated. Such instances, however, are not frequent.

These indicators of amalgamation have been applied to all the holdings exceeding 500 acres in size, since a sufficiently close scrutiny of the maps for all the 2,555 holdings (especially for the related study of scattering) was hardly practicable. Of the 116 holdings concerned five had to be discarded because of discrepancies between the survey records and maps. The remaining 111 holdings cover some 80,000 acres, or approximately 21 per cent. of the agricultural acreage of the county.

The preliminary examination of the June returns indicated that almost one-third of the holdings exceeding 500 acres in size were the result ofamalgama- tion. According to the fuller examination based on all the evidence it can be stated that ten out of every eleven of these holdings had been built up by amalgamation. Whilst the majority originated from the amalgamation of two or three previously separate units, over a third of the amalgamations involved four or more units. One holding of 520 acres was the result of the amalgamation of eleven separate units of land.

The process of amalgamation is not confined to the immediate past it was, as has been noted, a cause of complaint against the enclosure movement in the early nineteenth century, and an Oxfordshire example from the late nineteenth century is quoted by Flora Thompson in Lark Rise.* Owing to a lack of permanence in the larger agricultural financial unit, however, the reverse process of disintegration of farm units is also at work.f The National Farm Survey material contains no usable records either of the process of disintegration or of amalgamations which took place before the time of the 1941 occupier. The present study, therefore, must be limited to the amalgamations made by the occupiers of 1941. The process of building up a farm unit by amalgamation may be spread over a considerable period. The available evidence shows that of the 111 holdings under examination 68 were at least partly built up during the tenure

* Flora Thompson, Lark Rise to Candleford, p. 38: "The (village) farm was large, extending far beyond the parish boundaries; being, in fact, several farms, formerly in separate occupancy, but now thrown into one." t See Country Planning, p. 32. Chapter VIII of this Study also provides examples of disintegration of farm units.

14 of the 1941 occupiers. The early war years saw a considerable number of additions to these holdings; one of the 68 holdings was built up entirely within that period, whilst 41 parcels of land were added to the other 67 holdings. Apart, however, from those years no period is marked out as showing a concentration of amalgamations. Nor is there any evidence to show that the amalgamation process is normally concentrated at any special period of the occupier's active farming life, although where there are several additions the periods between them tend to grow shorter. Additions made by tenant farmers were almost entirely by renting further land, but more than half the occupiers who owned the original portion made additions solely or mainly by further purchase.

4. RING-FENCE AND SCATTERED HOLDINGS. The process of amalgamation is intimately associated with the problem of scattered holdings. There is no magic whereby the encircling of an agricultural holding with a continuous fence will convert it into a perfect holding, or even into one with a convenient layout. But any holding which is composed of geographically scattered sections must suffer from at least one of two serious drawbacks: the journey from one part of the holding to another will involve either the use of a road or it will depend upon access across other land. Each of these renders animals liable to infection from sources outside the farm. Other drawbacks, such as the extra time taken in moving animals or machinery from one part of the holding to another, or the danger that outlying portions will be neglected, are not exclusive to scattered holdings, but they are more likely to occur on such holdings. The evidence for the existence of scattered holdings is to be found in an examination of the farm maps, and the maps of all holdings larger than 500 acres have been scrutinised for this purpose. The results are summarised in Table IV where the 111 holdings are grouped according to the degree of fragmentation. The table shows that 45 per cent. of the holdings concerned are scattered and 55 per cent. are within a ring fence. Scattering was relatively more frequent in the north than in the south of the county, but no adequate explanation can be offered for this difference. In the case of some of these scattered holdings the sections lie a number of miles apart; in other cases the distance separating the sections is to be measured in yards; usually, however, the sections are separated by distances ranging from one-quarter to three-quarters of a mile. The assessment of convenience of layout is a vexed question and depends upon so many factors requiring an intimate (year-round) knowledge of the holding, and, above all, of the system of farming employed, that it will not be discussed as such here. In order to provide some basis upon which the importance of scattering can be assessed, however, certain assumptions may be

15 TABLE IV. Degree offragmentation on 111 Oxfordshire holdings of 500 acres and over, 1941.

NUMBER OF NUMBER OF PROPORTION OF SIZE RANGE OF SEPARATE FRAGMENTS. HOLDINGS. TOTAL. HOLDINGS.

Per cent. Acres. Ring-fenced Holdings ...... 61 55.0 504-1,350

Holdings in 2 fragments ••• 23 20.7 505-1,878

PP 77 3 ,, ••• 8.1 525— 777 , 9

77 " 4 79 ". 10 9.0 512-1,164

9/ 97 5 ,, ••• 2 1.8 514— 624

97 77 6 ,, ••• 3 2.7 759-1,083

7 ,, ••• 3 2.7 520-1,146

TOTAL ...... 111 100.0 504-1,878

made as to what constitutes a satisfactory holding in this respect. The four assumptions employed here are (1) that a ring-fence holding is generally to be preferred; (2) but that scattered ring-fence areas of over 300 acres each can form satisfactory units of management within a larger holding; (3) that a - separated area up to 30 acres in extent may be a useful adjunct to each main holding of the size under consideration; (4) but that holdings composed of a number of small separated areas are never satisfactory in normal agriculture. Applying these criteria to all the holdings in the over 500 acres group the following generalisations may be made: 55 per cent. lie within a ring-fence and may, therefore, be considered satisfactory units; 5 per cent., although scattered, may well be divided into satisfactory units; the type of scatter on the remaining 40 per cent. must be regarded as reducing their efficiency as economic farm units. All the above considerations of size and lay-out have some influence on the rents and rental values of holdings. The average rents per acre for holdings of various sizes in 1941 were as follows :-- Size of holding. Rent per acre. 5- 25 acres ..• ••• ••• 93/1d. per acre.

25- 50 ,,••. ••• ••• 36/10d. 50- 100 5, ••. ••• ••• 27/5d. 100- 150 „ •• • ••• ••• 24/5d. ,5 5, 150- 300 „ ...... ••• 21/6d. ,) 77

,5 •• ••• 300- 500 . ••• 19/4d. 5,

••. 500- 700 77 ••• ••• 18/2d. 77 77 700-1,000 5, ••• ••• ••• 15/6d. ,, 1,000 acres and over ••• ••• 17/5d. „ „

16 The very high average rent shown for the 5-25 acres group reflects, of course, the greater incidence of house and buildings. In fact, on many of these very small holdings the rent bears little relation to the area of land since the house, as a residence, is the first consideration. Average rentals are shown to fall sharply as holdings increase in size. This inverse relationship is only broken in the case of the very largest size group. This is probably explained by the fact that many of the holdings of over 1,000 acres are made up of two or more farms, each constituent farm having its own house and farm buildings. In some cases the second house is sub-let, and when this happens the net rent of the farm may be substantially reduced.

17 CHAPTER III.

CLASSIFICATION OF OCCUPIERS.

1. ECONOMIC STATUS. It has always been known that a substantial proportion of the so-called "agricultural holdings" of the official statistics are not farms in the accepted sense but odd paddocks, accommodation land, etc. It is of considerable importance, therefore, to have some statistical measure of the extent to which the agricultural holdings of the county are in fact separate farm businesses supplying the occupiers with their sources of income and employment. Such a measure is best arrived at by attempting to classify the occupiers rather than the holdings. The first official attempt to do this was in 1907 when occupiers completing the June returns were divided into two groups; those who did and those who "did not occupy the land for business purposes or as a source of income."* On that occasion 7-5 per cent. of occupiers of all Oxford- shire holdings of one acre and above were given as not occupying their land for business or income. The National Farm Survey, whilst modifying the grouping employed by Thomas and Elms in 1938,t developed the earlier classification of 1907 by using five categories, largely graded according to the dependence of the occupier upon his holding as a principal source of income and occupation. Such a classification of the occupiers of Oxfordshire holdings in 1941 is shown in Table V (a) and Table V (b).

TABLE V (a). Classification by economic type of the occupiers of 2,555 Oxfordshire holdings, 1941. TYPE OF OCCTJPIER. NUMBER OF HOLDINGS. AREA OF HOLDINGS. No. Acres.

Full-time •• 1,767 694 319,300 83.8

Part-time .• • 230 9.0 24,900 6.5

Spare-time .• • 326 12.8 17,400 4.6

Hobby •• 181 7.1 9,600 2.5 Other 51 2.0 9,800 2.6

TOTAL 2,555 100.0 381,000 100.0

* Agricultural Statistics, 1907, Part I, page 7. t An Economic Survey of Buckinghamshire Agriculture, Part I, pp. 20-21.

18 TABLE V (b).

Proportion of occupiers of each economic type in each District of Oxfordshire, 1941.

CHIPPING BULLING - BANBURY. NORTON. PL0 UGHLEY WITNEY. DON. HENLEY.

% 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 % Full-time ... 73.1 64.6 76-8 73.3 65.3 59.5 Part-time ... 8.6 7.0 7.5 9.9 13.1 5.3 Spare-time 12.9 16.2 12.1 9.9 10.7 17.0 Hobby ... 4.5 10.4 2.6 5-4 7.8 14.0 Other 0.9 1.8 1.0 1.5 3.1 4.2

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

(a) Full-time occupiers :This group includes all occupiers of agricultural land whose time is fully engaged in, and whose income is derived from, the cultivation of their land. In addition to general farmers this category includes market-gardeners, poultry-keepers, fruit growers and other specialists provided their use of the land is agricultural. It would be correct to describe the 1,767 occupiers in this group as farmers and their holdings as farms. These full-time farmers occupy more than two-thirds of all Oxfordshire holdings and more than four-fifths of the agricultural acreage.

(b) Part-time occupiers : The difference between the full-time and the part-time occupier is that the part-time occupier draws additional income from some other employment, although farming remains the principal occupation. The 230 part-time occupiers concerned may, therefore, be regarded as farmers and their holdings as farms. Their secondary occupations were as follows:-

Contractors .•• 57 (agricultural 25; haulage 24; others 8). Tradesmen • •• 46 (butchers 23; dairymen 18; other shopkeepers 5). Dealers ... •• • 36 (in livestock 26; others 10). Merchants •• • 29 (agricultural 14; coal 11 ; others 4). Labourers •• • 18 (farm workers 10; general or casual 8). Miscellaneous •• • 44 (includes agents, craftsmen, publicans, hawkers and others).

230 Part-time farmers.

These part-time farmers occupied less than one-tenth of all Oxfordshire holdings and approximately one-fifteenth of the agricultural acreage. The relatively high proportion of part-time occupiers in the Bullingdon District reflects the importance of milk-retailers and hauliers in the environs of Oxford

19 (c) Spare-time occupiers: The spare-time occupier is a person who, whilst occupying agricultural land "as a source of income" has some main employment quite distinct from the cultivation of his holding. There were 326 spare-time occupiers in Oxfordshire in 1941. Because this type of occupier can only devote his spare time to agriculture, his holding is normally quite small. There are cases, however, where holdings are managed by bailiffs on behalf of spare-time occupiers who, although operating for profit, do not themselves work regularly on their holdings. The dividing line between these and some hobby occupiers is not easy to draw since it depends essentially upon the motive behind the occupation of the holding. Professional men provide examples of this type of spare-time occupier, and farm workers provide examples of the type who work their own holdings. In neither case is the occupier a farmer, strictly speaking, although the larger holdings controlled by bailiffs would seem to fall properly into the category of farms. Occupiers whose other occupation was returned in 1941 as "the services" have also been included in the spare-time group because this category most nearly corresponds to their method of operation at the time. The main groups of occupations in which spare-time occupiers were engaged in 1941 are as follows:— General workers 67 (factory 13; transport 9; personal and public services 22; others 23). Farm workers 47 Business and Professional 55 (law and finance 7; company directors 13; others 35). "Services " •• • 39 Publicans •• • 29. Tradesmen ••• 28 (shopkeepers 23; cafe proprietors 5). Merchants and Contractors 23 (agricultural 12; transport and others 11). Miscellaneous... 38 (craftsmen 14; others 24).

326 Spare-time occupiers.

One-eighth of the agricultural holdings of Oxfordshire were in the hands of spare-time occupiers, but the combined acreage involved was less than one-twentieth of the total. Spare-time occupiers such as publicans, shopkeepers and village craftsmen were relatively more common in the sparsely populated Chipping Norton District, while private service occupiers such as gardeners were numerous in the Henley District.

(d) Hobby occupiers :The hobby occupier, as the name implies, occupies his holding for pleasure or convenience and not for profit. There are two main types of hobby occupier. One is the occupier who often has a real interest

20 in farming and may regard it as his main occupation; but, being independent of income from his holding, he differs from the full-time or part-time farmer by the motive for farming, even although his farming may yield a profit. He is essentially a farmer occupying a farm. The other type of hobby occupier has a residence to which the land attached is subsidiary and usually limited in area. The land in this case does not constitute a farm nor the occupier a farmer. There were 181 hobby occupiers, occupying approximately one-fourteenth of the holdings but only one-fortieth of the agricultural acreage of the county. Of the 181 occupiers concerned 94 were described as "independent " ; 38 as having "private means" ; 27 as "retired " ; and 22 as "miscellaneous." Hobby occupiers (especially occupiers of residential holdings) were relatively more frequent in the Henley District and in the Cotswold area of the Chipping Norton District. (e) Other types of occupiers :Included in this last miscellaneous group are tradesmen holding accommodation land, the County War Agricultural Executive Committee in respect of land taken over, educational and other institutions occupying agricultural land, and estate owners in respect of home farms and land in hand. Few, if any, of the 51 occupiers concerned could be called farmers, although some of their holdings are farms. The main classes constituting the group consisted of 15 businesses, 15 institutions and 15 landowners. This group occupies a greater proportion of the total acreage than of the total number of holdings-over one-fortieth of the acreage, but only one- fiftieth of the holdings. TABLE VI.

Relation between size of holding and economic type of occupier, 2,555 Oxfordshire holdings, 1941.

TYPE OF 5-25 25-50 50-100 100-150 150-300 300-500 500 acres OCCUPIER. acres. acres. acres. acres. acres. acres. and over. o % ° 0 /0A0 ° °hA/0A Full-time ...... 30.5 60.0 80.4 89.3 88.7 89.6 78.5

Part-time ...... 13.0 13-3 9.7 4.9 6.3 4-4 6.0

Spare-time ...... 34.4 16.2 5.3 2.6 2.8 2.6 6.0

Hobby ...... 19.1 7.9 3.1 2.9 1.2 1.9 2.6

Other ...... 3.0 2.6 1.5 0.3 1.0 1.5 6.9

TOTAL ... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

As would be expected Table VI shows that the proportion of full-time farmers increases with the size of holding; the relation between size of holding and degree of dependence of the occupier on it for his livelihood being remark-

21 ably close. Thus the average size of holding for each of the five groups of occupiers was as follows : full-time farmers, 180 acres; part-time farmers, 108 acres; spare-time occupiers, 53 acres; hobby occupiers, 53 acres; other occupiers, 192 acres. Numerically, the full-time farmer predominates in all the size groups except the smallest (i.e. 5-25 acres) where he accounts for only one-third of the total.

2. LENGTH OF OCCUPATION.

The National Farm Survey records give the number of years each occupier had been on the holding occupied by him in 1941. From this it is possible to state the year in which occupiers entered their holdings. The proportions of the 2,555 occupiers entering their holdings in various years were as follows :— Before 1900 •• • •• • •• • 2.8% 1900-1905 ... ••• ••• ••• • • • 2.7% 1906-1911 ... ••• ••• ••• •• • 4.9% 1912-1917 ... ••• ••• ••• •• • 6.7% 1918-1923 ... ••• ••• ••• •• • 14.8% 1924-1929 ... ••• ••• ••• •• • 16.0% 1930-1935 ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 22.2% 1936-1941 ... ••• ••• ••• ••• 29.9% Thus 17.1 per cent. of all occupiers had entered their holdings before or during the first world war and were still occupying the same holdings in 1941. An examination of the year-to-year trends revealed the presence of regular peaks at five-yearly intervals and more particularly at ten.-yearly intervals. These peaks, however, have little if any significance since, in all probability, they result from a tendency to give a round figure, usually a multiple of ten, in answer to the question on the length of occupation. There was, however, undoubtedly an unusually high rate of entrants in 1921, probably associated with the many sales of agricultural land in Oxfordshire in that year. On average the 1941 occupiers had been 13.7 years on their holdings. This average refers to all periods of occupation from those just commenced to those on the verge of termination. The average of these (as used above) may be assumed to be approximately half the length of the average total period over which holdings are actually occupied. On this assumption the average total duration of occupation of holdings in Oxfordshire—as distinct from the average length of occupation up to 1941—is approximately 27 years. Length or duration of the period of occupation is undoubtedly influenced by private considerations such as family ties, personal whims and attitudes of mind. Here attention can only be drawn, however, to the influence of three more specifically economic factors : size of holding, type of occupier and tenure status.

22 The influence of size of holding is illustrated by the following figures showing the average length of occupation of the 2,555 holdings classified by size groups :— Size group. Length of occupation. 5 and under 25 acres ••• •.. 124 years.

25 „ , 50 „ ••• ... 12-7 ,

50 ,, 100 ,,••• •.. 13-4

100 ,, ,,,,,150 ••• ••• 13-9

150 ,,3, 300 ••• ••• 14-3 ,

300 , , 500 „ ••• •.. 14-8 ,

500 5, , 700 „ ••• •.. 17-5 ,

700 „ 1,000 „ ••• ••• 15-6 7, 1,000 acres and over ••• ••• •.. 19-3

All Holdings ..• ••• ••• 13-7 years.

It is clear that, as compared with large holdings, small holdings tend to experience more frequent changes of occupiers. At least three reasons may be given for this: (1) there is a smaller choice of alternative holdings for the large farmer than for the small; (2) the fact that some large farms have been built up around a main section tends to exaggerate the length of occupation with which these large holdings are credited; (3) a good many small holdings are occupied by part-time and spare-time occupiers—who may give up for non- agricultural reasons—or by erstwhile large-scale farmers who have semi-retired. The connection between length of occupation 'and the economic type of occupier is shown by the following figures:— Average length of occupation. Full-time farmers ... •• • •• • • • • 14-0 years. Part-time farmers... ••• ••• ••• 12-9

Spare-time farmers ••• ••• ••• 11-3 5, Hobby farmers ... •• • •• • •• • 13-8 Other occupiers ... •• • •• • •• • 16-9 These figures suggest that the part-time and the spare-time occupiers are less attached to their supplementary holdings than the full-time farmers to their farms. The division between part-time and spare-time occupiers is not permanent; and as farming or the other source of income grows in importance a man may first move from one category to another, and then either move out of farming altogether or seek a full-time farm. Hobby farmers, on the other hand, often choose a holding for its amenity value and, in particular, as a permanent home, though the duration of their occupation is likely to be limited by the age at which many of them enter their holdings. The relatively long

23 occupation of the miscellaneous group is explained by the presence of" home" farms and institutional farms in this group, i.e. by the presence of "non - personal" occupiers. Finally, ownership of the holding by its occupier appears to be the most important factor of all in tending to reduce mobility. Thus occupiers who owned the holdings they occupied in 1941 had, on average, been in possession for 15.7" years. The corresponding average for tenant-occupiers was only 11-6 years.

3. OWNERS AND TENANTS. From the beginning of the present century until 1922 (with the exception of the war years)information about the proportion of agricultural land occupied by owners and by tenants was collected and published in the annual Agricultural Statistics. This information was returned on a voluntary basis and was by no means complete, but there is no reason for regarding the statistics as failing to reflect the general trend. The most remarkable feature of the trend was the increase in the number of owner-occupiers in the immediate post-war years. The following figures, culled from the relevant official statistics, show that the national trend was closely reflected by the figures for Oxfordshire :—

Percentage of holdings owned by their occupiers. Year. England. Oxfordshire. 1914 •• • 11.6 ••• ••• ••• 12.3 1919 •• • 12.0 •.• ••. ••• 12.6 1920 •• • 14.1 ••• ••• ••• 14.7 1921 ••• 17.3 ••• ••• ••• 16.7 1922 ••• 15.7 ••• ••• •••, 14.2 With the single exception of 1927 no figures were collected between 1922 and 1941. Separate county figures were not given for 1927, but for the whole of England and Wales the proportion of owner-occupiers was given as 36.6 per cent. The National Farm Survey Report gives the proportion of holdings occupied by their owners in 1941 as 34 per cent. for the whole of England and 36 per cent. for Oxfordshire. The occupier of an agricultural holding may be the owner of his holding, or he may rent it, or he may own part of it and rent part of it. All occupiers fall into one of these three classes and all holdings are either owner-occupied, rented, or part-owned and part-rented. A classification on this basis of the occupiers of the 2,555 Oxfordshire holdings in 1941 is as follows:— Number. Acreage owned. Acreage rented. Owner-occupiers .•• ... 637 70,700 Tenants ••• ••• .. 1,460 216,000 Part-owners, part-tenants ... 458 45,100 49,200

24 Map 3.-OXFORDSHIRE-PROPORTION OF AGRICULTURAL ACREAGE OWNED

BY OCCUPIERS IN EACH PARISH, 1941.

Less than so per cent. 10-25 asso More Matt so

25 These figures indicate that one-quarter of all the occupiers owned their holdings, rather more than half were tenants, and the remainder were part-owners, part- tenants. The owner-occupiers held about one-fifth of the agricultural acreage, the tenants rather more than half, and the part-owners part-tenants very nea.rly one-quarter. It will aid further discussion if the part-owner part-tenant group is eliminated by allocating to the owner-occupied and tenanted groups, respectively, all holdings where 75 per cent. or more of the holding is owned or is rented by the occupier, and by dividing the remainder equally between the two groups. The adjusted classification is shown in Table VII.

TABLE VII. Tenure status of the occupiers of 2,555 Oxfordshire holdings, 1941.

OWNERS. TENANTS.

Per cent. Per cent. • Per cent. Per cent. Number, of total of total Number. of total of total number. acreage. number. acreage.

Banbury ... ••• 113 25.7 18.5 330 74.3 81.5

Chipping Norton 167 37.6 33.9 277 62.4 66.1

Ploughley ••• 116 29.9 31.4 272 70.1 68.6

Witney 162 34.8 34.9 304 65.2 65.1

Bullingdon ••• 174 31.6 26.3 376 68.4 73.7

Henley ... ••• 128 48.5 43.3 136 51.5 56.7

Oxfordshire 860 33.7 30.7 1,695 66-3 69.3

The Table shows that the position varies appreciably from District to District. Thus,in the Henley District in the south of the county the proportion of owners to tenants is nearly 50: 50 ; but in the Banbury District in the north only a quarter of the occupiers own their holdings. The other four Districts occupy intermediate, but varying, positions. One can only conclude from the general figures, as from the map showing the proportion of owner-occupied land in each parish, that the distribution of tenure in Oxfordshire follows no clear geographical line. The connection between tenure and the economic status of occupiers is shown by the following percentages of owner-occupiers for the various categorie : full-time farmers 25.6 per cent.; part-time farmers 31.8 per cent.; spare-time occupiers 42.3 per cent.; hobby occupiers 85-1 per cent. ; other type occupiers 82.4 per cent. As would be expected the proportion of owner- occupiers is appreciably lower for the more purely farming than it is for the non-farming categories.

26 The connection between tenure and size of holding is shown by the following percentages of owner-occupiers in the various size groups :— Size group. Owner-occupiers. 5- 50 acres ••• ••• ••• • • • 42.8% 50-100 „ ••• ••• ••• • •• 27.6% 100-150 „ ••• ••• ••• • • • 26.7%

150-300 55 ••• ••• ••• ••• 26.3% Over 300 acres ..• ••• ••• • • • 32.6% Owner-occupiers are much more prominent in the smallest and in the largest size groups than in the three intermediate groups. The high proportion of owner-occupiers amongst the small holdings is undoubtedly partly a reflection of the influence of the small residential holdings which are prominent in this category. The high proportion of owner-occupiers shown for the largest size group is somewhat misleading for the number of partly-owned partly-rented holdings is also comparatively high for this group.

4. MULTIPLE OWNERSHIP.

It was stated above that 458 holdings (i.e. 17.9 per cent. of the total) were partly owned and partly rented by their occupiers in 1941. This gives some indication of the existence of multiple ownership, i.e. the division of the ownership of a single holding between two or more landlords. But these 458 holdings include only those where one of the landlords is also the occupier. In addition there were 445 other holdings entirely rented by their occupiers from two or more landlords. Altogether 35.3 per cent. of all the holdings in the county had two or more landlords each. Expressed as a proportion of the agricultural area, 42.9 per cent. of the land in Oxfordshire is in holdings in multiple ownership. The frequent occurrence of multiple ownership, however is not a true measure of its importance. If, for each multiply-owned holding, the parts belonging to the various landlords are arranged in order of size and the largest section of each holding is treated as the main holding, it is found that these major sections amount in aggregate to over 70 per cent. of the total acreage of multiply-owned holdings. The subsidiary portions vary in size and in number per holding, but in most cases they are neither large nor numerous. The distribution of holdings according to the number of landowners per holding is as follows :— Landlords per holding ... 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 or more. Number of holdings ... 1,652 502 194 113 55 16 12 4 4 3 These figures show that only a minority of holdings have more than two landlords each. It is of some interest to note that most of the holdings with many landlords are situated in the Witney District. It was in the Witney District that

27 smallholding colonies were founded and it is fairly clear that a number of these smallholdings had been amalgamated with larger holdings by 1941. The problem of multiple ownership ought not to be exaggerated, therefore, since in most cases only two landlords are involved and, moreover, much the greater part of the holding normally belongs to one of the landlords. Further- more, some allowance should be made in considering the 1941 figures for minor amalgamations induced by the war this would reduce somewhat the number of holdings which could be considered "normally " subject to multiple ownership. Multiple ownership of single holdings is, nevertheless, not to be dismissed as unimportant for it creates real disadvantages. The problem, which arises to a considerable extent from the large number of agricultural landowners, is one which would require a radical solution if the size of operating farm unit were greatly increased.*

* On this point Country Planning (Agricultural Economics Research Institute, Oxford) gives examples, pp. 76-80.

28 CHAPTER IV.

CLASSIFICATION OF ESTATES AND LANDOWNERS.

1. DEFINITION AND NUMBER OF ESTATES. It has always been true in the final analysis that an occupier of land either owned it himself, or did not own it. But so varied were the conditions under which occupiers could hold land in the past that not all occupiers were really clear whether they were owners of the land or not. Such, at least, is the evidence of conflicting returns made as late as 1873 for lands owned by the Oxford Colleges.* The confusion of the older forms of tenure, however, was passing steadily in favour of more straightforward contracts of tenancy, and the process was completed by the Law of Property Act, 1925, which required, inter alia, that tenancies to be valid must be for a definite period. Occupiers are now quite clear, therefore, whether they are owners or tenants of the land they occupy. When forms of tenure were less simple, areas of land might pass out of the control of the owner for considerable periods, but such owners would be acknowledged as the fountain-head of land supply in their neighbourhood. The 1873 enquiry into landownership was urged upon the government of the day as a means of showing that proprietorship was, in fact, widely spread and not restricted to a few large owners only. The belief that there are many occupiers, but relatively few owners, of agricultural land in the country dies hard; it has been one of the objects of this study to examine how far and in what sense such a belief is tenable for Oxfordshire. Although the National Farm Survey was not concerned with the ownership of agricultural land as such, the name and address of the owner or owners were collected for each holding. The attempt has been made to list all the names of owners given in the Oxfordshire returns and to allocate to each the total acreage of land concerned. In this and the ensuing chapters the total agricultural

* The only comprehensive statement of landownership is contained in the Return of Owners of Land, 1873. The Report of the Universities' Commission, published in 1873, however, provides a statement of property owned by the University Colleges for approximately the same date. The former report, based on parish valuation lists for Poor Rate, gave 31,513 acres owned by Oxford University and Colleges in Oxfordshire; the latter report, based on detailed returns made by the Colleges, gave 42,595 acres of agricultural land owned by the University and Colleges in Oxfordshire. Broadly, the Return of Owners of Land shows the areas let at rack rents, but does not show as College-owned the lands let by them on beneficial leases, and various copyhold and long leases.

29 property in Oxfordshire belonging to each such owner has been taken as signifying a separate agricultural estate. It has been estimated that there were 2,605 separate estates in this sense in Oxfordshire in 1941. In arriving at this estimate from the records of the National Farm Survey four minor assumptions were made:(1) For a few properties it was not possible to identify the actual owner; each plot of land with no known landlord was treated as a separate estate; each agent (where no further evidence was available) was taken as representing a separate owner. There were eleven holdings (or part holdings), covering 306 acres, for which no owner was traced. The number of agents cannot be stated: but it is fairly certain that some of the solicitors, surveyors and similar persons, returned as owners of small estates, actually represent undesignated principals. (2) Glebes were treated as the property of the incumbent of the parish concerned. (3) Charity land in each parish was treated as one estate. (4) Land belonging to local or central government was assigned to the parent authority, whatever department was given as the immediate landlord. It was, of course, necessary to treat lands owned by joint boards of two or more authorities as separate estates. These are largely common sense decisions involving less difficulty and labour than the elimination of duplicated landowners resulting from faulty initials, alternative spellings and lack of addresses, in some of the original Survey returns. It is important to repeat at this stage that this study deals only with agricultural land in Oxfordshire and that in consequence it is concerned only with estates which lie within the county. Almost nine-tenths of the owners of the 2,605 estates appear to be resident within the county boundary. Some of the landowners who live outside Oxfordshire may own land elsewhere, but very few are known to be owners of substantial areas in other counties. Some landowners resident in Oxfordshire may also own land in other parts of the country, but whilst it has not been possible to check the extent to which this occurs, it is probable that the main estates which consist of land both within and beyond the county boundary belong to such owners as the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the Oxford Colleges and the Commissioners for Crown Land. A consideration of the estates of Oxfordshire landowners which is confined to their property within the county does not on the whole seem likely to lead to seriously misleading conclusions.

2. SIZE OF ESTATES. The size of an agricultural estate may be measured in at least three ways: by the total acreage, by the number of holdings provided, or by the rent roll of the estate. The most obvious measurement of the size of an estate is the acreage over which it extends; it is also the most satisfactory single measure. But there are two factors which it does not take into account. In the first place, it treats

30 as wholly comparable units two estates, one of which is operated as a single agricultural holding, and the other of which is broken up into several holdings. To meet this it is possible to measure the size. of estate by the number of holdings, or part holdings, into which it is divided, although this alone is clearly a less satisfactory general measure of size. In the second place, acreage alone treats all estates as though they were composed of land of equal value. This could be corrected by classifying estates according to the size of their rent rolls. There are, unfortunately, certain difficulties involved in using the rent data available, and this method of measuring estate size will not be pursued in detail. It should, of course, be remembered that the acreage of rough grazing in the county has already been adjusted to a smaller figure, representing its equivalent in terms of cultivated land, and that this overcomes, to some extent, the variation in the value of land. In Table VIII the 2,605 estates are classified by acreage into ten size groups. The 291 estates of less than five acres require a word of explanation in view of the fact that this study is confined to holdings of five acres and over. A qualifying size for holdings does not affect the size of estates involved, but it means that these 291 very small estates—consisting, in fact, of isolated little fields—can each form part only of some holding in the Survey. As stated earlier the existence of separately owned fields has a bearing on the significance of multiply-owned holdings. Estates larger than five acres may be composed of whole holdings, or part holdings, or a combination of whole and part holdings. In discussing estates in this chapter the term holding will include also part holding where this is required by the context. TABLE VIII. Classification by acreage of 2,605 Oxfordshire estates, 1941.

NUMBER OF ESTATES AREA OF ESTATES ACREAGE GROUP. IN GROUP. IN GROUP.

No. % Acres. % Under 5 acres ... ••• 291 11.2 800 0-2

5 and under 25 acres... 922 35.4 10,400 2.7

25 „ „ 50 2, 319 12.2 11,300 3.0

50 ,9 ,9 100 „ 349 13.4 24,800 6.5

100 ,, , 150 „ 182 7.0 21,900 5.8

150 „ „ 300 „ 266 10-2 56,100 14-7

300 „ „ 500 „ 138 5.4 51,500 13.5

500 9, ,, 700 „ 45 1.7 26,000 6.8

700 ,9 ,9 1,000 9, 34 1-3 27,800 7-3

1,000 acres and over ...... 59 2.2 150,400 39-5

TOTAL ••• ••• 2,605 100.0 . 381,000 100.0

31 An examination of the very small estates (under five acres) shows that they are most common in the Witney District, which contains 46 per cent. of all the estates of this size. These small estates, moreover, are particularly numerous in the smallholding parishes of Black Bourton and Minster Lovell, and a substantial proportion (e.g. two-thirds of those in Black Bourton) only came to be farmed by their 1941 occupiers after the outbreak of war. These facts suggest, therefore, that very small estates are neither so widespread, nor so common, a feature of normal farm make-up (i.e. of holdings larger than five acres) as the total figures suggest. It is true that Table VIII shows the numerical preponderance of the small estate in the county-72.2 per cent. being under 100 acres and only 2.2 per cent. being over 1,000 acres in size. On the other hand, however, the large estates of over 1,000 acres account for 39.5 per cent. of the total acreage, whilst estates of less than 100 acres each account for only 12.4 per cent. In view of these inverse ratios it is not surprising, therefore, to find that two-fifths of the agricultural land of Oxfordshire is contained in fifty-nine estates which each exceed 1,000 acres in extent. The classification of estates according to the number of holdings per estate is shown in Table IX. There are only 29 estates (little more than one per cent.), which provide ten or more holdings each but between them they cover more than one-quarter of the agricultural acreage of the county. TABLE IX. Classification by the number of holdings, or part holdings, per estate, of 2,605 Oxfordshire estates, 1941.

NUMBER OF HOLDINGS OR No. OF TOTAL HOLDINGS (OR PARTS) IN EACH PARTS) PER ESTATE. ESTATES. GROUP.

No. % Acres. % 1 2,114 2,114 49.7 139,200 36.6 2 279 558 13.2 45,400 11.9 3 86 258 6.1 24,100 6.3 4 41 164 3.9 17,600 4.6 5 19 95 2.2 8,800 2.3 6 10 60 1.4 10,800 2.8 7 10 70 1.6 5,500 1.4 8 11 88 2.1 12,600 3-3 9 6 54 1.3 9,200 2.4 10 2 20 0-5 6,200 1.7 11-20 16 218 54 32,700 8.6 21-50 8 274 6.5 40,500 10.6 Over 50 3 273 6.4 28,400 7.5

TOTAL 2,605 4,246 100.0 381,000 100.0

In contrast to this there are 2,114 estates (over 81 per cent.), which consist of only one holding each, but these cover less than two-fifths of the agricultural acreage of the county. Almost two-thirds of these 2,114 estates do not provide

32 an entire holding, and this very largely accounts for the total number of tenures* so greatly exceeding the number of holdings. This measurement of estates by the number of holdings or part holdings into which they are divided also emphasises the numerical predominance of small estates. But under any system of landownership the number of large estates can be only relatively few, and their importance must be judged by the proportion of the total acreage which they cover. On this basis estates consisting of many holdings are still fairly important in Oxfordshire. TABLE X. Relation between size of estate as measured by acreage and by the number of holdings (or part holdings) provided, 2,605 Oxfordshire estates, 1941.

NUMBER OF ESTATES EACH PROVIDING ACREAGE OF ESTATE. TOTAL. One holding 2-3 4-9 10 or more only. holdings. holdings. holdings.

Under 100 acres ... 1,684 182 15 1,881

100 and under 300 acres 329 98 21 448

300 „ „ 1,000 99 81 36 1 217

1,000 acres and over •• • 2 4 25 28 59

TOTAL ... •• • 2,114 365 97 29 2,605

In Table X the two classifications of estates are brought together to show the relationship between the acreage of estate and the number of holdings provided. It will be seen that the numerical scatter follows a similar distribution for both methods of classification. In other words, by the test either of acreage or of number of holdings per estate it is usually the same estates which are designated large or small as the case may be.

3. OCCUPATION OF ESTATES BY THEIR OWNERS. The extent to which the estate owners occupy their own land or let it to tenants is shown in Table XI. The total number of estate owners occupying all or part of their estates is shown to be 1,095. This number is, of course, equal to the sum of owner-occupied and part-owned holdings given earlier on page 24. According to Table XI practically six out of every ten owners of agricul. tural estates in Oxfordshire do not themselves occupy any of their land. It is interesting to note that only a minority of the owners of the smallest estates occupied any part of their own land in 1941. This is in marked contrast with

* Where a holding has a single owner the holding is a tenure ; where a holding has two or more separate owners the part belonging to each owner forms a tenure.

33 TABLE n. Proportion of 2,605 Oxfordshire estates occupied by their owners, 1941.

ESTATE OWNERS AREA OCCUPIED BY OCCUPYING PART OR ESTATE OWNERS. ESTATE SIZE GROUP. WHOLE OF ESTATE.

Number. cs/c. Acres.

Under 5 acres ... ••• ••• 58 19.9 160 20.0

5 and under 25 acres 356 38.6 3,900 37.5

25 7, 50 115 36.0 3,900 34.5

50 100 9, 169 48.4 11,300 45.6

100 9, 150 96 52.8 10,800 49.5

150 9, 300 138 51.9 26,100 46-5

300 ,, ,, 500 9, 88 63.8 26,100 50.8

500 9, ,, 700 ,, 23 514 8,800 33.9

700 ,, ,, 1,000 9, 23 67.7 11,700 42.1

1,000 acres and over ... ••• 29 49.1 14,800 9.8

TOTAL ... •••• ••• 1,095 42.0 117,560 30.8 the position in the neighbouring county of Buckinghamshire five years earlier, where three-quarters of all estates under 100 acres in size were entirely occupied by their owners.* This difference may have been largely a wartime phenomenon, so far as the very small estates are concerned, for the amalgamation of small plots with larger holdings between 1939 and 1941 has already been noted. Some additional support is afforded this view by the classification of landowners given later, for it appears that a large proportion of the small estates entirely let off belonged to "undefined " landowners—i.e. landowners whose status or occupation it proved impossible to identify. Approximately two-fifths of the completely let estates between five and fifty acres in size, and almost three-fifths of the estates under five acres, belonged to this type of landowner. In other words, many of these "estates " actually consisted of odd fields which either were not used agriculturally before the war, or were incapable of wartime service until they were amalgamated with larger units. As estates increase in size, up to 500 acres, there is a tendency for a greater proportion of landowners to occupy some part of their estates. Landowners with estates of between 50 and 500 acres farm almost half of the acreage owned by them, or, stated alternatively, half the area covered by medium-sized estates

* Thomas and Elms, An Economic Survey of Buckinghamshire Agriculture, Part I, pp. 34-35.

34 belongs to owner-occupiers. Although more than half the owners of estates of over 500 acres also occupy some part of their land, there is a tendency for the proportion of the acreage let to increase with the size of estate. This is particularly so for the largest estates of over 1,000 acres each, nine-tenths of the total area of which is let to tenants.

4. CLASSIFICATION OF LANDOWNERS. In Chapter III the occupiers of agricultural land were classified according to their dependence upon income derived from that occupation. A similar economic classification for the owners of agricultural estates is conceivable, but not practical. Not only is the information about the degree of the owners' dependence upon income from land not available, but such a classification would assume that for the majority of landowners ownership was a profession or occupation, as farming is for the majority of occupiers of agricultural holdings. Such an assumption is not justified. It is, however, most important to distinguish between different types of landowners if significant information is to be extracted from the evidence available. Various classifications are possible. Classifications could be based as above upon such factors as size or geographical distribution of landowners' estates, or upon the extent to which landowners occupy the land they own. These factors, indeed, are repeatedly discussed here, but they do not throw into relief two trends which are of importance in contemporary economic organisation. These trends are an increasing change from the individually-owned business to joint-stock ownership, and an increase of State participation, under one guise or another, in business operations. In order to examine agricultural land ownership with reference to these trends the 2,605 Oxfordshire landowners are classified in Table XII into the two major categories of "public owners" and "private owners." The public group includes Oxford University and Colleges, other educational institutions, ecclesiastical authorities, central and local government bodies, and charities. The private group includes all other landowners.

TABLE Distribution, of 2,605 Oxfordshire estates between public and private owners, 1941.

TYPE OF NUMBER OF AREA OF PROPORTIONS OF TOTAL LANDOWNER. ESTATES. ESTATES. RENTS (estimated).

No. % Acres. % % Public ... ••• 237 9.1 78,800 20.7 20.5

Private ...... 2,368 90.9 302,200 79.3 79.5

TOTAL ... 2,605 100.0 381,000 100.0 100.0

35 Table XII shows that just over nine-tenths of the estates are privately owned and that these include almost four-fifths of the acreage the proportion of total rents accruing to private landowners is also estimated to amount to nearly four-fifths.* The public estates are seen to be rather more important on the basis of their total acreage than would appear from a consideration of their numbers only. This results from the occurrence of a small number of relatively large estates in the public category.

* Rent includes rental value estimated by owner-occupiers. The total rent, so defined, for the county is obtained by summing the figures returned individually on the original Survey records. Rents received by the public landowners have been estimated; for each holding entirely owned by a public landowner the rent returned is, of course, accurately available; where a holding has two or more landowners the single figure returned for rent paid has been divided proportionately on an acreage basis. The rent for the private sector is obtained by subtracting that for the public estates from the county total.

36 CHAPTER V.

PRIVATE ESTATES.

1. CLASSIFICATION OF PRIVATE LANDOWNERS.

The statistics given in Table XII show the preponderance of the private landowners in Oxfordshire; they are far more numerous than the public landowners and their estates cover a much greater area. In Table XIII the 2,368 private estates are classified according to acreage and to the number of tenures per estate. It is clear from this Table that the average private estate is very small. Actually 45 per cent. are under 25 acres in size and 83 per cent. provide only one tenure per estate. At the other extreme there are 57 private estates of over 1,000 acres each, and 36 estates which provide six or more tenures per estate. It is only the large estates providing several tenures each which can be regarded as "landed estates" in the more popular sense of the term.

TABLE XIII.

2,368 Private Oxfordshire estates classified by acreage and by number of tenures per estate, 1941.

No. OF No. or ACRES PER ESTATE. ESTATES. TENURES PER ESTATE. ESTATES.

Under 25 acres ••• ... 1,055 1 ••• ••• ••• ••• 1,966

25— 100 acres .•• •.. 616 2 ••• ••• ••• ••• 237

100— 300 ••• ••• 427 3-4 ..• ••• ••• ••• 106 300-1,000 ••• ••• 213 5-6 ••• ••• ••• ••• 23

1,000 acres and over ••• ••• 57 More than 6 ••• ••• 36

TOTAL 2,368 TOTAL 2,368

It has already been stated that it is not possible to classify estate owners into the same economic classes used for the classification of occupiers of holdings in Chapter III. Nevertheless, it has been possible to make a rough

37 grouping which provides a very useful indication of the major categories of private landowners in the county. The following five such categories* have been distinguished :— Type of Landowner. No. of Total acreage estates. of estate.

Farmers ... •• • •• • •• • 740 93,300

Principal Landowners •• • •• • 65 90,700

Business ... •• • •• • •• • 449 43,100

Private Residents •• • •• • 457 32,600

Undefined ... •• • •• • •• • 657 42,500

2,368 302,200

These five categories are considered in turn in the following sections.

2. FARMER LANDOWNERS. The 740 farmer landowners are numerically the largest group of private landowners, and the total area of their estates, 93,300 acres, is also the largest in the private categories. However, the individual estates owned by farmers are generally not large. Moreover, 648 of the estates concerned provide only one tenure each. The exact position is as follows:— Acres per estate. No. of Tenures No. of estates. per estate. estates.

Under 25 acres ... •• • 212 1- 648

25- 100 acres •• • 227 2 64

100- 300 •• • 205 3 16

300-1,000 •• • 95 4 10

1,000 acres and over •• • 1 5 1 6 1

740 740

Altogether these 740 estates provided 356 complete holdings and 519 part holdings; of the complete holdings 316 were occupied by full-time farmers. Together these 316 full-time farmers held nearly a half of the total acreage of the group; 270 of them were farming land which they owned themselves, the other 46 being tenants of other farmer landlords. Since most of the estates owned by farmer-landlords are one-holding estates, estate layout is coincidental with farm layout. An examination of the National Farm Survey records relating to the 316 farms held by full-time farmers from a single owner shows that the permanent equipment of the farms is of much the same general standard as for Oxfordshire holdings generally.

* The nomenclature of the categories is partly taken from Kelly's Directories which proved a useful source of supplementary information in making the classification.

38 Ownership of a farm by the farmer tends to make him less likely to move than if he were a tenant. This is borne out in general by the figures for the length of occupation of the 270 owner-occupiers who were full-time farmers. Forty per cent. of these had entered their holdings before 1922, and 23 per cent. before 1914. Only 19 per cent. entered their holdings between 1932 and 1938.

3. PRINCIPAL LANDOWNERS. The term "principal landowner" is taken from Kelly's Directory, where it is applied to landowners whose estates form a substantial proportion of the acreage of a parish. In this study the term is restricted to such landowners whose estates extend to at least 500 acres of agricultural land. Although there are only 65 principal landowners they own almost one-quarter of the agricultural land of Oxfordshire. Their estates, by definition, are fairly large: 30 estates are between 500 and 1,000 acres in extent; 30 range from 1,000 to 3,000 acres; the largest of the five estates which exceed 3,000 acres covers some 10,000 acres. The 90,700 acres constituting these estates are divided amongst 459 separate occupiers, including the 31 principal landowners who farm some part of their own land. Ten of these occupiers rent land from two principal landowners, and one occupier rents land from three; the estates are therefore split up into a total of 471 tenures. Complete holdings are held from one principal landowner by 280 occupiers; the remaining 179 occupiers complete their holdings with land taken from more than one landlord. The occupiers of 221 of the 280 complete holdings are full-time farmers. Although it is true that the estates of principal landowners are relatively compact they are by no means all contained within a ring fence. Nevertheless, almost every estate is confined within a narrow radius. These estates, and especially the larger ones, are those usually associated with the term "agricultural estate." An examination of the returns for the holdings on these estates shows that the proportion which are conveniently laid out is less than the general proportion for all Oxfordshire holdings. The general condition of farmhouses and buildings also compares unfavourably with the average county rating. Water supply on the estates is reported to be relatively good, but less than one-third of the holdings were connected to the electricity supply as compared with two-fifths for the whole county. While no adequate explanation can be offered for this adverse comparison, it is interesting to note that the holdings on the smaller estates tend to be better equipped especially so far as water and electricity supplies are concerned. It is possible that this is due to the fact that the very large estates are in the sparsely populated areas, i.e. areas which are not well equipped with main services.

39 All but four of the 65 landlords in the group were resident in the county in 1941. Most of them appeared to be solely dependent on their landed estates inasmuch as they had no known additional occupation. Ten landlords, however, belonged to army families, mostly with a military career behind them; ten were women; seven had connections with industry or trade; and eight had, or had had, a professional career. At least 27 of the estates are of old standing, for they are recorded in the 1873 Return of Owners of Land. In 1941 the owners of these 27 estates owned approximately 48,000 acres (i.e. a little over 50 per cent. of the total acreage of all the estates in the group): in 1873 their forbears were returned as owning almost 79,000 acres. Seven of the 27 estates have been increased since 1873 by amounts varying from 150 to 1,300 acres; four have been maintained at about the same acreage; the remaining 16 have been diminished by areas varying from 200 to 12,000 acres each.

4. BUSINESS GROUP OF LANDOWNERS. The business landowner is distinguished from other private landowners by reason of the fact that he has a main occupation other than landowning or farming. In addition, however, the 449 landowners in the group include four land-owning companies which seem to operate in Oxfordshire on similar lines to the principal landowners who previously held the four estates concerned. As would be expected the landlords in this group follow a very hetero- geneous collection of occupations. Approximately four-fifths, however, belong to one or other of two major categories: traders (mainly retailers) or the professions. Just over four-fifths of the landlords in the group are individuals or partners, the others being corporate bodies, usually limited companies. Amongst the thirty corporate landlords are twelve brewery companies. Most of the estates in the group are small and the majority provide only one tenure per estate. The exact position is as follows :— Acres per estate. No. of Tenures No. of estates. per estate. estates. Under 25 acres ••• 270 1 359 25- 100 acres ••• 91 2 51 100- 300 ••• 56 3 18 300-1,000 „ ••• 25 4 to 7 15 1,000 acres and over ••• 7 8 to 21 6

449 449

The 43,100 acres constituting the estates are divided between 664 occupiers. Less than half of these occupiers obtain a complete holding from one landowner. The 292 complete holdings concerned, however, total over

40 30,400 acres and account for more than two-thirds of the total acreage of the group. These 30,400 acres are shared almost equally between 83 full-time farmers and 209 other types of occupiers. The high proportion of complete holdings owned by other than full-time farmers is explained by the fact that 162 are occupied by the landowners themselves, i.e. they are held by owner- occupiers who are not themselves full-time farmers.

The few large estates in this group are quite compact. Several estates, however, are scattered, especially those belonging to brewery companies where the land is attached to public houses. Many of the very small estates in the group, especially those occupied by their owners, are in fact little more than accommodation land.

5. PRIVATE RESIDENTS AS LANDOWNERS. The term "private residents," like the term "principal landowners," is borrowed from Kelly's Directory, and is used, in general, for landowners who are so described in the Directory. It has been possible, however, to exclude a number of landowners known to have other business interests, whilst principal landlords with estates of under 500 acres have been added. There will undoubtedly be some landowners included in this group who would be elsewhere if fuller information were available. It is noteworthy that 202 women are included. The group consists essentially of very small estates. Over half of them (235) are under 25 acres in size; 123 are from 25 to 100 acres; only 99 exceed 100 acres and of these the two largest are estates of 500 acres and 800 acres respectively. Likewise, 366 estates provide only one tenure each, the total number of tenures for the 457 estates being 598. Rather less than one-half (252) of these tenures are in respect of complete holdings provided by a single owner. Of these 252 complete holdings only 96 are occupied by full-time farmers.

These 96 full-time farmers occupy together just over 12,600 acres. Both the layout of their holdings and the condition of the farm buildings are above the county average, while water and electricity supplies are well up to the average.

Of the 156 complete holdings not occupied by full-time farmers, 110 are held by the landlords themselves. These landlords account for roughly a half of the hobby occupiers of Oxfordshire described in Chapter III. The holdings of these hobby occupiers are well above the county standard in layout, buildings and amenities. Most of them are, in fact, private residences with land attached and half of them are situated in the Cotswolds and in the Thames Valley-Chiltern areas.

41 6. UNDEFINED LANDOWNERS. The information available about the 657 landowners in this group does not permit of any more specific classification. The group includes 247 women, and it is possible that many of these should have been included with the group of private resident landlords. The fact, that almost one in four of the landlords included in this group live outside the county partly accounts for the difficulty in obtaining fuller information. Most estates in the group are small: 375 are under 25 acres 168 are from 25 to 100 acres 84 from 100 to 300 acres 30 are over 300 acres. Nine out of every ten of the estates have only one tenant each (no undefined landowner occupies his own land in Oxfordshire), and only 13 estates have three or more tenants. Altogether the 657 estates are let in 760 separate lots. Only 174 of these lots constitute a complete holding, and of these 125 are occupied by full-time farmers. Together, these 125 farmers occupy 18,000 acres or 42 per cent. of the total acreage of the estates in this group. The general condition of the holdings concerned is slightly below the average for the county.

42 CHAPTER VI.

PUBLIC ESTATES.

1. CLASSIFICATION OF PUBLIC LANDOWNERS. Together the 237 public estates extend to 78,800 acres and they cover just over one-fifth of the agricultural area of Oxfordshire. It is possible and convenient to group the estates into the following five categories on the basis of the type of landowner concerned :— Type of Landowner. No. of Total estates. acreage. Oxford Colleges and University •• • •• • 18 51,100 Other Educational Institutions •• • •• • 15 3,800 Ecclesiastical Landowners •• • •• • 100 11,600 Government Landowners ... •• • 39 , 10,800 Charities •• • •• • •• • 65 1,500

237 78,800

Before describing these five groups it may be useful to indicate three features which, broadly speaking, distinguish them from the private groups. (1) The public landowner is a corporate body capable of remaining in existence indefinitely and, therefore, never subject to the payment of death duties.* Further, public landowners are regarded as non-profit-making bodies and their income from land is not subject to tax.t (2) To counterbalance this favoured treatment, however, most public landowners are subject to some restrictions on their freedom to sell land at their pleasure4 (3) With very minor exceptions, public landowners do not occupy the agricultural land which they own.

2. OXFORD COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITY. In Oxfordshire there has been a substantial increase in the land owned by Oxford Colleges during the seventy years up to 1941. The Return of Owners of Land, 1873, showed 31,513 acres in the county belonging to the Oxford Colleges; the colleges' reports to the Universities Commission gave a total of 42,595 acres for 1872. Compared with the latter figure (which is to be preferred for accuracy) there had been an increase of approximately 8,500 acres in * This is also true of joint-stock companies which are included with the private landowners. 1- There are two small exceptions: (a) privately-owned schools; and (b) glebes which yield a taxable income to incumbents. I The restriction on freedom to sell applies in similar fashion to private estates held under entail.

43 College-owned land in Oxfordshire by 1941.* Twelve colleges had increased their estates in the county by amounts ranging from 100 acres to 3,400 acres. Five colleges and the University Chest had smaller estates, the decrease only once exceeding 1,000 acres. Two colleges, owning together almost 2,600 acres in 1872, no longer owned agricultural land in Oxfordshire in 1941. In 1941, seventeen Oxford colleges and the University Chest together owned 51,100 acres of agricultural land in the county. Most of the colleges concerned have estates of considerable extent in the county, the largest approaching 13,000 acres. The distribution of the estates according to size was as follows :—four estates under 500 acres, four from 500 to 1,000 acres, six from 1,000 to 3,000 acres, four over 3,000 acres. The number of tenants per estate ranged from one to seventy-one and the 51,100 acres which make up this group of estates are let to 311 occupiers. Fourteen of these occupiers rent land from two colleges and one rents land from three colleges the total tenures, therefore, number 327. Of the 311 occupiers, 152 obtain their holdings entirely from the University and college estates, but seven such occupiers rent their holdings from two or three colleges the remaining 159 occupiers make up their holdings with land taken from other types of landowners. The estates of the seventeen colleges and the University Chest, therefore, provide 145 complete holdings which are entirely independent of any second landowner. Of the occupiers of the 145 complete holdings, 121 are full-time farmers. Only one of the smaller college estates is composed of a single block of land. Gifts of land by way of endowment would naturally tend to produce a scattered estate, and, indeed, the college estates are widely spread about the county. Land belonging to one or more of the colleges is to be found in 113 of the 238 Oxfordshire parishes. Whilst most of these parishes are situated in the Bullingdon, Banbury, and Witney Districts, only two colleges have all their land in one District, and only four are confined to two Districts. On the other hand, six colleges have parts of their estates in three Districts, two colleges with relatively small estates own land in four Districts, three have land in five Districts, and one owns land in all six Districts. In spite of the manner in which the college estates are widely distributed, land is often owned in adjacent parishes, even if it does not then form a compact block. Where land is owned in adjacent parishes it naturally forms a more convenient unit for management than where it is more widely scattered. There are seventeen examples of college land lying in adjacent parishes where each such group includes more than 1,000 acres of an estate. These seventeen groups cover more than 30,000 acres in all, or some 60 per cent. * J. J. MacGregor in an unpublished work-History of Landownership since 1870- gives in contrast a net diminution of acreage, by sales and purchases under the Universities and Colleges Estates Act, of 86,425 acres for the whole country, 1913-1934; he quotes a net loss in Cambridgeshire by sixteen Colleges of 5,217 acres, 1871-1934.

44 of the total acreage of college land in the county. An examination of the layout of four of these seventeen groups revealed a certain degree of advantage for administrative purposes in having portions of an estate of 1,000 acres or more lying within a small radius. But for many purposes such as the provision of estate roads, drainage schemes, or electricity supply, these relatively compact groups do in fact have little, if any, advantage over the more widely separated parts of the estates. The returns concerning the farms let by colleges to full-time farmers show that in matters of layout, condition of buildings, supply of water and electricity, they are very similar to the average for the county.

3. OTHER EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. This small group consists of fifteen estates which cannot rightly be included with any of the other public estates. The group is made up of Reading University, two theological colleges, two public schools, two special schools and eight local schools. Nine of the estates are under 50 acres, two between 50 and 300 acres, three from 500 to 1,000 acres, and one exceeds 1,000 acres. Three landowners in this group occupy all or part of their estates; and the estates are divided into 26 tenures, 11 estates with one tenure each, three with two tenures and one with nine tenures. Only three of the 26 tenures are occupied by full-time farmers. The group is too small to warrant any detailed analysis. It is interesting to note, however, that four of the estates certainly, and probably five, are recorded in the 1873 Return of Owners of Land. One of these, the largest estate in the group, has increased the acreage held in Oxfordshire by one-quarter since 1873. 4. ECCLESIASTICAL LANDOWNERS. Although this group is comprised mainly of the Anglican Church in the role of agricultural landowner, it also includes three other religious denomina- tions which own small acreages in Oxfordshire. The agricultural property of the Anglican Church falls naturally into two divisions: (a) the glebes, and (b) the estates of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. There are 92 glebes, covering almost 5,000 acres, each of which is managed separately by the incumbent concerned. A change of incumbent, however, probably affects a glebe estate less than a change of owner affects a private estate. The Ecclesiastical Commissioners are the giants of the group, for in 1941 they controlled more than half of the 11,600 acres concerned. Land shown as in the ownership of Roman Catholic incumbents, as distinct from institutional land, has been treated in the same way as Anglican glebes; there are four such small estates, in addition to convent land. Owing to the manner in which the Return of Owners of Land was drawn up it is impossible to compare in detail the extent of ecclesiastical land-

45 ownership in 1873 a. nd in 1941. In the 1873 Return, nine rectors and fourteen vicars were listed by office as owners of some 700 acres. There were, however, almost 200 individual clergymen resident in Oxfordshire who were returned as owning nearly 27,000 acres. Amongst these were four who owned more than 1,000 acres each. If the total figure is the basis for comparison, ecclesiastical landowning in Oxfordshire suffered a sharp decline between 1873 and 1941. This decline is, in all probability, due to the sale of glebe lands which is known to have occurred.* On the other hand, it is possible to establish from the records that the estate of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in Oxfordshire increased threefold between 1873 and 1941. In 1941 the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had an estate of over 5,000 acres providing 48 tenures in Oxfordshire. Of the other ecclesiastical estates one was just over 500 acres in size and fifteen were between 100 and 300 acres. The remaining 83 estates were under 100 acres each, 63 estates providing only one tenure per estate. Of the 214 occupiers holding land from the group as a whole only 20 were full-time farmers obtaining complete holdings from one landlord only. But together these 20 farmers occupied over 3,500 acres— almost one-third of the total acreage of the group. It is clear, therefore, that two-thirds of the acreage owned by these estates must have been divided into small plots of land which are supplementary to main holdings'. The estate of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the only large estate in the group, was distributed throughout each of the six Districts of the county, although some 80 per cent. of the total acreage is contained in three relatively circumscribed zones. In many ways the distribution of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners' estate is to be compared with that of an Oxford college. Since 1945 there has been one attempt to exchange land between the Commissioners and one of the colleges in order to obtain more compact blocks of land for both parties. 5. GOVERNMENT LANDOWNERS. The owners of the 39 estates in this group include local government authorities, departments or agents of central government, hospital boards, and such bodies as the National Trust and the British Broadcasting Corporation which are most conveniently included here. Altogether the estates cover 10,800 acres. Most of the estates in this group are small, 22 being less than 25 acres and only seven exceeding 100 acres in size. The three estates of more than 1,000 acres each in this group belong to the Commissioners for Crown Land, Oxford City Council and the Oxfordshire County Council. All the land belonging to the Oxford City Council lies within easy reach of the city. The

* Total sales under the Glebe Lands Act, 1888, as given in the Reports of the Land Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, were 133,336 acres up to 1930. Sales of glebe land in Oxfordshire since the first world war, mainly in the years 1920-1922, have been traced covering some 2,130 acres.

46 Crown Lands are scattered over the four northern Districts, though more than half of the total acreage is concentrated in one area. The Oxfordshire County Council estate is widely distributed throughout the county. With the exception of four hospitals which run their own farms, the landlords in this group let all their land. Twenty-three estates had only one tenant each, and only four of the estates had more than five tenants each. The total acreage of the estates is held by 228 separate occupiers, 67 of whom are full-time farmers holding complete holdings from the estates in the group. Together these 67 full-time farmers rent just over half of the total acreage concerned. Moreover, the majority of them are tenants of the County Council smallholdings estate. In view of the special significance of this estate in any discussion of land tenure it is described in some detail in the next chapter. The only direct comparison which can be made of government landowning in 1873 with 1941 concerns the estate of the Commissioners for Crown Lands. The extent of this estate in Oxfordshire was almost halved during the period. Changes in the structure of local government prevent any further strict comparisons. In 1873, however, there were more than 80 authorities owning agricultural land in the county; these authorities were variously described as Boards of Guardians, Burial Boards, Corporations, Highways Boards and Surveyors, Overseers, Parish Officers and Waywardens. These bodies owned between 1,100 and 1,200 acres in 1873. Local authorities (excluding Oxford City Council and the Oxfordshire County Council) owned little more than half that area in 1941. The most notable change in the ownership of agricultural land by local authorities in Oxfordshire has been the growth, since 1908, of the County Council smallholdings estate.

6. CHARITIES. Altogether 65 separate charities owned land in Oxfordshire in 1941, but, together, the total acreage of these small estates amounted to only 1,500 acres. All,the estates were under 200 acres in size, three-quarters being less than 25 acres each. Fifty of the 65 charities let land to one tenant each; 14 of them let to two tenants, and only one lets land to three tenants. There are, therefore, 81 tenants sharing the 1,500 acres belonging to charity landowners; ten of these obtain complete holdings from a charity, but only six of them are full-time farmers. Such a group is obviously too small to form any basis for generalisation about charities as landlords. Reorganisation of charities in the intervening period also makes it difficult to compare the charity landowners of 1941 with those of 1873. Comparing the modern total with the various bodies known in 1873 as Charity Commissioners, or Feoffees and Trustees of different sorts, it appears that the number oflandowning charities in Oxfordshire had decreased by one-third and that the acreage had decreased by approximately one-half.

47 CHAPTER VII.

COUNTY COUNCIL SMALLHOLDINGS ESTATE.'

1. GROWTH OF THE ESTATE. County Council smallholdings have been regulated largely by three Acts of Parliament,* and the period of development is divided into three stages by these Acts: 1908 to 1918; 1919 to 1926; and 1927 to 1948. These years cover the phase during. which County Council smallholdings were provided primarily as a piece of social policy. To a large extent, the Agriculture Act. 1947, marks the end of this phase. No development under this Act had taken place up to the end of 1948. Before 1908 there were only a few hundred acres let as smallholdings by County Councils in England, under the Small Holdings Act, 1892, and Oxfordshire had no holdings under this Act. It was the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1907, which gave rise in Oxfordshire, as in most other counties, to a smallholdings estate. The Act came into force at the beginning of 1908 and during that year the provisions of the 1907 Act and the preceding Acts to which it referred were consolidated in the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908. The 1908 Act defined a smallholding as "an agricultural holding which exceeds one acre and either does not exceed fifty acres, or, if exceeding fifty acres, is at the date of sale or letting of an annual value for the purpose of income tax not exceeding fifty pounds." This has remained the essential definition. Under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, the lower limit was temporarily set at half an acre, and under the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, the limit of annual value for holdings exceeding fifty acres was raised to £100.t For administrative purposes each addition of land to a county council estate is treated as a separate "scheme," whether the additional land is in a

1 This chapter owes much to the willing help of County Council officials. * Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1908; Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919; Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926. t The provisions of the Agriculture Act, 1947 (which raise the limit for holdings over 50 acres to a "full fair rental value" of £150; and limit smallholdings to a maximum of 75 acres) apply only to smallholdings provided under the Act and do not affect those discussed here.

48 new area or adjoins an existing scheme. It will be useful to employ the scheme as the unit, in describing the growth of the Oxfordshire County Council Small- holdings Estate. Between 1908 and 1948 the County Council operated 122 schemes, but three of these appear to have related only to cottages and allotments. There were, therefore, 119 schemes involving over 8,100 acres of agricultural land. Many of the earlier schemes were leasehold, and out of the 61 so acquired, 41 were subsequently relinquished, 9 were purchased (wholly or in part), and 11 (entire or in part) continue to be rented. Of the 58 schemes which were bought without being previously leased, four were subsequently sold, and parts of two others were sold for urban development. Fifty-four of the originally freehold schemes remain, together with nine originally leasehold schemes which were later purchased, and eleven which continue to be rented, making 74 schemes in all. The 119 schemes would have provided 454 holdings if they had all been operated at the same time and had retained their original divisions. By 1948, the 74 schemes still operated provided land for 178 tenants. The 119 schemes were spread over 74 parishes ; in 46 parishes there has been only one scheme,in 20 parishes there have been two, and in eight parishes there have been between three and six schemes per parish. Not more than 83 landowners supplied the land for the schemes. Almost without exception the schemes were of small acreage ; 57 covered less than 50 acres, 36 were between 50 and 100 acres, 23 were between 100 and 200 acres, and three between 250 and 800 acres. As originally planned, 32 schemes provided only one holding each, 61 schemes from two to five holdings, 21 schemes from six to ten holdings, and only five schemes provided more than ten holdings each. It is clear, therefore, that many of the schemes concerned odd pieces of land— "closes," "cow ground," "pasture "—whilst the larger schemes consisted for the most part only of single farms, or even of parts of big farms. The development of the estate as measured by the number of schemes, the acreage, and the number of tenants is given in Table XIV. Many applications for smallholdings were received by the Oxfordshire County Council in 1908, but, as in other counties, few applicants could be quickly satisfied since an estate had first to be acquired and an administration built up to handle the new work. Some 400 acres were leased in 1908 and over 800 acres were added (again mainly leased) in each of the two succeeding years. Thereafter growth continued steadily, but more slowly, up to the end of 1914. At that date almost four-fifths of the acreage was held on lease from various landowners, only the balance being owned by the Council. During the 1914-1918 war hardly any additional land was acquired, whilst a small acreage held on seven-year leases was given up; there was a net reduction of fifty acres.

49 TABLE XIV.

Land held for smallholdings by the Oxfordshire County Council, various dates, 1908 to 1945.

AT END OF NUMBER OF SIZE OF NUMBER OF YEAR. SCHEMES. ESTATE. TENANTS.

Acres. 1908 ...... 8 426 21 1910 ...... 41 2,137 143 1912 ...... 54 2,962 215 1914 ...... 60 3,331 245 1917 ...... 57 3,200 240 1919 ...... 65 3,800 255 1920 ...... 80 6,200 320 1921 ...... 99 7,400 360 1922 ...... 108 7,800 370 1923 ...... 105 7,600 370 1925 ...... 99 7,100 330 1927 ...... 94 6,900 310 1929 ...... 86 6,794 270 1930 ...... 84 6,576 258 1935 ...... 75 6,035 208 1945 (Sept. 30th) ... 74 5,479 178

SOURCES.-The number of Schemes, and all figures for the years 1917-1927, are based on County Council records. The Size of the Estate and the Number of Tenants, for the years 1908-1914 and 1929-1935, are from the annual Reports of the Land Division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries; for 1945 they are from an unpublished memo, of the same Ministry.

After the war of 1914-1918 there were plans for settling ex-service men on the land and, under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, more than 4,700 acres were acquired in the seven years 1919-1925. During these years some of the land originally hired under fourteen-year leases was given up and some was bought, but over 1,900 acres of leasehold land were still retained in 1925. Since the addition of new areas to the estate was greatest in the early years, and the first of the fourteen-year leases not to be renewed fell in in 1923, the estate reached its maximum acreage (approximately 7,800 acres) in 1922. Whereas before the war the greater part of the estate had been held on lease, most of the land acquired under the Act of 1919-85 per cent.—was purchased outright by the Council.

There are several factors to account for this change of policy. First, it was a period when landowners preferred to sell land rather than to let it. (The long lease has not been in general favour since the 1914-1918 war.) Second, Councils were encouraged to speedy action by relief for three years from the need to submit schemes to the Board of Agriculture for approval. Third, generous provision was made from Treasury funds to assist Councils for four years to provide and equip smallholdings. Fourth, losses incurred under the 1919 Act, on approved schemes, were borne by the central government. Such

50 conditions made a rapid expansion of County Council estates possible and the additional land acquired in Oxfordshire amounted to approximately 2,300 acres in 1920 and 1,250 acres in 1921. From the peak in 1922 the acreage of the estate has slowly, but fairly steadily, declined. At the beginning of the second world war it was just under 6,000 acres in extent. Further diminution of the leasehold acreage during the war—a substantial acreage was taken for ironstone workings—reduced the estate by another 450 acres. Most of the inter-war years were not particularly prosperous for agriculture and the demand for smallholdings—judging from the number of applications—declined considerably. Moreover, the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, which replaced the temporary Act of 1919 as a more permanent amendment of the 1908 Act, enacted that, as a general rule, smallholdings should henceforward be run on a self-supporting basis. Even where the Ministry of Agriculture approved a scheme which was estimated to incur a loss, at least one-quarter of that loss was to be made good from county funds. Such conditions would tend to encourage a less expansive policy on the part of County Councils. Although some 400 acres of leasehold land are still retained by the Oxfordshire County Council (on a yearly basis since the original leases expired), the years 1927 onwards saw most of the leasehold land relinquished. In addition, more than 250 acres of Council owned land appear to have been sold during the same period. 2. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE ESTATE. Before a County Council acquires land for smallholdings it is necessary to show that there exists a demand for such holdings on the part of persons willing and able to cultivate them. Since the Oxfordshire authorities have not exercised powers of compulsory acquisition it follows that land has only been obtained when and where the owners made it available. Sometimes an applicant is willing to move to a district where there is a holding, especially if there is living accommodation but a part-time smallholder will almost always require land close to his existing residence. Often, but not always, therefore, it will have been necessary for land to be available in Oxfordshire at the place where the demand was expressed. Evidence of a demand for smallholdings was quickly forthcoming, and 563 applicants for 11,643 acres are officially recorded for the first six months of 1908.* The applications came from all parts of the county and approximately two-thirds of the applicants were approved as suitable smallholders. The supply of smallholdings, however, was less evenly spread (Map 4 gives an approximate indication of the supply position). There are various reasons for this. To a certain extent the co-operation of large landowners was sought in the provision of land, but to a considerable degree the search

* Cmd. 4245, 1908, p. 25.

51 Map 4.-DISTRIBUTION OF OXFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL SMALLHOLDINGS ESTATE. 4fri vitt' *Tut, liPt"t7 -J'iv(lip art to, At%711, 1441

•• • **tort• • • ovitA** A A LA OXFORD

• so acs. part thereor) aciuired ‘gosqvg. and 7retained 1448.

a • ./ but given vp by 1944.

•• PP aciusrea 1919-mt• and retained 1941t

0 a 1' st ft ,but given up by sq41:

• a ./ aCiihred 19z7 .1141, and teta;ned tot.

for suitable land was left to local initiative—including that of the would-be smallholder. It is natural, therefore, that there should be differences in the different districts, arising from varying degrees of local keenness, the attitude of landowners, and the suitability of the land. As a result, most of the smallholdings were located in the central parts of the county, where 42 per cent. of the approved applicants of 1908 were supplied with land. In the northern

52 and southern parts of the county (the Banbury and the Henley Districts) there was less development, for only 12 per cent. of the approved applicants in the north obtained land and none in the south. In these Districts, however, a larger proportion of applicants appear to have obtained land direct from landowners than did so in the central Districts. It should also be remembered that the central Districts were nearer to Oxford—a factor of greater importance in 1908 than in the present time of easy road travel—and that these Districts included many large private estates from which numerous small portions were leased to form schemes. In the second period, covered by the currency of the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, the addition of land was spread rather more evenly over the five northern Districts of the county. This was a period when many landowners were selling, and when the Council bought land rather than leased it. Even so, no smallholdings were created in the Henley District and during the period 1919-1926 almost twice as many schemes were added in the Witney District as in any other District. Land was obtained at this time from four groups of landowners: private individuals, large estate owners, ecclesiastical owners, and sundry owners (e.g. Colleges, Crown, etc.). From the beginning, County Council smallholdings in Oxfordshire have been fairly widely scattered, but the influence of large private estates on their location has been considerable.* In the third period (1927-1948), however, the story is one of declining estate acreage : although the process of relinquishing leasehold land began, as we have seen, before the end of the 1914-1918 war. During this third period two factors in particular have influenced the Council's attitude to its leasehold land. , First, as depression intensified, tenants pressed for reductions of rent, and in turn the Council pressed the landowners for reduced rents where the original leases had expired. When the terms could not be agreed the Council tended to give up the land. Second, applicants for smallholdings were not always forthcoming in this period, and in such -cases— where the lease of vacant land had run its full term—the Council relinquished the land. It is as a result of these varied historical circumstances—which may be summarised as lack of supply in the earlier periods of high demand, and failure of demand in the later period of easier supply—that four-fifths of the smallholding schemes are now to be found in the more central Districts of Ploughley, Witney and BulLingdon. Whilst the County Council has, of course, been responsible for deciding to relinquish schemes in the north of Oxfordshire, these decisions should be regarded as piecemeal decisions and not as part of any general policy to exclude the more distant areas from participation in the smallholdings estate.

* Approximately 40 per cent. of all the land which has formed part of the smallholdings estate was rented or purchased from principal landowners.

53 As has already been pointed out, most of the schemes cover only small areas, the one at Stadhampton which was purchased in 1920 being the only scheme to exceed 500 acres in size. Even where several schemes have been operated in one parish the total acreage of smallholdings in any parish at one time has nowhere else exceeded 500 acres. Stadhampton, therefore, is the only area in which the Council can be said to have created anything approaching a smallholdings colony. At Stadhampton there are hardly any holdings without farm buildings, but various methods of providing buildings may be seen: existing buildings used as they stand, buildings converted for sharing between a number of tenants,* and new houses and buildings erected specifically for smallholdings. Such a variety of equipment found in many schemes on the estate adds to the complexity of management. The management of an estate which consists of scattered small blocks of land presents problems quite different from those of a compact private estate. If the agent is to know the tenants he must spend a great deal of time travelling from one scheme to another. It is scarcely possible to expect the same com- munity of interest which is to be found on a more typical local estate. Building and maintenance work has to be entrusted to outside contractors—different ones in different regions—and this makes difficult an equality of treatment and of cost from one scheme to another. Direct labour has been tried on the Stadhampton scheme, but the area is too small to justify the policy economic- ally. No one will doubt that County Council management of smallholdings is both enlightened and beneficial to the tenants, but it may be doubted whether these benefits are not outweighed by the costliness of operation. For example, schemes of capital development (drainage, main water and electricity supply) all become more expensive per farm or per acre if they are carried out for a number of small areas than if they were completed on a single block of similar total acreage. Such considerations would go far to justify a tendency towards the relative concentration of holdings near the administrative centre although, indeed, any such tendency does not reflect official policy.

3. APPLICANTS FOR COUNTY COUNCIL SMALLHOLDINGS. What kind of people want to become tenants of County Council smallholdings? No complete numerical answer can be given to this question for, with change of Acts, the basis of selection has changed and at the same time the particulars collected from applicants have changed also. To obtain a smallholding in normal times applicants must be persons who can "themselves

* The conversion of buildings for sharing between tenants is initially a fairly cheap method when the buildings lie at the centre of a large block of land, but it tends to be a source of discontent, and maintenance proves relatively expensive. The sharing of buildings was more frequent in the early period of the estate when most of the land was leasehold. In 1914 about one-fifth of the tenants shared buildings, i.e. half of the tenants with any buildings :in 1948, one tenant in 10 shared buildings, but that was only one-eighth of those with buildings.

54 cultivate the holdings and are able to cultivate them properly." But under the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act, 1919, preference was to be given (for two years) to suitable ex-servicemen, or to women who had worked full time for six months on the land during the war. Applicants may best be considered, therefore, separately for each period. The fullest records relate to the period 1908-1918 and are summarised in the following figures :— Applicants. Number. Approved. Supplied. Farmers ••• ••• 86 48 20 Labourers • • • • • • 345 203 106 Artisans • •• 119 67 21 Hauliers ••• ••• 90 48 29 Dealers ••• ••• 54 33 17 Shopkeepers... • •• 97 60 23 Publicans ••• ••• 46 29 19 Others ••• ••• 139 74 31

TOTAL 976 562 266

Out of nearly 1,000 applications made during these first eleven years roughly 60 per cent. were received in the first year. It could not be expected that so large a flow of applications would be maintained. Nevertheless, it might be thought that in the first enthusiastic rush there would be a larger element of unsuitable applicants. Yet a larger proportion of first-year than of subsequent applicants was approved, although a slightly smaller proportion of them was eventually supplied with land. A good number of the early applicants, however, were provided with holdings by private landowners direct.t If there was any real falling off in applications it seems more likely that it arose from the deterrent effect on potential candidates of the long delay many of the early applicants experienced in obtaining holdings. Of the 132 successful applicants of 1908 there were 27 who had to wait until 1912 or later before they obtained any land.t

Up to 1918 the largest group of applicants was composed of labourers, mainly agricultural workers. No other group is of comparable importance. Labourers and farmers together made up more than two-fifths of the applicants as well as two-fifths of those supplied with land. Another interesting feature is the relatively high proportion of successful applicants among publicans and hauliers or carriers; e.g. over 40 per cent. of publicans obtained land compared * Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926: Sec. 1. t Seventy-eight applicants of 1908 are recorded as having obtained land direct (including two who bought it) from 1909 to 1918 inclusive, only eighteen applicants obtained land direct. I Against the names of some applicants approved for smallholdings there appear in the County Council records such brief entries as" dead " or "emigrated to . .

55 with the 27 per cent. of other applicants. Neither hauliers nor publicans applied, on average, for smaller holdings than other applicants. The haulier, however, was often content to be supplied with a relatively small acreage—that is, with a piece of accommodation grazing. The publicans, on the other hand, obtained holdings which were somewhat above the average size and it seems likely that their need of supplementary income was such that they were less likely to refuse land offered to them than were some other applicants.* It has already been stated that to be an ex-service man was the primary qualification for an applicant under the 1919 Act. The records do not enable one to say how many ex-service applicants had previous agricultural experience, or, indeed, to say anything at all about their previous peacetime occupations. It is only possible, therefore, to classify the applications made between 1919 and 1926 into the two categories of ex-service and civilian as follows:— Number. Approved. Supplied. Ex-service applicants .•• 769 473 145 Civilian applicants •• • 221 91 29

990 564 174

Once again the first year saw a flood of applications amounting to just over half the total for the period. Four-fifths of the applications received under the 1919 Act were made in 1919 and 1920. There was some delay in providing holdings, especially at the beginning of the period, but land was obtained extensively in 1920 and 1921. Whereas the proportion of applications approved between 1919 and 1926 was similar to that before the war, a much smaller proportion actually obtained holdings.t Many applicants no doubt had second thoughts during the time of waiting between approval and the offer of a holding. Only two civilians who made application during the first two years of the , 1919 Act obtained holdings (compared with 96 ex-service men), although 62 were provisionally approved. Thereafter, in accordance with the Act, treatment was approximately equal between the two groups. Although the period during which the Small Holdings and Allotments Act, 1926, has been current is longer than that for either of the preceding Acts, the applications for holdings under it have been far fewer. At the same time the detailed classification of applicants has also been much less complete. According to the available records 122 applications were received between 1927 and 1940, but no details are given about the type of applicants. Of these

* Cf. A. W. Ashby, Allotments and Small Holdings in Oxfordshire,.p. 131 :"In many of the small and most of the large villages of Oxfordshire there are two public-houses in which case the profits are rarely sufficient to maintain a family." (The statement refers to 1913.) t Only twelve applicants on the County Council lists are reported as obtaining land direct from landowners in 1919-1920, and three of these were by purchase. Examples of direct acquisition by applicants are not reported after 1920.

56 applicants, 70 were approved and 49 were supplied with smallholdings— figures which suggest much higher proportions than in the earlier periods. But the figures do not reveal the changed conditions. Actually this was a period when the applications for smallholdings were insufficient to fill those vacated by outgoing tenants. This meant that every suitable applicant could be provided with a holding if he was prepared to go where a holding became vacant. Even then the Council was left with holdings in hand and, where those were not rented from landowners to whom they could be returned, the Council sought to let them to large farmers and others who were prepared to take them. These latter tenants were not genuine smallholders, nor were they applicants for smallholdings in the ordinary sense. As such, however, they are recorded; and as such they distort the proportions of smallholding applicants approved and supplied in the period of 1927-1940. In 1945, however, there was a confirmed waiting list of 60 applicants, and since then requests have been made at approximately three times the pre-war rate. Not all these candidates are likely to be approved; not all of them have the resources necessary even to a smallholder; and by no means all the suitable applicants will be prepared to wait until smallholdings are available for them. Up to the end of 1948 no new land had been acquired for smallholdings. A classified list of the applicants in the period 1945-1948 is as follows :— Farmers ... •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • 42 Labourers •• • ••• •• • •• • •-• • 94 Artisans ... ••• •• • • •• •• • •• • 15 Dealers ... ••• • •• ••• •• • •• • 5 Shopkeepers .• • • •• ••• •• • •• • 5 Publicans •• • •• • •• • •• • •• • 2 Others ... •• • • •• •• • ••• •• • 31

TOTAL •• • •• • •• • ••• ... 194

These figures show a much greater preponderance of agricultural applicants than the two preceding lists, whilst hauliers and almost all publicans have disappeared from the ranks of would-be smallholders. At the present time (1949), therefore, there is not only a substantial waiting list of persons requiring smallholdings in Oxfordshire, but also a substantial list of applicants who are likely to comply with the more rigorous agricultural qualifications demanded of smallholders under Part IV of the Agriculture Act, 1947.

4. TENANTS OF COUNTY COUNCIL SMALLHOLDINGS. An analysis of the tenants of County Council smallholdings in 1913 was made by A. W. Ashby, showing the size of their holdings and the nature of their employments.* With the assistance of material from the National Farm Survey it is possible to compile a fairly accurate comparable statement for

* Allotments and Small Holdings in Oxfordshire, pp. 131-132.

57 1941; but since the Farm Survey dealt only with holdings of five acres and over, smallholdings below this acreage are omitted from the comparison which is summarised in Table XV.* Although the acreage of the estate was almost twice as great in 1941 as in 1913, the number of tenants had scarcely increased. The average area, per tenant rose, therefore, from approximately 23 acres in 1913 to approximately 45 acres in 1941. Within the similarity of total numbers, however, great changes of detail have taken place. In 1913 less than half the tenants (43 per cent.) relied entirely upon their holdings for a livelihood; in 1941 more than three-quarters of the tenants (78 per cent.) relied entirely upon their farming. This statement, however, masks the extent to which County Council tenants in 1941 were also occupiers of additional land. In fact, half of them—including 30 of the 37 larger farmers—either owned or rented land in addition to their Council smallholdings. The increased average size of Council holdings and the relative frequency of their combination with other land is, to a considerable extent, related to the shortage of genuine applicants during the early nineteen- thirties. Thus, in the four years 1931-1934, some 15 lettings were made which, in total acreage or as an addition to Council or other land already held, gave the tenants holdings in excess of the statutory limit. TABLE XV. Classification of Oxfordshire County Council smallholding tenants by area rented and type of employment, 1913 and 1941.

AREA RENTED FROM COUNTY COUNCIL. 1913. 1941.

5-10 acres ••• ••• ••• •• • • •• 42 25 10-15 •• • •• • ••• •• • •• • 27 10

15-20 •• • •• • ••• •• • •• • 16 7

20-30 •• • • •• •• • • •• • • 16 16

30-40 •• • •• • •• • • • • • •• 10 12

40-50 • •• •• • •• • •• • • • 14 16

50-65 „ • •• •• • •• • • •• • •• 3 20

Over 65 acres •• • ••• •• • •• • • • • 26

TOTAL ••• ••• ••• 128 132 TENANT'S EMPLOYMENT.

Smallholders and market gardeners ••• ••• 53 66 Larger farmers ...... ••• ••• ••• 2 37 Carriers and dealers ••• •• ••• ••• 29 9 Labourers ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 4 6 Publicans ...... ••• ••• 12 1 Artisans and industrial workers... •• ••• 12 7 Shopkeepers ••• ••• ••• 11 4 Others ... ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 5 2

TOTAL ••• ••• ••• ••• ••• 128 132 * In 1913 there were sixty-seven tenants each renting less than five acres from the Council. Of these, fifty-eight were part-time cultivators of whom half were labourers. In 1941, the Farm Survey, recorded five full-time farmers who took under five acres from the Council, in addition to their main holdings. There also appear to have been another twenty-four Council tenants each renting less than five acres. Although these tenants of 1941 cannot be classified, the figures indicate a decline in the proportions of part-time cultivators and of the smaller,holdings, to which attention is drawn in the text,

58 The increase in average size, however, did not arise entirely from the letting of smallholdings in excess of the statutory limits. Indeed, a comparison of the group totals for 1913 and 1941 shows that whereas at the earlier date almost two-thirds of the tenants rented 20 acres or less, not one-third rented so small an acreage in 1941. This change is a corollary to the reduction in the number of part-time tenants; a reduction which is notable for the elimination of carriers and the virtual elimination of publicans from the ranks of County Council smallholders. The cessation of application from these classes in later years has already been noted. The disappearance of carriers from the list of tenants may be regarded as a by-product of the development of motor transport. Since there still are farmer-publicans, the passing of the publican smallholder is less readily accounted for ; but it may possibly be connected with the purchase of" free " houses and adjacent land by the brewers. Attention has already been drawn to the "larger farmers" of 1941 as affecting the increased average size of holdings. Some explanation has also been given of how these farmers came to be Council tenants. It now remains to show how important they are in the Council estate, and how important the Council land is to them. In 1941 there were 37 larger farmers, i.e. full-time occupiers whose holdings exceeded 50 acres and whose rent also exceeded £100.* Thirty of these farmers obtained extra land from other sources, but seven of them held all their land from the County Council. In addition, three part-time farmers occupied a total acreage which raised them above the limit for smallholders. In 1941, therefore, 40 tenants—who were not by definition statutory smallholders—occupied approximately 1,920 acres, or one-third, of the County Council estate. The seven farmers who obtained all their land from the Council occupied 600 acres. The remaining 1,320 acres were, therefore, occupied by 33 tenants, who also held other land which extended to some 3,530 acres. It would be fair to conclude (a) that the 40 farmers concerned occupy an appreciable portion of the County Council's estate; but (b) that the County Council land forms in most cases a relatively unimportant part of their total acreage.t Whilst the letting of the land to larger farmers was justifiable at the time of letting, there can be no doubt that were the land available for letting now it could make an appreciable contribution towards satisfying the claims of bona fide smallholding applicants at present on the waiting list. 5. LENGTH OF OCCUPATION OF HOLDINGS BY TENANTS. From 1908 to the end of 1948 there had been 435 completed occupations of County Council smallholdings, excluding any current tenancies of smallholdings on schemes at the time when such schemes were relinquished by the * Rent has been used as the equivalent of" net annual value." It is debatable whether this is accurate as applied to Cour ty Council holdings whose rents are subsidised. Oxford- shire received £10,779 from central government for smallholdings in 1945, i.e. about £2 per acre (figures issued by the County Accountants' Society). t County Council land forms less than half the acreage on twenty-four of the holdings concerned.

59 Council, and also all tenancies still continuing at the end of 1948. From these completed occupations can be calculated the length of occupation both of the average occupier and of the average smallholding; they are 10.1 years and 11.0 years respectively. Because of the relatively short period for which the County Council estate has been in existence the exclusion of uncompleted tenancies has the effect of lowering the averages for length of occupation. An alternative to the average as a measure of the length of occupation is the proportion of tenants whose tenancies cover a specified number of years. This measure is employed in Table XVI : it allows the inclusion of a greater number of tenancies and also greater detail in analysis. For simplicity and accuracy, the tenancies of holdings on relinquished schemes are still excluded; but tenancies in being in 1948 (excepting only some 50 commenced in the preceding ten years) are included. With these adjustments it is possible to calculate the proportion of tenants with periods of occupation up to and including ten years.

TABLE XVI.

Length of occupation of holdings by 536 Oxfordshire County Council smallholders grouped by date of entry and type of tenant.

DATE OF ENTRY. TYPE OF TENANT.

Length of Ex- Agri- Manag- Un- Occupation. 1908-18 1919-26 1927-38 Service. Artisan. cultural. erial. classified (1919-26) , ° °A 0/0 0/0 0/0 0/0 % °AA Under 2 years 12 9 6 6 10 16 23 8

3-5 years 9 22 19 10 25 10 51 181

6-10 „ 18 16 18 22 15 16 51 181

Over 10 years 61 53 57 62 50 58 66 55

100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

The Table shows that the proportion of tenants leaving within two years of the commencement of tenancy has diminished throughout the period. In the first four years (1908-1911) the proportion leaving within two years was 15 per cent. The second part of the Table shows that a relatively high proportion of tenants described as "artisan " and "managerial " (i.e. shopkeepers, publicans, hauliers, etc.) also left within two years: the majority of these tenants entered their holdings between 1908 and 1911. It seems probable, therefore, that in the early stages both the tenants and those responsible for selecting them lacked adequate experience.

60 Over the whole period, one-quarter of the smallholders vacated their holdings within five years of entry. There are, however, two noticeable exceptions—the agricultural and the ex-service groups. Tenants with an agricultural background have a record of fairly long occupation, and less than one-sixth of them vacated their holdings within five years. More than one-third of the ex-service tenants, on the other hand, vacated their holdings within five years of entry. But, when it is remembered that these latter tenants were selected on the grounds of war service rather than of agricultural qualifications and that the majority started farming at a time of high prices (with the subsequent heavy fall to encounter), the proportion of early casualties in this group can hardly be considered unduly high. Apart from the "artisan " tenants—who appear either to have relinquished their holdings almost at once or to have settled for a long period— all groups show a fairly constant proportion (one-fifth or one-sixth) remaining for from six to ten years. The group figures, however, conceal the fact that 30 per cent. of the tenants entering holdings between 1924 and 1928 left after a tenancy of from six to ten years. This seems to show the impact of the depression years upon smallholders. Lengths of occupation greater than ten years cannot be analysed for all groups, sint,e the later tenants have not yet had the opportunity of occupying their present holdings for so long a period. From the evidence available, however, it would appear that approximately one-fifth of the smallholders will continue to stay more than twenty years on their holdings. In any case, with the exception of the 1919-1926 ex-service group, almost three-fifths of all the smallholders have, so far, remained more than ten years on their holding.* Some indirect reference has been made above to factors which might influence the length of occupation of their holdings by the smallholders. Thus, it has been noted that certain types of the earlier tenants did not remain long, perhaps as a result of faulty selection; and again that a large number of ex-service tenants also remained only for short periods, perhaps as a result of the economic fluctuations they had to face and perhaps also as a result of their lack of agricultural experience. It would clearly be desirable to know which smallholding tenants were the most satisfactory. The test of a" satisfactory " tenant would vary with the accepted objective of a smallholdings policy, and this might be (a) to provide a way by which the man with small financial resources could achieve independence in agriculture; or (b) to retain, by this means, a larger rural population than would otherwise be the case. The statement of aims is considerably easier than any measurement of their achievement, but certain general observations may be made.

* This evidence is contrary to that quoted by W.F. Parke, Farm Economist, Vol. II, No. 3, July, 1936 (p. 37): "In a group of six South-Midland counties, it was found that about sixty per cent. of a sample of smallholders did not stay more than eight years on their land."

61 The aim of retaining the rural population, of checking the drift from the land, may be considered first. Since it is necessary to cultivate a small area more intensively than a large area, in order to provide a living, it is true to say that small holdings will support directly a larger population than a similar area farmed in large holdings. It is probably true that, indirectly, a larger rural population would also be required to provide services for the smallholders. How far the creation of smallholdings has achieved this object in Oxfordshire cannot be measured, for no one knows what would have happened without them. In general terms, however, the census returns show that, between 1911 and 1931, the urban population of the county increased by some 18,600 (19 per cent.), whilst the rural population increased by some 1,600 (under two per cent.). But most rural parishes had a declining population over the period and the relatively small over-all increase is more than accounted for by urban overspill around Oxford, Henley and Woodstock, together with the establishment of two R.A.F. stations in the county. The creation of smallholdings as such, therefore, cannot be said to have prevented the drift from the land in Oxfordshire. Any attempt to measure the success of smallholdings as a means of achieving independence must bring in the evidence of failures as well as of successes. The evidence on both sides is necessarily scanty, but it is worth quoting. In the first place, it is reasonable to assume that smallholders who have remained on their holdings for over twenty years have made a success of the venture. Out of the 435 completed tenancies, 45 covered twenty years or more, ,whilst a further 42 unfinished tenancies have existed for at least twenty years. Again, if a holding is transferred to another member of the family at the termination of a tenancy it would seem to indicate that the former tenant had been sufficiently successful for a relative to wish to follow in his footsteps. Altogether, 57 tenancies are known to have been transferred to relatives; three of these occurred after the original tenant had occupied the smallholding for twenty years. (Five of the transfers are known to have been to the widow.) There is some justification, therefore, for suggesting that at least 141 of the smallholders have been successful. In the second place it is also reasonable to assume that tenants who have either transferred their tenancies to larger holdings or who have taken on extra land have also been successful smallholders. There is evidence of both occurring. Thus early in the nineteen- twenties the Council considered the advisability of giving notice to quit to certain smallholders who had rented additional and larger holdings from private landowners. Again, in 1949, the Land Agent reported that he was seeking the assistance of landowners in providing larger holdings for some of his tenants who were ready and anxious to operate on a bigger scale. Whilst the number is not large, it seems likely that some smallholders have moved to larger farms.

62 Transfers from one smallholding to another are relatively rare, but there is evidence of its occurrence on seven occasions when an increase in acreage was involved. Evidence for the addition of land to a smallholding is more plentiful. Thus, between 1908 and 1948 eighty smallholders acquired additional land from the Council. Further, of the smallholders who occupied Council and other land in 1941, twenty had acquired extra land from other sources after starting as smallholders. Altogether, therefore, some one hundred smallholders show evidence of success in having enlarged their holdings. Turning to the other side of the picture it is impossible to produce any firm figures of the number of tenants who have failed to make a success of their smallholdings. The extent of arrears of rent might be thought to offer some evidence of financial failure, but rents are known to be the tenants' financial shock absorber in difficult times. Thus, genuine arrears were the exception before 1930, but were the general rule from 1931 onwards, with the result that almost all smallholders whose tenancies ended after 1931 were behind with their rent. From the beginning of rent records in 1922 until 1930 some 30 per cent. of the tenants leaving their holdings did so whilst owing rent; in the same period, 45 per cent. of ex-service tenants leaving were in arrears with their rent. In general, however, these debts were paid off; and it would be difficult to say what extent or intensity of financial embarrassment they indicate. For a period of four years immediately after the first world war relevant figures are available, and in the official "Report on Present and Future Prospects of Ex-Service Men settled on the Land" it is stated that, of 216 tenants entering holdings in Oxfordshire between 18th December, 1918, and 15th January, 1923, twenty-six (or 12 per cent.) had left by Lady Day, 1923, "for financial or similar reasons." Whilst this report refers to a short period and might be expected not to overstate the influence of financial failure, it covers a time of rapidly falling prices and relates to ex-service men—who would appear to have been more susceptible than other tenants to financial weakness. On the whole, therefore, 12 per cent. may well be a closer estimate than 30 per cent. for the proportion of tenancies ended because of financial failure. Any attempt to summarise the position reveals the incompleteness of the available evidence. On the one hand there is the evidence that some 240 of the 536 smallholders analysed in Table XVI have been successful. It is probable that the actual number of successful smallholders would be greater than this 45 per cent. suggests. If financial failure is accepted as the reason for 15 per cent. of the tenancy terminations, there still remain 40 per cent. to which no reason can be assigned on the evidence available. Although this is a somewhat inconclusive result it is rather more favourable than that presented by Darke in 1936, especially in relation to the more positive evidence for "success " by smallholders.*

* F. W. Darke, Tenancy Changes on Small Holdings, Farm Economist, Vol. II, No. 3, p. 37, attributes 270 tenancy changes on smallholdings in six South-Midland counties to the following causes: 'death,' 'retired,' 'old age,' 'family change,' 22 per cent.; change to bigger farm,' 14 per cent.; 'failure,' 34 per cent.; other reasons, 30 per cent.

' 63 6. RENTS. Figures of rents for statutory smallholdings have been published in the Reports of the Land Division of the Ministry of Agriculture only for the years 1929 to 1937. For the years 1924-1928 figures for Oxfordshire have been supplied by the County Land Agent but for the remainder of the period, especially the early years, it is necessary to rely on figures which are subject to a margin of error. The general pattern, however, is clear. Rents in the first year of the scheme (1908) appear to have averaged about 21/- per acre. From then, until 1914, there was a steady increase to about 28/- per acre. This increase may be attributed to three causes: experience of the cost of operation, more expensive land, and the provision of buildings. During the war rents were fairly stable, but rose immediately afterwards, to reach over 31/- per acre in 1921 as a result of-the purchase of land in a dear market— rents of the new holdings being above this level. Thereafter, rents varied little for ten years, but began to decline in 1932 under the impact of depression and were a little below 28/- per acre by 1936. Changes in average rents after this period were mainly caused by the relinquishing of leasehold land and there appears to have been a small increase by 1939, to nearly 30/- per acre. Since 1939 no significant change in the average rent has occurred. In general, County Council policy in regard to rents has been similar to that adopted by private landowners. Reductions have been granted, under pressure from tenants, in the period of depression, but increases in rents have been made only at changes of tenancy or for specific capital expenditure. Changes in the proportion of holdings with farm buildings at different dates have not had as marked an influence on average rents as might Shave been expected. The increase in the supply of buildings between 1914 and 1939 was considerable (Table XVII) and largely reflects (a) the different require- ments of part-time and full-time smallholders at the two dates, and (b) the greater freedom for the Council to provide buildings on their own freehold land after the first world war. TABLE XVII. Rents payable to the Oxfordshire County Council for smallholdings, classified according to the buildings provided, 1914 and 1939.

1914. 1939. BUILDINGS PROVIDED. Per cent. of Rent Per cent. of Rent estate acreage. per acre. estate acreage. per acre.

None ,...... 55 27/— 20 28/—

Farm buildings only ...... 38 26/— 41 29/—

House and buildings ...... 7 36/— 39 31/-

100 28/— 100 30/-

64 Both in 1914 and 1939 land was more expensive when it carried house and buildings than when it was bare, but the difference in rent was much less in 1939. The reason for this lies largely in the fact that the holdings with house and buildings were in 1939 concentrated to a much greater extent in the larger size groups (25 acres and over). There were substantial reductions in the rents of some holdings in 1922 and in 1923. This was probably a consequence of the attempt made in the immediate post-war years to charge so-called "economic " rents for new holdings. In several cases these rents were too high for the tenants and adjustments were made. The facts are that in 1920 and 1921 there were let for the first time 123 new holdings covering 3,172 acres ; the rents of 32 of these holdings which were above the average had to be reduced in 1922 and in 1923. As a result some of the bare land holdings actually paid higher rents than those with buildings after the reductions had been granted. But the bare holdings were largely on leasehold land which the Council relinquished at the end of the seven-year lease. During the depression years of the early 'thirties half of the holdings with farm building, but no farm house, either obtained a further reduction in rent or got additional land with little extra rent, with the result that their rents fell to 3/5 per acre below those of the holdings with houses. In the matter of rent reductions during depression, the Council again followed the custom of private landowners in preferring temporary abatements to outright reductions. In most years the total allowances made to tenants reduced the net average rent of the Council's estate by no more than sixpence per acre. After the worst of the depression was over, however, the Council decided to cut its losses on the most serious cases of rent debts and, in 1934, total allowances exceeded £1,000, or approximately 3/6d. per acre over the whole estate. The extent of arrears of rent illustrates the trend and impact of the depression. Common failure to pay by the due date has already been noticed. By 1932 there were a few tenants who were eighteen months to two years in arrears, and by 1933 there were tenants who owed three years' rent. By 1934 large allowances had been granted and there were once more few tenants whose arrears exceeded one year's rent. Failure to meet the current rent was greatest in the winter of 1932-33 ; at Michaelmas 1932, some £4,800 was due for payment and no less than £3,224 was unpaid. At Lady Day, 1933, out of some £4,600 due, £2,860 was unpaid; but thereafter, failure to meet the current rent as it fell due gradually diminished. In Table XVIII the rents for 1914 and 1939 are analysed to show the influence of size upon rents per acre. The tendency for rents of holdings of comparable size to be higher in 1939 is quite marked: as stated above it is the result of the more frequent provision of farmsteads at that date. The Table

65 also shows clearly the tendency for rents to be less per acre on the larger holdings. This is as true of bare holdings as of those with buildings. It is possible that the demand for bare land is stronger for a few acres than it is for 20 or 30 acres but quite clearly the fall in rent per acre as the size of holding increases is not always and only to be attributed to the influence of house and buildings. TABLE XVIII. Average rents of Oxfordshire County Council smallholdings classified by size groups, 1914 and 1939.

1914. 1939.

SIZE GROUPS. Per cent. of Rent Per cent. of Rent Estate per acre. Estate per acre. Acreage. Acreage.

Under 5 acres ...... 5 32/— 1 40/-

5-15 acres ...... 30 30/— 11 36/-

15-25 „ ••• ••• ••• 21 29/— 9 32/-

25-50 „ ••• ••• ••• 39 24/— 36 31/-

50 acres and over ...... 5 34/— 43 26/—

TOTAL ...... 100 28/— 100 30/—

A comparison of the standard of equipment on the County Council smallholdings with that on other Oxfordshire holdings can be made from the records of the National Farm Survey. The comparison is restricted to the 66 holdings which were rented completely from the Council, since these are the holdings for which the Council itself is entirely responsible. The comparison shows that (a) the proportion with water and electricity supplies is somewhat lower than the county average, but (b) the proportion with good lay-out and good farmhouses is about average, and (c) the proportion with good farm buildings is well above the average.

66 CHAPTER VIII.

SALES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND.

1. LAND OWNERSHIP IN 1873 AND IN 1941. Many references have already been made in this study to the Return of Owners of Land, 1873, which represents the only attempt in modern times to compile a full list of landowners in England and Wales. Justifiable criticisms have been levelled against the Return concerning inaccuracy in various details.* Nevertheless, it forms the only general basis for comparison with the picture of land ownership which may be compiled from the National Farm Survey records. An awareness of the errors is a safeguard against the drawing of false conclusions from the comparison. Thus it is necessary to make clear the differences in the method of compiling the Return of Owners of Land and the National Farm Survey. The 1873 Return which aimed at establishing the number of landowners in the country was compiled from the parish rating records and took individual account of all persons owning one acre or more. The 1941 Survey included particulars of ownership for every agricultural holding of five acres or over. This means that the 1873 Return includes urban property and some woodlands, neither of which figure in the National Farm Survey records. Consequently both the number of landowners and the total acreage of the Return are somewhat greater than they should be for direct comparison with the Survey.t The inclusion of the owners of areas as small as one acre will also have a similar influence, although it is likely to affect the number of owners more than the acreage involved. There are two types of internal inaccuracy in the 1873 Return which need to be taken into account. The first concerns the repetition of landowners' names. This certainly occurs, with the effect of increasing the apparent number of landowners and reducing the average size of their estates, but criticism of the Return on this score has almost certainly been exaggerated. The second error concerns the incorrect attribution of ownership. In the introduction to the Return itself it is stated that" there is reason to believe that in many cases

* See, for example, John Bateman, The Great Landowners of Great Britain and Ireland, Preface. t Return of Owners of Land, 1873, gives 448,407 acres in estates of one acre and upwards; Agricultural Statistics for 1873 gives 411,438 acres of crops and grass for Oxford- shire.

67 the name of an individual is entered instead of the body or office which he represents, and this remark applies especially to glebe lands."* It has also been shown that the Return does not attribute to the Oxford Colleges all the land owned by them in 1873. Moreover, the entry of parts of college estates under the names of individuals further swells the total number of landowners and reduces the average size of estate. A fair comparison of the extent of public ownership of land in 1873 and in 1941 is made extremely difficult by these inaccuracies. The figures which are brought together in Table XIX do, however, throw some light on the main trends though it is obvious that great care must be exercised in their interpretation.

TABLE XIX. Land ownership in Oxfordshire in 1873 and in 1941.

NUMBER OF ESTATES. AREA OF ESTATES.

1873. 1941. 1873. 1941. Number. % Number. ,y0 Acres. Acres. 0/0 TYPE OF ESTATE. Public ••• 296 8.9 237 9.1 46,000 10.3 78,800 20.7 Private ••• 3,048 91.1 2,368 90.9 402,400 89.7 302,200 79.3

TOTAL •• • 3,344 100.0 2,605 100.0 448,400 100.0 381,000 100.0

SIZE OF ESTATE. Under 500 acres 3,169 94.7 2,467 94.8 167,600 37.4 176,800 46.4 500-1,000 „ 79 2.4 79 3.0 47,400 10.5 53,800 14-1 1,000-5,000 „ 86 2.6 53 2.0 150,000 33-5 99,500 26.1 Over 5,000 „ 10 0.3 6 0.2 83,400 18.6 50,900 13.4

TOTAL •• • 3,344 100.0 2,605 100.0 448,400 100.0 381,000 100.0

A direct comparison of the figures in the Table shows 3,344 landowners with 448,400 acres in 1873, against 2,605 landowners with 381,000 acres in 1941, giving estates of an average size of 134 acres at the earlier date, and 146 acres at the later date. In considering these figures it is not possible to make corrections for all the discrepancies referred to above, but allowance can be made for the inclusion or omission of small estates. In 1873, there were 1,024 landowners with less than five acres each; and, in 1941, there were 291 landowners with less than five acres each whose land was covered by the National Farm Survey. If these small landowners are deducted from the totals, but no allowance made for the inflation of the 1873 figures caused by internal inaccuracies, it becomes clear that for a greater acreage in 1873 there were approximately the same number of landowners as in 1941. Both in 1873 and in 1941 more than 90 per cent. of the landowners owned less than 500 acres each-and this is still true if those owning less than five acres are excluded. Large landowners form a diminishing proportion ofthe total:

* Return of Owners of Land, 1873, p. 9.

68 2.9 per cent. in 1873, and only 2-2 per cent. in 1941. If allowance is made both for the excessive number of small estates included in the 1873 Return compared with the 1941 Survey, and for the internal errors of the Return which affect the number of large estates, the fall in the proportion of landowners with 1,000 acres or more would be approximately from 4.2 per cent. to 2.6 per cent. In terms of the area of land owned the change in ownership is clearer and is less affected by errors and the dissimilarities of compilation. At the time of the 1873 Return 52-1 per cent. of Oxfordshire land was contained in estates of 1,000 acres or more; by 1941 the proportion in these larger estates had fallen to 39.5 per cent. The proportion of the agricultural acreage in public ownership would appear from a direct comparison of total figures to have increased from 10.3 per cent. to 20-7 per cent. between 1873 and 1941, although the number of public landowners has declined fairly considerably. It is on this point of public ownership—which is of some importance—that the Return is, however, unfortunately least reliable. In the first place, the Return shows some 11,000 acres less than the Universities' Commission for land owned in the county by Oxford University and Colleges. In the second place, some 21,000 acres are returned as owned by individual clergymen whereas, in fact, this may all have been glebe land in 1873. If these two acreages are added to those shown by the Return to be in public ownership, the total area owned by public bodies in 1873 is almost identical with that in 1941 ; and the proportion of agricultural land in public ownership would have increased over the period by approximately 4.5 per cent. only. It is impossible to say now, with certainty, whether the publicly-owned proportion increased between 1873 and 1941 by ten per cent. (as the crude figures show) or by five per cent. (as the modified estimate shows), but the smaller increase is probably nearer the mark. There are two facts which emerge clearly from the comparison of landownership in Oxfordshire in 1873 and in 1941. The first is that, after all allowances for error in the 1873 Return have been made,there has been an appreciable increase in the acreage owned by small landowners. The second is that there has been a decrease in the acreage owned by private landowners as a whole. These changes are largely the result of land sales, and especially of sales taking place between the two world wars. Some sales took land out of agricultural use altogether, but the majority were concerned with a transfer of ownership whilst the land remained agricultural. The remainder of this Chapter is devoted to an examination of the rather scanty material which is available concerning sales of agricultural land in Oxfordshire between 1918 and 1941. 2. SALES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, 1918-1941. In order that there might be a factual basis for the discussion of the sale of land and its influence upon agriculture, an attempt has been made to compile a register of land sales in Oxfordshire between the two world wars.

69 Information about sales has been collected largely from the files of the Oxford Times, but particulars relating to a substantial acreage have also been obtained from private individuals and from institutions.* It would seem probable that an examination of the advertisement columns of the local papers should bring to light most of the major items of agricultural land offered publicly for sale; other sources, whilst providing additional material, confirmed this impression. It has been possible, in most instances, to verify that land advertised for sale was, in fact, sold either at the time or subsequently: the checking process has also proved useful in eliminating the duplications which arise from the use of several sources. As a method of compiling a register of land sales this approach has one serious weakness which cannot be remedied; it is rarely able to incorporate the private sales and transfers of land. This means, however, that the figures to be quoted must err on the side of understatement. Since the recorded sales, for a period of twenty-three years, refer to an acreage almost half the size of the county it is important to remember that the records under- state the total acreage involved. The information obtained is often poor in detail—vendor, purchaser, occupier, exact location, sale price, and precise date of sale: any or all of these particulars may be lacking. But the acreage involved, the neighbourhood in which the land lies, and the year of sale can be quoted for all the returns employed. The deficiencies, however, obviously limit the extent to which it is profitable to seek for detailed interpretations of the broader facts. These broad facts show that, in the twenty years from 1919 to 1938 inclusive, almost 160,000 acres of agricultural land were sold in Oxfordshire. If the years 1918 and 1939-41 (to the official date of the Farm Survey) are included, the sales recorded exceed 176,000 acres, an area almost half as great as the total agricultural acreage of the county in 1941. The main facts are summarised in Table XX. TABLE XX. Sales of agricultural land in Oxfordshire, 1918-1941.

TOTAL SALES. SALES OF SALES OF PERIOD. 500-1,000 ACRES. 1,000 ACRES AND OVER.

Number. Acres. Number. Acres. Number. Acres.

1918 ...... 21 11,000 3 2,200 2 3,700 1919-1923 •• • 200 87,000 19 14,000 20 45,400 1924-1928 •• • 134 35,000 10 7,500 6 10,200 1929-1933 •• • 92 20,000 8 5,100 2. 5,300 1934-1938 ••• 88 15,000 3 2,300 3 4,200 1939-1941 (June) 41 8,000 4 2,500 — —

TOTALS ... 576 176,000 47 33,600 33 68,800

* Valuable information was supplied by Messrs. J. Carter Jonas, the Treasurer of Christchurch College, Oxford, John Clerke-Brown, Esq., His Grace the Duke of Marlborough and others.

70 The totals shown in the Table reflect broadly conditions which have fallen within the experience of many agriculturists, namely, that sales were substantial towards the end of the first world war, rose to a peak in the years immediately following it, and then declined considerably in volume. So far as Oxfordshire is concerned, it appears that roughly half the sales of the twenty- three year period were crowded into the five years 1919 to 1923. The peak year in Oxfordshire was 1920, for which records relating to the sale of 24,100 acres have been collected. From 1929 onwards there was a fairly steady annual average sale of between 3,000 and 4,000 acres. Indeed, it is a fact that only twice after 1926 were sales exceeding 5,000 acres recorded in a single year— in 1930 and again in 1940. It is interesting to note that the increased sales in 1940 were part of a national trend: one large firm of estate agents reporting in Docember of that year ". . . the movement for Investment in Agricultural land has gathered momentum."

Table XX also distinguishes between the sales of small and of large areas of land. The same general trend is shown for both, the years 1919 to 1923 seeing the greatest activity. Nevertheless, sales of large areas were relatively more important during the 1919-1923 boom when they accounted for more than half the total acreage sold, whereas subsequently the proportion has been less than one-third. The later years have seen the re-sale, as individual farms, of parts of the estates sold earlier in the period. As a rough approximation it can be said that (excepting 1919-1923) half the land sold has consisted of areas exceeding 500 acres, the remainder consisting of smaller lots.

It is not possible to give the reasons why the various landowners sold their land. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it is not possible to give the reasons which all the landowners themselves would have given for selling their land. Certain reasons may, however, be suggested.

In the first place, enquiry of landowners who have sold parts of their estates or of agents who have been concerned in estate sales, produces either, or both, of two reasons for the sale of large estates. These reasons are 'impoverishment due to war' and 'the burden of taxation,' and especially estate duty. These reasons are not themselves altogether unconnected, and as explanations they accord fairly well with the known facts. Thus, approximately half the sales recorded took place within five years of the end of the first world war and possibly one-sixth of the total acreage sold may be attributed to the death of the owner. A third reason—financial failure—is suggested by the advertisements in the local press where almost 3,000 acres were offered for sale during the period by order of the public trustee or by order of the mortgagees.

* Annual report of Messrs. Knight, Frank and Rutley, dated December, 1940.

71 In the second place, it would seem that landowners must be unnatural— or peculiarly tardy—if none of them responded to market conditions. They decry their business acumen if they suggest that the sale of land has always to be forced upon them. Thus a recent sale of an Oxfordshire estate farm produced a sum which, invested at current rates, brought an income double the rent of the farm concerned—" and no drain for repairs," as the seller remarked. In the third place, sales depend upon willing buyers as well as upon willing sellers; the interplay of the two makes the market. The purchaser of agricultural land is influenced by the prosperity of the industry, just as is the investor of capital in any other industry. If the general index of agricultural prices is accepted as a rough guide to the prosperity of the industry, it will be seen that the volume of land sales moves in sympathy with it. The fluctuation in land sales accords with the Keynesian analysis of the boom, where the investor takes an over-optimistic view of the future returns of an investment in relation to its current cost. Similar considerations, of course, explain the relative over-provision of capital equipment under boom conditions, having regard to its current cost and future yield. The optimism of the purchasers of agricultural land was not altogether unlimited, and on occasions the offers of land in the early 'twenties tended to exceed the demand at the reserve prices fixed. Most landowners, however, succeeded in disposing of the farms left on their hands at the auctions.

3. INFLUENCE OF LAND SALES UPON OWNERSHIP. An examination of the available evidence concerning the 33 sales of estates (or part estates) larger than 1,000 acres shows that only rarely was an estate bought in its entirety by a single purchaser. Two such sales were made where Oxford Colleges bought the whole estates, and five other sales resulted in only relatively small increases in the number of landowners. On three of these five occasions the main buyers were private individuals, one sale was largely to a College, and in the fifth sale the estate was divided between two private buyers. Since, however, there are some large contemporary estates which cannot be traced back to 1873 in the same family ownership, it is clear that the transfer of entire estates, or the building of new ones, has occurred in the intervening period. But there is little in the available records of sales during the inter-war period to show that systematic building of new estates was taking place in Oxfordshire. It is possible that some of the large estates were acquired through private sale, and most probable that some of them were bought before the 1914-18 war. Small purchases, as though additions to an existing estate, can occasionally be traced to these C new' landowners. Although direct information about the purchasers is usually lacking, it is

72 fairly clear that land sales between the wars normally involved an increase in the number of landowners. This is certainly what the records of estate sales commonly show, where they a' re available in any detail. The story of 1941 ownership revealed by the Farm Survey also points to a growth in the number of landowners as a result of land sales. There have, nevertheless, been some modifying factors at work. In the first place, the Colleges have increased their estates in Oxfordshire and in the second place, the Oxfordshire County Council has acquired a considerable area of land since 1918. The most important source of County Council land was the large private estate. But the County Council also bought land from small owners and from the Colleges, and—most interestingly—they bought up a number of glebes. This latter type of purchase, involving a transfer from one public landowner to another, would tend in a small degree to a reduction in the number of landowners. Whilst no general pattern is discernible in the redistribution of ownership following every estate sale, the most widespread recognisable change is probably one to ownership by the occupying farmer. Thus, where owner- occupiers held a large acreage (exceeding 1,000 acres) in any parish in 1941, the sale of a large estate, during the inter-war years, was normally to be traced in that neighbourhood. Owing to the Farm Survey method of recording farms according to the parish in which the house lies, and also to changes of parish (and farm) boundaries between the wars, there is scope for discrepancy between the parish named at the time of sale and the parish given as the location of a farm in 1941. Nevertheless, of the 29 parishes where owner-occupiers own 1,000 acres or more, 23 are parishes in which (or adjoining which) big estates were sold between 1918 and 1941. A further four parishes had substantial sales (600-900 acres) by a single estate during the period. The connection between owner-occupation in 1941 and estate sales between the wars, therefore, seems fairly close. It is not true, on the other hand, that wherever an estate has been sold owner-occupiers will necessarily be the predominant type of landowner. This does not prove that the estate farms were not originally purchased largely for occupation (though this is probably a correct interpretation), for the available information is deficient at two points. First, the purchaser of property can only be identified with certainty in some instances; second, information about the disposal of an owner-occupier's farm on his death or retirement is relatively scarce. It is known that some owner-occupiers have sold their farms upon retirement, and that other farms were sold in the lean years by order of the mortgagees. But how far disposal has been more or less general than retention in the family is not known. Since, however, the area of agricultural land owned by occupiers in Oxfordshire increased by more than 70,000 acres between 1919 and 1941, it seems most unlikely that there was any appreciable sale by owner-occupiers to other classes of owners during that period.

73 It was pointed out above that detailed information on many points concerning the sale of agricultural land is not available. One of the most serious gaps in the information is the lack of direct evidence of purchase. However, since land sold must also be purchased, it follows that any farm sold between the wars must have been purchased during that period by its 1941 owner. The problem, therefore, becomes one of identifying the land sold with the holdings as returned in 1941. An approximate identification of this nature is possible for some 70,000 acres of agricultural land in the county. If the owners of this land in 1941 are grouped by type, it appears that 88 per cent. of the buyers of land fall into the private, and 12 per cent. into the public category. The largest single class of purchasers was the farmer-landowner who bought some 34 per cent. of the area examined. The undefined (17 per cent.) and business landowners (15 per cent.) were also prominent. In the public category the Oxford Colleges were the chief buyers, taking some eight per cent. of the total. Some of the owners in these groups were also selling land and the figures quoted are in no way to be taken as a measure of net increments to the groups' ownership of land. The largest purchasers were, however, the groups whose importance as landowners was increasing in the period. In this respect it is worth noting that 37 per cent. of the purchased land was bought for occupation by the new owners.

4. INFLUENCE OF LAND SALES UPON THE FARM.

The influence of land sales upon farms can easily be exaggerated and, whilst generalisation is dangerous, it is probably true that in the short-term the influence is small. Farm boundaries on the whole change slowly, and farm equipment deteriorates gradually. In the longer run, however, past sales of land from the large estates to numerous small landowners may prove to be a matter of more serious consequence, for the time comes when repairs cannot be avoided and when changing circumstances may call for re-equipment or modifications of layout. There are, however, a number of lesser ways in which the break-up of estates may disturb the working of some farms. With the dispersal of the estate there goes also, for example, the disbandment of estate staff and where estate staff could attend to many small repairs as they arose the likelihood now is that repairs may be neglected until they become a major item. Again, many estates kept in hand areas of accommodation land for letting by the season. This land provided a reserve of grazing for tenants if they required it for additional stock or to meet a shortage of grass on their own farms. When the estate was sold the accommodation land tended to be amalgamated permanently with other holdings, or to be formed into separate holdings itself. Such a change reduced the flexibility of conditions, and each farmer henceforward had to make his own provision for emergency instead of having access, from year to year, to a general pool.

74 Where farms were large they might be divided into smaller lots in order to facilitate sale. This would present the farmer with two or more landlords and tend to encourage the division of the farm amongst a variety of occupiers when the original tenant vacated it. Such division of ownership is most prevalent in the neighbourhood of urban development, where the price of land is higher and speculation has been more frequent in the past. Because this decimation of ownership is associated with urban neighbourhoods it rarely occurs as the direct result of the sale of a large agricultural estate, and is not encountered in Oxfordshire.

5. THREE CASE STUDIES. This brief study of land sales between the two wars, affecting as it did agricultural holdings in three out of every four parishes in the county, may well be finished by a summary of the changes in the distribution of ownership and farm lay-out which actually followed three large sales for which reasonably full information is available. Estate Sale No. 1.—This estate extended to nearly 5,000 acres in south- east Oxfordshire and was sold at the end of the first world war. More than 4,000 acres of the estate lay within a ring fence, and examination is confined to this major portion. For the purpose of sale the estate was offered in 29 lots-20 farms and nine plots of accommodation land. With the exception of one farm, the lots were each contained within a ring fence. Sixteen different purchasers bought one farm each, and two purchasers bought two farms each so that for the 20 farms eighteen landowners replaced the previous one. The records are incomplete, but at least 14 of the farms were not sold to the sitting tenants. In addition all nine lots of accommodation land were sold to separate buyers. In all, then, 27 separate landowners replaced the original estate owner. With two exceptions, all the farms changed ownership by sale once more between the first sale of the estate and 1941, yet nine individual farms and one pair retained their original layout and remained in separate ownership. Of the remainder, four farms were reduced in size and parts were sold to adjoining landowners; three farms absorbed the parts sold; one farm changed its association. The net effect of these changes was to leave the number of farm landowners at eighteen, as after the first sale, and to replace the association of one non-contiguous pair with another. So far as the accommodation land was concerned there was considerable amalgamation of ownership; the original nine owners were reduced to six, of whom one was also an owner ofa considerable farm acreage. By 1941 the total number of separate landowners was, therefore, reduced to twenty-three. By 1941 there had also been quite a number of alterations to farm boundaries. At the time of the sale there were 16 tenants, four of whom had

75 their holdings divided into two parts so making the 20 lots offered at the auction; likewise five of the nine lots of accommodation land offered for sale were at the time run together by one tenant. In 1941, seven of the farms retained their original outline and two farms had taken in some adjoining land. For the remaining seven farms the changes were a little more complex. Three of them lost land to neighbouring farms; one farm was broken up in accordance with the division for auction; and three farms both gave up some land and acquired other land. The final outcome was that the number of farms increased from sixteen to eighteen. In general, the re-arrangement of farm boundaries followed the new division for ownership, and this is not surprising since seven farms were owned by their occupiers in 1941, one belonged to the occupier's family, and two others were partly owned by the occupiers. Eight farms, however, were still entirely rented. Although the changes considered above are -considerable in detail, and indeed, more extensive than is commonly thought, the main outlines of the bulk of the farms still coincide with their original pattern. The most radical change has been the whittling down of one large holding. Estate Sale No. 2.—This estate, lying in central Oxfordshire, was not sold in its entirety like the one just described, but various portions on the outskirts of the estate were sold separately after the end of the first world war. One such portion considered here covered five small farms and two plots of accommodation land and extended to some 400 acres. Even this small area was scattered in three blocks surrounding a village. For the purpose of the auction the five farms and the two plots of accommodation land were offered as separate lots. Three buyers bought one farm each, one buyer bought two farms and the plots of accommodation land were also bought by separate buyers. Altogether, therefore, six landowners replaced the original one. Four of the five farms were bought by three of the sitting tenants, and the fifth was bought for immediate occupation by the purchaser. As a result of the sale, therefore, tenancy was at once replaced almost entirely by owner-occupation. In the period between the auction and 1941, three of the farms were sold again. As a result their ownership became divided amongst four landowners instead of two, producing a modification of boundaries between two holdings and reducing the size of the third. Purchase was for occupation in each case and the farms all remained owner-occupied, but in place of six landowners immediately after the estate sale there were eight by 1941. The plots of accommodation land also changed hands. At the time of sale three of the small farms and one plot of accommodation land were all farmed together. In effect there were, therefore, only three separate holdings. By 1941 the farm boundaries followed exactly the lines of ownership, but two lots of accommodation land were rented and worked 76 together by one tenant. Thus, in place of three farms and an accommodation plot at the time of sale, there were seven separate holdings in 1941. Estate Sale No. 3.—This sale concerns a more compact block of land offered for sale by the same estate as that referred to in the second sale above. This block included five farms of moderate size and three small sundry lots. All of this land—except one small area let off for allotments—was in hand at the time of the sale, which was also after the end of the first world war. The area involved was between 900 and 1,000 acres. The division of the land into lots for auction seems to have followed the existing farm boundaries, with no attempt at redistribution or revision. At the sale two of the farms were bought for occupation by the purchasers, one was bought by the Oxfordshire County Council for smallholdings, one was bought as an investment, and one remained unsold. The five farms, therefore, had five separate owners, one being a public authority. Two of the three accommodation lots were sold separately, whilst the third was withdrawn. This and the unsold farm were subsequently bought by one of the Oxford Colleges. Altogether, therefore, seven owners replaced the single previous landlord.

In the subsequent twenty years there was less change of ownership for these farms than for those previously considered. Indeed only one of the five farms was re-sold after the date of the auction and it, along with one of the sundry lots, was bought for occupation by the purchaser. In 1941 the five farms were owned by five separate owners, three of the farms being owner- occupied. With one exception the farm boundaries have coincided with those of ownership. The exception is the farm bought by the County Council which has been divided into three smallholdings.

77 CHAPTER IX.

CONCLUSION.

The concern of this study of the ownership and tenure of agricultural land in Oxfordshire has been to establish the facts about the estates and their owners, and about the holdings and their occupiers. Because it is a study of a county many of the statements made are, of necessity, in the nature of generalisations ; but behind the generalisation lies the examination of individual examples. Although it has, on occasion, seemed an integral part of the study to relate facts to one another or to suggest interpretations, no attempt has been made to argue a case. The solution of the problems which beset agriculture, whether they be problems of farm organisation, estate organisation, or the relation of land owner and land operator, may indeed be of a radical nature, but the facts rarely offer unqualified support for the opinions of the reformer— whatever his colour. It must also be admitted that a statement of the facts at any particular time gives only an incomplete picture; hence an attempt has been made to show what changes occurred in land tenure in Oxfordshire during the decades before the second world war. Such an attempt, if it does no more, serves to show the paucity and irregularity of the records available. There are no records of land sales, no comprehensive or local records of agricultural rents; the only comprehensive statement of land ownership was compiled as long ago as 1873, and records of agricultural land tenure only cover two decades incompletely on a voluntary basis.; Agricultural Statistics are continuous from 1867, but a general index of agricultural prices was only first published in 1913 and goes no further back than 1906. It has not been possible, therefore, to present a continuous account of the changes; they have often had to be shown as a series of contrasts between conditions at various dates in the past and at the beginning of the 1939-1945 war. No useful purpose would be served by attempting to list again the many facts which have already been recorded, but attention may be directed to a few of them. It has been shown, for example, that the estates with the highest standard of permanent equipment are largely those which have been purchased in fairly recent years. At the same time, it appears that the estates with the lowest standard belong to non-resident landowners, or are composed of holdings

78 with two or more owners ; some of these have also been bought in recent years. Several relationships have been shown between different levels of rent and other factors, but perhaps the one with the most general application was that which related areas of low rent to the areas of traditionally desirable arable land. On smallholdings the non-full-time occupier was shown to be of diminished importance. All these facts indicate that, in the thirty or forty years before the second world war, changes had been taking place which affected most aspects of the agricultural scene. The interest of the onlooker in agriculture may well have been stimulated by alternating depression and wartime revival in the industry, but more fundamental changes than the cycle of boom and slump would seem to have been in progress throughout the period. On the farms new techniques—or the spread of new methods—have largely replaced what had come to be regarded as traditional ways, and this is to be observed most clearly, but by no means exclusively, in increased mechanisation. Dairying was steadily growing in importance. The average size of farm in the county was increasing, a fact which may be related both to increased mechanisation and to the decrease in part-time farming. In contrast to the increased size of the farm unit, there has been a reduction in the average size of estates. This reduction in size is the net effect of various changes, the most important being the sale of estates by some of the principal landowners and their purchase in relatively small portions. (Despite these sales, 23.8 per cent. of the agricultural acreage of the county was contained in sixty-five estates belonging to principal landowners in 1941.) Increased size of holdings and decreased size of estates find one outcome in the large number of holdings in multiple ownership, with the drawbacks which this entails. The Oxford Colleges and the government group, however, have added to their estates, and probably account for some increase in the public ownership of agricultural land. Most interesting in this sector has been the experiment in the provision of smallholdings by the County Council. Policy in regard to smallholdings has undergone more than one change and opinions as to the value of the scheme are varied and often strongly held: two facts, at least, are clear; there has been a demand for smallholdings, and the smallholdings scheme has not been self-supporting. The recital of these facts does not form a summary of the study, although it may serve to draw attention to the more significant items. In addition, it ought also to show how almost every part of agriculture—not least the land tenure aspect—was in a state of transition before the recent war. It was inevitable, of course, in a world which lacked even the appearance of a stability attributed to earlier times that agriculture—so long as it had not become moribund—should be changing and that the transition should be incomplete. Whilst it means is by no certain that pre-war trends (e.g. falling average size of estates, rising average size of holdings, the maintenance of average rent 79 at or below the 1875 level) would eventually have given rise to a new equilibrium war and post-war conditions introduced new factors which almost certainly increased the general disequilibrium. The tenant has obtained greater security of tenure than ever before and the landlord, far from obtaining any com- pensatory benefit, has been required to shoulder further statutory obligations under Part II of the Agriculture Act, 1947. Moreover, the factors which caused many landowners to sell their estates after the first world war must now bear upon them even more pressingly, yet so long as their farms are tenanted they have not the same opportunity to sell at such considerable gain as after the war of 1914-1918. Thus war may have had its customary effect of accelerating change, at least in some directions, such as the growth of mechanisation, the development of dairy farming or even the disposal of large estates. But, since purchasers now cannot generally acquire tenanted farms for occupation, and tenants have little need to buy in order to safeguard their position, conditions after the two world wars are not altogether comparable. Whilst it may yet be too early to know what the full influence of changed circumstances will be, there are indications (e.g. in the possibility of the payment of estate duty by handing over land instead of paying in cash, and in the altered County Council smallholdings policy) that future changes in land tenure will show new trends.