Land nationalisation, its necessity and its aims; being a comparison of the system of landlord and tenant with that of occupying ownership in their influence on the well-being of the people

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

THIS BOOK IS ONE OF A
COLLECTION MADE BY

BENNO LOEWY
1854-1919

AND BEQUEATHED TO
CORNELL UNIVERSITY

Cornell University Library
HD1306.G7 W18

Land nationalisation, i|s,,,n?,9S,?|i1|](;| .S^n

olin

3 1924 030 053 320

Cornell University
Library

The original of tliis book is in
tine Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030053320

LAND NATIONALISATION.

Ye friends to truth, ye statesmen who survey
The rich man's joys increase, the poor's decay —
'Tis yours to judge how wide the limits stand
Between a splendid and a happy land.

Goldsmith.

LAND NATIONALISATION

ITS NECESSITY AND ITS AIMS:

BEING A COMPARISON OF THE SYSTEM OF

LANDLORD AND TENANT

WITH THAT OF

OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP

IN THEIR INFLUENCE ON THE WELL-BEIN(J OF THE PEOPLE.

BY

ALFRED RUSSEL WALLACE,

AUTHOR OF "THE MALAY ARCHIPELAGO," "ISLAND LIFE," &C., &C.

LONDON :
TRUBNER & CO., 57 and 59 Ludgate Hill, E.G.
1882. \

(All Rights Reserved.)

LONDON ;

d, C. DUttA-NT, rRISTER, CLEMBWT's H0U8B*

CLBHENT^S IKS' PASSAGE, W.C.

WORKING MEN OF ENGLAND

THIS BOOK IS

DEDICA TED,

IN THE HOPE THAT IT MAY REVEAL TO THEM THE CHIEF
■CAUSE OF SO MUCH POVERTY IN THE MIDST OF THE EVER-
INCREASING WEALTH, WHICH THEY CREATE, AND POINT
OUT TO THEM THE GREAT REFORM WHICH WILL ENABLE
LABOUR TO REAP ITS JUST REWARD WHICH WILL SURELY
TEND TO ABOLISH PAUPERISM, AND WHICH WILL GIVE
TO ALL WHO INDUSTRIOUSLY SEEK IT A FAIR SHARE IN
THE INCREASED PROSPERITY OF THEIR NATIVE LAND.

"Land is not, and cannot be property in the sense that moveable things
are property. Every human being born into this planet must live upon
the land if he lives at all. The land in any country is really the property
of the nation which occupies it ; and the tenure of it by individuals is
ordered differently in different places, according to the habits of the
people and the general convenience." — Fkoude.

" The land of Ireland, the Jand of every country, belongs to the people
of that country."— John Stuart Mill.

" As land is necessary to the exertion of labour in the production of
wealth, to command the land which is necessary to labour is to command
all the fruits of labour save enough to enable the labourer to exist. " —
Henry George.

" To make away into mercenary hands, as an article of trade, the whole
solid area on which a nation lives, is astonishing as an idea of statesman-
ship." — Prof. F. W. Newman.

" It may by-and-by be perceived that equity utters dictates to which we
have not yet listened ; and men may then learn that to deprive others of
their rights to the use of the earth is to commit a crime inferior only in
wickedness to the crime of taking away their lives or personal liberties." —
Herbert Spencer.

" In my opinion, if it is known to be for the welfare of the community
at large, the Legislature is perfectly entitled to buy out the landed pro-
prietors Those persons who possess large portions.

of the earth's space are not altogether in the same position as the possessors
of mere personalty. Personalty does not impose limitations on the action
and the industry of man and the well-being of the community as possession
of land does, and therefore, I freely own that compulsory expropriation is
admissible, and even sound in principle. " — W. E. Gladstone. (Speech
at West Calder.)

PREFACE.

The present work has been written with two main
objects. In the first place, it is intended to demonstrate
by a sufficient, though condensed, body of evidence, .the
widespread and crying evils — political and social,, material
and moral — which are not only the actual, but the neces-
sary^ results .of-the system of Landlordism, while at 'the
same time itshowS-, by a complementary.series of .facts,
that a properly guarded system of Occupying Ownership
under the' S'tlate would afford a complete remedy for .the
evils thus caused. In the second place, it demonstrates
that the proposed solution is a practicable one, by ..ejcr
plaining in detail how the change may be effected with
no real injury to existing landowners, and also ;how the
scheme will: actually work without producing any one of
the evil results generally thought to be inseparable from
a system of lamd^nationalisation.

It will be seen from this outline that the subjiects here
treated are of vast and momentous importance.. So
abtiridant are the available materials that it .would "have
been easy to- compile a work of several bulky, volumes
without exhausting the theme. To have done so might

viii Preface.

have added to the author's literary reputation, but would
not have produced the effect which he desires to produce.
It is the people at large — the middle and lower classes
especially — who suffer by the present land-system, and
it is by their mandate to their representatives in Parlia-
ment that the needed reform must be effected. Existing
legislators can and will do nothing beyond removing the
shackles which now prevent land from being freely bought
and sold j but so limited a reform will only benefit land-
owners and capitalists, while the people will still suffer
from all the evils which the monoply of land by a class
and the increase of land-speculation inevitably bring upon
them. To reach the landless classes — to teach them what
are their rights and how to gain these rights — is the object
of this work ; and it was therefor enecessary that it should
be at once clear and forcible, moderate in bulk, and issued
at a low price. In effecting the required degree of con-
densation the historical part of the subject has been
sketched in the briefest outline, because it appeared to the
author much more important to demonstrate the evil
results of our land-system than to prove, that it had its
origin in force or fraud in long past ages. It also happens,
that the history of the origin of landed property in general,
as well as of our existing systems of land-tenure, are the
portions of the subject which have been most fully treated,
and which are best known to general readers.

Preface. ix

Although so much has been written on the land-ques-
tion, I am not aware of any single work which summarises
theevidenceand discusses the results of our system of land-
tenure as compared with that of other civilised countries,
in its bearing, not upon landlords and tenants alone but
on all classes of the community ; and I therefore venture
to think that everyone who has at heart the advancement
of the social condition of our people, and who feels the
disgrace of our position as at once the wealthiest and
the most pauperised country in the world, will find much
to interest, and perhaps to instruct, in this small volume.

Godahning, March, 1882.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Chapter I.— On the Causes of Poverty m tlte Midst of Wealth : —
Increase of the Value of Land during the Present Century^
Great Increase of our Wealth — Pauperism does not diminish in
Proportion to our Increasing Wealth — Failure of our Social
Organisation — Increase of Labour-saving Machinery and the
Utilisation of Natural Forces — The Anticipated Effect of Man's
increased power over Nature — The Actual Effect — How to
discover the Cause of our Social Failure — Why Gr^at Wealth is
often injurious — Accumulated Wealth may be Beneficial or the
Reverse — How Great Accumulations of Capital Affect the
Labourer — The Nature of the Remedy Suggested — Scope of the
Present Inquiry i — 20

Chapter II. — The Origin and Present State of British Land-
Tenure : — Antiquity of our Present System causes it to appear a
Natural One — Antiquity of a System no proof of its Value —
Origin of British Land-Tenure — Characteristics of the Feudal
System — Growth of Modern Landlordism — The Legal Powers
Exercised by Landlords — Our Land-system is a Modified
Feudalism, in which the Landlords have thrown their Burdens
on the People, whose Rights in the Land they have absorbed. 20 — 30

Chapter III. — A Few illustrations of Iris7i Landlordism : — Ireland
affords Examples of all the Evils that arise from Private Property
in Land — Origin of Irish Landlordism — Tenant-right Confisca-
tion by Landlords — Condition of the Irish Cottier — Facts in
Possession of the Legislature for Thirty Years — The Devon
Commission, 1847 — The Government neglects its First Duty —
Evictions after the Famine — Suggested Remedies for Irish
Distress — Continued Blindness and Incompetence of the Legisla-
ture — Tremendous Power of Agents over the Tenants — The
Condition of the People under Irish Landlordism 30 — 51

xii Contents.

Chapter IV. — Landlordism, and its Besulls in Scotland : — Chiefs
and Clansmen in the Highlands— Highland Chiefs changed into
Landlords— Character of the Highland Tenantry Eighty Years
ago— The Change e6fected by Landlords and Agents— The
Story of the Sutherland Evictions— Other Examples of Highland
Clearances — Wide Extent and Long Continuance of these
Clearances^— They were exposed and protested against in vain —
Continuance of Highland Clearances and Confiscation down to
this Day— These Evils inherent in Landlordism— An Illustrative
Case— The General Results of Landlordism in the Highlands-
Further Clearances and Devastation for the Sake of Sport — The
Gross Abuse of Power by Highland Landlords requires an
Immediate Remedy— Landlordism in the Lowlands of Scotland :
Condition of the Labourers— The Cause of this State of Things is
the Landlord System— General Results of Scotch Landlordism.

TAGE

51—96

Chapter v.— r/j8 Economical and Social Effects of English Land-
lordism : — Landlordism in England is seen at its best — Despotic
Power of Landlords — Landlords' Interference with Religious
Freedom — Landlords' Interference with Political Freedom —
Landlords' Interference with a Tenant's Amusements — Eviction
of the Inhabitants of an Entire Village — Injurious Power of
Landlords over Farmers and over Agriculture — Limitation of
the Beneficial Influence of Landlords — Whatever Beneficial
Influence Landlords exert would be Increased under Occupying
Ownership — Supposed Importance of the Large Farms which
Landlordism favours — The Effects of Landlordism on the Weil-
Being of the Labouring Classes— Deterioration of the Condi-
tion of the Agricultural Labourer during the Present Century —
The Social Degradation of the Agricultural Labourer at the
Present Day — This State of Things is due to the System of
Landlordism, not to the Bad Conduct of Landlords — The Enclo-
sure Act and its Results — Uniform Evidence as to the Beneficial .
Effects of Allotments and Cottage Gardens — Beneficial Effects
of Small Cottage Farms — The Logical Bearing of this Evidence
— Various Powers exercised by Landlords to the Detriment of
the Public — Free Choice of a Home essential to Social Well-
Being — Characteristics of a good System of Land-Tenure —
Enclosure of Commons and Mountain Wastes as affecting the

Contents. xiii

PAGE

Public — The Destruction of Ancient Monuments — Public Im-
provements checked by Landlordism — Permanent Deterioration
of the Country by the export of Minerals — Concluding Remarks
on English Landlordism 97 — 134.

Chapter VI. — The Eesults of Occupying Ownership as Opposed to
those of Landlordism : — Summary of the Evils of the Landlord
System — Occupying Ownership defined — The Advantages of
Occupying Ownership — Results of Occupying Ownership in
Switzerland — Co-operation of Occupying Owners in Norway
—Occupying Ownership in Germany — Admirable Cultivation
under Occupying Ownership — Improvement of the Soil under
Occupying Ownership in Belgium — Effects of Occupying Owner-
ship in France — The Labourers of France under Occupying
Ownership — Results of Occupying Ownership in the Channel
Islands — General Results of Occupying Ownership and those of
Landlordism Compared — Results of Landlordism in Italy —
Results of Landlordism in Spain and Sardinia — The Occupying
Owner under Extremely unfavourable Conditions — Large
Farms versus small not the Question at Issue — Various Objec-
tions to Peasant Proprietorship answered by Facts — The Final
Argument in Favour of Landlordism shown to be unsound —
Beneficial Influence of Ownership on Agriculture — The Con-
clusion from the Evidence 135 — 164

Chapter VlX.^Low Wages aiid Pauperism the Direct Consequence
of Private Property in Land : — Progress' and Poverty— Labour,
not Capital, the First Mover in Production — Industry not
Limited by Capital but by restricted Access to the Land — In-
terest determined by Land Monopoly and Rent — Capital and
Labour not antagonistic — Progress of Society causes a Rise of
Rents — Private Property in Land produces an Inequitable
Division of Wealth — Speculative Increase in Land-values — Mr.
George's Work supplements and enforces the Results arrived
at in the Present Volume 165 — 174

Chapter VIII. — Nationalisation of the Land Affordstlie Only Mode
of Effecting a Complete Solution of the Land Question — Summary
of the preceding Chapters : — The Contrast of our Wealth
and our Poverty amazes all Foreigners^Our Poverty and
Pauperism persists notwithstanding the most favourable Con-
ditions — The Irish Landlords follow the Teachings of Political

XIV Contents.

PAGF
Economy— Effects of Landlordism in the Highlands and in the
Lowlands of Scotland — The Despotic Powers of English Land-
lords — The complete and overwhelming Mass of Evidence in
Favour of Occupying Ownership^The Remedies proposed — Free
Trade in Land shown to be comparatively Useless — Mr. Kay's
Arguments in support of Free Trade in Land — Small
Landed Estates are constantly absorbed by Great Ones — Free
Trade in Land would not help either the Tenant or the
I-abourer — ^Nationalisation of the Land the only Effective
Remedy — Occupancy and virtual Ownership must go together —
To Secure this the State must be the real Owner or Ground-
Landlord — The State must become Owner of the Land apart
from the Improvements added to it — Mode of Determining the
Value of the Quit-rent and of the tenant-liigU — How Existing
Landowners may be compensated — Alleged unfairness of Com-
pensation by means of Terminable Annuities — How Tenants
may become Occupying Owners — Subletting must be absolutely
prohibited — Evils of Subletting in Towns — Mortgaging should
be strictly limited^Whether any Limits should be placed to the
Quantity of Land personally occupied — Supposed Objections to
Land Nationalisation — Mr. Fowler's Objections — Mr. Arthur
Arnold's Objections — Mr. G. Shaw Lefevre's Objections — The
Hon. George C. Brodrick's Objections — Mr. J. Boyd Kinnear's
Objections — How Nationalisation will affect Towns — Free-
Selection of Residential Plots by Labourers and Others — Objec-
tions to the Right of Free-Selection — ^Why Free-Selection
should be restricted to Once in a Man's Life — Free-Selection
would check the growth of Towns, and add to the Beauty and
Enjoyability of Rural Districts — How Commons may be pre-
served and Utilised — How Minerals should be worked under
State Ownership— Progressive Reduction of Taxation— Aboli-
tion of Customs and Excise — Summary of the Advantages of
Nationalisation— Summary of the Evil Results of Landlordism
— Conclusion I^c 233

LAND NATIONALISATION.

CHAPTER I.

ON THE CAUSES OF POVERTY IN THE MIDST OF
WEALTH,

INCREASE OF THE VALUE OF LAND DURING THE PRESENT CENTURY —
GREAT INCREASE OF OUR TOTAL WEALTH — PAUPERISM DOES NOT
DIMINISH IN PROPORTION TO OUR INCREASING WEALTH — FAILURE
OF OUR SOCIAL ORGANISATION — INCREASE OF LABOUR-SAVING
MACHINERY AND THE UTILISATION OF NATURAL FORCES — THE
ANTICIPATED EFFECT OF MAN's INCREASED POWER OVER NATURE
— THE ACTUAL EFFECT — HOW TO DISCOVER THE CAUSE OF OUR
SOCIAL FAILURE — WHY GREAT WEALTH IS OFTEN INJURIOUS —
ACCUMULATED WEALTH MAY BE BENEFICIAL OR THE REVERSE —
HOW GREAT ACCUMULATIONS OF CAPITAL AFFECT THE LABOURER
— THE NATURE OF THE REMEDY SUGGESTED — SCOPE OF THE
PRESENT ENQUIRY.

Among the characteristics of the present century, none is,
perhaps, more striking than the enormous increase of the
national wealth, which, during the last fifty years especially,
has progressed with a rapidity altogether unprecedented
During this period the land of Great Britain has more than
doubled in value, while in the great centres of industry it has
often increased a hundred or even a thousandfold, and this
increase has been mainly due, not to any expenditure made
by the owners or occupiers of the land, but almost wholly to
the "rowth of population and of wealth, and to the great

B

2 Land Nationalisation.

advance in all the arts and industries which minister to our
modern civilisation. The total annual value of this landed
property is enormous. The estates which exceed 3..000 acres
in extent or ;^3,ooo in annual value, amounting in all to
twenty-one and a-half million acres, are valued at ;£^3S, 000,000,
while those of less area or less annual value amount to more
than thirty-two million acres ; and as these latter will consist
to a great extent of highly-cultivated suburban lands, small
residential estates, and building lots, while the former include
all the poorest and least valuable mountain and moor-land of
Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, their value can hardly be less
than 65 millions, making a total of _;^ioo,ooo,ooo.* This
large sum is, however, only an indication of the wealth of the
country; for a considerable proportion of the 320,000 -land-
owners who possess more than an acre derive large incomes from
manufacturing industries and mercantile or financial pursuits,
or have invested capital in the British or Foreign Funds, in rail-
ways, or in other securities, so that the amount of accumulated
property and the number of persons who are supported on this
property without personal exertion, are both probably larger in
proportion to the whole population than at any other period of
our history, or than in any other country in the world. The in-
crease of our wealth, as well as its great amount, is sufficiently
indicated by the fact, that the " Property and Profits " assessed
to Income Tax have more than doubled in the 30 years from

* The total annual value and rental of the landed property of the King-
dom given in the new Dooinsday Book, is ;£'l3l,470,36o, but this appears
to include the rental of all the buildings, factories, houses, &c. on the land,
while it excludes the whole of London where land is of fabulous value.
The above estimate, therefore, is probably below the mark as the rental
value of the land itself of the United Kingdom. That the increase in the
value of land during the present century is not overstated in the first
paragraph, appears from a recent Return of the Board of Inland Revenue,
which gives the gross value of Land, Tenements, and Tithes assessed to
Income Tax in Great Britain, as ;^S8,7SI,479 in 1814-15, and
;^i72,i36,i83 in 1879-80, being an increase of almost threefold in sixty-
five years.

Otir Poverty and Our Wealth. 3

1848 to 1878, being in the former year (for Great Britain)
^^256,413,354, and in the latter ;^542,4i 1,545 ; and there
can be no doubt that these amounts are, on the whole, greatly
under-estimated.

Pauperism does not Diminish with our Increasing Wealth. —
This enormous increase in the wealth of the country — and that
far greater proportionate increase of its mannfactures and
commerce of which our legislators are so proud that rarely do
they speak in public without calling attention to it— have not, how-
ever, been attended by any proportionate increase in the general
well-being of the people. Nothing tests this well-being so
surely as the number of paupers, since, if the condition of the
people were generally raised to any considerable extent, this
number must largely diminish. We find, however, that though
the number fluctuates much from year to year, and figures can
be picked to show a decrease, yet, taking a large early and
late average, there is no decrease, the numbers of paupers
in England and Wales fluctuating around an average of about
six-sevenths of a million. This, however, is only the number
in receipt of relief on the first day of each year. The total
number relieved during the year is, according to Mr. Dudley
Baxter, three and a-half times as much, or an average
of upwards of three millions. Allowing for the same
individuals being relieved more than once, we shall be
quite within the mark if we take the mean of the two
numbers, or a little less than two millions, as the actual
average number of paupers ; but it must be remembered
that this does not include either the vagrants, or the
casual poor, or the criminals in our jails, or that large body
who are permanently dependent on private charity, which
altogether must bring up the number to at least three
millions. Let us consider for a moment what this implies.
The three million paupers in any year are all persons who
are actually unable to obtain a sufficiency of the coarsest food

4 Land Nationalisation.

and clothing to support life ; and they form, as it were, the failures
from among a much larger body, who constantly live from hand
to mouch on the scanty wages of their daily labour. If we take
this class of the population who are ever trembling on the
verge of pauperism at only half the number of the actual
paupers, we arrive at a total of 4,500,000 — more than one-
sixth of the whole population— who live constantly in a state
of squalid penury, unable to obtain many of the necessaries of
a healthy existence, and one-half of them continually falling
into absolute destitution, and becoming dependent on public
or private charity.*

* The average number of paupers in England and Wales on the 1st of
January for the twelve years 1849-1860 was 863,338, and for the twelve
years 1869-1880 it was 864,398. The numbers were lowest in 1876-78 and
in 1853, while they continued at a maximum during the period from 1863
to 1873, when it averaged over a million ; and it is very curious that this
was the very period when our commerce was increasing so rapidly as to ex-
cite the admiration and pride of our legislators, reaching the highest point
it has ever attained in the last-named year. Our population has of course
been increasing all this time, and therefore the percentage of official pauper-
ism has decreased, sometimes rapidly, sometimes very slowly. But it must
be remembered that there are many causes which have been increasingly in
operation during the period we are considering, all of which have a tendency
to diminish the official number of paupers, even though the actual percentage
of pauperism has increased. First, and perhaps most important, is the in-
creasing perception among all poor-law officials of the evils of outdoor relief,
which at once encourages improvidence and affords opportunities for
deception. Year by year the poor-law has been worked with increased
stringency in this respect, and this alone must have largely reduced the
official record of paupers relieved. The establishment of casual wards for
the relief of vagrants is another comparatively recent movement which has
tended to diminish the list of official paupers. At the same time there has
been a continually increasing movement among philanthropists for the relief
hy private charity of true cases of distress. Such associations as the Charity
Organisation Society, the Mendicity Society, the Metropolitan Visiting and
Relict Association, and many others, indicate the amount of systematic
efforts in relief of poverty and prevention of pauperism, while year by year
we find new institutions formed to succour all those who fall into unmerited
poverty. If the increasing effects of all these causes and agencies could be
fully estimated, it would probably be found that they are more than suffi-
cient to account for the nominal decrease in the percentage of pauperism,
while their mere enumeration is sufficient to indicate that a reference
to the official statistics of pauperism, however accurate these may be, does
iwl prove that pauperism is diminishing, or even demonstrate that it is not
actually increasing.

Our Poverty and Our Wealth. 5

Failure of our Social Organisation. — This is, surely, a most
anomalous and altogether deplorable state of things. On the
one side, wealth and luxury and all the refinements of life to
an unprecedented extent — on the other, a vast, seething
mass of poverty and crime, millions living with their barest
physical wants unsatisfied, in dwellings where common decency
is impossible, and, so far as any development of the higher
faculties is concerned, in a condition actually inferior to that
of many savages. And these poverty-stricken millions consist
largely of the tillers of that very soil which has of late years so
vastly increased in value, and thus added so much to the wealth
and luxury of its possessors. The political economist points
with pride to the vast increase of our wealth ; but he ignores
the fact that the distribution of that wealth is more unequal
than ever, and that for every single addition to the exception-
ally rich there are scores or hundreds added to the exceptionally
poor. But the legislator should look at the question from a
different point of view. Every government which is not a
despotism is bound to make the well-being of the whole
community its object ; and mere wealth is no indication
whatever of this general well-being. So long as poverty and
degradation are the characteristics of large classes of the
community, society and government are alike proved to be
failures ; and the rapid increase of wealth, with the great
advances of science, art, and literature, only render this failure
the more glaring, and prove more clearly that there is some-
thing radically wrong in the social organisation that is incom-
petent to remedy such gross and crying evils.

For some generations, at all events, there has been no lack
of will on the part of our legislators and philanthropists. Many
serious evils have been remedied ; much cruelty and injustice
have been abolished ; and, as we have seen, vast wealth has
been created ; but no one who knows the condition and mode
of life of the large class of agricultural labourers, and the

6 Land Nationalisation.

horrible degradation of great masses of the inhabitants of ali
our chief cities, with the periodical distress, and even famine,
in the manufacturing districts and in Ireland, can doubt the
utter failure of all their attempts.

Increase of Labour-saving Machinery and Utilisation of
Natural Forces. — But there is another circumstance which adds
immensely to our conception of the vastness and horror of this
failure. During the present century there has been a continual
and ever-increasing growth in the use of steam-power and
labour-saving machinery, which has been equivalent to the
possession by us of a body of industrious slaves, ever labouring,
patiently and without complaint, and exceeding in effective
power probably ten-fold that of our whole working popula-
tion. In addition to each actual workman there are, therefore,
ten of these willing slaves constantly labouring for us, and
every day of our lives we derive the benefit of their labour.*
Yet all this has only made the rich richer, the poor remaining
as numerous, and, in many respects, even worse off than before
we acquired this vast addition to our productive power.

Other sources of wealth have also been afforded us during
the lives of the present generation altogether unique in the

* There seems to be no means of getting at the exact amount of the steam-
power now employed in Great Britain. A writer in the JBadical newspaper
states it at two million horse power. Mr. Thomas Briggs in Tli& Peace-
maker states that "in 1851 we had steam machinery which represented
500 million pair of hands," which would be about 50 million horse power.
This is probably overestimated, for, in a periodical called i)m(/»i ancZ Worl:
(Vol. X. 1881), it is stated that England now employs 9 million horse-
power. Taking this last estimate (which has been found for me by Mr.
Anderson, one of the intelligent attendants in the British Museum Reading
Room) as approximately correct, we have a power equal to 90 million men.
One half our population (15 millions) consists of children and persons wholly
dependent on the labours of others, and from the remainder we may deduct
all the professional, literary, and independent classes, the army and navy,
financiers and speculators, government officials, and most tradesmen and
shopkeepers — none of whom are producers of wealth Taking these, together
with criminals, paupers, and tramps, at 6 millions, we have left 9 millions
who do all the productive physical labour of the country, while the steam
power at work for us is at least ten times as much.

Our Poverty and Our Wealth. 7

history of the world. In two hemispheres gold has been dis-
covered in such quantities as to lead to a wonderful develop-
ment of our commerce, while at the same time it has drawn
off large numbers of our surplus population. Almost coin-
cident with these great discoveries was the rise and rapid
development of the railway systems of the world ; and it was
we English who, for a long time, had almost a monopoly of the
construction of these railways. The demand for iron and coal
for this purpose was enormous, and of this, too, we had the
largest immediately available supply; and so eagerly did we
make use of our opportunities that in one generation we have
exhausted these stored-up treasures of our soil to an extent
which would have supplied our home wants for centuries, and
have thereby actually deteriorated our land for our descendants
in order greedily to enrich ourselves.

The increase of the mere stt^xa. power employed does not, how-
ever, at all adequately represent the advantage we have over our
immediate predecessors, for along with this increase of power
has gone on an increased efficiency in our mode of applying
that power to human uses, so that it is not improbable that each
horse or man-power now employed in the production of all the
countless forms of wealth which we enjoy, is five or ten times as
efficient as it was a century ago. This will be clear if we think of
the economy of the railway train as compared with the coach and
waggon, and of the amount of clothing produced in a modern
cotton-mill as compared with what was produced by the same
actual power employed on the clumsy old machines of the
hand- spinner and hand- weaver. Steam and electricity, and the
thousand applications of modern science to the arts and indus-
tries, have economised time quite as much as they have
economised mere labour. These various economies give us
such an advantage over our ancestors that, although the aver-
age duration of life has been but little increased, yet, such is
the intensity of modern existence that we may be said to live
twice or thrice as long as they did.

8 Land Nationalisation.

What might have been Anticipated as the Result of Man's
Increasing Power over Nature. — Let anyone ask himself what
ought to have been the consequence of such a vast increase of
man's power over nature ? To quote the words of an eloquent
and thoughtful modern writer : — " Could a man of the last
century — a Franklin or a Priestly — have seen, in a vision of
the future, the steamship taking the place of the sailing-vessel,
the railroad-train of the waggon, the reaping-machine of the
scythe, the thrashing-machine of the flail; could he have
heard the throb of the engines that, in obedience to human will,
and for the satisfaction of human desire, exert a power greater
than that of all the men and all the beasts of burden of the earth
combined ; could he have seen the forest tree transformed into
finished timber — into doors, sashes, blinds, boxes, or barrels, with
hardly the touch of a human hand ; the great workshops where
boots and shoes are turned out by the case with less labour than
the old-fashioned cobbler could have put on a sole ; the factories
where, under the eye of a girl, cotton becomes cloth faster than
hundreds of stalwart weavers could have turned it out with their
hand-looms ; could he have seen steam-hammers shaping mam-
moth shafts, and delicate machinery making tiny watches ; the
diamond-drill cutting through the heart of the rocks, and coal-
oil sparing the whale ; could he have realised the enormous
saving of labour resulting from improved facilities of exchange
and communication — sheep killed in Australia eaten fresh in
England, and the order given by the London banker in the
afternoon executed in St. Francisco in the morning of the
same day ; could he have conceived of the hundred thousand
improvements which these only suggest, what would he have
inferred as to the social condition of mankind ?

" It would not have seemed like an inference. Further than
the vision went, it would have seemed as though he saw ; and
his heart would have leaped and his nerves would have thrilled,
as one who from a height beholds just ahead of the thirst-

Oitr Poverty and Our Wealth. 9

stricken caravan the living gleam of rustling woods and the
glint of laughing waters. Plainly in the sight of the imagination
he would have beheld these new forces elevating society from
its very foundations, lifting the very poorest above the possi-
bility of want, exempting the very lowest from anxiety for the
material needs of life ; he would have seen these slaves of the
lamp of knowledge taking on themselves the traditional curse,
these muscles of iron and sinews of steel making the poorest
labourer's life a holiday, in which every high quality and noble
impulse could have scope to grow."*

The Actual Effect. — This the anticipation, but what the reality?
The great cities have all become greater, and all contain within
their bounds dense masses of people living in cellars and hovels
and airless, filthy courts, again and again condemned as unfit
for human habitation. Many fair valleys and once fertile plains
have become blasted by the smoke of our engine fires and the
noxious gases from our furnaces, while almost all our once bright
and limpid streams have become fetid sewers. Everywhere the
workers work harder than before ; they live in unsightly and
unwholesome houses, packed together in rows like pens for
cattle ; they have no field or garden ground for profitable occu-
pation or healthy enjoyment ; their young children can get no
wholesome milk, and often no playground but the alley and
the kennel Paupers and tramps abound everywhere. Men and
women beg for work in all our streets, and many, failing to get
it, die of want. Famine even attacks us as of old ; and in the
very same districts from which food or clothing is largely
exported, the producers have now and again to be saved from
starvation by public charity.

This is the outcome of our boasted civilisation. This is the
final result of our unexampled increase in national wealth, of

* " Progress and Poverty,'' by Henry George (p. I, 2), a work which
only became known to the present writer after the greater part of the MSS.
of this volume was completed.

lo Land Nationalisation.

our improved laws, of our increased knowledge, of our vast
strides in science. Our labourers not only do not participate
in the comfort, refinement and relaxation which a fair share in
our increased wealth would give them, but, so wretched is their
condition that a great traveller in many barbarous lands solemnly
declares that never among any savage tribe had he seen such utter
wretchedness and degrading poverty as was to be found in
Ireland at the present day. Nor is evidence wanting that the
condition of some parts of England is hardly better. Professor
Fawcett, in his work on " The British Labourer," asserts that
" A large proportion of our working population are in a state
of miserable poverty. Many of them live in dwellings that do not
deserve the name of human habitations." In the same work
he thus strongly supports the main allegations we have made
in the present chapter : —

"The advance in the material prosperity of Liverpool, of
Glasgow, and other centres of commerce is unprecedented, yet
in close contiguity to this growing wealth there are still the same
miserable homes of the poor, the same pestilential alleys, where
fevers and other diseases decimate the infantile population with
unerring certainty. . . . How is it that this vast production
of wealth does not lead to a happier distribution ? How is it
that the rich seem to be constantly growing richer, while the
poverty of the poor is not perceptibly diminished ? " *

* "The British Labourer," p. 7, 1865. In order to show that
these statements of Professor Fawcett are as true now as when he wrote,
I will quote a few passages from a speech of Mr. Jesse CoUings,
M.P., at Ipswich, in October last year. He says: — "I have spent some
time during the last two months in going down to the South of England
to see what the increase of the labourers' wages has been. I visited
districts in Worcestershire, in Hampshire, in Warwickshire, and in
Wiltshire, and I found the labourer getting los. a week, and in one large
district the men are at this moment receiving 9s. a week, out of which they
have to pay is. 6d. a week rent, and as I sat by the hedge-side with them
they would make their dinner off bread and an onion. I felt serious then ;
and at night when I went into their cottages, as I have done scores of
times, and found the everlasting bread again for their children and them-
selves, with no comfort in the present, no pleasant retrospect of the past,

Our Poverty and Our Wealth. 1 1

Neither in the work here quoted nor elsewhere can I find
that Professor Fawcett has given, or even attempted to give, a
complete answer to this momentous question — What is the
cause, or what are the causes, of this complete, this utter, this
awful failure? A failure under circumstances so extremely
favourable that, to anyone having these circumstances set
forth beforehand, failure of this kind would have seemed
impossible. A failure, be it remembered, not confined to our
country alone, but one which is also manifested, though usually
with less intensity, in every civilised community. The cause
must be a fundamental one. It cannot depend on anything
in which one civilised community differs from another civilised
community — on race or on religion, on government or on
climate — for all suffer, though in very different degrees, and
these differences of degree will perhaps afford an important clue
to the true cause as well as to the true remedy.

JIow to Discover the Cause of our Social Failure. — The
fundamental error shown to exist in our Social System may
perhaps be detected by noting the leading idea which has
governed all social and industrial legislation for the last fifty
years, a period on the whole of enlightened and progressive
government That ruling idea seems to have been that what-
ever favours and assists the production of wealth, of whatever
kind, and the accumulation of capital by individuals, necessarily
advances the well-being of the whole community. This idea

no apparent hope for the future — one might well be a serious politician. I
went into one lovely village, for the villages are lovely in England, and one
regrets to see men driven from them ; and there again the mother was in
mourning for her child who had died of disease. I came away and called
it starvation. " And when doubt was thrown on his statements Mr. CoUings
in reply said: — " I have spent considerable time to satisfy myself; my
utterance has not been mere hearsay. Go through Wiltshire, Hampshire,
Worcestershire, Devonshire, and Somersetshire. There, I say, outside the
influence of the towns, there are at this moment men and women with
families living on los. a week, with no art, no science, no literature, to en-
lighten their lives ; nothing but the everlasting grind of human toil for
them."

12 Land Nationalisation.

is seen in the constant references by public writers and public
speakers to our increased trade and manufactures, to our enor-
mous exports and imports, to the high price of our public funds,
to the vast extent of our shipping, to the increased amount of
Income Tax, and such like indications of growing wealth and
accumulated capital. And it has' found expression in most of
the reforms in our fiscal and industrial legislation during the
last half century — reforms which have been advocated on these
grounds, and have been adopted by the Legislature with this
avowed object. Of such a character are — the repeal of the coal
duties, leading to the use of coal as ballast and an enormously
increased export • the extensive enclosures of commons, and
their division among the surrounding great landowners ; the
encouragement of railways, even when quite unprofitable ; the
opening of distant lands to our commerce, even at the expense
of costly wars ; the Limited Liability Act to favour the exten-
sion of Joint Stock Companies; the continued enlargement of our
eastern possessions, and the acquisition of fresh additions to our
already too extensive Colonial system. These, with many less
important measures, all tending in the same direction and
advocated for a similar purpose, have been successful even
beyond expectation in adding to the total wealth of the country,
and more especially to that of our hereditary landowners, great
merchants, great capitalists, and astute speculators. The
greatly increased wealth of these classes has added largely to
the emoluments of the more successful professional men —
lawyers and doctors — as well as to the profits of the more enter-
prising traders, and thus an upper middle class has arisen far
exceeding in wealth and luxurious living anything before known
in England or to be met with in any other European country.
But none of these legislative acts, or the movements and ten-
dencies of which they are the expression, have had any effect
towards the diffusion or equalisation of wealth, or to the dirai.
nution of that large class ever hovering on the verge of

Otir Poverty and Our Wealth. 13

pauperism ; and (so far as I know) hardly any of our recognised
teachers of political economy has pointed out that the increase
in the number of very wealthy people or of great capitalists
(which is what all our legislation favours), so far from being
beneficial, is, in every respect, antagonistic to the well-being of
the community rt large.

The Injuric us Ejects of Excessive Wealth-Accumulation. — This
question is far too large to be adequately discussed here, but a
few words of explanation will serve to indicate the idea sought
to be conveyed, and may offer materials for deep consideration.
The wealth of a country is produced solely by the working
population of that country, including in that term all who pro-
duce anything that tends to human enjoyment or well-being.
The laws of supply and demand, with freedom of exchange, will
regulate the distribution of the products of labour, and, if all
were producers and all had free access to those natural powers
and agencies which furnish the raw material for human labour,
the well-being of all would be ensured, since the exchangeable
wealth each man could produce would far exceed what is
necessary to supply the ordinary wants of existence. That this
is so IS proved by the fact that even the poorest countries —
the poorest parts of Ireland, for example — always produce a
large surplus over and above what is required for the sub-
sistence of the inhabitants, the amount of this surplus
being measured by the sum total of rent, taxes and savings.
Accumulated wealth, however, introduces a disturbing
agency. Just in proportion as it becomes great and can
be made to produce a permanent income by investment in
land or in the public funds, it leads to the existence of a large
and ever-increasing class of non-producers, who necessarily live
on the labour of the rest, since there is no other source from
which they can live. This will be clear if we consider that the
owners of the invested wealth purchase goods and pay for
labour with money which the workers first supply them with in

14

Land Nationalisation.

the shape of rents for the use of land, and taxes to pay the
interest on the public funds. It is clear, therefore, that all the
wealth represented by these two sources is not real wealth, but,
however it originated, is now merely taxation for the purpose
of supporting a portion of the community without work.

This, however, is not the worst feature of such nominal
wealth, for it has a tendency and a power to divert labour from
the production of articles of use and beauty — beneficial wealth
— to the production of such as minister only to luxury and
amusement, often of a more or less wasteful and even degrad-
ing nature — injurious wealth. If we could reckon up the
amount of human labour, physical and mental, expended on
jewellery and fancy goods, on costly toys or elaborate displays of
clothing and equipages, on horse-racing and yachting, on luxu-
rious dinners and fashio:iable entertainments, we should arrive
at an enormous sum total of wasted labour, energy and talent,
all of which is positively injurious to the productive workers,
since it is they who really have to support, by their ill-paid
labour, not only the rich individually, but also that vast array
of servants, artisans, and labourers, who in so many varied ways
minister to their luxuries, their pleasures, or their vices. This
argument is not intended to show that all accumulation of
wealth is bad, for it is only by the accumulation of wealth in
the form of reproductive capital that civilisation progresses;
but merely thai excessive wealth in the form of landed or
funded property, which is perpetually transmitted from one
generation to the next, is a perpetual and heavy tax on the pro-
ducers of beneficial wealth.

Accumulated Wealth may be Beneficial or the Reverse. —
Political economists, however, have glorified " capital " as the
benefactor of mankind in general, and of the working-classes in
particular ; but they have not sufficiently distinguished between
true productive capital — as expressed in roads and railways,
mines, harbours, ships and buildings, machinery and tools, with

Our Poverty and Our Wealth. 15

a sufficient store of food, clothing and all other necessities of
life — and the " capital " of the great fundholder or the great
landholder, which, in both cases, is merely a power to appro-
priate the labour of others without any exertion on their part,
a power not only to be supported themselves by the labour of
the community, but to direct a large portion of that labour into
wasteful, and even injurious, channels at their own will and
pleasure. It is this latter form of capital that our recent
increase in wealth has multiplied to a great and injurious
extent — an extent to be measured by the immense number of
persons of " independent means," the hosts who live in the
" City " by the mere manipulation of money, and the general
increase of luxury in dress and living among the wealthy
classes.

We are here introduced to another great question, the
justice or morality of permitting permanent burdens on the
community to be created for temporary purposes. Such are
the wars of one Government or generation, which remain as
a burden on succeeding generations ; but the principle is
equally applicable to all expenditure which does not produce a
permanent equivalent. Thus, in our railroads the only really
permanent result of the capital expenditure is the earthwork ;
all the rest is temporary, requiring constant annual repairs
and complete renewals at greater or less intervals. Yet the
■cost of a large proportion of these temporary works remains as
a burden on the public long after they have been worn out, in
the form of interest on capital and debenture stock, so that
the present generation really pays twice over for much of what
it enjoys. Honesty no less than sound policy would dictate
that every expenditure not producing a permanent result should
be repaid out of profits, by a sinking fund calculated at some-
what less than its probable duration. The result of not doing
■so is that the enormous capital of our railways and of many
other great industrial enterprises to a considerable extent

1 6 Land Nationalisatton.

represents no actual existing wealth, and the interest paid on
it is, therefore, a tax on the travelling community and on the
shareholders, for which they receive no return whatever.

How Great Accumulations of Capital Affect the Labourer. —
This, however, is a digression. Let us now come back to the
primary question we were discussing, of the fundamental error
of our legislators in favouring the accumulation of wealth rather
than its wider distribution ; and let us endeavour to see exactly
how this affects the labourer, and how it leads to his poverty
and pauperism amidst ever-increasing national wealth.

One of the most obvious causes which leads to this sad
result is the almost complete dependence of the mass of
labourers in this country (as in most civilised countries) on
capitalists and landowners for the means of earning a livelihood.
The absence of work for daily wages means for them starvation,
since they have no other resource whatever. They are, there-
fore, not in a condition to refuse work, at whatever wages may
be offered them, and the severe competition among capitalists
and manufacturers for the means of employing their capital and
adding to their wealth obliges them to force down the wages
of unskilled labour to the lowest point at which the labourer
can live. The labourers, as a class, are thus absolutely depen-
dent on the comparatively few capitalists — depeadent on their
prudence, their capacity, their honesty, and their judgment —
wholly dependent on the judicious application of capital, -iVith-
out having any voice or any direct or immediate interest in
that application. They go blindly to any labour offered them j
and when, owing to reckless competition, dishonest adulter-
ation, foreign wars, and other causes, a time of depression
arrives, they are helpless. They have no means of productive
home industry, they have not even a home from which they
cannot be ejected at any moment on failure to pay the weekly
rent; they have no land, garden, or domestic animals, the
produce of which might support them till fresh work could be

Our Poverty and Our Wealth. 17

obtained. If they have any savings these are soon spent, and
they then inevitably fall into pauperism.

The Nature of the Remedy Suggested. — The remedy for
these evils is sufficiently obvious, though how the remedy is
to be generally applied is not so clear. The first great evil, of
dependence on capitalists, would be remedied by small asso-
ciated communities of workmen, by home manufactures, or
co-operative workshops. The second evil, that the labourer
has no independence, no fixed home, nothing to fall back on
in time of depression, nothing on which to employ his spare
time and that of his family, can only be cured by giving to
every labourer freedom to enjoy and cultivate a portion of his
native soil. It is by this latter reform alone that the first will
be rendered possible. By it the great and important class of
agricultural labourers may be at once raised from chronic
pauperism to comparative affluence, comfort, and independence.
By it the mechanic or artisan may find a refuge from distress
when his industrial occupation temporarily fails him ; while the
enormously increased production of food, caused by every
labourer and peasant possessing land, would at once renovate
the home commerce and internal resources of the country so
as to render prosperous many domestic industries now languish-
ing. It will be shown in the present volume, by the unvarying
experience of all civilised nations, that the most important of
all classes of labourers for the permanent prosperity of a
country are those who occupy and cultivate their own land.
Just in proportion as this class is extensive and varied — com-
prising the wealthy farmer on the one hand and the agricul-
tural labourer with an acre or two of ground on the other— so
is the country free from poverty and the people prosperous and
contented ; and it is because this class is so rare with us, and
especially because our labourers have for generations past been
more and more divorced from the soil, that we are in the
disgraceful position of being at once the wealthiest and most

c

1 8 Land Nationalisation.

pauperised, country in Europe — that, while boasting of our
religion and our philanthropy, a large proportion of our
labourers live in cottages and hovels that, by the most com-
petent authorities, have been again and again declared unfit
for human habitation, necessarily leading to disease and vice,
and altogether unparalleled in the civilised world for every bad
quality a dwelling can possess. The facts are so uniform in
character and so clearly point to one conclusion, that nothing
but the circumstance of our legislators having a vested interest
in the existing state of things could have so long delayed the
clear perception of the causes of the evil For not only does
the same system of land-tenure always coincide with the same
social phenomena, but when the system has been changed
the social condition has undergone a corresponding change.
This has notably been the case with France before and since
the Revolution; — with Prussia before and since the reform
effected by Stein and Hardenberg — and with Denmark before
and since the somewhat similar change of land tenure which
has been effected during the present century ; though it must
be noted that in none of these countries had the evils of land-
lordism ever attained the same proportions as with us. Neither
our reform of Parliament, our Free Trade policy, our vast
emigration, our enormous manufacturing system, our wide-
spread colonial empire, our maritime supremacy, nor our
unprecedented accumulations of capital, have had any apparent
effect in elevating our labouring classes or securing them even
that measure of well-being and contentment which they attain
in every country where the land is widely held and cultivated
by them. We are, therefore, warranted in concluding that, in
order to effect a real and vital improvement in the condition of
the great mass of the English nation, not only as regards
physical well-being, but also socially, intellectually, and morally,
we must radically change our system of land-tenure. It is
when the cultivator of the soil is its virtual owner, and all the

Our Poverty and Our Wealth. 19

products of his labour as well as the increased value he can
confer upon the land are his own, that the maximum of human
food is produced by it, the maximum of human enjoyment is
•derived from its cultivation, while the cultivator is, as a rule,
healthy, moral and contented. In order that the largest
■possible number of the people may be thus benefited, and
that the evils necessarily resulting from the opposite system of
landlordism may be totally abolished, it is essential that the
■ownership of land, merely as a source of income from its rent
•or for commercial speculation, shall cease, and a system be
substituted for it which shall make every farmer and every
occupier, large or small, the virtual (but for reasons to be after-
wards explained, not the absolute or unrestricted) owner of the
land he cultivates or dwells upon. If the facts which lead us
to this conclusion are as above stated — and an overwhelming
mass of evidence will be adduced that they are so — it follows
that the present system of land-tenure in this country is incom-
patible with the national well-being, and that every enlightened
legislator, every lover of truth and justice, and every true
philanthropist is bound to seek the means of changing it

Scope of the Present Inquiry. — In. the present volume I
propose, as briefly as is consistent with a clear presentation of
the question, to lay before my readers a sketch of the con-
■dition of the different parts of our own country and of other
civilised lands as regards land-tenure, and of the corresponding
■effects I shall then point out the conclusions to which
the facts invariably lead us, and shall show how the evils under
which we suffer may be most effectually and justly remedied.
My proposals will be founded entirely on the facts recorded
by the best and most impartial authorities, and I claim for my
work a purely inductive character. But there is another and a
most important mode of discussing the same question as a
strictly scientific problem, deducing results from the admitted
principles and data of political economy. This has been^ done

c 2

20 Land Nationalisation.

with" great force of logic and wealth of illustration in Mr.
George's work already alluded to. His conclusions support
and his mode of argument supplements my own, and I shall,
therefore, give a short summary of the essential part of his book
before explaining in detail my practical scheme of Land
Nationalisation.

CHAPTER II.

THE ORIGIN AND PRESENT STATE OF BRITISH
LAND-TENURE.

ANTIQUITY OF OUR PRESENT SYSTEM CAUSES IT TO APPEAR A
NATURAL ONE — ANTIQUITY OF A SYSTEM NO PROOF OF ITS
VALUE — ORIGIN OF BRITISH LAND TENURE — CHARACTERISTICS OF
THE FEUDAL SYSTEM — GROWTH OF MODERN LANDLORDISM— THE
LEGAL POWERS EXERCISED BY LANDLORDS— OUR LAND SYSTEM
IS A MODIFIED FEUDALISM, IN WHICH THE LANDLORDS HAVE
THROWN THEIR BURDENS ON THE PEOPLE, WHOSE RIGHTS IN THE
LAND THEY HAVE ABSORBED.

The present tenure of land in this country is of such
antiquity, it has so grown with the progress of society, and has
become so interwoven with all the elements of rural, social, and
political life, that to many persons the very conception of any
other system is difficult, if not impossible. That land should
be private property ; that it should be bought and sold for
pleasure or profit ; that any man should be allowed to possess
all that he inherits or is able to purchase ; that it should be
rented out to those who cultivate it ; and that the owner should
let it subject to whatever restrictions or stipulations he thinks
proper — seem, to most people, not only natural but right ; and
«ven those who suffer by this state of things — the farmer who
is injuriously restricted in his cultivation, or is turned out of
his farm because he lias voted against his landlord or o^iier-
wise offended him ; and the labourer who sees the bit of green

British Land Tenure. 21

enclosed on which his father's donkey and geese used to run,
who is liable to be turned out of his home at a week's notice,
and who is obliged to walk three miles to his daily labour
because there are no spare cottages in his employer's parish —
rarely trace these evils to the general system of land-tenure, but
rather to some deficiency in the character or conduct of their
immediate landlords.

Antiquity of a System no Proof of its Value. — It is
generally supposed that, when any system or institution has grown
up with the growth of society, has persisted notwithstanding
vast social and political changes, and has become interwoven
with the very texture of a nation's life, it must necessarily be
good in itself and adapted to the conditions under which it
flourishes. But this is by no means universally, or even
generally, the case ; and it often happens that the worst evils
inherent in a system may be so disguised by the good qualities
of those who administer it that it is borne with long after its
ill consequences are, in many cases, admitted. Sooner or later,
however, the eyes of the people - are opened to its faults ;
remedies of various kinds are proposed ; and when all these
remedies are resisted by those who benefit by the institution, a
revolution sweeps away the whole, and a new system is intro-
duced which is often far less beneficial or perfect than a
carefully considered constitutional reform. Thus, despotic
governments, notwithstanding their respectable antiquity, have
in time to be modified by representative institutions, or are
entirely destroyed in the throes of rebellion or revolution.
Thus, too, slavery — the most ancient of all institutions, and
one which has formed part of the essential character and social
life of many communities — everywhere has to be abolished
with advancing civilisation, if not voluntarily and peacefully,
then by violence or civil war. So feudalism, with its accom-
panying remnant of serfdom, has been gradually modified in
all civilised countries, while with us some of its essential

23 Land Nationalisation.

features persist in the vast landed estates held by private indi-
viduals, and in the almost despotic power which the owners are
able to exercise (and sometimes do actually exercise) over the
population — a power so- great that the supreme authority of
the State is often unable to protect individuals in the occu-
pation of their ancestral homes, in the right to live among
the scenes of their childhood, or even in the possession of
property created by their own industry.

Let us, then, see if there is anything in the history of modem
landlordism which entitles it to continue to exist for ever,
even though it may be shown to be incompatible with freedom^
and adverse to the best interests of the people.

Origin of British Land-Tenure. — ^The actual system of land-
tenure and all existing rights of property in land of this
country may be said to have originated at the Norman Con-
quest, when the whole land of the kingdom became vested in
the Crown. All the great landed estates were then granted as
fiefs by the sovereign, and their holders were obliged to render
military and other service proportionate to the extent and
population of their lands. These estates were also subject to
various fines, on marriage or on transmission to an heir ; they
were not allowed to be sold or alienated without the permission,
of the Sovereign ; and on the death of the owner without heirs,
the whole reverted to the Crown. Any breach of fealty, or the
commission of any act of felony, also entailed the loss of the
estate. The great vassals were usually endowed with civil
and criminal jurisdiction over the inhabitants of their estates,
and were altogether more in the position of subordinate rulers
than mere landlords in the modern sense of the term.

These immediate vassals of the Crown again granted lands
in fief, on various payments or services, and in process of time
these fiefs were allowed to be divided or sold, and the pay-
ment or service to be commuted for fixed sums of money.
Military service, too, gradually ceased, and was changed into

British Land Tenure. 23

annual payments, which are now only represented by the small,
fixed, land-tax ; so that the greater part of the land of the
kingdom became "freehold" — implying that it was "held"
from the Crown "free "from all military service, dues and fines,
and subject only to a fixed annual payment.

Characteristics of the Feudal System. — The system which was
thus established was evidently very different from that of land-
lord and tenant at the present day. The great landlords were
actual vassals of the Crown and subordinate rulers. They
held their estates subject to military service ; and this implied
that the population on the land was the first essential, since
this was the measure of its power in providing capable men-
at-arms. Their tenants, the villeins or cultivators, held their
farms subject to certain services, military or otherwise, and to
the payment of certain dues ; and these farms were held for
life, and descended from father to son or other relation on pay-
ment of certain fines to the lord, whence, it is believed, arose
the copyhold tenures by which so many small estates are held
to this day. In those times the land was of less value than the
men who lived on it, and the animal or vegetable produce of
the land of less importance than the population of hardy
villeins, who enhanced the lord's dignity, increased his revenues,
and kept up the supply of his armed followers. The land-
owner then lived upon his estate, and his own power and
influence in the country depended chiefly on the number and the
well-being of his tenants. Together they formed a little quasi-
independent community, bound to each other by mutual inter-
ests and ancestral ties; and if the tenants were sometimes op-
pressed by their lords, they were as often guarded from robbery
and plunder by wandering marauders, or saved from com-
plete destruction during baronial feuds or civil wars.

Growth of Modern Landlordism. — During this rude period
of our history, when the Central Government was lax and the
means of communication imperfect, the feudal system possessed

24 Land Nationalisation.

many advantages, and was, in some form or other, almost the
only one possible. The " lords of the soil " were the chiefs
and protectors of the community which lived on their estates,
while every individual, down to the villein and serf, possessed
definite rights and privileges in connection with the land,
which, though they might be infringed by force or rapine, were
fully recognised by custom and law.

But as time rolled on this system became modified in a
variety of ways, though always for the benefit of the lord and to
the injury of the inferior landholder. As the King obtained
more power and the attractions of court life became greater,
the nobles and great landowners came to look upon their
estates chiefly as sources of revenue to be spent in the capital or
in foreign lands. The employment of foreign mercenaries and
the rise of standing armies enabled the King to dispense'with the
military service of his vassals, and by self-made laws this and
other burdens on the land were gradually thrown off, and were
replaced to a great extent by taxes on the mercantile and land-
less classes. The ingenuity of lawyers and direct landlord
legislation steadily increased the powers of great landowners
and encroached upon the rights of the people, till at length the
monstrous doctrine arose that a landless Englishman has no
right whatever to the enjoyment even of the unenclosed com-
mons and heaths and the mountain and forest wastes of his
native country, but is everywhere, in the eye of the law, a
trespasser whenever he ventures off a public road or pathway.
The Lord of the Manor is said to be the " owner of the soil,"
and the surrounding freeholders and copyholders have certain
rights of pasture, fern or turf cutting; but the dwellers in the adja-
cent towns and villages, and all who are mere Englishmen, have
no rights whatever, so that if the two former classes agree, the
common can be (as hundreds of commons have been) enclosed,
and divided among them. It has thus come to pass that at
the present day the owners of land, whether acquired by inheri-

British Land Tenure. 25

tance or purchase, treat it solely as so roMoh property, to be
made the most of, quite irrespective of any rights in the people
who live upon it. They now claim a power which no govern-
ment, however despotic, has ever openly claimed — that of treat-
ing the land exclusively as a source of personal wealth, to which
they have an indefeasible right, even at the sacrifice of all that
the people who live upon the land hold most dear ; and having
rendered the exercise of this power legal by means of self-made
laws and customs, they have at length come to look upon acts
of oppression and cruelty of the most glaring kind as not only
right, but such as are not incompatible with the condition and
feelings of a people who pride themselves upon their freedom.

We find, then, neither in the origin of our land-system nor in
the causes which have led to its present development, anything
to render it sacred or immutable ; but, on the contrary, very
much to show that a radical change is needed to bring it into
harmony with modern ideas, and to render possible the full use
and enjoyment of the land of our country by the people who
must necessarily inhabit it. Absolute private property in land
logically carried out, denies the right of non-landholding Eng-
lishmen to live upon their native soil, except by sufferance and
under conditions imposed by the will or caprice of the land-
lords. This power is, on the whole, moderately used, or the
institution would have been long ago abolished in the throes of
revolution. But it is not unfrequently exercised, and even
abused, to the injury of individuals and of the community ; and,
as the sufferers have no legal redress, the institution itself stands
thereby condemned.

The Legal Powers Claimed and Exercised by Modern Land-
lords. — Before proceeding (in the three following chapters) to
exhibit in some detail the influence of landlordism on individuals
and on the community at large, a few general observations and
illustrative examples may here be given ; but before doing so I
wish to state, emphatically, that I have no desire to excite any

26 Land Nationalisation.

ill-feeling against landowners as a body, or to make any accu-
sation against them personally ; still less is it my intention to
propose any measure of confiscation as against existing land-
lords. The law places them in an anomalous position. It
tells them that their rights over their land are absolute. They
could, if it so pleased them, turn it into a waste given up
wholly to wild animals, or might even destroy its surface-soil
and convert it into a desert uninhabitable by man or beast. In
doing this they might expatriate hundreds of families, and even
cause many to die of exposure, want, or grief ; and all this time
the Government and the Law would stand by with no power to
interfere. They would be acting within their legal rights.
Public opinion would, no doubt, in such extreme cases con-
demn them, yet there are many who exercise similar rights to a
partial extent ; and so deadening is the influence of long custom
and legal sanction that, whenever it can be shown that the
result is profitable commercially, apologists are to be found who
uphold the action as beneficial.

Mr. James Godkin well remarks : •' According to this theory
of proprietorship, the only one recognised by law. Lord Lans-
downe may legally spread desolation over a large part of Kerry;
Lord Fitzwilliam may send the ploughshare of ruin through the
hearths of half the county Wicklow ; Lord Digby, in the King's
County, may restore to the bog of Allen vast tracts reclaimed
during many generations by the labour of his tenants ; and
Lord Hertford may turn into a wilderness the district which
the English settlers have converted into the garden of Ulster.
If any or all of these noblemen took a fancy, like Colonel
Bernard, of Kinnilty, and Mr. Allen, of Pollok, to become
graziers and cattle-jobbers on a gigantic scale, the Government
would be compelled to place the military power of the State
at their^disposal, to evict the whole population in the Queen's
name, to drive all the families away from their homes, to de-
molish their dwellings, and turn them adrift on the highway,

British Land Tenure. 27

without one shilling compensation. Villages, schools, churches
would all disappear from the landscape ; and when the grouse
season arrived, the noble owner might bring over a party of
English friends to see his improvements ! The right of con-
quest so cruelly exercised by the Cromwellians, is in this year
of grace a legal right ; and its exercise is a mere question of
expediency and discretion. It is not law or justice, it is not
British power that prevents the enactment of Cromwellian
scenes of desolation in every county of that unfortunate island.
It is self-interest, with humanity in the hearts of good men,
and the dread of assassination in the hearts of bad men, that
prevent at the present moment the immolation of the Irish
people to the Moloch of territorial despotism. It is the effort
to render impossible those human sacrifices, those holocausts
of Christian households, that the priests of feudal landlordism
denounce so 'frantically with loud cries of '■confiscation."
(" The Land War in Ireland," p. 210.)*

It may be thought that such cases as are here supposed are
altogether imaginary, but it is not so. The Daily News special
commissioner, a writer by no means unfavourable to the cause
of the landlords, says, writing from Mayo (Oct 30th, 1880) : —
" Tradesmen, farmers, and all the less wealthy part of the com-
munity still speak sorely of the evictions of thirty and forty
years ago, and point out the graveyards which alone mark the
sites of thickly-populated hamlets abolished by the crowbar. All
over this part of the country people complain bitterly of the
loneliness. According to their view, their friends have been
swept away and the country reduced to a desert in order that it
might be let in blocks of several square miles each to English-
men and Scotchmen, who employ the land for grazing purposes
only, and perhaps a score or two of people where once a

* This power still remains to the landlord in England and Scotland
though the recent Land Act has abolished it in Ireland.

23 Land Nationalisation.

thousand lived — after a fashion." The writer then goes on to
explain that this was done in order that the landlords might
get their rents more securely and more easily, even though the
rents were somewhat less than those paid by the former occu-
pants ; and he seems to think that they acted very reasonably
and that no one had any right to complain ! Mr. Jonathan
Pirn, in his "Condition and Prospects of Ireland" (1848) says :
— " Sometimes ejectments have been effected on a large
scale. The inhabitants of whole villages have been turned
adrift at once, without a home to go to, without the prospect of
employment, or any certain means of subsistence." And one
of the witnesses before the Devon Commission thus describes
the condition of many of these poor people and the general
results of that " consolidation of farms" which landlords and
agents are said to approve so highly : — "It would be impossible
for language to convey an idea of the state of distress to which
the ejected tenantry have been reduced, or of the disease,
misery, ' and even vice, which they have propagated in the
towns wherein they have settled ; so that not only they who
have been ejected have been rendered miserable, but they have
carried with them and propagated that misery. They have
increased the stock of labour, they have rendered the habita-
tions of those who received them more crowded, they have
given occasion to the dissemination of disease, they have been
obliged to resort to theft and all manner of vice and iniquity
to procure subsistence ; but, what is perhaps the most painful
of all, a vast number of them have perished of want" *

Nor are these cruel evils confined to Ireland. A little more
than half a century ago, the estate of the Marquis of Stafford
in Sutherland, comprising 800,000 acres, or about two-thirds
of the whole county, was forcibly cleared of a population of
15,000 herdsmen and farmers, in order to turn it into enor-

* Pari. Rep. 1845, vol. xix, page ig.

British Land Tenure. 29

nious sheep farms with a shepherd per square mile. Other
landlords have since followed this example, till about 2,000,000
of acres, once crowded with farms and cottages in all the
valleys, are now reduced to a vast desert wholly given up to
sheep-runs and deer-forests. The amount of misery and
destitution, and the various physical and social evils produced
by this depopulation of the Highlands will be sketched in
another chapter. We here adduce it only as an example of
that terrible power over their fellow creatures which absolute
property in land gives to individuals who possess large estates ;
and that this power is actually used with the most unsparing
rigour, sometimes to obtain an increased or a more certain
rental, sometimes in pursuance of views supposed to be in
accordance with the teachings of political economy, sometimes
merely to provide an extensive hunting-ground.

Our Land System is a modified Feudalism, in which the Land-
lords have Thrown their Burdens on the People whose Rights in
the Land they have Absorbed. — I have now shown, by a few strik-
ing examples, that the land system under which we actually live
is an abnormal development of feudalism, in which almost all
the customary rights and privileges of the serfs, villeins, or
tenants have been encroached upon and finally destroyed,
while the great landowners under the Crown have, by means
of self-made laws and customs, gradually absorbed the rights
of the people, till they have become true land-lords, not only
claiming, but actually exercising, such absolute rights of pro-
perty in the soil that their fellow subjects can only live upon it
at all by their gracious permission. And these terrible rights ar
not only theoretically permitted, but are actually enforced h
all the executive power of the State whenever the landlord sc
wills ! It only needs to state these facts to show, that thj
system which permits so vast and injurious a despotism in the
midst of free institutions is radically wrong and cannot much
longer be upheld ; and if in exposing the evils of the system

30 Land Nationalisation.

we are obliged to refer to the general or special results of
landlordism, it is simply because the exposure can be made in
no other way. The institution itself is necessarily evil — in the
present state of society — just as slavery is necessarily evil ; and
this quite independently of the goodness or badness of indi-
vidual landlords or slave-owners. But just as the evils of
slavery would never have been generally acknowledged in our
time if it had not beeii for the horrors resulting from the
unrestrained passions of bad or careless or wealth-seeking slave-
owners, so the evils of unrestricted private property in land can
be best brought before the public by showing the effects it
is calculated to produce, and does actually produce, in the
hands of wealth-seeking capitalists and despotic landlords.

CHAPTER III.

A FEW ILLUSTRATIONS OF IRISH LANDLORDISM.

IRELAND AFFORDS EXAMPLES OF ALL THE EVILS THAT ARISE FROM
PRIVATE PROPERTY IN LAND — ORIGIN OF IRISH LANDLORDISM —
TENANT-RIGHT — CONFISCATION BY LANDLORDS — CONDITION OF
THE IRISH COTTIER — FACTS IN POSSESSION OF THE LEGISLATURE
FOR THIRTY YEARS; THE DEVON COMMISSION — GOVERNMENT
NECSLECTS its first duty — EVICTIONS AFTER THE FAMINE —
SUGGESTED REMEDIES OF IRISH DISTRESS — CONTINUED BLINDNESS
AND INCOMPETENCE OF THE LEGISLATURE — TREMENDOUS POWER
OF AGENTS OVER THE TENANTS — THE CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE
JNDER IRISH LANDLORDISM.
)■ . .

No part of the British Isles offers such striking examples of every
kind of evil that results from unrestricted private property in
land as Ireland. In that unfortunate country we find some of
the largest estates j the greatest number of absentee landlords ;
the most complex settlements, perpetual leases, and other
incumbrances ; middlemen and sub-tenants in every variety ; the
greatest uncertainty of tenure ; the most reckless competition

Irish Landlordism. 31

for land ; the most extravagant rack-rents ; and the most merci-
less appropriation by the landlords of the improvements and
actual property of the tenants. Nowhere else in our country
do we find the land so generally treated as mere rent-producing
property ; nowhere else do a considerable proportion of the
landowners exhibit an almost complete disregard for the welfare,
or even the existence, of the native agricultural population.

Origin of Irish Landlordism. — The history of this island as
regards the ownership of its land is a most distressing one, the
greater portion of the country having been confiscated since the
Teign of Henry VIII. Extensive grants of land were made to
court favourites or to successful soldiers, reign after reign ; and
every fresh rebellion of the oppressed people led to fresh con-
fiscations and other transfers of land. Many of the new owners,
not wishing to reside in the country, leased the land in
perpetuity or for a very long term, at a low rent The first
leaseholder often again leased or subdivided the land, and this
was sometimes repeated several times before coming to the
actual cultivator. As an example, a townland in the county
of Roscommon containing about 600 acres is owned by an
English nobleman, but is leased in perpetuity for J[^%o rent.
This first leaseholder has again leased it in perpetuity at;^2oo
per annum. This third landlord has divided it, one man
paying;^ 1 50 a year rent for about one-third of the whole; and
this fourth holder has divided a portion of his part among
sixteen families, who are the actual cultivators of the soil. The
superior landlords and leaseholders of course care nothing
about the tenants, and have no interest in their welfare or in the
condition of the estate, since their rents are amply secured and
can never be increased ; while the last middleman, who is land-
lord to the actual tenants, has a high rent to pay himself, and
is obliged to let his land to the highest bidders in order to
secure a profit This is an actual case brought before the
Relief Committee of the Society of Friends at the time of the

32 Land Nationalisation.

great famine, and it is stated that the same condition of things,
variously modified, is to be met with in all parts of the country.*"
Still more prejudicial is the fact that most of the large estates
are under strict settlement, so that the actual owners have only
a life interest in them ; and as the estates are often laden with
mortgages and family charges, it is impossible for the landlord,
even if so disposed, to improve the land or to be lenient to his.
tenants. To add to the evil, most estates are managed by agents
in the absence of the proprietors ; and as their reputation and
continued employment depends upon their success in collecting
rents and punctuality in sending remittances, they are com-
pelled to use all the powers the law gives them against default-
ing tenants.

Tenant-Right. — ^The most fertile source of agrarian distur-
bances in Ireland has been the general practice of leaving the
occupier of the land to do everything that is done in the way
of improvement — everything that is required to render the
land capable of cultivation at all. The landlord usually does
nothing but take rent. The whole process of changing the
land from stony mountain slopes or boggy pastures into
cultivated fields has been done by successive tenants. The
tenants have made the fences, the roads, and the gates, they
have dug the ditches and drains, and have even erected the
farmhouses and buildings. Of course they could not do this
at all without some security or belief that they should enjoy it
for a time, and thus arose a general custom, to consider the
occupier as a co-partner with the landlord, -.vho not only had a
moral claim to the continued occupation of the land which he
had reclaimed or improved, but who could also sell his share
to a succeeding tenant or transmit it to his heiri There have
always, however, been some landowners who, either on account
of their necessities or their greed, have refused to recognise

* Pirn's Condition and Prospects of Ireland, 1848, p. 44.

Irish Landlordism. 33

this just claim, and have, at every opportunity, raised the rent
to the full value of the tenants' improvements. Instances of
this were common at the beginning of the century and appear
to have increased rather than diminished to the present
day ; and they have naturally led to a feeling of utter insecurity
in the smaller class of occupiers, who would rather remain idle
than labour at any improvements which would only lead to an
increase of their rent. Let us give a few examples of this
legalised oppression and robbery from Mr. Tuke's moderate
and trustworthy pamphlet, " Irish Distress and its Remedies "
(1880).

Confiscation by Landlords. — At Glenties, in Donegal, a man
took a piece of bog at a rent of ^^2 a year. This he fenced,
drained, and cultivated, turning a wilderness into a tidy little
farm, and was thereupon made to pay nearly four times the
original rent for it. In another case, in Ulster, a man built a
corn mill on land belonging to one of the London Companies.
When the lease expired the rent was somewhat raised, but of
this he did not complain, and again added to the value of the
property by building a flax-mill. The rent was again raised ;
and then the Company sold the land. The new purchaser
still further raised the rent This was too much to bear, so
the occupier determined to sell his tenant-right ; but the agent
of the new owner declared at the sale that the rent would be
still further raised to the purchaser, and this caused the tenant-
right to bring far less than it would otherwise have done. This
old man, .thus robbed of what on every moral and equitable
principle was his own property, then emigrated to America
with his family, carrying with him the bitterest animosity
against his oppressors and against the Government which
alloYied the oppression.

None cry out so loudly as landowners against any law which
may possibly diminish the selling value of their property,
however beneficial such law may be to the whole country.

D

34 Land Nationalisation.

They exclaim against it as " confiscation." Yet they have
allowed (as legislators) such cruel confiscation as this, which
brings endless evils in its train. For these are not excep-
tional cases; indeed, a Member of Parliament recently stated with
truth that there are " tens of thousands of instances where
tenants paying five shillings an acre were evicted by their land-
lords that the landlords might let their occupations at a pound
an acre, the increased value being entirely due to the labour
expended upon the land by the evicted tenants." And then
we wonder at the misery, and idleness, and deceit of the Irish
peasantry ! Why, it is forced upon them. They dare not
become prosperous or look prosperous for fear of increased
rent. Thus, they often live in filth. They come to the rent-
audit in their worst clothes. They pay the rent in shillings
and sixpences, to give the appearance of having collected it
with the greatest difficulty. And they will be idle half the
winter rather than improve their hovels, or mend their fences,
or make any permanent improvement in their holdings. It is
true that there are many good landlords who never commit
such robbery ; but good landlords do not live for ever, and
are sometimes obliged to sell their property, and then the
tenant's security is gone. It is just as it was in the days of
American slavery. The good master did not voluntarily sell
his slaves or part husband and wife, parent and child ; but
there was no security that at any moment they might not be
transferred to a new owner who would do both.

Condition of the Irish Cottier. — ^The modern Irish cottier
really lives in a state of hopeless and helpless degradation,
comparable to that of the least fortunate serfs of the Middle
Ages, who were not only subject to the payment of hard dues
to their lord, but upon any appiiarance of wealth or even com-
fort were subject to extortion by the lord's followers or plunder
by armed marauders. They were obliged to be poor and
miserable t-o escape robbery. Ireland is a nation of small

Irish Landlordism. 35

cultivators. There are 400,000 holdings under 30 acres, and
30,000 under 15 acres, while there are 156,000 mud cabins of
only one room occupied by 228,000 families!* Probably
nowhere in the whole world is there a people living in such a
state of degradation and barbarism under a civilised or even a
■semi-civilised government ; and this is the direct result of pure
landlordism, making its own laws, and carrying them out in its
own way. It is a universal law that security to enjoy the
produce of a man's labour is the only incentive to industry, and
that incentive has been systematically denied to the Irish
-peasant The injustice, the cruelty, the shortsightedness of
this system had been urged again and again on our legislators,
but wholly without effect, till the terrible calamity of the potato
disease in 1846 and 1847, and the horrible events that ensued,
forced them into action. But even then, so blind were they to
the real cause of the evil, so convinced that landlordism was
itself a perfect dispensation, that, instead of giving the occupier
security for his labour, they established the Encumbered Estates
Court as their great remedy, which, as is now universally
admitted, only increased the evil, and gave the authority of an
Act of Parliament to further confiscations of tenants' property.
Mr. Tuke says : "It is notorious that the rights of the tenants
were disregarded, and that this disregard was the occasion of
grievous wrong in numerous instances, sometimes when the
tenants were evicted without compensation to make room for
new comers, and sometimes when the rents were raised by the
new purchasers, with entire disregard to the peculiar position of
the Irish tenant. It has often been noticed that the rack-rented
■estates are generally not the estates of the old Irish proprietors,
in which the rents are for the most part moderate in amount,
but estates purchased under the Act by speculators, who have
resold them, after increasing the rental enormously." Can

* Speech of Mr. Cowen, M.P., at Newcastle,

D 2

36 Land Nationalisation.

there be a more striking proof of the blindness and ignorance
of those legislators who, against all evidence and repeated
warnings, left the Irish peasantry to the tender mercies of new
landlords armed with all the powers of the law, and were unable-
to see that the land of a country with the population dependent
on it ought not to be subject to unrestricted sale and purchase,
. or to be allowed to minister to the reckless greed of capitalists-
and speculators.

TheDevon Commission, 1847. — The Legislature which passed
the Encumbered Estates Act as a sufficient remedy for all the
evils of the Irish land-system had before it the elaborate
Report and Digest of Evidence of the Commission on the
Occupation of Land in Ireland. This report, dated 1847, saysr
"It is admitted on all hands that, according to the general
practice in Ireland, the landlord builds neither dwelling-house
nor farm-offices, nor puts fences, gates, &c., into good order,,
before he lets the land to a tenant. The cases in which the
landlord does any of these things are the exception." And
with regard to the custom of tenant-right in Ulster, where the
improvements made by the occupier are allowed to be sold by
him to the incoming tenant, the same Report says : "Anoma-
lous as this custom is, if considered with reference to all the
ordinary notions of property, it must be admitted that the
district in which it prevails has thriven and improved, in com-
parison with other parts of the country."

In the Digest of Evidence taken before the same Commission
we find this weighty and important statement : —

" If a substantial security were offered to the occupying
tenant for his judicious permanent improvements, a rapid
change for the better would take place — a change calculated to
increase the strength of the Empire and the tranquiUty of this
country ; to improve the food, raiment, and house-accommoda-
tion of the population ; to remove that paralysis of industry
which the sworn evidence of nearly every tenant, and of

Irish Landlordism. 37

numerous landlords, examined on the subject, has proved to
exist ; to call into operation the active exertions of every occu-
pier of land upon his farm ; to add about five months in each
year to the reproductive occupation of farmers and labourers,
which are now passed in idly consuming produce, accumulating
■debts, or, for want of better employment, perhaps, in fomenting
•disturbance."

It is the want of this security that is the sole cause of those
agrarian disturbances which for more than a century have been
perennial in Ireland. This is authoritatively stated in the same
Digest of Evidence, which tells us that "the great majority of
outrages appear to have arisen from the endeavours of the
peasantry to convert the possession of land into an indefeasible
title," and that "in the northern counties, the general recogni-
tion of the tenant-right has prevented the frequent recurrence
of these crimes." And again, the Report emphatically states :
"The tenant's equitable right to a remuneration for his judi-
ciously-invested labour and capital is not likely to be disputed
in the abstract. This property is, undoubtedly, his own." And
it adds:

"The. importance and absolute necessity of securing io the
occupying tenant in Ireland some distinct mode of remunera-
tion for the judicious permanent improvements that he may
effect upon his farm is sustained by a greater weight of con-
current evidence than any other subject which has been
brought under the investigation of the Commissioners /' and
■"The want of some measure of remuneration for tenants'
improvements has been variously stated as productive, directly
■or indirectly, of most of the social evils of the country." And
. again we have this important statement : " It has been shown
that the master evil — poverty — proceeds from the fact of
occupiers of land withholding the investment of labour and
■capital from the ample and profitable field for it which lies
■^vithin their reach on the farms they occupy ; that this hesita-

38 Land Nationalisation.

tion is attributable to the reasonable disinclination to invest
labour or capital on the property of others without a security
that adequate remuneration shall be derived from the
investment."

The Report goes on to show that "the barbarous and
unprofitable mode of tillage " is all due to this uncertainty that
the tenants shall be allowed to reap the fruits of their labour ;
that many lucrative agricultural improvements may be made
" without the investment of money capital, but merely by the
judicious application of time and labour of his family, which
are now wasted, whilst he is complaining that employment
cannot be had ;" that the larger farmers have the same ample-
opportunity of employing labourers on similar works, with a
certainty of the most profitable results ; but this is rarely done,,
" because they have no certainty of being permitted to reap
the benefit of their expenditure," while, if tenants-at-will,,
" they may be immediately removed from the improved lands,,
after having invested their labour and capital, without receiving
any compensation, or their rent may be raised to the full value-
of the improvements thus effected."

Yet with all these striking facts and authoritative statements-
before them — facts and statements, be it remembered, not of
philanthropists or political economists, but of a Parliamentary-
Commission composed exclusively of landlords, who, with
great labour, had collected this evidence for the express
information of the Legislature — no provision whatever was made-
to secure the tenants right to the property created, by himself,
but his position was in many cases rendered far worse than
before by the sale of thousands of estates to the highest
bidders, who thereby obtained full legal power to seize and con-
fiscate for their own use the wealth created by the life-long
labours of Irish tenants I Is it possible to imagine a more
cruel mockery than this? Can there be a more complete
condemnation of government by landlords, and, as this is.

Irish Landlordism. 39

almost a necessary result of their existence, of landlordism
itself?

Government Neglects its First Duty, — We see, then, from
the authoritative evidence of a Parliamentary Commission,
that the chronic poverty of the Irish peasantry and farmers,
their barbarous mode of tillage, their idleness for many months
in the year, and their consequent inabiUty to bear up against
any distress caused by bad seasons or epidemic disease, were all
cleai-ly and directly traceable to the absence of any security for
the improvements due to their labour on the land they occupied.
The first duty of a civilised Government — the protection of
property — was m their case systematically ignored, and the
absence of protection for the fruits of human labour involved,
in its results, the absence of protection to life, as surely as if
bands of armed robbers and murderers had been allowed to
range undisturbed over the country. Ignorance that such conse-
quences might ensue could not be pleaded, since on many pre-
vious occasions famines of the most distressing kind, and due to
the same causes, had occurred, notably in 1817 and 1822 ; yet
still nothing was done to remove the causes of this perennial
misery, which inevitably led to famine. When, therefore, in
1847 and 1848 the potato disease destroyed a large part of the
food of the country, and — the extreme poverty of the people
leaving them absolutely without resources — millions died of
starvation, we cannot avoid seeing in this terrible calamity
the direct results of ignorant and prejudiced government by a
body of alien legislators.

Evictions after the Famine. — But what followed was still more
dreadful, and, one would think, should have opened the eyes
of the most bigoted to their fatal error. During the four years
succeeding the famine, the miserable remnant of the agri-
cultural population were in many districts subject to whole-
sale eviction from their homes, often resulting in loss of
life Mr. T. P. O'Connor tells us that in the four years

40 Land Nationalisation.

1849 — 1852 there 'were 221,845 evictions; whole townlands
being depopulated, and their human inhabitants driven
out to make room for cattle and sheep, as being more
profitable to the landlords.* These poor people were often
forced away from their homes, even though all rent due had
been fully paid. The houses, which had been built by their
own labour (or purchased from those who had built them), were
pulled down ; and when the houseless families, having nowhere
to go, lighted fires in the ditches to cook some food, the fires
were extinguished in order to drive them off the land. A
Report to the Poor Law Commissioners states that many
occupiers were forced out of their homes at night in winter,
even sick women and children not being allowed to stay in the
houses till morning !

And the power to do all this, be it remembered, is a neces-
sary consequence of unrestricted private property in land. That
such horrors do not occur more frequently is due to the good
feeling and humanity of landlords, and to the absence of suffi-
cient motive ; but that they should have been ever possible,
that they should have actually occurred in hundreds of cases,
and that a Government which claims to rule over a free, pros-
perous, civilised, and Christian people was not only utterly
powerless to prevent them, but was actually obliged to aid in
carrying them into effect — for all was strictly legal, and the
landlord was only enforcing his admitted rights — must, surely,
make every one who is unfettered by prejudice see that the
possession of land for any other purpose ths^n. personal occuJ>a-

• These figures are appros-imate, but they are generally supported by
those given in a Parliamentary Report issued in April 1881. This gives
3S,o6i families, consisting of 194,603 persons, evicted in tviro years (1849-50).
And the same Report shovifs that again in 1880, during the height of the
last famine, there were 2, no evictions of 10,457 persons. It is to be noted
that these are only the evictions that have come to the knowledge of the
constabulary, and are doubtless considerably below the actual number,
since many are carried into effect by persons employed by the agent.

Irish Landlordism. 41

Uon is incompatible with liberty, and therefore necessarily leads
to evil results.

That fearful period of famine, and the emigration which suc-
ceeded it, reduced the population of Ireland from eight to five
millions, and at the same time established in America a body
of Irishmen imbued with the bitterest feelings of enmity against
the British Government — an enmity whose natural fruit was
that Fenian conspiracy which has been more really injurious
to England than a great and unsuccessful war. For a time,
however, all was thought to be going well Many landlords
had changed their once thickly-populated land into great graz-
ing farms, supporting cattle and sheep instead of peasants, but
returning a more secure if not a higher rent. The general
prosperity caused by the gold discoveries and the great epoch
of railway-making was felt by the diminished population of
Ireland, and the landlords were for a time satisfied that their
two great panaceas, emigration and large farms, would cure all
the alleged evils. But the increased wealth of landowners in
general, as well as of merchants and speculators, led to a more
expensive style of living, and this could only be met by higher
rents wherever they could be obtained. In Ireland, where to
large numbers of the people a piece of land offers the sole
means of subsistence, there is so much competition for land
that rents may be raised to any amount the landlord or the
agent chooses to demand ; and, as a matter of fact, rents have
been continually raised over a large part of the country so as to
leave the tenants the barest possible subsistence.

Suggested Remedies for Irish Distress. — Before the great
famine of 1847, European politiciai'ss and economists who
visited Ireland were amazed at the spectacle of a country one-
third of whose population lived perpetually on the very verge
of starvation. The causes and the remedy for this disgraceful
state of things were clear to them, and were pointed out in the
plainest language by one of our greatest authorities on Political

4? Land Nationalisation.

Economy— John Stuart Mill— in 1856. He demonstrated
that a system of cottier tenure such as prevailed in Ireland, in
which a large agricultural population without capital, and with
a low standard of living, have their rents determined by com-
petition, must inevitably lead to all those social and physical
evils which perennially exist there. He says :— " The rents
which they promise they are almost invariably incapable of
paying; and consequently they become indebted to those
under whom they hold, almost as soon as they take possession.
They give up in the shape of rent the whole produce of the
land, with the exception of a sufficiency of potatoes for a sub-
sistence ; but as this is rarely equal to the promised rent, they
constantly have against them an increasing balance. . . . .
Should the produce of the holding in any year be more than
usually abundant, or should the peasant by any accident become
possessed of any property, his comforts cannot be increased ;
he cannot indulge in better food nor in a greater quantity of
it His furniture cannot be increased, neither can his wife or
children be better clothed. The acqui,sition must go to the
person under whom he holds." And he goes on to show that
such tenants have nothing to gain by industry and prudence,
nothing to lose by any recklessness. If they doubled the
produce of their farms by extra exertion, the only gainer would
be their landlord. " Almost alone among mankind the Irish
cottier is in this condition, that he can scarcely be any better or
worse off by any act of his own. If he were industrious or
prudent, nobody but his landlord would gain ; if he is lazy or
intemperate, it is at his landlord's expense. A situation more
devoid of motives to either labour or self-command imagina-
tion itself cannot conceive. The inducements of free human
beings are taken away, and those of a slave not substituted.
He has nothing to hope, and nothing to fear, except being
dispossessed of his holding, and against this he protects himself
by the ultima ratio of a defensive civil war."*

* Political Economy, Book II, Chap. ix.

Irish Landlordism. 43

In the succeeding discussion on the " Means of Abolishing
a Cottier Tenancy," Mill goes to the root of the question in
the following passages : — " Rent paid by a capitalist, who farms
for profit and not for bread, may safely be abandoned to com-
petition ; rent paid by labourers cannot, unless the labourers
were in a state of civilisation and improvement which labourers
have nowhere yet reached, and cannot easily reach, under such
a tenure. Peasant rents ought never to be arbitrary — never
at the discretion of the landlord ; either by custom or law it
is imperatively necessary that they should be fixed ; and where
no mutually advantageous ciistom has established itself, reason
and experience recommend that they should be fixed by
authority, thus changing the rent into a quit-rent, and the
fanner into a peasant proprietor. For carrying this change
into effect on a sufficiently large scale to accomplish the
complet-e abolition of cottier tenancy, the mode which most
obviously suggests itself is the direct one of doing the thing
outright by Act of Parliament; making the whole land of
Ireland the property of the tenants, subject to the rents now
really paid (not the nominal rents) as a fixed rent-charge.
This, under the name of ' fixity of tenure,' was one of the
demands of the Repeal Association during the most successful
period of their agitation, and was better expressed by Mr.
Connor, its earliest, most enthusiastic, and most indefatigable

apostle, by the words, ' A valuation and a perpetuity.'

To enlightened foreigners writing on Ireland, Von
Raumer and Gustave de Beaumont, a remedy of this sort
seemed so exactly and obviously what the disease required
that they had some difficulty in comprehending how it was
that the thing was not yet done."

As a milder and less radical, but still very efficacious,
measure, if carried out to the fullest extent of which it is
capable. Mill suggested an enactment " that whoever reclaims
■waste land becomes the owner of it, at a fixed quit-rent equal

44 Land Nationalisation.

to a moderate interest on its mere value as waste ;" and the
proof that this measure would be successful is afforded by
evidence given before Lord Devon's Commission, in 1847, by
Colonel Robinson, the manager of the Waste Land Improve-
ment Society. He states that " two hundred and forty-five
tenants and their families have, by spade husbandry, reclaimed
and brought under cultivation 1,032 plantation acres of land,
previously unproductive mountain waste, upon which they
grew last year crops valued at ;^3,896 ;' and their live stock,
consisting of cattle, horses, sheep, and pigs, now actually
upon the estates, is valued at ;^4,i62; and by the statistical
tables and returns obtained annually by the Society, it is
proved that the tenants, in general, improve their little farms,
and increase their cultivation and crops, in nearly direct
proportion to the number of available working persons of
whom their family consist."

Continued Blindness and Incompetence of the Legislature.—
Yet with all this mass of consentaneous evidence as to the law-
made misery of the Irish people and its only effectual remedy,
for another twenty-four long years the Legislature did nothing
to give them that ownership of the soil which, wherever it exists,
is the cause of untiring industry, thrift, peace, and contentment,
till in the year 1880 famine again appeared, and again charity
alone has saved thousands from death by starvation. To the
landlord Government which has shut its ears to every word of
truth and warning, even when coming from a Commission
appointed by itself, the burning condemnation of Carlyle,
written forty years ago, is surely applicable: — "Was change
and reformation needed in Ireland? Has Ireland been governed
in a wise and loving manner? A Government and guidance of
white European men which has issued in perennial hunger of
potatoes to the third man extant ought to drop a veil over its
face, and walk out of Court under conduct of proper officers ;

Irish Landlordism. 45

saying no word ; expecting now of a surety sentence either to
change or die."*

In 1870, it is true, a Land Act was passed, which it was
thought would settle the question ; but it really settled nothing,
because it did not go the root of the matter. As the late Mr.
Charles Buxton, M.P., said in 1869 : " It is security of tenure
the Irish people want ; and it is security of tenure the Irish
people must and will have. It is no sort of good to put them
off with talk about mere compensation for improvements, or
other schemes for giving them what they do not ask for and do
not want, instead of that which they do ask for, and do want."
John Stuart Mill had said exactly the same thing a year before
in his striking pamphlet, " England and Ireland," and all the
evidence that had been collected for the previous twenty-five
years demonstrated the same fact ; yet our landlord Legislature,
in its usual peddling and patchwork spirit, passed a most
elaborate Act to secure compensation for a tenant's improve-
ments in case he was ejected for any other cause than
non-payment of rent, but guarded and modified by all kinds of
stipulations and reservations, involving the employment of
valuers and lawyers, and an indefinite amount of trouble and
expense, but not securing the tenant either against arbitrary
increase of rent or eviction at the will of his landlord, the two
most important things the Irish tenants asked for, and without
which the proposed compensation was a delusion and a snare.
For, instead of evicting, the landlord simply raised the rent on
a tenant who had made improvements, and thus confiscated
these improvements in spite of the Act! And thus even the
Ulster tenant-right has been made valueless by the very Act

* Mr. Tuke in his "Irish Distress and its Remedies," gives 72,864 as the
number of persons who received relief in the County of Donegal, the whole
population of which, in 1871, was 218,000. This was one of the ten dis-
tressed counties, and if taken as an average one, here, too, every third man
had been living in "perennial hunger of potatoes."

46 Land Nationalisation.

which was intended to extend some of its benefits over a wider
area.*

Tenant-Right Often Confiscated Even in Ulster. — Even before
this Act, however, tenant-right was only a custom, not a law,
and was not unfrequently disregarded. Mr. Charles Wilson,
writing in The Statesman (Feb., 1881), gives the following
example : — " See the position of the tenants on a small estate
in Ulster, which was bought some twenty years since, and the
rents were doubled on the tenants. One had to pay ;^64
instead of jQz^, another ;^S 7 instead of ;j^2 9 ; another lost
his lease by accident, and though the landlord had the
counterpart, instead of producing it, he raised the rent 50 per
cent. Another, who holds in perpetuity, was charged ;^is
per annum for some years as a drainage rate ; but, suspecting
wrong, he applied to the Board of Works, and found that the
landlord was paying only ^t, 19s., and pocketing the differ-
ence. The tenant got this put right and recovered the
surcharge."

One of the tenants of Sir Richard Wallace stated at a recent
meeting that the farm he now held at 25 s. per acre was held
by his grandfather at 2s. 6d. per acre, and that all the improve-
ments which had so largely increased the rental value were
made at the cost of the tenants. At another meeting of the
tenants of the same estate resolutions were passed stating that,
owing to the system which had been adopted by the late
Marquis of Hertford, many reductions of rent had been
purchased by the payment of a sum down, and that, owing to
this system of " fining down leases," any reference to present
rents as being low was fallacious ; that tenants' improvements
and agricultural property have been made a basis for continual
rises of rent ; that tenants' improvements are included in the

*See numerous examples of this in Mr. Charles Russell's " New Views
of Ireland," as well as in the daily press.

Irish Landlordism. 47

Government valuation ; and that, therefore, this forms no true
basis for estimating the landlord's rent ; that several vexatious
" office rules," unknown formerly, have lately been instituted ;
that the tenants are charged five per cent on the amount of
the rent under the name of receiver's fees ; that the ground
Tent of public roads and rivers is charged on the tenant ; and
many other complaints of a like nature.

Tremendous Power of Agents over the Tenants. — Against
these and similar exactions of agents the tenants are
powerless. As Mr. Godkin well puts it, "Armed with the
' rules of the estate,' and with a notice to quit, the agent may
have almost anything he demands, short of possession of the
farm and home of the tenant. The notice to quit is like a
death warrant to the family. It makes every member of it
tremble and agonise, from the grey-headed grandfather and
grandmother to the bright little children, who read the advent
•of some impending calamity in the gloomy countenances and
bitter words of their parents. The passion for the possession
of land is the chord on which the agent plays, and at his touch
it vibrates with the * deepest notes of woe.' "*

Eviction is what the Irish peasant dreads as a sentence of

*It will hardly be credited what kind of " rules'' prevail on some estates.
"Mr. Thomas Crosbie, of Cork, an agent himself, published in 1858 an
account of "The Lansdowne Estates." He declares that the "rules of
the estate," which were rigidly enforced, forbid tenants to build houses for
their labourers ; forbid marriage without the agent's permission, so that a
young couple having transgressed the rule were chased away to America,
and the two fathers-in-law were punished for harbouring their son and
daughter by a fine of a gale of rent. Another rule was that no stranger be
lodged or harboured in any house on the estate, lest he should become sick
•or idle, or in some way chargeable on the poor-rates. A tenant, who
sheltered his sister-in-law while her husband was seeking work, was so
afraid of the agent that, at the woman's approaching confinement, he
removed her to a shed on a relative's land, where her child was born.
'This man was fined a gale of rent, and was made to pull down the shed.
Then the poor sick woman went to a cavern in the mountain, and for this
two other fines were levied from the tenants who jointly grazed the land.
A still worse case is given ; but these are sufficient to show that Irish
tenants live under a system of penal laws, unknown to the Legislature, and
are punished by fines enforced by the dread of eviction. (Godkin's " Land
War in Ireland," p. 412.)

48 Land Nationalisation.

misery or death, and it is well that my readers should realise what
an Irish eviction really is. The following account of an eye-
witness is taken from a published Pastoral Letter of the
Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath : —

" It was a cruel, an inhuman eviction, which even still makes
our hearts bleed as often as we allow ourselves to think of it.
Seven hundred human beings were driven from their homes in
one day, and sent adrift upon the world to gratify the caprice
of one who, before God and man, probably deserved less
consideration than the last and least of them. And we
remember well that there was not a single shilling of rent due
on the estate at the time except by one man ; and the character
and acts of that man made it perfectly clear that the agent
and himself quite understood each other. The crowbar
brigade, employed on the occasion to extinguish the hearths
and demolish the homes of 'honest, industrious men, worked
away with a will at their awful calling until evening. At
length an incident occurred that varied the monotony of the
grim, ghastly ruin which they were spreading all around. They
stopped suddenly, and recoiled, panic-stricken with terror, from
two dwellings which they were directed to destroy with the
rest. They had just heard that a frightful typhus fever held
those houses in its grasp, and had already brought pestilence
and death to their inmates. They therefore supplicated the
agent to spare these houses a little longer ; but the agent was
inexorable, and insisted that the houses should come down.
He ordered a large winnowing sheet to be secured over the
beds in which the fever victims lay — fortunately they happened
to be perfectly delirious at the time — and then directed the
houses to be uprooted cautiously and slowly, because, he said,
'He very much disliked the bother and discomfort of a
coroner's inquest.' I administered the last sacrament of the
Church to four of these fever victims next day ; and, save the
above-mentioned winnowing sheet, there was not then a roof
nearer to me than the canopy of heaven.

Irish Landlordism. 49

" The horrid scenes that I then witnessed I must remember
all my life long. The wailing of women ; the screams, the
terror, the consternation of children ; the speechless agony of
honest, industrious men, wrung tears of grief from all who saw
them. / saw the officers and men of a large police force, who
were obliged to attend on the occasion, cry like children at
beholding the cruel sufferings of the very people whom they
would be obliged to butcher, had they offered the least resis-
tance. The heavy rains that usually attend the autumnal
equinoxes descended in cold, copious torrents throughout the
night, and at once revealed to those houseless sufferers the
awful realities of their condition. I visited them next morning,
and rode from place to place administering to them all the
comfort and consolation I could. The appearance of men,
women and children, as they emerged from the ruins of their
former homes — saturated with rain, blackened and besmeared
with soot, shivering in every member from cold and misery —
presented positively the most appalling spectacle I ever looked
at. The landed proprietors in a circle all round — and for many
miles in every direction — warned their tenantry, with threats of
direct vengeance, against the humanity of extending to any of
them the hospitality of a single night's shelter. Many of these
poor people were unable to emigrate with their families ; while
at home the hand of every man was thus raised against them.
They were driven from the land on which Providence had
placed them ; and, in the state of society surrounding them,
every other walk, of life was rigidly closed against them. What
was the result? After battling in vain with privation and
pestilence, they at last graduated from the workhouse to the
tomhyandtn little more than three years- nearly a fourth of them
lay quietly in their graves."*

* Quoted from Mr. T. Walter's pamphlet—" Irish Wrongs and How to
IMend Them— 1881," p. 39.

£

5o Land Nationalisation.

The Condition of the People under Irish Landlordism. —
When we remember that a plot of land is the sole means of
subsistence to the mass of the rural population of Ireland, that
there are "at least 500,000 families, amounting to about
3,000,000 persons, competing for the land as the sole stay
between themselves and starvation," how absurd is it to talk of
" freedom of contract," or to wonder that the Irish peasants
submit to any rent and any conditions that the landlords or
their agents choose to impose, rather than suffer the barbarous
punishment of eviction.

The natural, the inevitable result of such a state of things is
thus described by recent observers. Mr. Charles Russell says : —
"In a country whose fruitfulness would suffice to feed and
maintain a greatly increased population in decent condition,
there exists at this moment in a population which famine and
emigration have reduced from eight millions to about five
millions, a more intense degree of wretchedness and poverty,
and that more general, than in any known country in the world."
And Mr. De Courcy Atkins, in his " Case of Ireland Stated,"
after describing what he saw in Cork and Kerry, concludes
thus : — " There have been many countries, both ancient and
modern, in which slavery was part of the acknowledged law,
but I submit to all men who have studied the question of
slavery, whether in any such country the producing slave has
been so limited in the enjoyment of the produce as the
nominally free Irish labourer or cottier tenant is in Ireland."

It may perhaps be said, " All this is now at an end. The
Government has done justice to Ireland by the new Land Act.
Why tell old tales?" But no law, even if far more efficient and
more beneficial than the recent Act, can recall the past, or
undo the misery and degradation brought upon the bulk of the
Irish people by the action of landlordism and landlord-made
law, such as still exists in England and Scotland. Some of
their worst effects have no doubt now been locally rem -idied.

Landlordism in Scotland. 51

but the root of the evil still remains ; and it is important to
show the natural and inevitable results of a system which
requires to be held in check by exceptional legislation in order
to prevent horrors and catastrophes like those it has produced
in Ireland.

CHAPTER IV.
LANDLORDISM AND ITS RESULTS IN SCOTLAND.

CHIEFS AND CLANSMEN IN THE HIGHLANDS — HIGHLAND CHIEFS
CHANGED INTO LANDLORDS — CHARACTER OF THE HIGHLAND
TENANTRY EIGHTY YEARS AGO — THE CHANGE EFFECTED BY
LANDLORDS AND AGENTS — THE STORY OF THE SUTHERLAND
EVICTIONS — OTHER EXAMPLES OF HIGHLAND CLEARANCES — WIDE
EXTENT AND LONG CONTINUANCE OF THESE CLEARANCES — THEY
WERE EXPOSED AND PROTESTED AGAINST IN VAIN — CONTINUANCE
OF HIGHLAND CLEARANCES AND CONFISCATIONS DOWN TO THIS
DAY — THESE EVILS INHERENT IN LANDLORDISM : AN ILLUSTRA-
TIVE CASE — THE GENERAL RESULTS OF LANDLORDISM IN THE
HIGHLANDS — FURTHER CLEARANCES AND DEVASTATION FOR THE
SAKE OF SPORT — THE GROSS ABUSE OF POWER BY HIGHLAND
LANDLORDS REQUIRES A RADICAL AND IMMEDIATE REMEDY —
LANDLORDISM IN THE LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND : CONDITION OF
THE LABOURERS — THE CAUSE OF THIS STATE OF THINGS IS
THE LANDLORD SYSTEM — SOME RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
CONDITION OF SCOTCH LABOURERS — GENERAL RESULTS OF SCOTCH
LANDLORDISM.

In a large part of Scotland landlordism presents peculiar
features, and has produced its normal evil results on a larger
scale and in a more striking manner than in any other part of
the kingdom. This • has been mainly due to the continued
existence of the old Celtic Clans, with their hereditary Chief-
tains possessing many of the powers and privileges of a bar-
barous age, down to so recent a period as the middle of the
last century, and the comparatively sudden transformation
■of these chiefs into landlords, who soon claimed and exercised
all those absolute and despotic powers which the law of England
toestowed upon them.

52 Lmtd Nationalisation.

Chiefs and Clansmen in the Highlands. — Under the old
system the Highland Chief was a petty sovereign, who retained
civil and criminal jurisdiction over his clansmen and the power
of making war on other chiefs and clans. But these clansmen
were never either serfs or vassals, but free men ; and the clan
was really a great family, all the members of which were sup-
posed to be, and often actually were, of one blood. It was a
true patriarchal system, totally distinct from the feudal
system of Europe ; and though every clansman owed fealty
and military service, as well as certain dues or payments, to his
chief, these were given through love and duty rather than
through fear, and every petty clansman held his land and his
rights to pasture and wood and turf, and to hunt and fish over
the mountains and lakes, by the same title as the chieftain held
his more extensive lands and privileges. As well expressed by
an able writer in the Westminster Review — " No error could
be grosser than that of viewing the chiefs as unlimited pro-
prietors, not only of the arable land, but of the whole territory
of the mountain, lake, river, and seashore, held and won during
hundreds of years by the broadswords of the clansmen.
Could any MacLean admit, even in a dream, that his chief
could clear Mull of all the MacLeans and replace them with
Campbells ; or the Macintosh people his lands with
MacDonalds, and drive away his own race, any more than
Louis Napoleon could evict all the population of France and
supply their place with English and German colonists ?" Yet
this very power and right the English Government, in its
aristocratic selfishness, bestowed upon the chiefs, when, after
the great rebellion of 1745, it took away their privileges of war
and criminal jurisdiction, and endeavoured to assimilate them
to the nobles and great landowners of England. The rights of
the clansmen were entirely left out of consideration.

Highland Chiefs Changed into Landlords. — For some time
the change was not materially felt. Tracts of land were

Landlordism in Scotland. 53

assigned to the more important members of the clan on pay-
ment of an annual rent, and these often sublet the land to the
poorer Highlanders. The English system of entail soon
became common in Scotland, and by marriage, inheritance,
and purchase, the great estates became still greater and passed
into fewer hands, while the feeling of clanship became weaker
and the rights of the clansmen less clearly recognised. When,
shortly afterwards, England became engaged in the great
American and Continental wars, the Highland noblemen
raised recruits from among their clansmen and formed the
famous Highland regiments ; and, as this added to their
dignity and importance, they favoured the increase of small
farmers whose hardy sons would swell the ranks of the army.
The larger of these tenants were called "tacksmen," the
smaller " crofters," and thus most of the Highland valleys were
filled with a peaceful, hardy, industrious, and contented
population.

Character of Highland Tenantry Eighty Years Ago. — The
testimony on this subject is of a very uniform nature. The
tacksmen, or small gentlemen farmers, lived in rude houses
but with much comfort, and were almost always men of good
education and refined manners; while their hospitality was
unbounded, and they freely supported among them the poor
of the district. Dr. Norman MacLeod tells us, as a proof of
the sterling qualities and high character of this class of High-
landers, that, since the beginning of the last wars of the French
Revolution, the island of Skye alone sent forth from her wild
shores 21 lieutenant and major-generals, 48 lieutenant-colonels,
600 commissioned officers, 10,000 soldiers, 4 governors of
colonies, i governor-general, 1 adjutant-general, i chief baron
■of England, and i judge of the Supreme Court of Scotland.
Besides such men as these, the same class supplied the whole of
the clergy, doctors ai;d lawyers of the North of Scotland, as well
as many to other parts of the empire. Now, tlirough the

54 Land Nationalisation.

changes brought about by the despotism of the landlords, this
class of men has almost entirely ceased to exist, and few
soldiers or officers are supplied by the Highlands.*

In Sir John McNeill's " Report on the Western Highlawds
and Islands," he describes the crofter as often a permanent or
even hereditary tenant, at a rent fixed for long periods, occu-
pying a few acres of arable land, with right of peat and pasture
on the mountain, and of fishing, if near the sea or a loch. His
rude house was oflen built by himself, the byre for the cows
and the barn for his crop being under the same roof. He
usually possessed some cattle, sheep, and a pony or two, a boat,
nets, and fishing gear, and a good supply of needful implements
and household furniture. His croft supplied him with food
and a great part of his clothing, his annual sale of cattle paid
his rent, he had abundance of dried fish or salt herrings for
winter use, and he thus lived in a rude abundance, with little
labour, and knew nothing of the unremitting daily toil by
which labourers in other parts of the country gain their liveli-
hood. And what was the character of these men ? Dr.
McLeod says : " The real Highland peasantry are, I hesitate
not to affirm, by far the most intelligent in the world. I say
this advisedly, after having compared them with those of many
countries. Their good breeding must strike every one who is
familiar with them." The Highlander is said to be lazy, but
when removed to another clime he exhibits a perseverance and
industry which makes him rise very rapidly. Hugh Miller
says that, in tlie golden age of the Highlands, between the
rebellion of 1745 and the commencement of the clearance
system, the Highland peasantry were contented and comfort-
able, and continuously supplied those Highland regiments which
were composed of at once the best men and the best soldiers
in the service ; and he declares that, when he has seen them
labouring to extract a miserable crop from a barren soil of

"Reminiscences of a Highland Parish," p. 185.

Landlordism in Scotland. 55

quartz rock and peat, his chief wonder has been at their great
industry.

The Change Effected by Landlords and Agents. — The happy
and contented lot of the Highlanders, both of the " tacksman "
and the " crofter " class, might doubdcss, under a wise and
liberal system of permanent tenure and free use of the land of
their native country, have been extended and perpetuated with
the most beneficial results ; but in the hands of landlords and
agents this could hardly be expected. In order to obtain
the highest rents the agents and some of the tacksmen
favoured the subdivision of the crofts till they would
hardly support a family, and the crofters were then forced to
add to their means either by the wages of labour, by the
manufacture of kelp, or other expedients. Poverty and
distress increased; and the landlords, tempted by offers of
large rents from Lowland sheep-farmers, began to seek means
of getting rid of the burdensome population of small farmers —
whose rents were difficult to collect and often in arrear — in
order to let out their vast territories as sheep farms. The great
landlords argued, and perhaps persuaded themselves, that the
land could not support more small farmers, but might be more
profitably employed in feeding sheep, thus producing wool
and mutton for the whole community, and, therefore, that the
proposed change was for the public benefit. Accordingly, the
full rights of possession given by the English law were now
insisted on. The pasture of the hill-tops, the game on the
moors, the wood and the peat of the forests, the salmon in the
rivers, and even the very shell-fish and sea-weed on the wild
sea-shore were declared the sole and exclusive property of the
landlords. Then began the clearances and evictions dignified
by the name of " improvements." By hundreds and thousands
at a time the occupiers of the soil were driven from their homes,
and were many of them forced to leave the country which they
had so bravely defended on many a hard-won battle-field.

$6 Land Nationalisation.

One of the most celebrated of these wholesale clearances
was made on the great estate of the lords of Sutherland, then
in the possession of an English nobleman, the Marquis of
Stafford, who had acquired it by marriage. This estate con-
sisted of more than 700,000 acres, or the larger half of the
entire county, and was inhabited by a population of 15,000
herdsmen or small farmers, occupying the numerous valleys and
secluded glens which penetrate among its bleak and barren
mountains. In the course of a few years these were almost all
forcibly removed, some to the sea-coast, where small plots
of land were allotted to them, others to Canada ; and
this large population was replaced by thirty-nine sheep
farmers and their few shepherds. As there is a general belief
among educated people (who alone have heard that any such
events took place) that these clearances were conducted with
gentleness and humanity, and that they were really beneficial
to the inhabitants — as they were no doubt intended to be by
the Marquis and Marchioness of Stafford — it becomes necessary
to give a few authentic statements of what actually took place
under their general orders ; and this we are enabled to do
with the assistance of a pamphlet recently published by Mr.
Alexander Mackenzie, F.S.A. Sctl., editor of the Celtic Maga-
zine, and author of many works on the Highlands.

The Story of the Sutherland Evictions. — The Sutherland
clearances commenced in 1807 by the ejection of 90 families,
who were provided with smaller lots near the coast, and allowed
to remove the timber of their houses wherewith to build new
ones. During the removal their crops suffered greatly ; they
and their families had to sleep out of doors ; some died
through fatigue and exposure, while others contracted diseases
which shortened their lives. From 1809 to 18 14 the evictipns
were carried out with much greater severity \ the lots given
to the people were often patches of moor and bog quite unfit
for cultivation, the houses were often burned down, crops and

Landlordism in Scotland. 57

furniture destroyed, and general misery spread among the
people. The notorious Mr. Sellar was at this time sub-factor,
and it may be well to give a few examples of how he interpreted
the benevolent wishes of his noble employers. The following
is the testimony of an eye-witness quoted by Mr. Mackenzie : —
" In former removals the tenants had been allowed to carry
away the timber of their old dwellings to erect houses on their
new allotments, but now a more summary mode was adopted
— by setting fire to them. The able-bodied men were by this
time away after their cattle or otherwise engaged at a distance,
so that the immediate sufferers by the general house-burning
that now commenced were the aged and infirm, the women
and children. As the lands were now in the hands of the
factor himself, and were to be occupied as sheep farms, and as
the people made no resistance, they expected at least some
indulgence in the way of permission to occupy their houses and
other buildings till they could gradually remove, and mean-
while look after their growing crops. Their consternation was
therefore great when, immediately after the May term-day,
a commencement was made to pull down and set fire to the
houses over their heads. The old people, women and others,
then began to preserve the timber, which was their own ; but
the devastators proceeded with the greatest celerity, demolish-
ing all before them, and when they had overthrown all the
houses in a large tract of country, they set fire to the wreck.
Timber, furniture, and every other article that could not be
instantly removed was consumed by fire or otherwise utterly
destroyed. The proceedings were carried on with the greatest
rapidity and the most reckless cruelty. The cries of the
victims, the confusion, the despair and horror painted on the
countenances of the one party, and the exulting ferocity of the
other, beggar all description. In these scenes Mr. Sellar was
present, and apparently, as sworn by several witnesses at his
subsequent trial, ordering and directing the whole. Many

$8 Land Nationalisation.

deaths ensued from alarm, from fatigue, and cold, the people
having been instantly deprived of shelter, and left to the
mercies of the elements. Some old men took to the woods and
to the rocks, wandering about in a state approaching to, or of
absolute insanity ; and several of them in this situation lived
only a few days. Pregnant women were taken in premature
labour, and several children did not long survive their suffer-
ings. ' To these scenes,' says Donald Macleod, ' I was an
eye-witness, and am ready to substantiate the truth of my
statements, not only by my own testimony, but by that of many
others who were present at the time. In such a scene of
devastation, it is almost useless to particularise the cases of
individuals ; the suffering was great and universal. I shall,
however, notice a very few of the extreme cases of which I was
myself an eye-witness. John Mackay's wife, Ravigill, in
attempting to pull down her house, in the absence of her hus-
band, to preserve the timber, fell through the roof. She was
in consequence taken in premature labour, and in that state
was exposed to the open air and to the view of all the by-
standers. Donald Munro, Garvott, lying in a fever, was
turned out of his house and exposed to the elements. Donald
Macbeath, an infirm and bed-ridden old man, had the house
unroofed over him, and was in that state exposed to the wind
and rain until death put a period to his sufferings. I was
present at the pulling down and burning of the house of
William Chisholme, Badinloskin, in which was lying his wife's
mother, an old bed-ridden woman of nearly loo years of age,
none of the family being present. I informed the persons
about to set fire to the house of this circumstance, and pre-
vailed on them to wait until Mr. Sellar came. On his arrival, I
told him of the poor old woman being in a condition unfit for
removal, when he replied, " Damn her, the old witch, she has
lived too long — let her burn." Fire was immediately set to
the house, and the blankets in which she was carried out

Landlordism in Scotland. 59

were in flames before she could be got out. She was placed
in a little shed, and it was with great difficulty they were pre-
vented from firing it also. Within five days she was a
corpse.' "

In i8i6 Sellar was charged at Inverness before the Court
of Justiciary with culpable homicide and fire-raising ; but the
landlord influence was too strong, and he was acquitted. He
was, however, dismissed from his post, as was also his superior,
Mr. Young, and the management of the clearances thenceforth
devolved on Mr. Loch, who has written an account of these
" Sutherland Improvements " from his own point of view.
The people were at first delighted with the dismissal of Sellar,
but soon found that under the new factor matters were little
better. Under his orders the parish of Kildoran, and parts
of three others, were cleared by parties with faggots, who
burnt down 300 houses. The following is Macleod's account
of what took place : — " The consternation and confusion
were extreme; little or no time was given for the removal
of persons or property ; the people striving to remove the sick
and the helpless before the fire should reach them, and
struggling to save the most valuable of their effects. The
cries of the women and children, the roaring of the affrighted
cattle, hunted at the same time by the yelling dogs of the
shepherds amid the smoke and fire, altogether presented a scene
that completely baffles description — it required to be seen to
be believed. A dense cloud of smoke enveloped the whole
country by day, and even extended far out to sea ; at night
an awfully grand, but terrific, scene presented itself — all the
houses in an extensive district in flames at once. I myself
ascended a height about eleven o'clock in the evening, and
counted 250 blazing houses, many of the owners of which
were my relations, and all of whom I personally knew, but
whose present condition — whether in or out of the flames — I
could not tell. The conflagration lasted six days, till the

6q Land Nationalisation.

whole of tne dwellings were reduced to ashes or smoking
ruins. During one of these days a boat actually lost her way
in the dense smoke as she approached the shore, but at night
was enabled to reach a landing-place by the lurid light of
the flames."

Mr. Mackenzie adds : — " The whole of the inhabitants of
Kildoyan, numbering nearly 2,000 souls, except three families,
were utterly rooted and burnt out, and the whole parish
converted into a solitary wilderness. The suffering was
intense. Some lost their reason. Over a hundred souls
took passage to Caithness in a small sloop, the master
humanely agreeing to take them in the hold, from which he
had just unloaded a cargo of quick lime. A head storm came
on, and they were nine days at sea in the most miserable
condition — men, women, and helpless children huddled up
together, with barely any provisions. . Several died in con-
sequence, and others became invalids, for the rest of their
days. One man, Donald Mackay, whose family was suffering
from a severe fever, carried two of his children a distance of
twenty-five miles to this vessel. Another old man took shelter
in a meal mill, where he was kept from starvation by licking
the meal refuse scattered among the dust on the floor, and
protected from the rats and other vermin by his faithful collie.
George Munro, the miller at Farr, who had six of his family
down with fever, had to remove them in that state to a damp
kiln, while his home was given to the flames. And all this
was done in the name of proprietors who could not be
considered tyrants in the ordinary sense of the term."

Scenes like these went on for fourteen years, unknown to
the English people, unnoticed by the English Government.
Hugh Miller, speaking of them, says : — " The clearing of
Sutherland was a process of ruin so thoroughly disastrous that
it might be deemed scarcely possible to render it more
complete. Between the years 181 r and. iS?o, 15,000

Landlordism in Scotland. 6i

inhabitants of this northern district were ejected from their
snug inland farms by means for which we Would in vain
seek a precedent, except, perhaps, in the history of the Irish
massacre. A singularly well-conditioned and wholesome
district of country has been converted into one wide ulcer
of wretchedness and woe."*

Ot/ier Examples of Highland Clearances. — Other great land-
lords soon followed the example thus set them, but in many
cases with even more disastrous results, driving away their
tenants without troubling themselves about their means of
support or what became of them. An example or two of these
later evictions must be quoted from Mr. Mackenzie's
pamphlet : —

" The Glengarry property at one time covered an area of
nearly 200 square miles, and to-day, while many of their
expatriated vassals are landed proprietors and in affluent
circumstances in Canada, not an inch of the old possessions of
the ancient and powerful family of Glengarry remains to the
descendants of those who caused the banishment of a people
who, on many a well-fought field, shed their blood for their
chief and country. In 1853 every inch of the ancient heritage
was possessed by the stranger except Knoydart, in the west,
and this has long ago become the property of one of the
Bairds. In the year named young Glengarry was a minor, his
mother, the widow of the late chief, being one of his trustees.
She does not appear to have learned any lesson of wisdom
from the past misfortunes of her house. Indeed, considering
her limited power and possessions, she was comparatively the
worst of them all. The tenants of Knoydart, like all other

* Others who knew the facts spoke equally strongly. In a rare
pamphlet entitled " Our Deer Forests," Mr. Alexander Robertson, Presi-
dent of the Highland Economic Society, speaks of " the inhuman conduct
of the noble family of Sutherland," and adds : "It is scarcely possible to
credit the accounU iif the enormities perpetrated by the factor, Sellar, and
other base mimoi... of despotism and tyranny."

62 Land Nationalisation.

Highlanders, had suffered severely during and after the potato
famine in 1846 and 1847, and some of them got into arrear
with a year's and some with two years' rent, but they were fast
clearing it off. Mrs. Macdonell and her factor determined to
evict every crofter on her property, to make room for sheep.
In the spring of 1853 they were all served with summonses of
removal, accompanied by a message that Sir John Macneil,
Chairman of the Board of Supervision, had agreed to convey
them to Australia. Their feelings were not considered worthy
of the slightest consideration. They were not even asked
whether they would prefer to follow their countrymen to
America and Canada. They were to be treated as if they were
nothing better than Africans, and the laws of their country on
a level with those which regulated South American slavery.
The people, however, had no alternative but to accept any
offer made to them. They could not get an inch of land on
any of the neighbouring estates, and any one who would give
them a night's shelter was threatened with eviction themselves.
^t was afterwards found not convenient to transport them
to Australia, and it was then intimated to the poor creatures,
as if they were nothing but common slaves to be disposed of
at will, that they would be taken to North America, and that a
ship would be at Isle Ornsay, in the Island of Skye, in a few
days to receive them, and that they must go on board. The
Sillery soon arrived, and Mrs. Macdonell and her factor came
all the way from Edinburgh to see the people hounded across
in boats, and put on board this ship, whether they would or not.
An eye-witness who described the proceeding at the time, in a
now rare pamphlet, and whom I met last year in Nova Scotia,
characterises the scene as indescribable and heart-rending.
' The wail of the poor women and children as they were torn
away from their homes would have melted a heart of stone.'
Some few families, principally cottars, refused to go, in spite of
every influence brought to bear upon them ; and the treatment

Landlordism in Scotland. 63

they afterwards received was cruel beyond belief. The houses,
not only of those who went, but of those who remained, were
burnt and levelled to the ground. The Strath was dotted all
over with black spots, showing where yesterday stood the
habitations of men. The scarred, half-burnt wood — couples,
rafters, and bars — ^were strewn about in every direction. Stooks
of corn and plots of unlifted potatoes could be seen on all
sides, but man was gone. No voice could be heard. Those
who refused to go aboard the Sillery were in hiding among the
rocks and the caves, while their friends were packed off like so
many African slaves to the Cuban market.

" No mercy was shown to those who refused to emigrate; their
few articles of furniture were thrown out of their houses after
them — beds, chairs, tables, pots, stoneware, clothing, in many
cases rolling down the hill. What took years to erect and collect
was destroyed and scattered in a few minutes. From house
to house, from hut to hut, and from barn to barn, the factor
and his menials proceeded carrying on the work of demolition,
until there was scarcely a human habitation left standing in the
district Able-bodied men, who, if the matter should rest with
a mere trial of physical force, would have bound the factor and
his party hand and foot and sent them out of the district,
stood aside as dumb spectators. Women wrung their hands
and cried aloud, children ran to and fro dreadfully frightened ;
and while all this work of demolition and destruction was going
on, no opposition was offered by the inhabitants, no hand was
lifted, no stone cast, no angry word was spoken."

Mr. Mackenzie proceeds to give a large number of detailed
cases of these evictions, of which the following two may be
taken as average samples : —

"Archibald Macisaac, crofter, aged 66; wife 54, with a
family of ten children. Archibald's house, byre, barn, and
stable were levelled to the ground. The furniture of the
house was thrown down the hill, and a general destruction then

64' Land N^ationalisation.

commenced. The roof, fixtures, and wood work were smashed
to pieces, the walls razed to the very foundation, and all that
was left for poor Archibald to look upon was a black, dismal
wreck. Ten human beings were thus deprived of their homes
in less than half an hour. It was grossly illegal to have
destroyed the barn, for, according even to the law of Scotland,
the outgoing or removing tenant is entitled to the use of the
barn until his crops are disposed of. But, of course, m a
remote district, and among simple and primitive people like
the inhabitants of Knoydart, the laws that concern them and
define their rights are unknown to them."

" John Mackinnon, a cottar, aged 44, with a wife and six
children, had his house pulled down, and had no place to put
his head in, consequently he and his family, for the first night
or two, had to burrow among the rocks near the shore ! When
he thought that the factor and his party had left the district, he
emerged from the rocks, surveyed the ruins of his former
dwelling, saw his furniture and other effects exposed to the
elements, and now scarcely worth the lifting. The demolition
was so complete that he considered it utterly impossible to
make any use of the ruins of the old house. The ruins of an
old chapel, however, were near at hand, and parts of the walls
were still standing, and thither Mackinnon proceeded with his
family, and having swept away some rubbish, and removed
some grass and nettles, they placed some cabirs up to one of
the walls, spread some sails and blankets across, brought in
some meadow hay, and laid it in a corner for a bed,, stuck a
piece of iron into the wall in another corner, on which they
placed a crook, then kindled a fire, was.hed some potatoes, and
put a pot on the fire and boiled them, and when these and a
few fish roasted on the embers were ready, Mackinnon and his
family had one good diet, being the fi.rst regular food they
tasted since the destruction of their house !

" Mackinnon is a tall man, but poor and unhealthy-looking

Landlordism in Scotland. 6$

His wife is a poor weak woman, evidently struggling with a
diseased constitution and dreadful trials. The boys, Ronald
and Archibald, were lying in ' bed ' — (may I call a ' pickle '
hay on the bare ground a bed ?) — suffering from rheumatism and
cholic. The other children are apparently healthy enough as
yet, but very ragged. There is no door to their wretched
abode, consequently every breeze and gust that blow have free
ingress to the inmates. A savage from Terra-del-Fuego, or a
Red Indian from beyond the Rocky Mountains, would not
exchange huts with these victims, nor humanity with their
persecutors. Mackinnon's wife was pregnant when she was
turned out of her house among the rocks. In about four days
thereafter she had a premature birth ; and this and the exposure
to the elements, and the want of proper shelter and a nutritious
diet, has brought on consumption, from which there is no
chance whatever of her recovery.

"There was something very solemn indeed in this scene.
Here, amid the ruins of the old sanctuary, where the swallows
fluttered, where the ivy tried to screen the grey moss-covered
stones, where nettles and grass grew up luxuriantly, where the
floor was damp, the walls sombre and uninviting, where there
were no doors nor windows nor roof, and where the owl, the bat,
and the fox used to take refuge, a Christian family was
necessitated to take shelter! One would think that as
Mackinnon took refuge amid the ruins of this most singular
place he would be let alone, that he would not any longer
be molested by nan. But, alas ! he was molested. The
manager of Knoydart and his minions appeared, and invaded
this helpless family, even within the walls of the sanctuary.
They pulled down the sticks and sails he set up within its ruins
— put his wife and children out on the cold shore — threw his
tables, stools, chairs, &c., over the walls — burnt up the hay on
which they slept — ^put out the fire — and then left the district.
Four times have these officers broken in upon poor Mackinnon

F

66 Land Nationalisation.

in this way, destroying his place of shelter, and sending him
and his family adrift on the cold coast of Knoydart. Had
Mackinnon been in arrears of rent, which he was not, even this
would not justify the harsh, cruel, and inhuman conduct
pursued towards himself and his family. No language of mine
can describe the condition of this poor family, exaggeration is
impossible. The ruins of an old chapel is the last place in the
world to which a poor Highlander would resort with his wife
and children unless he was driven to it by dire necessity."

Particulars are also given of similar clearances in Strathglass,
Kintail, Glenelg, and several islands of the Hebrides. These
people were generally shipped off to Canada without any pro-
vision whatever for them on their arrival there. We have only
room here for the following statement, made by the passengers
of one of the vessels which conveyed them there : —

" We, the undersigned passengers per Admiral, from Storno-
way, in the Highlands of Scotland, do solemnly depose to the
following facts : — ^That Colonel Gordon is proprietor of estates
in South Uist and Barra ; that among many hundred tenants
and cottars whom he has sent this season from his estates to
Canada, he gave directions to his factor, Mr. Fleming, of Cluny
Castle, Aberdeenshire, to ship on board of the above-named
vessel a number of nearly 450 of said tenants and cottars, from
the estate in Barra ; that accordingly, a great majority of these
people, among whom were the undersigned, proceeded volun-
tarily to embark on board the Admiral, at Loch Boisdale, on
or about nth Aug., 185 1 ; but that several of the people who
were intended to be shipped for this port, Quebec, refused to
proceed on board, and, in fact, absconded from their homes to
avoid the embarkation. Whereupon Mr. Fleming gave orders
to a policeman, who was accompanied by the ground officer of
the estate in Barra, and some constables, to pursue the people
who had run away among the mountains ; which they did, and
succeeded in capturing about twenty from tbe mountains and

Landlordism in Scotland. 67

islands in the neighbourhood ; but only came with the officers
on an attempt being made to handcuff them ; and that some
who ran away were not brought back, in consequence of which
four families at least have been divided, some having come in
the ships to Quebec, while other members of the same families
are left in the Highlands.

"The undersigned further declare that those voluntarily
embarked did so under promises to the effect that Colonel
Gordon would defray their passage to Quebec; that the
Government Emigration Agent there would send the whole
party free to upper Canada, where, on arrival, the Government
agents would give them work, and furthermore, grant them
land on certain conditions.

" The undersigned finally declare that they are now landed
in Quebec so destitute that, if immediate relief be not afforded
them, and continued until they are settled in employment, the
whole will be liable to perish vvith want''

(Signed) Hector Lamont,
and 70 others.

The Quebec Times, which prints this statement, adds : —
" This is a beautiful picture ! Had the scene been laid in
Russia or Turkey, the barbarity of the proceeding would have
shocked the nerves of the reader ; but when it happens in
Britain, emphatically the land of liberty, where every man's
house, even the hut of the poorest, is said to be his castle, the
expulsion of these unfortunate creatures from their home s —
the man-hunt with policemen and bailiffs — the violent separa-
tion of families — the parent torn from the child, the mother
from her daughter — the infamous trickery practised on those
who did embark — the abandonment of the aged, the infirm,
women, and tender children, in a foreign land — forms a tableau
which cannot be dwelt on for an instant without horror.
Words cannot depict the atrocity of the deed. For cruelty
less savage the dealers of the South have been held up to the
execration of the world." f 2

"68 Land Nationalisation.

Wide Extent and Long Continuance of these Clearances :
They are Exposed and Protested against in Vain. — The reader
will perhaps exclaim " These accounts must be exaggerated,
or they would have been protested against at the time, and
Parliament would have interfered." Protests, however, were
made. General Stewart of Garth protested immediately after
the Sutherland clearances; while Hugh Miller's paper, The
Witness, again and again called attention to them; but in
vain. In a series of articles which appeared in 1849 the wide
extent and cruel severity of these clearances were forcibly
exhibited, as the following extracts will show : —

" Men talk of the Sutherland clearings as if they stood
alone amidst the atrocities of the system ; but those who know
fully the facts of the case can speak with as much truth
of the Ross-shire clearings, the Inverness-shire clearings, the
Perthshire clearings, and, to some extent, the Argyleshire
clearings. The earliest was the great clearing on the Glengarry
estate about the end of the last century. . . . Crossing to
the south of the great glen, we may begin with Glencoe.
How much of its romantic interest does the glen owe to its
desolation ? Let us remember, however, that the desolation,
in a large part of it, is the result of the extrusion of its
inhabitants. Travel eastward, and the footprints of the
destroyer cannot be lost sight of. Large tracts along the
Spean and its tributaries are a wide waste. The southern bank
of Loch Lochy is almost without inhabitants, though the
symptoms of former occupancy are frequent. When we enter
the country of the Frasers, the same spectacle presents itself—
a desolate land. Across the hills in Stratherrick, the property
of Lord Lovat, with the exception of a few large sheep
farmers and a very few tenants, is one wide waste. To the
north of Loch Ness, the territory of the Grants, both
Glenmorison and the Earl of Seafield, presents a pleasing
feature amidst the sea of desolation. But beyond this, again.

Landlordism in Scotland. 69

let us trace the large rivers of the east coast to their sources.
Trace the Beauly through all its upper reaches, and how
many thousands upon thousands of acres, once peopled, are,
as respects human beings, a wild wilderness ! The lands of
the Chisholm have been stripped of their population down to
a mere fragment ; the possessors of those of Lovat have not
been behind with their share of the same sad doings. Let
us cross to the Conon and its branches, and we will find that
the chieftains of the Mackenzies have not been less active in
extermination. Breadalbane and Rannoch, in Perthshire,
have a similar tale to tell, vast masses of the population
having been forcibly expelled. The upper portions of Athole
have also suffered, while many of the valleys along the Spey
and its tributaries are without an inhabitant, if we except a few
shepherds. Sutherland, with all its atrocities, affords but a
fraction of the atrocities that have been perpetrated in
following out the ejectment system of the Highlands. In
truth, of the habitable portion of the whole country, but a
small part is now really inhabited. We are unwilling to
weary our readers by carrying them along the west coast,
from the Linnhe Loch northwards ; but if they inquire, they
will find that the same system has been, in the case of most
of the estates, relentlessly pursued. These are facts of which,
we believe, the British public know little, but they are facts
on which the changes should be rung until they have listened
to them and seriously considered them. May it not be that
part of the guilt is theirs, who might, yet did not, step forward
to stop such cruel and unwise proceedings ?

" Let us leave the past, however (he continues), and
consider the present. And it is a melancholy reflection that
the year 1849 has added its long list to the roll of Highland
ejectments. While the law is banishing its tens for terms of
seven or fourteen years, as the penalty of deep-dyed crimes,
irresponsible and infatuated power is banishing its thousands

70 Land Nationalisation.

for life for no crime whatever. This year brings forward, as
leader in the work of expatriation, the Duke of Argyll. Is
it possible that his vast possessions are over-densely
populated? And the Highland Destitution Committee co-
operate. We had understood that the large sums of money
at their disposal had been given them for the purpose of
relieving, and not of banishing, the destitute. Next we have
Mr. Baillie of Glenelg, professedly at their own request,
sending five hundred souls off to America. Their native
glen must have been made not a little uncomfortable for these
poor people, ere they could have petitioned for so sore a
favour. Then we have Colonel Gordon expelling upwards
of eighteen hundred souls from South Uist ; Lord Macdonald
follows with a sentence of banishment against six or seven
hundred of the people of North Uist, with a threat, as we
learn, that three thousand are to be driven from Skye next
season ; and Mr. Lillingston of Lochalsh, Maclean of Ardgour,
and Lochiel, bring up the rear of the black catalogue, a large
body of people having left the estates of the two latter, who,
after a heartrending scene of parting with their native land,
are now on the wide sea on their way to Australia. Thus,
within the last three or four months, considerably upwards of
three thousand of the most moral and loyal of our people —
people who, even in the most trying circumstances, never
required a soldier, seldom a policeman, among them to
maintain the peace — are driven forcibly away to seek
subsistence on a foreign soil."

Professor Leoni Levi, who has made a special study of the
condition of the Highlands, in an article in the Journal of the
London Statistical Society, Vol. XXVIII, makes the following
statement: — "Again and again these clearances have been
continued, down even to the present time ; and it is impossible
to read the accounts of such transactions without feeling
sympathy for those large bands of men, women, and children,
who, with their scanty household furniture, and all their lares

Landlordism in Scotland. 71

scad. Senates with them, were driven out from their own soil to
find shelter where best they could."

Later on, Mrs. Hugh Miller bears similar testimony : — "At this
date, 1862, the depopulation of the Highlands is still rapidlygoing
oa Not half a mile from the spot where we write, in the
North-West Highlands, many families were ejected from their
holdings but a few months ago. The factor — that dreaded
middleman of the people — came with the underlings of the law,
with spade and pickaxe, and left literally not one stone upon
another of their poor cottages standing. I can see a miserable
hovel into which several families have crowded who had
before separate holdings of their own. Such scenes ought
not to be allowed to disgrace a Christian country. But even
where the inhabitants are allowed to remain in their miserable
and insufficient crofts, the able-bodied — that is, the choicest of
the population — are rapidly emigrating. 'There is not a lad
worth anything,' said a person the other day who had just
left a very large strath at some twenty miles distance — ' there
is not a lad worth anything who is not going away to New
Zealand or some other place.' The people are indeed
oppressed with a sense of utter poverty, and a total inability to
rise above it. In many places their circumstances are made
as wretched as possible on purpose to starve them out. There
are a few proprietors — such as Sir Kenneth M'Kenzie, of
Gairloch — who respect the feelings of those who have been for
generations located on their properties ; but these are very
few. . . . Nothing can ever make the Highlander what
he was but that interest in the soil which he has lost. Every
Highlander formerly was possessed of all those feelings which
constitute much that is valuable in the birthright of true
gentlemen — a long-descended lineage, a sense of status and
property, and an intense attachment to home and country."

Speaking of the general results of these clearings, a well-
informed writer in the Westminster Review in 1868 says : —

" The Gaels, rooted from the dawn of history on the slopes

72 Land Nationalisation.

of the northern mountains, have been thinned out and thrown
away like young turnips too thickly planted. Noble gentle-
men and noble ladies have shown a flintiness of heart and
a meanness of detail in carrying out their clearings upon
which it is revolting to dwell ; and, after all, are the evils of
over-population cured ? Does not the disease still spring up
under the very torture of the knife? Are not the crofts
slowly and silently taken at every opportunity out of the
hands of the peasantry ? Where a Highlander has to leave
his hut there is now no resting-place for him save the cellars
or attics of the closes of Glasgow, or some other large centre
of employment ; and it has been noticed that the poor Gael
is even more liable than the Irishman to sink under the
debasement in which he is then immersed."*

Continuance of Highland Clearances and Confiscations Down
to this Day. — Lest our readers should think that these cruel
wrongs are things of the past, and that the exposure of them
by so many eminent writers has led the proprietors of High-
land estates to adopt a different system of management, or has

* Most modern writers consider the croft-system a failure, and this is
supposed to imply the failure of small holdings under any conditions. But
there is a mass of testimony to show that the crofter of Scotland, like the
cottier of Ireland, is wretched and poverty-stricken simply because he can
only get poor land at exorbitant rents, and usually not enough land to live
upon. Thus, in Mr. James Robb's " Enquiry iiito the Condition of the
/^ricultural Labourers of Scotland," we find the following statements,
quoted with approval and confirmed by his personal observation: — "The
general quality of the soil upon which crofts are now granted is vastly
inferior to what it was of old. The rent is, from the increased demand and
more limited supply, proportionally greater .... Dispassionately
viewed, small crofts, as generally let, form merely the alembic through
which is distilled into the pocket of the owner the savings of the sweat of
the brow of the occupant. By holding such a croft he is literally incapaci-
tated for performing a good day's work for a gocd day's wage, as, to scrape
together a rent to ensure a home for a series of years, the agricultural
labourer must work double hours and draw unfairly upon his stock of
strength, which infallibly leads to a premature old age." Could there be a
more severe condemnation of the landlord system in Scotland than this
statement made by the late Secretary to the Royal Northern Agricultural

Landlordism in Scotland. 73

caused the Government to interfere, it is necessary to call
attention to a remarkable pamphlet by Dr. D. G. F. Macdonald,
consisting of letters published recently in the Echo newspaper
and some correspondence arising out of them. These show us
that almost all the evils so prevalent in Ireland exist as fully
and to as disastrous an extent in Scotland at the present day.
There, also, rents are systematically raised on the improve-
ments made by the tenant — there, too, is found the same
general absence of leases, and' the same monstrous powers of
oppression and eviction in the hands of factors and agents,
owing to a prevalence of absenteeism — there, too, the holdings
are insufficiently small, and the destitution caused by this very
insufficiency is made the excuse for wholesale eviction and the
creation of large grazing farms. The following extracts will
indicate what Dr. Macdonald has to say on these matters, as
to which — being an agriculturist and estate-manager by pro-
fession, having written many works of repute on these subjects,
having been largely employed on Highland estates, and being
himself a native of the Highlands — he must be considered one

Society, and endorsed by the Editor of TTie, Scottish Farmer ? This refers
to Aberdeenshire. In Forfarshire, Mr. Robb describes the condition of
some small holders on the estate of Lord Dalhousie, taking one "as a
specimen of the whole." The dwelling is described as a wretched, tumble-
down turf hovel, consisting of one room about ten feet square, and a division
for the cow. " The occupier (an old woman) had lived all her days in the
place. She had now only 2 j^ acres of land ; formerly she had some pasture
land, btU that had been taken from Tier, She had, therefore, to dispense
with all her cows but one, and the consequence was that she had now a
deficiency of manure for what little oats and potatoes she wished to raise. "
Mr. Robb declares that such houses are unworthy to shelter any class of
humanity ; and Lord Kinnaird (in the preface to Mr. Robb's book) maintains
that "the description given by the reports of the actual state of these
crofters in ditferent districts, corresponding with their state at the beginning
of the century, proves how very undesirable a return to such a system would
be." But neither of these writers seems to have the least perception that
the facts stated are the condemnation, not of the croft system, but of the
landlord system itself, which forces the poor crofter into a Condition in which
a reasonable amount of well-being is impossible, work as hard as he
may.

74 Land Nationalisation.

of the very highest authorities. As to insecurity of tenure, he
says : —

" I know that many crofters are never safe in improving
their land, for as soon as they begin to reap the benefit the
landlord or factor steps in and raises their rents, or gives
notice to quit, thus robbing the poor people of their just rights
as much as if he dipped his hands into their pockets and
walked away with their cash.''

Again : — " Amongst the crying evils of the Highland crofters
is the ball-room size of his holding, and the want of security
of occupation. Crofters often complain — and complain very
justly — of a want of sympathy on the part of the owners, and
of being extruded from their holdings at the caprice of the
landlord or factor, without a farthing of compensation for
their improvements. . . . Such breaches of good faith
are indeed atrocious, oppressive, and a violation of rights."

As to absenteeism and eviction he bears testimony as
follows : — " The curse of Scotland is that so many of the pro-
prietors are non-resident. . . . Because agents, forsooth !
find that they can with less trouble collect rents from a few
large tenants than from a number of small ones they recom-
mend wholesale evictions. Neither understanding nor respect-
ing the real manhood and sterling qualities of the Highland
character, they heartlessly wage a war of extermination against
the helpless crofters and small farmers ; and this is in nine
cases out of ten the result of absenteeism."

As to the nature and extent of this extermination Dr.
Macdonald writes in the strongest manner. He says : —

" The extermination of the Highlanders has been carried on
for many years as systematically and relentlessly as of the
North American Indians. . . . Who can withhold sym-
pathy as whole families have turned to take a last look at the
heavens red with their burning houses ? The poor people
shed no tears, for there was in their hearts that which stifled

Landlordism in Scotland. 75

such signs of emotion ; they were absorbed in despair. They
were forced away from that which was near and dear to their
hearts, and their patriotism was treated with contemptuous
mockery.''

Again : — " I know a glen, now inhabited by two shepherds
and two gamekeepers, which at one time sent out its thousand
fighting men. And this is but one out of many that might be
cited to show how the Highlands have been depopulated.
Loyal, peaceable, and high-spirited peasantry have been
driven from their native land — as the Jews were expelled from
Spain, or the Huguenots from France — to make room for grouse,
sheep, and deer. A portly volume would be needed to con-
tain the records of oppression and cruelty perpetrated by many
landlords, who are a scourge to their unfortunate tenants,
blighting their lives, poisoning their happiness, and robbing
them of their improvements, fiUing their wretched homes
with sorrow, and breaking their hearts with the weight of
despair."

These statements, strong though they are, are fully sup-
ported by the testimony of other witnesses. Mr. John
Somerville, of Lochgilphead, writes : — " The watchword of all
is exterminate, exterminate the native race. Through this
monomania of landlords the cottier population is all but extinct ;
and the substantial yeoman is undergoing the same process
of dissolution." The following examples are then given : —
" About nine miles of country on the west side of Loch Awe,
in Argyleshire, that formerly maintained 45 faniilies, are now
rented by one person as a sheep-farm ; and in the island of
Luing, same county, which formerly contained about 50
substantial farmers, beside cottiers, this number is now reduced
to about six. The work of eviction commenced by giving, in
many cases, to the ejected population, facilities and pecuniary
aid for emigration ; but now the people are turned adrift,
penniless and shelterless, to seek a precarious subsistence on

76 Land Nationalisation.

the seaboard, the nearest hamlet or village, and in the cities,
many of whom sink down helpless paupers on our poor-roll,
and others, festering in our villages, form a formidable Arab
population, who drink our money contributed as parochial
relief. This wholesale depopulation is perpetrated, too, in a
spirit of invidiousness, harshness, cruelty, and injustice, and must
eventuate in permanent injury to the moral, political, and social
interests of the kingdom."

Again : — " The immediate effects of this new system are the
dissociation of the people from the land, who are virtually

denied the right to labour on God's creation. In L , for

instance, garden ground and small allotments of land are in
great demand by families, and especially by the aged, whose
labouring days are done, for the purpose of keeping cows, and
by which they might be able to earn an honest independent
maintenance for their families, and whereby their children
might be brought up to labour, instead of growing up
vagabonds and thieves. But such, even in our centres of
population, cannot be got ; the whole is let in large farms and
turned into grazing. The few patches of bare pasture, formed
by the delta of rivers, the detritus of rocks, and tidal deposits
are let for grazing cows, at the exorbitant rent of ;^3 los.
each for a small Highland cow ; and the small space to be had
for garden ground is equally extravagant. The consequence
of these exorbitant rents and the want of agricultural facilities
is a depressed, degraded, and pauperised population."

Similar facts were proved before the last Game Law Com-
mittee. It was shown that in Ross-shire and Inverness about
200,000 acres had been laid waste in order to make room for
the deer. On one estate in Ross-shire from sixty to eighty
thousand acres had been cleared of inhabitants, and the arable
land turned into waste in order to form deer forests, while the
few crofters in that county were confined to a few patches by the
loch sides, for which they paid exorbitant rents of from thirty
to forty shillings an acre.

Landlordism in Scotland. yy

These Evils Inherent in Landlordism — An Illustrative
Case. — The facts stated in this chapter will possess, I feel
sure, for many Englishmen, an almost startling novelty ; the
tale of oppression and cruelty they reveal reads like one of
those hideous stories of violence peculiar to the dark ages
rather than a simple record of events happening upon our own
land and within the memory of the present generation. For
a parallel to this monstrous power of the landowner, under
which life and property are entirely at his mercy, we must
go back to mediaeval times, or to the days when, serfdom not
having been abolished, the Russian noble was armed with
despotic authority; while the more pitiful results of this landlord
tyranny, the wide devastation of cultivated lands, the heartless
burning of houses, the reckless creation of pauperism and misery
out of well-being and contentment, could only be expected under
the rule of Turkish Sultans or greedy and cruel Pashas. Yet
these cruel deeds have been perpetrated in one of the most
beautiful portions of our native land. They are not the work
of uncultured barbarians or of fanatic Moslems, but of so-called
civilised and Christian men ; and — worst feature of all — they
are not due to any high-handed exercise of power beyond the
law, but are all strictly legal, are in many cases the act of mem-
bers of the Legislature itself, and, notwithstanding that they
have been repeatedly made known for at least sixty years
past, no steps have been taken, or are even proposed to be
taken, by the Legislature to prevent them for the future !
Surely it is time that the jteople of England should declare that
such things shall no longer exist — that the rich shall no longer
have such legal power to oppress the poor — that the land shall
be free for all who are willing to pay a fair value for its use —
and, as this is not possible under landlordism, that landlordism
; shall be abolished.

Dr. Macdonald, to whose writings we are so much indebted,
like most other writers on the subject, does not seem to con-
template any such radical change, but thinks that protection to

78 Land Nationalisation.

the tenants might be given by special legislation. But a little
consideration will, I think, show that any such legislation, to be
an adequate remedy for the various phases and evils of land-
lordism, must necessarily be complex and therefore difficult of
application, must involve legal procedure of some sort, and
must therefore be totally illusive — a mere mockery and
delusion — when one party to every case brought before the
courts would be the wealthy landlord, the other the poverty-
stricken or ruined tenant So long as the relation of land-
lord and tenant exists, the law can only, at the best, provide
a legal — and therefore an uncertain and costly — remedy, for
evils already caused and wrongs already committed. I maintain
that it would be infinitely better to prevent the wrong and evil
from ever coming into existence, which, as will be shown in
succeeding chapters, can be done with ease and certainty when
once we abolish landlordism and substitute for it occupying
ownership.

To show how inherent are evil results in the very nature of
landlordism (always supposing that no universal and miraculous
change occurs in the nature of landlords) it will be instructive to
give a sketch of the correspondence as to the island of Lewis,
the property of Sir James Matheson, Bart This gentleman is
declared by Dr. Macdonald, who has long known him per-
sonally, to be " one of the most benevolent and popular men
of the age," and one " who lives almost constantly among his
people, dispensing bounty with a liberal hand, and diffusing
much good by example." Yet, it is admitted that under so
good a landlord as this, a body of tenants were subjected for
years to such cruel injustice by the factor that they at last
broke into a mild form of rebellion, and then only did the land-
lord know anything about the matter^ and of course dismissed
the offending factor. Estates in Scotland seem to be
like some great empires, in this respect, that the subordinate
rulers are able to oppress their dependents for years,

Landlordism in Scotland. 79

only being found out when they goad their unhappy subjects
into rebellion. Even Mr. Hugh Matheson, who styles
himself " Commissioner for Sir. J. Matheson," does not
appear to know much of what really goes on. For, in a
letter to the Glasgow Weekly Mail, of the 7th April, 1877, he
states as follows : — " I can say, without fear of contradiction,
that he (Sir James Matheson) has never in his life evicted a
tenant in order to make room for deer, or to turn small farms
into large ones.'' Yet the following week a correspondent
signing himself " A Native " gives case after case in detail, in
■which these very things have been done by Sir James
Matheson's factors, while another correspondent compares the
excellent roads and the great skill and taste manifested in the
Castle and its demesne with the hovels of the tenants, which
he says "are simply a scandal and an outrage on the civiliia-
tion of this century ; " and the reason for this is stated to be
that " the people are refused a lease of their holdings, and in
cases where improvements have been made, the treatment the
holders have been subjected to is not encouraging to those
whose means are limited." Yet another correspondent, Mr.
D. Mackinlay, gives details of the case of the eviction of one
of the Coll crofters by the factor, Mr. Mackay. It appears
that this man had paid his rent punctually, had drained and
trenched the land, and had built himself a house on it ; yet he
was evicted by the factor because (as it was alleged) he did not
abide by the "rules of the estate " (which the crofter denied),
his sick wife and himself were turned out by force on a bitterly
cold day, he was sent to a hut unfit for human habitation, and
^iven a piece of poor, neglected land on which hardly anything
will grow. His former house is valued by the factor at £,^ los.
and by himself zX. £,10; and he assured Mr. Mackinlay that
he was " a bruised, down-trodden creature, now weary of this
world."

Now, as Dr. Macdonald, who is a great admirer of Sir James

8o Land Nationalisation.

Matheson, publishes these several statements in July, 1878,
and gives no further explanation of them, we may probably
assume that they are fairly accurate ; and we must then ask —
What are we to think of the system which renders such things
possible on the estate of a resident landlord, who is " one of the
most benevolent and popular men of the age? "* And further,
What kind of treatment may the crofters expect when the land-
lord is not resident, and neither benevolent nor popular, but
leaves all to his factor, and looks upon his estate as a rent-
producing property and nothing more ? It is clear that the
system is one of almost unchecked despotism on one side and
hardly mitigated serfdom on the other. The arguments for
and against landlordism are very much the same as those for
and against slavery. Both are essentially wrong, and must
produce evil results, though the evil may be greatly mitigated
in the case of wise and benevolent men. To allow the average
citizen to possess and exercise such monstrous powers over
fellow citizens, and still more, to allow these powers to be
exercised by deputy with the one object of producing a

* It appears from an article on " Highland Destitution " in the Quarterhj
Review, December 1 881, that Sir James Matheson bought the island of
Lews or Lewis in 1844, that he at once commenced making " improvements
on a great scale, with the view of giving employment to the inhabitants,"
spending in six years (1845-1850) more than a hundred thousand pounds,
besides gratuities for purposes of education and charity. Yet the writer
refers to this "princely liberality" as having been "met by the most
disheartening ingratitude," and " ending in total failure." The facts given
above will perhaps serve to explain both the one and the other. What the
people of Lewis, as of other parts of the Highland, wanted, was sufficient
land at a fixed rent, not higher than it was really worth, with perfect
freedom of action, and a permanent tenure ; so that all they made by their
labour should be their own. This they have never had ; while they have
had given them what they did not want — wages for unproductive labour
on the landlord's pleasure grounds and buildings. The people have been
actually taken away, by the inducement of good wages and work for their
landlord, from productive labour on the soil to unproductive labour on
carriage roads, bridges, shooting lodges, game preserves, and a magnificent
castle and grounds, and the result has naturally been demoralisation and
destitution 1 This is the result of benevolent landlordism.

Landlordism in Scotland. 8 1

revenue, is surely the greatest and most deplorable of political
errors. The law which arms the landowner with this pernicious
power is incompatible with every principle of equality of
rights, protection of property, and liberty of enjoyment, and
more than any other demands immediate and radical
reform.

The General Results of Landlordism in the Highlands. — ^The
general results of the system of modern landlordism in Scot-
land are not less painful than the hardship and misery brought
upon individual sufferers. The earlier improvers, who
drove the peasants from their sheltered valleys to the exposed
sea-coast, in order to make room for sheep and sheep farmers,
pleaded, however erroneously, the public benefit as the justifica-
tion of their conduct. They maintained that more food and
clothing would be produced by the new system, and that the
people themselves would have the advantage of the produce of
the sea as well as that of the land for their support. The
result, however, proved them to be mistaken, for thenceforth
the perennial cry of Highland destitution began to be heard,
culminating at intervals into actual famines, like that of 1836-37
when _;^7o,ooo were distributed to keep the Highlanders from
death by starvation. The evidence taken before the Select
Committee on Emigration, Scotland, showed much the same
state of chronic poverty as prevails in Ireland — and from the
very same causes — great landlords, few of whom were resident,
and a cottier population of tenants-at-will, with plots of land
too small to occupy the labour of a family and to support them
on its produce. And the only remedy our wise landlord
Legislature could find for this state of things was emigration !
Just as in Ireland, there was abundance of land capable of
cultivation, but the people were driven to the coast and to the
towns, to make way for sheep, and cattle, and lowland farmers;
and when the barren and inhospitable tracts allotted to them

G

82 Land Nationalisation.

became overcrowded, they were told to emigrate.* As the
Rev. J. Macleod says : — " By the clearances one part is
depopulated and the other overpopulated ; the people are
gathered into villages where there is no steady employment for
them, where idleness has its baneful influence and lands them
in penury and want"

The actual effect of this system of eviction and emigra-
tion — of banishing the native of the soil and giving it to
the stranger — is shown in the steady increase of poverty
indicated by the amount spent for the relief of the poor
having increased from less than ^^300,000 in 1846 to more
than ;^9oo,ooo now ; while in the same period the population
has only increased from 2,770,000 to 3,627,000, so that
pauperism has grown about nine times faster than popula-
tion ! t This shows plainly that the system has failed, as

* "There was a locality pointed out to us, in n. barren quartz-rock
district, in which the indestructible stone, that never resolves into soil, was
covered by a stratum of dark peat, where the proprietors had experimented
on the capabilities of the native Highlanders, by measuring out to them,
amid the moor, at a low rent, several small farms, of ten or twelve acres
svpiece. But in a moor composed of peat and quartz-rock no rent can be
low. No farmer thrives on a barren soil, let his rent be what it miy ; and
so the .speculation here had turned out a bad one. The quartz-rock and
the peat proved pauper-making deposits. ' How,' we have frequently
enquired of the poor people ' are you spending your strength on patches so
miserably unproductive as these ? You are said to be lazy. For our own
part what we chiefly wonder at is your great industry.' The usual reply
used to be — ' Ah ! there is good land in the country, but they will not
give it to us.' And certainly we did see in the Highlands many tracts of
kindly-looking soil. Green margins, along the sides of long-withdrawing
valleys, which still bore the marks of the plough, but now under natural
grass, seemed much better fitted to be, as of old, sdv^nes of human industry
than the cold ungenial mosses or the barren moors. \ But in at least nineteen
cases out of every twenty we found the green patches bound by lease to
souie extensive sheep-farmer, and as unavailable for the purposes of the
present emergency, even to the proprietor, as if they lay in the United
States or the Canadas." (Hugh Miller's Essays, p. 214.)

t This was the case not only in those districts where the evicted
peasantry had been driven into over-populated towns and villages, but even
in the very places where the population had decreased by forced deporta-
tion. Dr. Norman Macleod tells us that the " Highland Parish," which
he has so well described, "which once had a population of 2,200 souls.

Landlordism in Scotland. 83

«very unjust system does fail in one way or another. But
even had it succeeded in this respect — had more of the poor
Highlanders been banished, and had the new comers
succeeded in abolishing, or at least in not increasing,
pauperism, and in producing general content, even then the
system would be equally cruel and equally opposed to every
principle of justice and 'good government. The fact that a
whole population could be driven from their homes like cattle
at the will of a landlord, and that the Government which
taxed them, and for whom they freely shed their blood on the
battle-field, neither would nor could protect them from this
cruel interference with their personal liberty, is surely the
most convincing and most absolute demonstration of the
incompatibility of landlordism with the elementary rights of
a free people.

Further Clearances and Devastation for the Sake of Sport. —
As if, however, to prove this still more clearly, and to show
how absolutely incompatible with the well-being of the
community is modern landlo»dism, the great lords of the
soil in Scotland have for the last twenty years or more been
systematically laying waste enormous areas of land for
purposes of sport, just as the Norman Conqueror laid
waste the area of the New Forest for similar purposes.
At the present time more than two millions of acres of
Scottish soil are devoted to the preservation of deer alone —
an area larger than the entire counties of Kent and Surrey
•combined. Glen Tilt Forest includes 100,000 acres ; the

and received only j^ll per annum from public (church) funds for the
support of the poor, expends now under the Poor Law upwards of ;<^5oo
annually, with a population diminished by one-half, but with poverty
increased in a greater ratio." Hugh Miller also tells us that "the poor-
rates were heaviest in the districts from which the greatest number had
emigrated." Yet in the face of these damning facts, there are still to be
found men who support these "clearances" as beneficial to the
community !

G 2

§4 Land Nationalisation.

Black Mount is sixty miles in circumference; and Ben
Aulder Forest is fifteen miles long by seven broad. On many
of these forests there is the finest pasture in Scotland, while the
valleys would support a considerable population of small
farmers. Yet all this land is devoted to the sport of the
wealthy, farms being destroyed, houses pulled down, and men,
sheep and cattle all banished to create a wilderness for the
deer-stalkers ! At the same time the whole people of England
are shut out from many of the grandest and most interesting
scenes of their native land, gamekeepers and watchers for-
bidding the tourist or naturalist to trespass on some of the
wildest Scotch mountains.*

The Gross Abuse of Power by Highland Landlords Requires
an Immediate Remedy. — Now, when we remember that the right
to a property in these unenclosed mountain lands was most
unjustly given to the representatives of the Highland chiefs
little more than a century ago, and that they and their
successors have grossly abused their power ever since, it is
surely time to assert those fundamental maxims of jurisprudence

* Even these deer-forest clearances find their defenders, to whom
Professor Leoni Levi thus replies : — ' ' A comparison has been made
between deer-forests and public parks. Both, it is true, comprise land
kept out of cultivation for purposes of enjoyment. But while pubHc
parks greatly promote the heajth and enjoyment of the masses of the
people, deer-forests are reserved for the sport of a few individuals. Parks
are public property, purposely devoted to a great economic object — the
improvement of the people. Deer-forests are private property, shut out
from public use, and in many cases diverted from a fruitful to a fruitless
occupation. Again, it has been represented that deer-forests employ as-
many persons as foresters as sheep-walks employ shepherds. But are
foresters producers ? The same quantity of land that will maintain 2,000
sheep will not give 300 deer. Of deer, a large number run away, many
die, and very few are killed. In truth, deer-forests are exclusively
intended for sport and luxury, and production enters in no manner into-
their economics " ("Journal of the Land Statistical Society," vol. xxviii,
p. 381)1 "A is calculated that the loss' in food by the deer-forests is equal
to 200,000 sheep, besides which deer bear no wool. Deer-forests do not
repay the outlay expended on them in the shape of keepers, &c., and, as
far as the rest of the nation is concerned, they might as well be submerged
under the ocean.

Landlordism in Scotland. 85

■which state that — "No man can have a vested. right in the
misfortunes and woes of his country," and that — " The
sovereign ought not to allow either communities or private
individuals to acquire large tracts of land in order to leave it
uncultivated." If the oft-repeated maxim that " property has
its duties as well as its rights " is not altogether a mockery,
then we maintain that in this case the total neglect of all the
duties devolving on the owners of these vast tracts of land
affords ample reason why the State should take possession of
them for the public benefit. A landlord Government will, of
course, never do this till the people declare unmistakably that
it must be done. To such a Government the rights of property
are sacred, while those of their fellow citizens are of compara-
tively little moment ; but we feel sure that when the people of
England fully know and understand the doings of the landlords
of Scotland, the reckless destruction of homesteads, and the
silent sufferings of the brave Highlanders, they will make their
will known, and, when they do so, that will must soon be
embodied in law. We will conclude this brief sketch of what
by Highland landlords is termed " improvement " v/ith a
quotation from the work of a respected Scotch pastor, the Rev.
John Kennedy, a lifelong resident among the scenes which he
describes. He tells us that it was at a time when the people
of the Highlands became distinguished as the most peaceable
and virtuous peasantry in Britain that they began to be driven
off by their landlord oppressors, to clear their native soil for
strangers, red-deer, and sheep. He then describes the action
of the landlords in these forcible words :^" With few excep-
tions the owners of the soil began to act as if they were also
the owners of the people, and, disposed to regard them as the
vilest part of their estate, they treated them without respect to
the requirements of righteousness or the dictates of mercy.
Without the inducement of gain, in the very recklessness of
cruelty, lamilies by hundreds were driven across the sea, or

85 Land Nationalisation.

were gathered as the sweepings of the hill-sides into wretched
hamlets on the shore. By wholesale evictions wastes were
formed for the red deer, that the gentry of the nineteenth
century might indulge in the sports of the savages of three
centuries before."*

Landlordism in the Lowlands of Scotland : Condition of the
Labourers. — Now let us turn from this picture of what unre-
stricted landlordism has effected in the Highlands to that part
of the country which is its pride and glory — the Lowlands. For
here are the highest agricultural rents and the best farming in
Great Britain. Here the landlords are wealthy and the farmers
are thriving. Here everything is neat, thrifty, and elegant;
the rude husbandry of the Highlands has been left more than
a thousand years behind ; the furrows are straight as an arrow,
the fences closely dressed, the farm-houses commodious, and
the gentlemen's seats bear all the evidences of taste, luxury,
and refinement. Such being the case, we should naturally
expect that some portion of this prosperity would have
descended to the labourers, and we should look for neat and
roomy cottages, with ample gardens, so essential to the well-
being of the poor. Let us first see what was their condition
thirty years ago, as described by Hugh Miller in his striking
Essays.

He tells us how he once lodged in a labourer's cottage in a.
district where land averaged above five pounds an acre,
within three hours' journey of Edinburgh, and within a hundred
yards of the beautiful shrubberies and pleasure-grounds of a
gentleman's estate ; and he thus describes it : — " But the
cottage was an exceedingly humble one. It was one of a line
on the way-side inhabited chiefly by common labourers and.
farm servants — a cold, uncomfortable hovel, by many degrees
less a dwelling to our mind, and certainly less warm and snug,,

• "Days of the Fathers in Ross-shire," 1861, p. 15.

Landlordism in Scotland, 87

than the cottage of the west coast Highlander. The tenant
(our landlord) was an old farm servant, who had been found
guilty of declining health and vigour about a twelvemonth
before, and had been discharged in consequence. He was
permitted to retain his dwelling, on the express understanding
that the proprietor was not to be burdened with repairs ; and
the thatch, which had given way in several places, he had
painfully laboured to patch against the weather by mud and
turf gathered from the wayside. But he wanted both the art
and the materials of Red Murouch.* With every heavy
shower the rain found its way through, and the curtains of his
two beds, otherwise so neatly kept, were stained by dark-
coloured blotches. The earthen floor was damp and uneven ;
the walls of undressed stone had never been hard-cast ; but
by dint of repeated white-washing, the interstices had gradually
filled up. . . . The old man's wife, still a neat and tidy
woman, though turned of sixty, was a martyr to rheumatism ;
and her one damp and gousty room, with its mere apron
breadth of partition between it and the chinky outer door, was
not at all the place for her declining years. She did her best,
however, to keep things in order, and to attend to the comforts
of her husband and her two lodgers; but the bad roof and the
single apartment were disqualifying circumstances, and they
pressed upon her very severely. . . . And this was all
that civilisation, in the midst of a well-nigh perfect agriculture,
had done for the dwelling of the poor hind. . . . But we
are building, perhaps, on a solitary instance. Would that it
were so ! Oar description is far above the average, however
exaggerated it may seem. The following account of a group
of Border hovels, deemed quite good enough by the proprietary
of the county for their own and their tenants' hinds, is by the
Rev. Dr. W. S. Gilly, of Norham.

* A Highlander, whose wretched-looking, yet really warm and comfort-
able, dwelling had been previously described.

83 Land Nationalisation.

" Now for a more detailed description of that species of hut
or hovel which prevails in this district. I have a group of five
such before my mind's eye. They belong to the same property,
and have all changed inhabitants within eighteen months. The
property, I may add, is tenanted by one of the best and most
enterprising farmers in all England. They are built of rubble
loosely cemented, and from age and the badness of the
materials, the walls look as if they would scarcely hold together.
The chinks gap open in many places, and so widely that they
freely admit every wind that blows. The chimneys have lost
half their original height, and lean on the roof with fearful
gravitation. The rafters are evidently rotten and displaced ;
and the thatch, yawning in some parts to admit the wet, and
in all parts utterly unfit for its original purpose of giving protec-
tion from the weather, looks more like the top of a dunghill than
a cottage. Such is the exterior ; and when the hind comes to
take possession he finds it no better than a shed. The wet, if
it happens to rain, is making a puddle on the earth-floor. It
is not only cold and wet, but contains the aggregate filth of
years from the time of its being first used. The refuse and
droppings of meals, decayed animal and vegetable matter of all
kinds, these all mix together and exude from it. Window-frame
there is none. There is neither oven, nor copper, nor shelf, nor
fixture of any kind. All these things the hind has to bring
with him, besides his ordinary articles of furniture. Imagine
the trouble, the inconvenience, and the expense which the
poor fellow and his wife have to encounter before they can
put this shell of a hut into anything like a habitable form.
This year I saw a family of eight — husband, wife, two sons, and
four daughters — who were in utter discomfort, and in despair
of putting themselves into a decent condition, three or four
weeks after they had come into one of these hovels. In vain
did they try to stop up the crannies, and to fill up the holes in
the floor, and to arrange their furniture in tolerably decent

Landlordism in Scotland. 89

order, and to keep out the weather. Alas ! what will they
not suffer in winter ? There will be no fireside enjoyment for
them. They may huddle together for warmth, and heap coals
on the fire ; but they will have chilly beds and a damp hearth-
stone ; and a cold wind will sweep through their dismal
apartment; and the icicles will hang by the wall, and
the snow will drift through the roof, and window, and crazy
door-place, in spite of all their endeavours to exclude it."

Great as they might seem, however, these are merely
ph ysical evils ; and they are light and trivial compared with
the horrors which follow. These miserable cabins consist, in
by much the greater number of instances, as in the cottage of
the poor old hind, of but a single room. We again quote : —
"And into this apartment are crowded eight, ten, and even
twelve persons. How they lie down to rest, how they sleep,
how unutterable horrors are avoided, is beyond all conception.
The case is aggravated when there is a young woman to be
lodged in this confined space who is not a member of the
family, but is hired to do the field-work, for which every hind
is bound to provide a female. It shocks every feeling of
propriety to think that in a room within such a space as I have
been describing, civilised beings should be herding together
without a decent separation of age and sex !"

Down to 1861, atall events, equally wretched cottages were
found in many parts of Scotland. Mr. James Robb (general
editor of The Scottish Farmer) thus describes those common in
Aberdeenshire :— " Such cottages as are provided for ploughmen
are, for the most part, of a very comfortless kind They are
simply four walls — often put together in the cheapest and
roughest possible fashion, sometimes without lime or other
cement even — with a vent at each gable end, two small windows,
and a roof of thatch. The occupants have to depend upon
their wooden box-beds or presses for making such separation
between the two sexes as decency may suggest." In East

QO Land Nationalisation.

Lothian, the same writer tells us : — " Thecottages generally are
not good, being small, old, and ill-lighted. Many of them have
but one usable room and a pantry ; the garrets, where there
are such, being unceiled, and, therefore, either too cold in
winter or too hot in summer for sleeping purposes." And
again : — "Directing our course north-east, we find in our passage
to North Berwick not a few disgraceful hovels, some straw-
thatched, but most with red-tiled rooms, lighted and aired
(save the mark !) by a solitary and immovable pane of glass,
and with a general aspect of unsanitariness and discomfort
unbefitting one of the richest agricultural counties in Scotland
in the nineteenth century. Inside we find the double boxrbed
taking up so great a portion of the space that three or four chairs,
a rickety table, a dresser, and a washing-tub crowd the re-
mainder. As occupants of the box-beds in one of these houses
there were two grown-up men, two girls approaching woman-
hood, an elderly woman, who appeared to be their mother, and
three or four children."

A considerable acquaintance with savage life in both hemi-
spheres enables the present writer to assert that the people we
term ««civilised rarely tolerate such a state of things as that
above described. The young unmarried men are always
separated, often in distinct sleeping-houses, from the rest of
the family or the tribe ; while the dwellings are always suited
to the climate and surrounding conditions. It was reserved
for the wealthiest nation under the sun, and the one which
prides itself on being the most religious and the most civilised,
to have its peasants housed in the extreme of physical misery
and social degradation. And be it noted that this state of things
occurred, not only in towns and cities where the value of land
and the cost of building might possibly be alleged as some
excuse, but over the open country, among fields and woods
and mountains, where there is ample space and abundant
materials ready to hand, and where such objections, therefore,
could not possibly apply.

Lmidlordism in Scotland. 91

Some Recent Improvement in the Condition of Scotch
Labourers. — Since the pictures here given of the labourers'
cottages in Scotland were written, much has been done to
improve therri. In "A Report on the Past and Present Agri-
culture of the Counties of Forfar and Kincardine," by Mr.
Thomas Lawson, dated 1881 (for which I am indebted to the
author), it is stated that, in consequence of the exposure of the
state of the bothies in 1850, an Association was formed at
Edinburgh to improve them, and many model cottages and
bothies were built. Wages, too, have risen considerably, in
consequence of the scarcity of labour produced by the increase
of factories in many districts. Mr. James W. Barclay, M. P. for
Forfarshire, also informs me that wages have greatly risen in
the last ten years, being about 50 per cent, higher in Scotland
than in Norfolk This he thinks is due to the fact that the
men readily move from place to place and from country to
town, so that the rate of wages for town work and country
work is quickly equalised. Mr. Lawson speaks of "the
present tidy cottages of one story, with three apartments,
one room and bed-closet being floored with wood, the
other room with either pavement or cement ; and partitions
of brick, the inside finished off with lath and plaster or cement.
There is also a garret for lumber, and a small garden and
pigstye." But these cottages are, he says, "not near so
common as they ought to be," as many proprietors and
tenant farmers do not see their way to building them, since
they are not remunerative. He also says that " there is not
so much payment in kind as there used to be. This applies
especially to the keeping of cows, which is not nearly so
common now — in fact, it is very exceptional. Some farmers
even prohibit the keeping of pigs." These statements seem
to show that, though wages are higher, and many cottages are
fairly good, yet many remain as they were in Hugh Miller's
time, and when Mr. Robb wrote his reports twenty years
ago ; while the movement of labourers from place to place,

92 Land Nationalisation.

the " small garden " they " sometimes " have, and the occa-
sional restriction from even keeping a pig, all seem to show
that there has not been much advance towards enabling the
labourer to have a permanent home, and to have land on
■which to employ his spare hours, which alone can truly raise
liis condition. The bothy-system, though it has almost
disappeared from the southern counties, still prevails in Perth,
Forfar, and Kincardine, where there seems to have been little
change for the last twenty years.* The bothies are still
comfortless abodes, leading to habits of uncleanliness and
disorder, and giving a taste for a wandering life ; and this is
supposed to be one cause of the untidiness and want of
comfort which prevails in the labourers' cottages of Scotland.
It is remarked by Mr. Robb that the best female servants were
obtained from the class of small farmers, a testimony to the bene-
ficial influence on character of permanent occupancy of land
and the household duties it necessitates, which is now
almost wholly denied to the Scotch agricultural labourer.
Mr. Lawson refers with dissatisfaction to the large sums spent
in drink by the young men ; but this is almost a necessary
result of high wages when there are no home comforts or
occupations, and no one great and important object, such as
the acquisition of land and a permanent home, for which to
accumulate savings. The result is that pauperism, though
not so prevalent as in the depopulated Highlands, still abounds
even in the fertile and highly-farmed Lowlands, where about
one in forty of the population are returned as paupers or
dependents. In all Scotland the proportion is about one in
thirty-five, while in England and Wales, where the popula-
tion is four times as dense, the proportion is one in twenty-
five.

In Scotland the labourer is altogether dependent upon his

* Communication from Mr. William Wallace, of Kinnear, Fife, through
J. Boyd Kinnear, .Esq.

Landlordism in Scotland. 93

.employer for his dwelling, and is obliged to leave it whenever
he changes his master. He is a mere appanage of the farm,
without any of that permanence and security of tenure
possessed by the villein or serf of feudal times. It is thus
impossible that he can ever have a home, in the best sense of
the word, and this will go far to explain the untidiness and
want of thrift which all writers on the condition of the Scottish
labourers so much deplore. The only way to cure the evils
of the bothy-system, the inadequate housing of labourers,
and all the evil consequences that arise from them, is to
encourage and render possible the growth of a fixed rural
population, having rights in the soil and all the interests that
attach to a permanent home. If every labourer had the
right to claim an acre or two of land for his dwelling-house and
garden, paying only the same rent as the farmer pays for
similar land, and having absolute permanence of tenure
so long as he paid this fixed rent, most of the
evils so forcibly depicted by the writers we have quoted
would soon disappear.*

As will be shown in a subsequent chapter, wherever such
occupying ownership of land prevails, there is comparative
comfort and plenty, and the house accommodation is always

* Lord Kinnaird, in his preface to the little volume of Mr. Robb's essays,
says: — "A cry has been raised by those who do not understand the
question for the erection of a greater number of cottages, regardless of the
fact' that field-labour, which cannot from its nature be constant, will not
support a family." And again : — "It is a great mistake to encourage the
location of families, who have no other means of support than the chance of
occasional out-door work." Nothing can show more strikingly than these
remarks the evil results to the entire rural population, as well as to agricul-
ture, of that landlord system which can and does determine how and where
people shall live, quite independent of their own wishes, desires, and needs,
and thus brings about an unnatural division of the inhabitants of a district
into capitalist farmers and a nomad population of labourers. The more
natural and healthy system would be, to allow every man to have as much
land as he wished either for farm or garden, with a permanent tenure, and
at a just rent. Each agricultural district would then support a body of

94 Land Nationalisation.

fully equal to the standard demanded by the state of civili-
sation and social advancement of the community — not miserably
below it, as it always is when the labourer is divorced from the
soil. This right to share in the use of land on equal terras
with his fellow citizens should be declared the indefeasible
birthright of every Englishman, and in order that this right
may be obtained the land must revert to the State, which
ought never to have given up possession of it to individuals.
These remarks somewhat anticipate the fuller discussion with
which the scheme of nationalisation of the land we propose
for adoption will be introduced, but it was thought necessary
here to lay down clearly the points at issue, and prevent our
readers from supposing that we believe that any change in the
character or conduct of landlords or farmers (even if so radical
a change in human nature were possible) would be an adequate
remedy for the disease. So long as the labourer is absolutely
dependent on his employer for subsistence, is without a per-
manent home of his own, and has no land, on which he may
profitably employ himself when his regular work temporarily
fails — just so long will he be in a state of chronic poverty or
intermittent pauperism, often dwelling in houses which it is no
one's business or interest to make healthy or comfortable,
living a life of physical and social degradation, and usually

independent labourers permanently attached to the soil, and with a substan-
tial stake in the country. The cottage which was a man's own, and which
he intended to occupy for his life, would soon be improved and even
beautified. His garden or field would be cultivated with all that untiring
industry which the secure possession of land always creates ; poultry, pigs,
or cows would furnish employment for the family, and a constant source of
profit ; while from the two classes of labourers and crofters, a supply of
labour would be forthcoming at all seasons adequate to meet the demand.
Bothies would no longer be needed, because the young men would live with
their parents, or lodge with those who had small families or ample accom-
modation ; a love of home and home-duties would be created, and vi'ith so
intelligent a people as the Scotch many home industries would spring up to
profitably occupy the long winter evenings, and- thus tend to diminish if not
to abolish pauperism.

Landlordism in Scotland. 95

filling a pauper's grave. That such is the inevitable tendency
and necessary result of the present system is clearly shown by
the fact that, however well the system works for the landlord and
capitalist, their advancement does little to better the condition
•of the labourer. A century ago the poet Burns remarked
that the more highly cultivated he found a district, the more
ignorant and degraded he almost always found the people,
man deteriorating at least as much as the corn and cattle
improved. Down to thirty years ago we have the testimony of
Hugh Miller that the same state of things prevailed ; and
though the exposure of the evil by a number of energetic
•clergymen and other philanthropists, together with the increase
■of wages owing to the spread of manufacturing industry, have
■combined to ameliorate some of its worst features, there still
remains the great fact of a wandering, unthrifty, and pauperised
body of labourers in a region of wealthy landlords and the most
advanced agriculture.

General Results of Scotch Landlordism. — It appears, then,
that both in the barren Highlands and the fertile Lowlands,
among the peaceable and contented Celts as well as among
the more restless and energetic Saxons, we find the same
increase in the wealth and luxury of the landlord and the
capitalist, accompanied by the misery, discontent, and chronic
pauperism of the labouring classes. In both districts land-
lordism has had its own way, and has flourished ; in both it
•carries in its train the physical, social, and moral degradation
•of those by whom its wealth is created. It is. not that land-
lords are worse than other men ; perhaps it may justly be said
that they are somewhat better than the average ; but no amount
•of good intentions or good administration will suffice when the
.system which is administered is fundamentally wrong. No
system ever had a fairer trial than pure landlordism has had
in Scotland during the present century. It has had the freest
liberty of action under various conditions, a peaceful, honest

9^ Land Nationalisation.

and contented body of labourers, a constantly increasing growth
of wealth, and all the means and appliances of modern science
at its command. Yet here, as always and everywhere, it has
lamentably failed to produce either prosperity or contentment.
It must, then, be either the conduct of the landlords or the
nature of landlordism that has caused this miserable failure.
We maintain that the failure has been too constant and too
unvarying to be due to the acts of educated and religious men,
many of whom have honestly tried to do good ; that, conse-
quently, the system alone is to blame ; and that landlordism
itself stands irrevocably condemned.

English Landlordism. g?

CHAPTER V.

THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMICAL EFFECTS OF ENGLISH
LANDLORDISM.

tANDLORDISM IN ENGLAND IS SEEN AT ITS BEST — DESPOTIC POWER OF
LANDLORDS^LANDLORDS' INTERFERENCE WITH RELIGIOUS FREEDOM
— landlords' INTERFERENCE WITH POLITICAL FREEDOM — LAND-
LORDS' INTERFERENCE WITH A TENANT'S AMUSEMENTS — EVICTION
OF THE INHABITANTS OF AN ENTIRE VILLAGE — INJURIOUS POWER
OF LANDLORDS OVER FARMERS AND OVER AGRICULTURE — LIMITA-
TION OF THE BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE OF LANDLORDS— IT WOULD
BE GREATLY INCREASED UNDER OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP — SUPPOSED
IMPORTANCE OF THE LARGE FARMS WHICH LANDLORDISM FAVOURS
— THE EFFECTS OF LANDLORDISM ON THE WELL-BEING OF THE
LABOURING CLASSES — DETERIORATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL
LABOURER DURING THE PRESENT CENTURY — THE SOCIAL DEGRA-
DATION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LABOURER AT THE PRESENT DAY
— THIS STATE OF THINGS IS DUE TO THE SYSTEM OF LANDLORDISM,
NOT TO THE BAD CONDUCT OF LANDLORDS — THE ENCLOSURE ACT
AND ITS RESULTS — UNIFORM EVIDENCE AS TO THE BENEFICIAL
EFFECTS OF ALLOTMENTS AND COTTAGE GARDENS — BENEFICIAL
EFFECTS OF SMALL COTTAGE FARMS — THE LOGICAL BEARING OF
THIS EVIDENCE — VARIOUS POWERS EXERCISED BY LANDLORDS TO
THE DETRIMENT OF THE PUBLIC — FREE CHOICE OF A HOME
ESSENTIAL TO SOCIAL WELL-BEING — CHARACTERISTICS OF A GOOD
SYSTEM OF LAND TENURE — ENCLOSURE OF COMMONS AND MOUN-
TAIN WASTES AS AFFECTING THE PUBLIC — THE DESTRUCTION OF
ANCIENT MONUMENTS — PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS CHECKED BY LAND-
LORDISM — PERMANENT DETERIORATION OF THE COUNTRY BY THE
EXPORT OF MINERALS — CONCLUDING REMARKS ON ENGLISH
LANDLORDISM.

In England pure landlordism is seen at its best Its
characteristics have been determined by the great and popular
class of country squires and by numerous wealthy peers owning
large ancestral estates, who have usually lived among their
tenants, have been accustomed to treat them liberally, and
have had sympathy with their pursuits and a desire for their
prosperity . The tenant-farmers, too, are usually men of some
capital, of good education, and of independent spirit, who are
able to understand their position and maintain their rights, and

H

98 Land Nationalisation.

whose occupancy of the land is the result of a more or less
free contract with the owner. It is impossible to imagine
more favourable conditions for the trial of our actual land-
system ; and we may safely assume that whatever evils we find
to result from it here ought not to be imputed to the miscon-
duct of individuals, but to the essential features of the system
itself. There are, no doubt, certain remediable evils due to
the laws of inheritance and the pow^r of entail. These will
probably soon be cured ; but their removal will have little
influence on those wider and more deeply-seated effects of the
system to which I shall here call attention.

Despotic Power of Landlords. — The Hon. George C.
Brodrick, in his valuable and impartial work, " English Land
and English Landlords," speaks of the large resident land-
owner of a parish or district as being " invested with an
authority over its inhabitants which neither the Saxon chief
nor the Norman lord, in the fulness of his power, ever had
the right of exercising." The clergyman is usually his nominee,
and often his kinsman. The farmers, who are almost the only
employers of labour besides himself, are his tenants-at-will, and,
possibly, his debtors. The tradespeople of the village rent
under him, and, even if they do not, could be ruined by his
disfavour. The labourers live in his cottages, and are abso-
lutely at his mercy for the privilege of hiring allotments,
generally of inadequate size, and at an exorbitant rent as
compared with the same land occupied by farmers* ; and they
are also dependent upon him for work in winter. He is usually
a magistrate, and thus has the power of the law in his hands to
carry out his orders and enhance his authority. Except by

* A labourer on the estate of the Duke of Bedford, writing to the
, Bedford Record, states that he can only get an allotment of 20 poles of
the worst land in the parish, at double the rent paid by the farmers. In
other parishes fair land is let at three times the agricultural rate ; and I am
informed that in some parts of the New Forest allotments are paid for at
rates up to as high as £\() an acre.

English Landlordism. 99

his permission, merely to live upon his estate is impossible ; while
most of the inhabitants may have their lives rendered miserable,
or may be actually ruined by his displeasure. As Mr.
Brodrick says : " We are wont to look back on Saxon times
as barbarous, and on the feudal system as oppressive ; but the
simple truth is that nine-tenths of the population in an English
country parish have at this moment less share in local govern-
ment than belonged to all classes of freemen for centuries
before and for centuries after the Norman Conquest. Again :
they have not only less share in local government than belongs
to French peasants in the present day, but less than belonged
to French peasants under the eighteenth century monarchy."
It may be said that this could be remedied, and that local
self-government could be given to our people. But this is not
so. No people can be free who are dependent on others for
the very right to live in their native place or wherever they
have become settled. So long as a man can be evicted and
banished from a local community at the will of the landlord,
there can be no independence, and no possible freedom or
self-government worthy of the name. It is because the French
peasants are landowners, and because the Norman villeins were
in the position of copy-holders, and could not be ejected by the
lord of the soil, that they were really free-men, while the
tenants-at-will of an English landlord to-day are really serfs.
Mr. Brodrick refers to the exclusion of manufacturing indus-
tries from sites naturally adapted for them, and their excessive
•concentration on sites artificially limited, with the consequent
evils of overcrowding in towns and depopulation in some
■country districts, as being due to the opposition of rural land-
owners who thought their interests were involved ; while all
who remember the early days of railway-making can call to
mind instances in which landowners exercised the power of
compelling a railway to be diverted from the more direct and
less expensive course, to the permanent injury of the whole

H 2

100 Land Nationalisation.

community. Such cases show the power to check the free
development of commerce and communication given to an
individual by the possession of large areas of land — a power
absolutely unique of its kind, since, not only can it be exercised
by subjects in no other way, but is such as no civilised
government exerts except upon weighty grounds of public
policy.

Landlords^ Interference with Heltgtoiis Freedo7n. — But even
more important than these cases are those in which a great
landowner exercises despotic power over individuals, such as
we are accustomed to look upon with horror when occurring
in the Turkish or Russian Empires. One or two illustrative
examples only can be here given, but a little research through
the columns of the daily press would enable any one to fill a
volume with similar cases. Let us first choose an example of
interference with religious freedom — a matter on which we
more especially pride ourselves. In April 1879 there appeared
in the Daily News a correspondence between Samuel
McAulay, a Wesleyan Minister, and Langhorne Burton, a
Lincolnshire landowner. The former asked that religious
services which had been conducted for thirty years in the
village of Bag-Enderby, and which the said landlord had inter-
dicted, might be resumed, the writer urging his case forcibly,
-but in very respectful terms. The answer was as follows : —

" Somersby, Horncastle, 20th March.

"Sir, — I have to acknowledge the receipt of yours of the
17th instant, applying for permission to resume your
Wesleyan services which .have been for some time held in one
of my cottages at Bag-Enderby, and which permission, you say
at the close of your letter, you shall take for granted if you
hear nothing to the contrary. Now, sir, I consider this rather
an offhand way of settling the matter, and I request that you
will on no account act as you propose, at any rate until you

EnglisJt. Landlordism. lOr

hear further from me. The result of such a step on your part
would probably be the removal from Bag-Enderby of all the
members of your body, who are of little value to me as tenants.
I wish to have as tenants none (these italics are his own) but
thorough Church people, and consider myself quite at liberty
to choose such as I like, without being dictated to by anybody.
Reasons apart from this for my interdict of your meetings in
Bag-Enderby I do not feel called upon to enter into with you.
I also forbear to remark upon your seeming disposition to
dictate to me my duty as a landlord. Your letters I have
placed in my rector's hands, and beg to state in conclusion
that I will write to you again should occasion require it. — I am,
Sir, your obedient servant,

"Langhorne Burton.
" Rev. S. McAulay."

Here we note the confirmation of the interdict, and the
threat of " removal of the member? of your body " from the
village, of which many were probably natives ; as well as the
claim " to have as tenants none but thorough Church people,"
a claim to be carried into effect only by the eviction of all
Dissenters from the landlord's property. The law of England
permits the free practice of their religion by any sect whatever,
but it is powerless to protect the Wesleyans of Bag-Enderby
from what might be to many of them a very cruel punishment
if they venture to exercise their right. Mr. Burton is probably
not the only landowner who acts in this manner, though few
would so openly proclaim their intention of doing so ; but
every landowner possesses the same power, and since it is
plainly inconsistent with religious liberty, it ought no longer to
exist Yet this power is inherent in landlordism as established
by law, and the inevitable corollary is that landlordism itself is
incompatible with the freedom of British subjects, and must
therefore be abolished.

Landlords^ Interference with Political Freedom. — Instances of

102 Land Nationalisation.

tenant-farmers of the highest respectability being ejected from
their farms for voting in opposition to their landlords' will and
pleasure must be known to every reader. A few years ago the
eviction of the late Mr. George Hope, of Fenton Barns, an
agriculturist of world-wide reputation, startled all England.
The facts, as stated in the account of his life written by his
daughter, are as follows. The Hopes had had the farm (of
640 acres) for three generations, and had changed it from " a
moorish waste covered with furze-bushes " to a rich and highly
cultivated farm. The rent had always been regularly paid, the
land kept in the highest state of cultivation, and many improve-
ments made, so that Mr. Hope was really a model tenant,
besides being, as an agriculturist, celebrated throughout Europe.
He was turned out by his landlord, because he held different
political opinions and took an active part in politics and in
public affairs. Up to 1852 neither Mr. Hope, his father, nor
his grandfather had made any profit out of the farm ; since
then his energy and talent had made it very profitable, but at
the same time it had been vastly improved for the benefit of
the landlord — Mr. Nisbet Hamilton.

Another tenant on the same estate — Mr. Saddler, of Ferrj'-
gate — was also got rid of (for political reasons it was believed),
and his improvements were confiscated without the least
compensation. Mr. James Howard, M.P., states that these
two gentlemen were, without exception, the most enterprising
farmers of his acquaintance ; and he maintains that the system
under which men of capital and position may, on six short
months' notice, be called upon to quit their farms and to
break up house and home is one worthy only of a barbarous
age.*

Landlord^ Interference with a Tenant's Sport. — The follow-
ing is a more recent case of ejection of a well-to-do hereditary

* "The Tenant-Farmer" (1879).

English Landlordism. 103

occupant of a farm, who had offended his landlord by daring
to secure some sporting privileges for his private enjoyment,
without first asking permission to do so.

Mr, W. R. Todd, who with his father had occupied the
same Yorkshire farm for forty years, took a few fields which
were let by tender, together with the right of shooting, in
order to enjoy some sport, which the landlord of his farm
forbade on his lands. On doing so, his landlord sent for him,
and told him he must either give up the shooting or the farm,
as his tenants were not allowed to shoot, even on land which
they had taken for the express purpose. Accordingly, Mr.
Todd had to quit, and stated his case in the Daily Neivs of
October last year. The landlord's agent thereupon wrote to
explain, admitting that the facts were stated correctly by Mr.
Todd, but adding that there were circumstances of aggrava-
tion, the tenant having "placed turnips to attract the hares,
and shot them in the dusk when the snow was on the
ground." Considering -that so much damage is done by hares
that the Legislature have since been obliged to give tenants
the power to destroy them, whether their landlords will or no,
Mr. Todd's conduct seems very natural, and was certainly
neither legally nor morally wrong. Neither can we say that the
landlord was wrong in using the power he possessed to
preserve the hares for his own sport ; but the circumstance,
none the less, shows that a tenant-farmer of England lives
under a hard despotism, and is liable to be expelled from the
hoine of his childhood for the slightest interference with his
landlord's fancies or privileges.

Eviction of the Inhabitants of an Entire Village. — In the
following case, given on the authority of Mr. Froude,* no offence
whatever appears to have been alleged against the unfortunate
tenants. He says : — " Not a mile from the place where I am

* Nineteenth Century, September, 1880.

104 Land Nationalisation.

now writing an estate on the coast of Devonshire came into the
hands of an English Duke. There was a primitive village
upon it, occupied by sailors, pilots, and fishermen, which is
described in Domesday Book, and was inhabited at the
Conquest by the actual forefathers of the late tenants, whose
names may be read there. The houses were out of repair.
The Duke's predecessors had laid out nothing upon them for
a century, and had been contented with exacting the rents.
When the present owner entered into possession it was
represented to him that if the village was to continue it must
be rebuilt, but that to rebuild it would be a needless expense,
for the people, living as they did on their wages as fishermen
and seamen, would not cultivate his land, and were useless to
him. The houses were therefore simply torn down, and
nearly half the population was driven out into the world to
find new homes. A few more such instances of tyranny
might provoke a dangerous crisis.'' Here, then, for no offence
whatever, a considerable village population — who, if long-
continued ancestral occupancy goes for anything, had the full
moral and equitable right to live on this particular portion of
their native soil — were rudely driven out to what must have
been to them a cruel banishment. Some grave political
crime, some gross offence against law or morality, would
hardly have justified such a punishment, in which old and
young, women and children, were alike involved. Who can
tell the mental anguish, the physical suffering involved in such
an eviction ; the burning sense of injury, the rending of social
ties, the pain and loss of having to seek a fresh home and
begin a new life at the will of an unknown and unseen despot ?
And the powerful Government of our free England, with its
high-sounding declarations — that every man's house is his
castle ; that rich and poor are alike in the eye of its laws ;
and that there is no wrong without a remedy — was absolutely
powerless to give these poor villagers any protection whatever !

English Landlordism. 105

By recognising private property in land, the State has set up
in its midst a number of petty lords more powerful than any
Government ; and v/hose decrees, whatever injustice they may
do, or whatever misery bring to British subjects, no court of
law or equity is able to reverse. Well may Mr. Brodrick say
that neither Saxon chief nor Norman lord ever had the right
of exercising such power as this ; for they at all events had
a superior lord over them who could, if he so willed, remedy
such injustice, while our existing Government can not do so.

On the broad ground, then, that the possession of land
(for other purposes than personal occupation) gives the
owner powers which are inconsistent with the liberties of
their fellow-subjects, we again claim the abolition of
landlordism.

Injurious Power of Landlords over Farmers and over
Agriculture. — One of the strongest points of the landlord
system is supposed to be the beneficial influence of an
educated and enlightened class, whose duty as well as their
interest is to manage their estates on the best principles, to
introduce improved methods of agriculture, and generally to
set a good example in both agricultural and social economy.
Admitting that the best types of landlords actually do produce
these good effects, we are bound to ask what proportion these
bear to the whole body, and whether in the majority of cases,
a great landowner is not rather a clog upon progressive
agriculture, by the antiquated regulations which he enforces on
his tenants, while by inordinate game-preserving he actually
destroys large quantities of the produce of the soil.

Mr. Brodrick tells us that the most profitable form of
agricultural occupation is that which most resembles ownership ;
that " the best agriculture is found on farms whose owners are
protected by leases ; the next best on farms whose tenants are
protected by the Lincolnshire or other customs ; the worst of
all on farms whose tenants are not protected at all, but rely on

io6 Land Nationalisation.

the honour of their landlords." Now during the present
century the custom of granting leases has diminished, partly
owing to the desire of landlords to secure political power by
influencing their tenants' votes, and partly from the importance
they attach to rights of sporting, which often induces them to
accept low rents from non-improving tenants, who can be
turned out at short notice if they meddle with the game ; and
Mr. Brodrick concludes that, " by the operation of these and
other causes, it is tolerably certain that yearly tenancy has
become the rule, and leasehold tenancy the exception, in most
English counties ;" while Mr. C. S. Read, M. P., stated, at a
recent meeting of the Farmers' Club, that three-fourths of the
land of England is held subject to a six months' notice to quit.
Whence it follows that a system of tenure which produces
" the worst agriculture of all " is that which prevails over the
larger part of our country ; and this result is due directly to
the will and pleasure of English landlords.

But even under its best conditions — that of holding by a
lease — tenant farming is essentially wasteful and imperfect.
The tenant is almost always subject to covenants which restrict
his freedom and keep him in a certain routine of operations,
even under circumstances when a change would be advan-
tageous to all parties. He is bound to make up a fixed amount
of rent annually, and is therefore unable to carry out any
operations which would diminish his profits for one or two
years, to increase them largely in the future. Whatever im-
provements he may make at the commencement of his lease
must be so calculated that he can obtain their full value before
its termination ; and there is great waste of capital involved in
the tendency of every such tenant to exhaust the soil as much
as possible towards the expiration of a lease, which has to be
restored to its normal fertility in the early years of the next
term.

Limitation of the .Beneficial Influence of Landlords. — Again,

English Landlordism. 107

whatever benefits may be due to the presence of resident
landlords, these extend over comparatively a small portion of
the country, owing to the number of absentees even in England.
From an examination of the official New Domesday Book,
Mr. Arthur Arnold has ascertained that the 525 members of
the peerage own 1,593 separate estates, comprising an area of
more than 15,000,000 acres; or, allowing for roads, rivers,
towns, and other public property, about one-third the whole
land of the United Kingdom. The Duke of Buccleugh owns
14 separate estates, and four other peers 11 each, while the
whole body of peers average 3 each, often widely separated in
different counties. It is evident that in all these cases the estates
must be wholly managed by agents ; and, although the owner
may occasionally visit each of them, the supposed beneficial
influence of residency must be at a minimum. The list of
landowners possessing more than 5,000 acres shows that
great numbers of private gentlemen also possess estates in from
two to seven distinct counties ; and as most of these live a
considerable part of the year in London, and another part
abroad, they can hardly have much time to reside even on the
particular estate which they make their home. On the whole,
then, it is evident that the majority of the estates of great
landlords do not possess the benefit, whatever that may be, of
the permanent residence of the owner among the farmers,
labourers, and other people who, as we have seen, are so largely
dependent on his will and pleasure.

Whatever Beneficial Influence Landlords Exert would be
Increased Under Occupying Ownership. — It will be as well to
notice here a strange misconception which pervades the ideas
and arguments of those who uphold landlordism as a beneficial
system. They assume that, if the nobility and educated
gentry were no longer the possessors of great landed estates,
beyond what they desired to occupy and maintain for their
own pleasure or profit, they would not live in the country at

io8 Land Nationalisation.

all. But we may ask, Where, then, would they live ? Is all the
English love of country life a delusion ? Would our wealthy
classes live always in London, if they derived their income
from other sources than the rents of land which they rarely
or never behold ? These questions really require no answer,
and they serve to show the futility of the whole objection.
If, as we here maintain, land ought to be owned only for
personal occupation, it is as certain as anything can be that the
number of wealthy resident landowners would greatly increase.
The numerous fine parks and demesnes now kept up merely
as show places, or let out to yearly tenants, would be each and
all in the hands of a separate occupying owner. Each would
be a home ; and, as such, would be the object of that loving
personal care and attention which, as one of half-a-dozen
country houses, they never receive. For one resident land-
owner with education, wealth, and refinement, there would
then be a dozen or a score ; for each great estate would become
the property of many owners, some owning several hundreds
or even thousands of acres, others small farms ; and as every
one of these would be influenced by the double motive of
adding to the permanent value of his own property and
increasing the beauty and enjoyability of his only country
home, their influence for good on each other and on the
labouring classes would be certainly many times greater than
that of any one half-resident landlord, even if all these were as
good, and useful, and enlightened members of society as some
of them really are.

Supposed Importance of the Large Farms which Land-
lordism, Favours. — Another of the allegations in support of
landlordism is that great landlords favour large farms, and
that large farms worked by farmers of sufficient capital are
more economical and produce larger profits than small ones.
Admitting, for the sake of argument only, that this may
possibly be sometimes true, and even that scientific farming on

Etiglish Landlordism. 109

large farms produces larger wheat crops per acre than small
ones, this only proves that such farms are better for the land-
lord and perhaps for the tenant, but not necessarily for the
nation at large. For, since our supply of corn and cattle now
comes mainly from abroad, the chief effect of a larger amount
of such produce being obtained by a given amount of labour is
that the landlord gets a higher rent and the farmer a larger
profit, while the whole population of the country round may
be positively injured. It is a well-known fact that in a dis-
trict of large farms the inhabitants of the adjacent towns and
villages suffer many inconveniences, especially in the difficulty
of procuring new milk, fresh butter, eggs, or poultry, all of
which, if produced, are sent away to London or other large
cities. Families living quite in the country are thus often
obliged to use Swiss milk, to eat foreign butter, or even an
artificial compound of fat misnamed butter, and French eggs ;
while labourers and mechanics often bring up their families
v,'ithout the use of so wholesome and natural a food as milk.

But the question of the comparative productiveness of large
and small farms is most unfairly decided by a comparison of
tenant-farmers of these two classes in England. The large
farmer is usually better educated and has a larger capital than
the small one, and more frequently has a lease which enables
him to work his land at a considerable advantage. But, as we
shall show in our next chapter, when occupying owners are
concerned there is no such superiority. Mr. Brodrick tells
us that M. de Lavergne, writing on the Rural Economy of
England, declared that no similar area of English land is culti-
vated so well as the Ddpartement du Nord, which is essentially
a district of small farms ; adding — " there is overwhelming
. evidence to prove that scientific English agriculturists have yet
many lessons to learn from the small farms in Belgium,
Switzerland, the Channel Islands, and Germany."

The great and essential point, however, is always overlooked

no Land Nationalisation.

by the apologists of landlord-and-tenant farming. This is, not
which system leads to the greatest production of wealth, but,
which supports the largest agricultural and rural population in
comfort, decency, and reasonable well-being ; which tends
most to render the lowest class of workers thrifty, sober, and
industrious; which will most surely abolish pauperism and
diminish crime. The government of a civilised community is
bound to consider the well-being of every class of its subjects,
not that of capitalists only ; and the experience of the last 50
5'ears abundantly proves — as we have already shown — that the
most astounding increase in the aggregate wealth of the com-
munity has no necessary tendency to diminish poverty or
abolish pauperism.* Let us, then, proceed to inquire what are
the effects of landlordism on that large mass of workers to
whom the entire wealth of the country is primarily due ; and
■whose physical, social, and moral condition is the true and
final test of the success of any government or any social
polity.

The Ejffeds of Landlordism on the Well-Beingof the Labouring
Classes. — In medieval times the villein or serf, corresponding
to our agricultural labourer of to-day, could not be ejected
from his land except by the judgment of a manor-court, in
which the freeholders sat as jurymen, t However hardly he
might be treated by his lord, he still had a home and a plot
of land on which he could work with all the intense interest of
an owner. Later on, when the villeins had become freemen,
it was attempted to fix the rate of wages of labourers, who, by
the continued enclosures of woods and wastes had become
more dependent on daily labour for sustenance. In order to
mitigate the evil results of this limitation of wages, the first
Poor Law was established, and about the same time a statute

* See p. 4, Footnote.
t Prot Thorold Rogers m Coniemporary Hevieiv, April, 1880.

English Landlordism.

Ill

of Elizabeth required four acres of land to be attached to each
new cottage. If this just and far-seeing law had been strictly
enforced to the present day, and the land so granted declared
to be inalienable, it is probable that much of the great mass of
pauperism which now exists would have been prevented. Down
to a century ago, however, the position of the agricultural
labourer was decidedly better than it is now. Matthews
estimated that, in 1720, the wages of a labourer commanded
more than at any previous or subsequent time ; while a Parlia-
mentary Report in 1868 thus forcibly sums up the advantages
■of his position : — " Previous to 1775 the agricultural labourer
■ft'as in a most prosperous condition. His wages gave him a
great command over the necessaries of life, his rent was lower,
his wearing apparel cheaper, his shoes cheaper, his living
cheaper, than formerly; and he had on the commons and
wastes liberty of cutting furze for fuel, with the chance of
getting a little land, and in time a small farm."* It is true
that his social and moral condition was very low, but so was
that of many of his superiors ; and it is very doubtful whether
the improvement which has taken place in this last respect is
not to a great extent neutralised by the deterioration of his
physical condition.

Deterioration of the Condition of the Agricultural Labourer
during the present Century. — From that time till within the last
few years the wealth of the landlords, and, in a less degree, the
■ profits of the farmers, have been steadily increasing. The rent
of even agricultural land has nearly doubled, and the price of
much agricultural produce has doubled also. In the latter part
■of the last century meat was 4d. a pound, cheese 3^d., butter
6|d., and skim-milk could be had for a halfpenny a quart,
or was often given away, while wages were then about 8s. a

* First Report of the Women's and Children's Employment Commission
<i868), Par. 251.

113 Land Nationalisation.

week. In 1850 all these articles of food were much dearer, while
in some parts of England wages were actually lower; and whereas
during the last twenty years the above articles have been
usually more than double the price, wages have been less than
half as high again. But the labourer has now to pay much
higher house-rent, he has generally no garden, and, being
usually a weekly tenant, is so dependent on his landlord that
he cannot make the most of what he has ; the commons and
roadside wastes from which he formerly obtained fuel for winter,
with food and litter for a cow, a donkey, geese or poultry, have
almost all been enclosed ; and the result is that he has few
means of adding to his scanty wages, and is reduced to live
mainly on bread and weak tea, with a little cheese or bacon and
cheap artificial butter, while his children are brou-ght up almost
without knowing the taste of milk. His sole relaxation is to
be found at the wayside tavern, his only prospect to end his
days in the workhouse.

The Social Degradation of the Agrictdtural Labourer at
the Present Day. — In a remarkable letter to the Daily News
in 1869, Sir George Grey gave a striking picture of the social
and physical degradation of the English agricultural labourer.
He quotes the reports of their medical officers to the Privy
Council, which tell us that — " Whether he shall find house-room
on the land which he contributes to till, whether the house-room
which he gets shall be human or swinish, whether he shall have
the little space of garden that so vastly lessens the pressure of his
poverty — all this does not depend on his willingness and
ability to pay reasonable rent for the decent accommodation he
requires, but depends on the use which others may see fit to
make of their ' right to do as they will with their own.' "
Owing to the pecuniary interest which each parish formerly
had in reducing the number of its resident labourers, thus
diminishing its liability to rates, the landowners had but to
resolve that there should be no labourers' dwellings on their

English Landlordism. 113

estates, and they would thenceforth be virtually free from half
their responsibilities for the poor. The lord of the soil may
treat its actual cultivators as aliens whom he may expel from his
territory ; and when it is his interest or his pleasure he often
does so. The same report states : — " Besides the extreme cases
where houses of a parish were pulled down in the teeth of an
increasing population, there were also innumerable parishes
where the demolition of houses was going on more rapidly than
any diminution of the population could explain. When the pro-
cess of depopulation is completed, the result is a show village,
where the cottages have been reduced to a few, and where none
but persons who are needful as shepherds, gardeners, or game-
keepers are allowed to live. But the land requires cultivation,
and it will be found that the labourers employed upon it are
not the tenants of the owner, but that they come from a neigh-
bouring open village, perhaps three miles off, where a numerous
small proprietary had received them when their cottages were
destroyed in the close villages around." To the hard toil of
the labourer there will then have to be added the daily need
of walking six miles or more for the power of earning his daily
bread. "But he suffers a still greater evil in the kind of
dwelling he is obliged to inhabit. In the open village cottage
speculators buy scraps of land, which they throng as densely as
they can with the cheapest of all possible hovels, and into
these wretched habitations (which, even if they adjoin the open
country, have some of the worst features of the worst town
residences) crowd the agricultural labourers of England." The
habitual overcrowding of these wretched hovels leads to scenes
and conditions of life too painful to dwell upon, and we need
only quote the concluding statement. " To be subject to such
influences is a degradation which must become deeper and
deeper for those on whom it continues to work. To children
who are born under its curse it must be a very baptism into
infamy."

I

114 Land Nationalisation.

It may be supposed that these cases are the exceptions, but
the report assures us they are not so. After doing justice to the
honourable instances in which landowners, even at a loss to
themselves, provide decent accommodation for their labourers,
it adds : — "From these brighter but exceptional scenes it is
requisite, in the interests of justice, that attention should again
be drawn to the overwhelming preponderance of facts, which
are a reproach to the civilisation of England. Lamentable
indeed must be the case when, notwithstanding all that is
evident with regard to the quality of the present accommoda-
tion, it is the common conclusion of competent observers that
even the general badness of dwellings is an evil infinitely less
urgent than their numerical insufficiency."*

Corroborative evidence, if any be needed, is furnished by
many independent authorities. Professor Fawcett, in the
work already referred to, says of the British agricultural
labourers — "Theirs is a life of incessant toil for wages too
scanty to give them a sufficient supply of the first necessities of

* This depopulation of estates and parishes has been going on for more
than a century. Arthur Young described the operation of the old Poor
Law in his time as causing universally "an open war against cottages."
Gentlemen bought them up whenever they had an opportunity, and
immediately levelled them with the ground, lest they should become "a
nest of beggars' brats." The removal of a cottage often drove the indus-
trious labourer from a parish where he could earn 15s. a week to one where
he could earn but los. Thus, as among the Scotch labourers of the pre-
sent day, marriage was discouraged ; the peasantry were cleared off the
land, and increasing immorality was the necessary consequence. The
effect of this system was actually to depopulate many parishes. The
author of a pamphlet on the subject, Mr. Alcock, stated that the gentle-
men were led by this system to adopt all sorts of expedients to hinder the
poor from marrying, to discharge servants in their last quarter, to evict
small tenants, and pull dow>n cottages. The duties of an overseer under
the old Poor Law system in England are described by Dr. Burn to be —
" Not to let anyone have a farm of j^\o a year, . . , To bind out
poor children apprentices, no matter to whom or to what trade ; but to
take special care that the master live in another parish. ... To pull
down cottages ; to drive out as many inhabitants and admit as few as they
possibly can : that is to depopulate the parish, in order to lessen the poor
ratc«" (Godkin's "Land War in Ireland," p. 241,)

English Landlordism. 115

life. No hope cheers their monotonous career : a life of con-
stant labour brings them no other prospect than that when
their strength is exhausted, they must crave as suppliant
mendicants a pittance from parish relief " ; while the Bishop
of Manchester states that out of 300 parishes which he visited
in Norfolk, Essex, Sussex, and Gloucestershire, only two had
good cottage accommodation. ..." The majority of
the cottages that exist in rural parishes are deficient in almost
■every requisite that should constitute a home for a Christian
family in a civilised community.'' Details are then given of
parishes and estates of 2,000 acres with one or two cottages
only and sometimes none at all ; and as a result ten or eleven
persons sleeping in a single bedroom.* And the only remedy
suggested for this state of things is — not to give labourers a
right to have land, the one and only possible and real
remedy, but " to call upon those who own the soil to see to it
that their estates are adequately provided with decent resi-
dences for those by whom they are tilled." What a weak and
impotent conclusion ! Call upon the landlords to build com-
fortable, roomy, and decent cottages at a certain loss ! Truly
you may call and call, but you will get no satisfactory response;
and in the meantime more Commissions will inquire, more
misery and horror will come to light, and no general improve-
ment will be effected.

This State of Things is Due to the System of Landlordism,
not to the Bad Conduct of Landlords. — Now, the great point
to be noticed here is, that, except by the action of the benevo-
lent or charitable, the labourer is, as a rule, disgracefully
housed, wretchedly fed, and, however honest and industrious he
may be, has rarely any other prospect than to die a pauper.
The law of supply and demand has failed to give him a decent
cottage. The enormous increase in the wealth of the landlord,

* Appendix to First Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into
the condition of women and children employed in agriculture.

ii6 Land Nationalisation.

giving him the disposal of so much larger a fund out of which
to employ labourers, has in no way benefitted the tiller of the
soil. And, while every one remarks that the standard of living
of the tenant-farmers has been greatly raised, the foregoing
evidence, no less than the glaring facts of persistent
pauperism, shows that the social condition of the labourer
has certainly been stationary, if it has not actually deteriorated.
It is not necessary to go far to seek the cause of this apparently
inexplicable state of things. Those who do not wilfully shut
their eyes must see that the monopoly of the land by landlords
sufficiently explains it. The land is a fixed quantity, while
the population is ever increasing. The tenant-farmer with
capital is in a position to make such a bargain with the land-
lord as will give him fair interest on his capital and adequate
remuneration for his skill in superintending his farm. Between
them they absorb all the profit that they extract from the soil,
while the wages of the labourer are kept down by the forced
competition of those who have no other means of living to that
irreducible minimum which is barely sufficient to support
life and health while he can work, and, as soon as his
strength fails, leaves him to charity or the poorhouse.*

* That this is a necessary consequence of private property in land has
been demonstrated with great force in Mr. George's remarkable
work, " Progress and Poverty," of which some account is given in a later
chapter. It has also been seen by some of our recent political economists,
especially by Professor Caimes, who writes as follows: — "A given
exertion of labour and capital will now produce in a great many directions
five, ten, or twenty times — in some instances, perhaps, a hundred times —
the result which an equal exertion would have produced -a. hundred years
ago ; yet the rate of wages .... has certainly not advanced in any-
thing like a corresponding degree, whilst it may be doubted if the rate of
profit has advanced at all. , . . We should be inclined to say it had
even positively fallen. . . . Someone, no doubt, has benefited by the
enlarged power of man over material nature ; the world is, without
question, the richer for it. . . . The large addition to the wealth of
the country has gone neither to profits nor to wages, nor yet to the public
at large, but to swell a fund ever growing, even while its proprietors sleep
— the rent-roll of the owners of the soil." ("Some Leading Questions of
-Political Economy Newly Expounded," pp. 328-333).

English Landlordism. iij

Ii is not that the landlord or the farmer are individually
to blame. Both try to make the most of the property
v.hich the law allows them to possess, and we cannot ex-
pect them to do more than pay the current rate of wages.
AVere all landlords without exception to devote a considerable
percentage of their incomes to providing good cottages for their
labourers rent-free, one of the great blots on our agricultural
.■system would doubtless be removed. But this would be charity
pure and simple ; and to say that there is no way of raising the
.status of the labouring population except by the universal
■charity of the landlords is to confess that landlordism itself is an
■evil of the first magnitude. The labourer does not want charity,
but simply justice. He wants some share in that common
land which his ancestors possessed, but from which, by
landlord-made law, he is now totally divorced. He claims the
right to labour for his own benefit on some portion of his native
soil, not doled out to him in allotments at three or four times
the rent paid by the farmer, and even then considered a favour,
but in plots attached to his cottage home, to which he shall
liave an inalienable title under a fixed quit-rent, to which he
can devote those hours or days of enforced idleness now
cruelly wasted, and in the cultivation of which his children
may acquire habits of industry and thrift, and the simpler arts
•of cultivation. In our next chapter we shall show, by
abundant evidence, that by conceding such a right we should
soon change a pauperised into a self-supporting population,
-and should at the same time render our country far more
healthy and enjoyable to every one of its inhabitants.

The Enclosure Act and its Results. — Although we freely
.absolve landlords from blame in the matter of the wages of
labourers, we cannot do the same in regard to their collective
.action in the enclosures of commons. By means of various
Enclosure Acts, it is estimated that about seven millions of
■acres of land were enclosed between 1710 and 1843. The

1 1 3 Land Nationalisation.

progress of enclosure has been most rapid since the time of
George II, and Sir George Nicholls states that two and a half
millions of acres were enclosed in thirty years between 1769
and 1799. The Royal Commissioners on the Employment
of Women and Children in Agriculture remark that these-
enclosures were often made without any compensation to the
smaller commoners, and that they have deprived agricultural
labourers of ancient rights over the waste, and have disabled
the occupants of new cottages from acquiring such rights. In
1845 ^ general Enclosure Act was passed for still further
facilitating the enclosure and improvement of commons, and it
empowered the Commissioners to . grant portions of the land
for recreation and for allotments to the labouring poor,
according to population. It did not, however, allow allotments
of more than a quarter of an acre to each labourer, and no
house was in any case allowed to be erected on them. While-
all other persons having rights of common had allotments
made to them of land in absolute property, the labourers, toi
whom the common rights had in many cases been of more real
use and value than to most of the surrounding landowners, had
nothing whatever given to them but a miserable pittance of
allotment ground, for which they had to pay a high rent 1 The
Commissioners, however, appear to have made little use even of
these scanty powers, since, out of 7,000,000 acres enclosed
since 1760, it was found in 1868 that only 2,119 acres had'
been reserved for allotments.* As examples of the more
recent action of the Enclosure Commissioners, we find it stated
in the report of the Commons Preservation Society that in
1869 they recommended the enclosure of 6,916 acres, of which
they reserved three acres for recreation and six for field
gardens ! Owing to the attention drawn to these figures in.
Parliament and by the press, they have latterly given rather-

* Brodrick, " English Land and English Landlords,'' p. 234,

English Landlordism. 119

more for these purposes; yet in 1875, out of 18,600 acres
enclosed only 132 acres were reserved for garden allotments.

Uniform Evidence as to the Beneficial Effects of Allotments and
Cottage Gardens. — If we think it strange that a body of highly
educated, wealthy, moral, and benevolent men saw nothing
wrong in thus appropriating to themselves land which had been
the birthright of the English labourers from time immemorial,
we are still more astonished at the impolicy of such a course
of action, in view of the evidence they possessed of the im-
portant uses this land might have been put to for the diminu-
tion of the persistent evils of pauperism and crime. So long
ago as 1795, it was shown before a Select Committee of the
House of Commons "that, in 1770, the lord of a manor near
Tewkesbury, remarking the exceptionally good character of
families holding plots of reclaimed land, set apart some twenty-
five acres for cottagers' allotments, and had the satisfaction of
seeing the poor-rates reduced in two years to 4d. in the pound,
while they stood at 2s. 6d. in the surrounding parishes." And
another Select Committee in 1843 reported that "the tenancy
of land under the garden allotment system is a powerful
means of bettering the condition of those classes who depend
for their livelihood on manual labour, and the benefits are
obtained without corresponding disadvantages." From evidence
given before the "Women's and Children's Employment
Commission" in 1868, it was proved that cottagers obtained
a return from such allotments of £16 an acre above the
ordinary farm rent, and it was estimated that, if all agricultural
labourers above 20 years of age possessed half-acre or quarter-
acre allotments, the annual value of the produce would be
between three and four millions of pounds. If these state-
ments are even approximately correct, it is clear that the
refusal of land to labourers results in a great loss to the nation
of actual food, quite independently of the enormous saving
that would accrue to it by the diminution of pauperism.

120 Land Nationalisation.

The allotments that do exist (and they are far from suffi-
cient to supply the wants of the agricultural labourers) are,
however, no test whatever of the good that might accrue from
a more generous system. They are almost always held from
year to year, and the labourers usually pay for them double or
treble the rent paid for the same land by the farmer. They
are also let in far too small patches ; and, what is worst of all,
they are often situated a considerable distance from the
dwellings of the majority of the labourers. All these conditions
are adverse to their being made the most of. A garden is
especially valuable because it enables a man and his family to
utilise odd moments, while its progress, being constantly under
his eye, gives him a new interest in his home. After a long
day's labour, and a walk of perhaps two or three miles from
his work, to have to walk another mile, perhaps, to his allot-
ment must often prevent him from going there at all, except
when the days are longest. But perhaps even more important
is the loss which his garden sustains in not receiving the whole
refuse and sewage of the house, which could be so easily
applied to a cottage garden, but which involves a heavy cost in
time and labour if they are to be carried to a distant allotment.
Again, the temporary occupation of a field-allotment affords no
scope for growing fruit, in which our country is so deficient,
or in keeping poultry for the supply of eggs, which might as
easily be produced by our cottagers as by those of France. It
is a mere mockery to point to allotments as affording any
adequate notion of the material and social benefits which our
labourers directly, and the whole country indirectly, would
derive from throwing open the land freely to the permanent
occupation or ownership of our labouring classes.

Beneficial Effects of Small Cottage Farms. — As one example
of the good effects produced by even an approximation to
such a system is the following statement of what has been
done on the Annandale estate in Dumfriesshire. " Leases of

English Landlordism. 121

twenty-one years were offered at ordinary farm rents to
■deserving labourers, carefully selected for their character, who
built their own cottages, at a cost to themselves varying fram
;^2 1 to £,i,o, exclusive of labour, while the landlord supplied
timber, stone, &c., at a cost of about £^22. These houses
were not grouped in villages, but chiefly situated along roads,
with plots of from two to six acres attached to each, or the
addition of grass for a cow. All the work for these little
farms was done at by-hours and by members of the family,
the cottager buying roots from the farmer, and producing in
return milk, butter, and pork, besides rearing calves. Among
such peasant farmers pauperism soon ceased to exist, and
many of them soon bettered themselves in life. It was also
particularly observed that habits of marketing and the constant
demands on thrift and forethought brought out new virtues
and powers in the wives. In fact, the moral effects of the
system in fostering industry, sobriety, and contentment
were described as no less satisfactory than its economical
success."*

Again, the same writer tells us that in several estates in
Cheshire it is the practice to let plots of land ranging from
two and a-half to three and a-half acres with each cottage at
an ordinary farm rent. This practice, which is but the
revival of a custom once almost universal amongst the
peasantry of England, is found to be fraught with manifold
advantages. The most obvious of these is an abundant
supply of milk for the farm labourers' children, who in many
districts grow up without tasting the natural diet of childhood.
But the habits of thrift and forethought encouraged by cow-
keeping and dairying, on however small a scale, constitute
a moral advantage of great importance. On Lord ToUemache's
estate in Cheshire, where the system has been long established

• " English Land and English Landlords," p. 237.

122 Land Nationalisation.

and carefuly managed, its results have been eminently bene-
ficial, and attended by none of the drawbacks so often
magnified into insuperable difficulties by the opponents of
cottage farming. Not less satisfactory has been the experience
of other landlords who have given the system a fair trial, and
the Second Report of the Women and Children's Employ-
ment Commission is full of evidence in its favour. " Yet,"
adds Mr. Brodrick, " such is the conservatism of agriculture
that it continues to be a rare feature of English rural economy,
and it is quite possible that generations will elapse before it
is widely extended."*

The Logical Bearing of this Evidence. — Now, when we
have, on one side, a system which inevitably pauperises a
large section of the labouring classes ; which degrades them
socially and morally ; and which, through them, permanently
injures the whole community — and, on the other side, one
which tends immediately to abolish pauperism and diminish
crime ; to elevate this same class socially and morally ; and,
while doing this, to aid materially in the supply of some of
the most important necessaries of life, every Englishman has
a right to object to leaving this great question in the
hands of any body of men, much less of those who for so
long a time have shown themselves utterly incompetent to
form a correct judgment upon it. We object, too, most
strongly to the indefinite continuance of a system which
enables any of our fellow-citizens either to withhold at their
pleasure or to grant as a favour that which we maintain is the
birthright of every Englishman — the freedom to enjoy and
utilise some portion of his native soil, on terms to be settled
by the State, in the interest of all.

Various Powers Exercised by Landlords to the Detriment of
the Pitllic at Large. — Having thus shown how much despotic

* "English Land and English Landlords,'' p. 429.

English Landlordism. 125

power landlords possess over their various classes of tenants,
and how much injury these tenants often suffer directly, and
the community indirectly, by the exercise of these powers, we
have now to consider the numerous ways in which the entire
population, individually and collectively, suffer injury, by
allowing the soil of the country to be monopolised by private
owners and to be dealt with as mere merchandise for profit or
speculation ; as the means of obtaining undue political and
social power ; or as an exclusive possession in which the
people at large have no interests and can claim no rights.

We will begin with the question of House and Home, as
one which affects the interests and the happiness of a larger
number of persons than any other question whatever.

The Free Choice of a Home Essential to Well-Being, —
People have so long been accustomed to look upon land as
necessarily belonging to some individual who has the right to do
■what he pleases with it, that to most persons the idea never
occurs that, as free citizens of a free State, they ought to be
able to live wherever they choose to live, so long as they do
not infringe any other person's equal right to do so. As a
fact, they can only live where some landlord chooses to allow
them; and though hundreds and thousands who have the
means would like to choose a spot for themselves on which to
reside, paying, of course, its fair value to the actual owner, they
are very frequently restricted to some building-estate, where
competition and speculation have raised the price of building
land to such a degree that the crowding and other incon-
veniences of towns are extended far into the country. Every
one who has written on the subject condemns the system of
building-leases, as fraught with innumerable evils, and one
which ought not to be permitted. It leads to bad speculative
building, in which solidity and comfort are sacrificed to
ornament and show. It leads to overcrowding in the vicinity
of towns, and the comparative desertion of the more remote

124 Land Nationalisation.

country places. And by the large profits it gives to existing
landowners, with the prospect of a still larger profit to their
descendants, it leads to the crowding of houses on narrow
strips of land at ground-rents altogether disproportionate to its
extreme agricultural value. These leases have usually been
for 99 years, but some landlords now restrict them to 80 and
even to 60 years; and for the latter half of the term it
is evident that the home feeling and affection which leads a
man continually to improve the dwelling which he trusts will
be inhabited by some portion of his family after him, and
which has an important moral influence on his character,
must be continually weakened and at last wholly cease.
Yet, so long as absolute private property in land continues,
and it is held to be a fit subject for free barter and contract,
it will be practically impossible to abolish the system.

Characteristics of a Good System of Latid Tenure. — Now,
we consider it to be an indisputable axiom that that system
of land-tenure is best which leads at once to the freest enjoy-
ment of the land by the whole population, and at the same
time tends to its increased cultivation and productiveness.
Of all modes of enjoyment that which depends upon the House
and its surroundings — the healthiness, beauty, convenience,
and productiveness of the Home — is the most important,
since it affects directly the bulk of the whole population, and
affects them during the largest portion of their daily lives.
The utmost possible freedom in the choice of a home, with
the greatest possible facilities for procuring the necessary land
at a cheap rate, would constitute perhaps the chief of all the
blessings which a sound and rational system of " Nationalisa-
tion of the Land " would confer upon every individual. Under
the present system the very reverse obtains, since we have the
least possible freedom of choice, and in most cases have to
pay un extravagant monopoly price for whatever we are
permitted to occupy.

English Landlordism. 125

It will be bhown further on that it is quite possible to
obtain the land for the nation without confiscating the
property of any existing landowner or any expectant heir; and,
that being done, it will be as easy as it will be expedient to
secure the right of every one to obtain land for a " house and
home," in almost any spot he may choose, and at a cost
only slightly exceeding its value for agricultural purposes.
The quantity of land thus taken from agriculture would, it is
true, be somewhat larger than at present; but, as much of
this would be highly cultivated as garden ground, and would
offer facilities for the rearing of poultry and pigs as well as for
growing fruit and vegetables, it is probable or even certain that
the general productiveness of the land would be increased
rather than diminished. At all events, every one must feel
that the most perfect liberty in the choice of a dwelling-
place, with a sufficiency of land for garden and pleasure-
grounds at a cheap rate, would be so beneficial to the health
and contentment of the entire community, that a system of
land-tenure which renders it possible and even easy has
already much in its favour. The exact mode in which this
may be effected will be explained when the scheme of Nation-
alisation here advocated is discussed in detail.

We may, however, at once point out that the free appropria-
tion of land for dwellings as now proposed offers, perhaps, the
only possible check to the undue growth of large towns. In
all the more beautiful and healthful parts of the country
land would be taken for dwellings, and these would become
new centres of rural populations, forming in time country
villages and small towns. All land and building speculation
being abolished, the growth of towns, now mainly caused by
such speculations, would be checked, and hundreds who now
take houses from speculative builders merely because they
have no real freedom of choice will then choose for them-
selva. will occupy much more land, and will thus spread

126 Land Nationalisation.

themselves more generally over the country. Other checks
might be applied by local authorities, which would tend greatly
to the healthiness and enjoyability of our larger towns, such
as the interposition of belts of park and garden at certain
intervals around dense centres of population — a class of
improvement which the ruinous competition prices of land
held by private owners now renders impossible."*

Enclosure of Commons and Mountain Wastes as Affecting
the Public. — Next in importance to the power of securing
pleasant and healthy houses, the general public have most
interest in the right to free passage about the country — to roam
over the commons, heaths, and woods ; to search out the
grand and beautiful scenes afforded by our rivers, moors, and
mountains ; to have preserved for them the ruins which are
landmarks of our written history, as well as those more ancient
monuments which tell us of pre-historic ages. In each and all

* That the evils of landlord-made law are still rampant among us is
well shown by the manner in which the late Government dealt with the
owners of house-property by means of their " Artisans' Dwellings Act."
Professor Fawcett, speaking at Hackney on December 14th, 1880, said
of this Act "that a more unfortunate measure,, or one based on more
radically unsound principles, has seldom been brought forward in Parlia-
ment. Under its provisions the owners of houses unfit for human habitation,
instead of being punished for their neglect, have been compensated at such
an extravagant rate that on six of the sites which have been already cleared
the loss to the metropolitan ratepayers has been ;^643,ooo, and if the
Act is permitted to remain in operation in its present form the loss will
soon be more than ;f 2,000,000. Many sites which have been cleared
imder this Act remain unoccupied because houses cannot be built, under
the conditions imposed by the Act. The people who have been driven out
must find refuge somewhere, and districts which were before overcrowded
become more overcrowded still. Difficult as it has been for the poor of
London to provide themselves with suitable homes, the money which the
carrying out of this Act has caused to be lost will have to be supplied by
increased rates, and each addition to the rates makes the payment of rent
more difficult for those of humble means. " This is a fine example of the
difficulty of curing evils arising from the radically unsound principles that
now prevail. With the land of the country in the possession of the State,
and with free choice of sites at a cheap rate, as here proposed, no such
overcrowding could ever have arisen ; and even now, if true principles
were adopted, the evil would soon cure itself.

English Landlordism. 1 27

■of these directions they suffer injury from the powers claimed
and exercised by landlords. As we have already seen,
•enormous areas of common land have been enclosed and
appropriated by the surrounding owners, often without
provision even of foot-paths by which the public may enjoy
any of the land they once freely roamed over. Owing to
inordinate game-preservation, the woods and copses are almost
always rigidly shut up, and thus the public are deprived of
one of the greatest enjoyments of country life — the power to
wander freely under the shade of trees, in places where the
choicest wild flowers blossom, and where the living denizens
of the woods may be seen in their native haunts. Were it
not for the ancient foot-paths crossing the country from village
to village, many parts of our land would be almost shut out
from the great body of its inhabitants. Fortunately these are
tolerably numerous. But however great may be the need of
fresh centres of population, we rarely hear of new paths being
formed, whjle old ones are occasionally shut up or diverted, or
so enclosed by fences that all their picturesque beauty and
Tural.enjoyability is destroyed.

Another injury to the public and deprivation of their rights
is the frequent and constantly increasing enclosure of those
joadside strips of green sward which add so much to the
•charm of rural walks. Everywhere we find roads and lanes
now bounded between parallel hedges or fences at a regular
•distance apart, while a few yards inside the fields on either
.■side an old bank or an irregular row of trees show the distance
to which the road formerly extended. We are assured by the
•Commons Preservation Society " that all such absorptions are
illegal, the general rule of law being that the public have a
Tight of way over the whole space between the hedges."* And
in a later report they repeat that such encroachments " are

* Report of Proceedings, 1870-1876 — p. 27.

128 Land Nationalisation.

almost invariably illegal, and may be abated by the ordinary-
remedies provided in the case of the obstruction of a highway.""
It appears, therefore, that all over the country the public have
for many years past been systematically robbed by means of
these encroachments; and few more striking proofs can be
given of the great evil of landlordism and the injurious power
and influence of landlords than that such systematic robbery,
though contrary to law, should have been almost always
effected with impunity.

Equally, or perhaps even more, injurious to the interests of
the public is the extensive appropriation by individual land-
lords of enormous areas of wild mountain country in Wales,
Ireland, and especially in Scotland, whereby Englishmen are
forbidden in many cases to visit and enjoy some of the most
beautiful and picturesque scenery of their native land — spots,
where nature exhibits her full grandeur, and where alone the
choicest and rarest examples of our native flora and fauna are-
to be met with. The right to these enormous tracts of land,
as private property appears to be of very recent and very
doubtful origin. The Highland chiefs had certainly no such
right to the land in fee, with the concomitant power to evict
all the rest of the clan and sell or let the land to the highest
bidder. Yet this is what the successors to those chiefs claim,
and what they have in some cases actually done ; and the law,
ever on the side of the landlords and against the people,
appears to have endorsed their claim, and has thus given to
them complete and despotic power over the lives and liberties of
the native inhabitants of the district. The result has been that
terrible depopulation and pauperisation of the country which
has been described in the last chapter, and the replacement
of men and human habitations by sheep, cattle, and deer, for
a parallel to which we must go back to the days of the Norman
conquerors of England in the height of their despotic power.
Some of the wildest and grandest mountain scenery of Scotland

English Landlordism. 129

is now as rigidly shut up as if it were in a private pleasure
ground. Hundreds of square miles of glen and rock and
mountain-side are given up to deer and grouse for the pleasure
and profit of a few individuals, while the public are thereby
deprived of a means of enjoyment and healthful relaxation
which hardly any country in Europe denies them but their
own.

The Destruction of Ancient Monuments. — One of the most
palpable illustrations of the evil consequences of allowing land to
be the absolute property of individuals is, that it has led to the
destruction of a vast number of most interesting ancient monu-
ments, while the attempt of Sir John Lubbock and others to
preserve those that still remain has been for some years
strenuously opposed, on the ground that it interferes with the
rights of landlords. Let us cull from Sir John Lubbock's
essay* a few examples of that destruction which several
Members of Parliament have had the hardihood to deny.

One of the most remarkable and interesting of our very
ancient monuments is Abury, or Avebury, in Wiltshire, which
an old antiquarian declared " did as much exceed Stonehenge as
a cathedral doth an ordinary parish church." The entire series
of these remains presented such a colossal enigma as it would be
difficult to parallel even at Karnac ; but this wonderful relic
of the past has been for many years undergoing destruction,
the great stones of which it is composed being broken up to
build cottages, to make gate-posts, and even to mend the roads.
" Still, even now," says Sir John Lubbock, " there is perhaps no
more remarkable monument of the kind in this country, or
even in Europe." In the year 1875, the owner of the land on
which this grand monument stands sold it unreservedly to a
Building Society, by which it was lotted out in sites for cottages,
and actually sold in small plots for this purpose. Fortunately,

* Mnefeenth Century, March, 1877.

130 Land Nationalisation.

Sir John Lubbock was informed of this just in time, and
succeeded in purchasing the land himself, and in persuading
the villagers for a small consideration to exchange their allot-
ments for others in an adjoining field which was just as well
suited to them. Abury, the wonder of antiquarians and the
enigma of the learned, was thus barely saved from complete
destruction by the intervention of a private gentleman living
in a remote county !

As another example, the Roman camp on Hod Hill, Dorset-
shire, was an unique relic of Roman military skill. Mr.
Warne, a local antiquary, says :— "Nothing could be finer than its
condition about ten years ago ; until then it might be seen as in
its pristine state, and, making due allowance for the lapse of
ages, as perfect as when excavated by the Roman cohorts.
. . . . It was indeed so perfect as to render it a model of
Roman castramentation." Yet since that time, this magnifi-
cent camp has been almost entirely destroyed.

Sir John Lubbock mentions scores of similar cases, which
have occurred and are occurring all over the country. No less
than forty of the Irish round towers have perished during the
present century ; and quite recently, when Mr. Payne went to
see the Long Stone, a remarkable monolithic monument
described in the " History of Gloucestershire," he found that it
had just been blown up with gunpowder by the farmer "because
it cumbered the ground." It may be said that the landowners
erred through ignorance of the value and interest of these
monuments, but that cannot be said now ; for after repeated
discussions in Parliament, and after an overwhelming body of
facts of the character of those here presented has been
laid before them, the great landlords still refuse to give up their
right to "do what they like with their own," ^and have
Strenuously opposed, and hitherto prevented from passing, the
very moderate measure of Sir John Lubbock for the purchase
and preservation of the most important of these ancient monu-
ments which still remain to us.

English Landlordism. 131

Public Improvements Checked by Landlordism. — Another
mode in which private property in land operates to the serious
injury of the public at large is the power which landlords
possess, and very often use, of demanding enormous sums for
the land required for public improvements. Whether it is the
formation of new streets in the Metropolis, or the construction
of railways or docks, or the securing of land for public recrea-
tion, the claims of landlords invariably stand in the way,
sometimes preventing the desired improvements from being
carried into effect, sometimes burthening them with a heavy
load of debt and so diminishing their usefulness. Instances of
this will occur to every one who takes note of passing events.
I will only here quote the following statement of Mr. Brodrick :
— "The landed interest of England is estimated to have
received a sum exceeding the national revenue from railway
companies alone over and above the market price of the land thus
sold." The italics are mine, to call attention to the fact that
this sum of 70 or 80 millions paid to the landlords is a
permanent injury to the community, by increasing to that
extent the unproductive capital expenditure of the railway
■companies of the kingdom ; while no class has received so
much benefit from railways as the landlords, in the enormous
increase given thereby to the value of their estates, so that if
they had freely given the land required to construct the lines,
they would still have been gainers. As another example : —
"One nobleman is known to have received three quarters of
a million sterling for the mere sites of docks constructed by
the enterprise of others." Here again no doubt his other
land in the neighbourhood would be greatly increased in value
by these very docks, and, equitably, all this increase of value
should go to those whose expenditure caused it, or at least to the
community at large. But the public and the Government are
alike powerless, and must submit to pay whatever landlords
choose to demand for permission to make public improvements ;

K 2

1.32 Land Nationalisation.

and this state of things will continue so long as private property
in land is allowed.

Permanent Diierioration of the Country hy the Export of
Minerals. — I have already given an example of a landlord
denying the free exercise of their religion to his tenants, and
cases in which sites for chapels have been refused are not
uncommon ; but I shall pass on to an example of the power of
landlords which appears to me to go far beyond what should be
allowed to any citizens of a densely populated country. I
allude to the possession as private property of the minerals
beneath its surface, and the power to work, sell, export, and
totally exhaust them for their individual benefit.

It has not been suiSciently considered that the minerals of
a country are in a totally different category from its agricultural
products or even the agricultural land, inasmuch as man can
neither produce them nor hasten their production by nature,
while in the process of use they are completely destroyed.
They are, besides, a portion of the very land itself ; and their
export to such an extent as to render the remainder more
difficult of access, and therefore more costly, is a permanent ani
irretrievable deterioration of the country, rendering it less
valuable to its future inhabitants. The power of doing this
injury to the community should never have been permitted to
individuals (any more than the right to sell their estates to a
foreign Government), but it has become so great a source of
wealth and is so firmly established as one of the " sacred rights
of property " that only by the complete nationalisation of the
land does it seem possible to abolish it.

It must be remembered that almost every extensive country
in the world possesses coal and iron, besides many oth^r
minerals, and there is therefore no adequate reason for
permanently impoverishing our country by sending its minerals
all over the world and thus robbing future generations ; and
this, not for the benefit of the whole community, but for

English Landlordism. 133

that of the few individuals who have been allowed to
monopolise the land.

It may be said that the price of coal and iron has not yet
been raised by the exhaustion of our supplies ; but this is very
■doubtful. It is an admitted fact that the enormous consump-
tion of coal, both for export and in the manufacture of exported
iron, has led to coal being now worked at much greater depths
than formerly, and this necessarily implies greater cost of
working, and consequently a higher price than would be
necessary at less depths ; and this extra cost must go on
increasing as more and more of the coal at moderate depths is
worked out. But there is another way in which the com-
munity suffers by this excessive export of minerals. The areas
■devoted to mining and smelting are thereby increased far
beyond what is necessary for supplying our own wants, and
this leads directly to the sterilising of large tracts of land, and
besides renders whole districts hideous and unfit for any
enjoyable human habitation. Many thousands of acres of good
land are covered up with the " waste " from mines and the
" slag " from furnaces, and are thus rendered permanently
barren ; while the extent of black country over which all
natural beauty is destroyed must be reckoned by hundreds or
€ven by thousands of square miles. Whatever part of this
■destruction and disfigurement is absolutely needed to supply
our own wants we must submit to ; but that more extensive
portion which owes its origin to the excessive export of the very
vitals of our land for the aggrandisement of landlords and
speculators is a serious loss which should be checked, and a
public nuisance which should be abated.

Concluding Remarks on English Landlordism. — I have now
shown by a series of brief but illustrative cases that landlordism
as it exists in England — that is, under perhaps the most
favourable conditions possible to it — has produced, and is
^aily producing, evil results to every class of the community

1 34 Land Nationalisation.

of the most alarming magnitude. It has also been made
clear that these evil results do not in any way depend upon
the absence of free trade in land, but that they depend
essentially on the relation of landlord and tenant — a relation
which gives a power to one citizen over the liberty and well-
being of others which is incompatible with freedom, while it
denies the right of Englishmen to occupy any portion of their
native land except at the will and pleasure of its comparatively
i&n owners. Further, it has been shown that the divorce of
the working classes from the soil is the prolific parent of
pauperism, vice, and crime ; and that, as a mere question of
national policy, it is essential that some means should be
adopted to give every labourer, as well as every Englishman, a
right to a portion of land at a fixed rent, for cultivation and
home occupation. This can only be done by the abolition
of private property in land and its complete nationalisation —
undoubtedly a measure of a radical if not of a revolutionary-
character, but the evils to be cured are so gigantic and so
deeply rooted that any less searching remedy would be power-
less to effect a cure of the disease.

Occupying Ownership. 135

CHAPTER VI.

THE RESULTS OF OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP AS
OPPOSED TO THOSE OF LANDLORDISM.

SUMMARY OF THE EVILS OF THE LANDLORD SYSTEM — OCCUPYING
OWNERSHIP DEFINED — ^THE ADVANTAGES OF OCCUPYING OWNER-
SHIP — RESULTS OF OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP IN SWITZERLAND —
CO-OPERATION OF OCCUPYING OWNERS IN NORWAY — OCCUPYING
OWNERSHIP IN GERMANY — IMPROVEMENT OF THE SOIL UNDER
OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP IN BELGIUM — EFFECTS OF OCCUPYING
OWNERSHIP IN FRANCE — THE LABOURERS OF FRANCE UNDER
OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP — RESULTS OF OCCUPYING OWNERSHIP IN
THE CHANNEL ISLANDS— GENERAL RESULTS OP OCCUPYING OWNER-
SHIP AND THOSE OF LANDLORDISM COMPARED — RESULTS OF
LANDLORDISM IN ITALY — RESULTS OF LANDLORDISM IN SPAIN AND
SARDINIA — THE OCCUPYING OWNER UNDER EXTREMELY UNFAVOUR-
ABLE CONDITIONS — LARGE FARMS versus SMALL NOT THE QUESTION
AT ISSUE — VARIOUS OBJECTIONS TO PEASANT-PROPRIETORSHIP
ANSWERED BY' FACTS — THE FINAL ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF
LANDLORDISM SHOWN TO BE UNSOUND — BENEFICIAL INFLUENCE
OF OWNERSHIP ON AGRICULTURE — THE CONCLUSION FROM THE
EVIDENCE.

In the preceding chapters the many, and serious, and
widespread evils resulting from the divided interest in land of
landlord and tenant have been illustrated by some typical
cases ; and these evils have been shown to result, not from any
special ignorance or ill-conduct of individuals, but to be
inherent in the system itself. The great landlord is necessarily
a monopolist and a despot The land is his own to be dealt
with as he pleases ; and the greater the income he can derive
from it, the greater share he can secure to himself of the
produce of others' labour upon it, the more respect and
admiration he usually receives. In every step he takes to
secure this end he is supported by the power and majesty of
the law. His tenants have no rights on the soil but such as

136 Land Nationalisation.

he allows them. Whatever added value their labour has given
to the land, in the absence of special agreement becomes his
and not theirs. If they offend him in any way, if they refuse to
act against their political convictions, if they are too demon-
strative in their claims for religious equality, he may — and not
unfrequently does — eject them from the house in which they
and their fathers were born, and from the land which they
have industriously tilled for generations — more for his benefit
than for their own.

To the entire system may be applied the severe judgment
which Mr. Charles Russell passed upon it as regards Ireland: —
" It may as a whole be truly said that it seems to have been
contrived, as if by a malevolent genius, to develope the worst
qualities in the national character, and to repress the best —
contrived to encourage idleness, thriftlessness, insincerity, and
untruthfulness. To me the wonder is, not that the faults of
the Irish (English) people exist as they are, but that they have
managed to retain so much that is estimable, so much that is
kindly in their nature, so much befitting the natural dignity
of men."

Occupying Ownership Defined. — Let us now turn from this
radically vicious and unjust system to its opposite and correla-
tive — occupying ownership.* It is often alleged that if you
abolish landlords you must revert to one dead level of peasant-
proprietorship ; but this is not the case. The essential evils
of landlordism do not in any way arise from large farms as
opposed to small ones — from cultivators possessed of large'
capital as opposed to those who have little or none ; but they
arise solely fiom the relation of landlord and tenant — from one
man letting land in order to get the largest income he can

*The term "occupying proprietorship'' appears to have been first used
by Mr. Charles Russell in his "New Views on Ireland," but he did not
advocate as I do the necessary connection of "occupation" with the
"ownership " of land, which is the essential and vital point of my system.

Occupying Ownership. 137

from it, and another hiring it temporarily to extract what he
can from it before the time comes when he may be called to
give it up. The evil is of the same nature, and often of the
same degree, whether the landlord owns ten thousand acres or
only a hundred, whether he lets it out in farms of five hundred
acres each or in allotments of an acre or less. The true
opposite of landlord and tenant — two persons with conflicting
interests — is owner and occupier combined in the same person,
or " occupying ownership." This ownership may be of the
nature of freehold or of copyhold ; but, in order that all the
evils of landlordism be avoided, it must be secure and perma-
nent ; it must be transmissible to a man's children or heirs ;
and it must be freely saleable or otherwise transferable. The
•one thing to be aimed at is, that the occupier and cultivator of
the land be also the virtual owner ; that all the fruits of his
labour shall be secure to him ; that the increased value of the
land given by permanent improvements shall be all his own.
To ensure this, subletting under any form or disguise must be
prevented, or it is evident that many of the evils of landlordism
will again spring up. Mortgages or other encumbrances on
the land (except to a limited proportion of its value and
repayable by instalments in a moderate term of years) must
also be forbidden, because a farmer whose land is heavily
encumbered, and who, on failure to pay interest in a bad year,
may have his land taken from him,- has little more power or
inducement to make permanent improvements or cultivate in
the best manner than the mere tenant-at-will under a landlord.
These conditions are, as yet, not fulfilled in their entirety
anywhere ; but there is a large body of evidence to show what
good effects are produced by that portion of them involved in
ordinary occupying ownership ; and these effects are so striking
and so instructive, and form so remarkable a contrast to the
evil results of the opposite system, that they need to be care-
fully considered. Having done so, we shall be in a position to

138 Land Nationalisation.

explain the mode by which our existing system of landlordism
may be best abolished, and a sound and well-guarded system
of occupying ownership be established in its place.

The Advantages of Occupying Ownership. — The advantages
of peasant proprietorship (or the occupying ownership of small
farms) are of two kinds, economical and moral. These have
been dwelt upon by many writers, both English and foreign,
and have been the subject of several important works. It will
be here only necessary to give a few of tlie illustrations and
conclusions of these writers, many of which are admirably
summarised in " Mill's Political Economy," Book II, Chap. VI;
and from this work, and the more recent volume of Mr.
Brodrick, many of our facts and quotations will be taken.

Of all countries in Europe Switzerland aflfords, perhaps, the
best example of a good land-system, in which almost every
farmer owns the land he cultivates; and the result is well shown
in the following extract from Sismondi's " Studies in Political
Economy."

Results of Occupying Ownership in Switzerland. — "It is from
Switzerland we learn that agriculture practised by the very
persons who enjoy its fruits suffices to procure great comfort
for a very numerous population; a great independence of
character, arising from independence of position ; a great com-
merce of consumption, the result of the easy circumstances of
all the inhabitants, even in a country whose climate is rude,
whose soil is but moderately fertile, and where late frosts and
inconstancy of seasons often blight the hopes of the cultivator.
It is impossible to see without admiration those timber houses
of the poorest peasant, so vast, so well closed in, so covered
with carvings. In the interior spacious corridors separate the
different chambers of the numerous family ; each chamber has
but one bed, which is abundantly furnished with curtains, bed-
clothes, and the whitest linen ; carefully kept furniture
surrounds it ; the wardrobes are filled with linen :

Occupying Ownership. 139

the dairy is vast, well aired, and of exquisite cleanness;
under the same roof is a great provision of corn, salt
meat, cheese, and wood; in the cow-houses are the finest
and most carefully tended cattle in Europe; the garden is
planted with flowers ; both men and women are
cleanly and warmly clad ; all carry in their faces the impress
of health and strength. Let other nations boast of their
opulence. Switzerland may always point with pride to her
peasants."

In case we may think that this delightful picture is
exaggerated by national pride, let us compare with it the
following account by an observant English traveller — Mr.
Inglis : —

" In walking anywhere in the neighbourhood of Zurich one
is struck with the extraordinary industry of the inhabitants in
the cultivation of their land. When I used to open my case-
ment between four and five in the morning to look out upon
the lake and the distant Alps, I saw the labourer in the fields ;
and when I returned from an evening walk, long after sunset,
as late perhaps as half-past eight, there was the labourer
mowing his grass, or tying up his vines. . . . It is impos-
sible to look at a' field, a garden, a hedging, scarcely even a tree,
a flower, or a vegetable, without perceiving proofs of the extreme
care and industry that are bestowed upon the cultivation of
the soil." And again, describing a district now well known to
English tourists, he says : — " In the whole of the Engadine the
land belongs to the peasantry, who, like the inhabitants of every
other place where this state of things exists, vary greatly in the

extent of their possessions Generally speaking,

an Engadine peasant lives entirely upon the produce of his
land, with the exception of the few articles of foreign growth
required in his family, such as cofiee, sugar, and wine. ' Flax
is grown, prepared, spun, and woven without ever leaving the
house. He has also his own wool, which is converted into ai

140 Land Nationalisation.

blue coat without passing through the hands of either the
■dyer or the tailor. The country is incapable of greater culti-
vation than it has received. All has been done for it that
industry and an extreme love of gain can devise. There is not
a foot of waste land in the Engadine, the lowest part of which is
mot much lower than the top of Snowdon. Wherever grass
will grow there it is ; wherever an ear of rye will ripen there it
is to be found. Barley and oats have also their appropriate
spots, and wherever it is possible to ripen a little patch of
wheat the cultivation of it is attempted. In no country in
Europe will be found so few poor as in the Engadine. In the
village of Suss, which contains about 600 inhabitants, there is
not a single individual who is indebted to others for what he
eats." It is true that in other parts of Switzerland there is
abundance of pauperism, but the fact remains that wherever
the land is occupied by peasant proprietors, there industry,
ease, and comfort prevail.

Co-operation of Occupying Owners in Norway. — Equally
conclusive is the testimony of Mr. Laing as to the occupying
owners of Norway. He says : — " If small proprietors are
not good farmers, it is not from the same cause here which we
are told makes them so in Scotland^ndolehce and want of
exertion. The extent to which irrigation is carried on in these
glens and valleys shows a spirit of exertion and co-operation to
which the latter can show nothing similar." And after giving
details of the miles of wooden troughs to carry water to the
small fields on the mountain-side, he adds :— "Those may \)t
bad farmers who do such things ; but they are not indolent, or
ignorant of the principle of working in concert and keeping
up establishments for common benefit. They are, undoubtedly,
in these respects, far in advance of any community of cottars
in our Highland glens. They feel as proprietors, who receive
the advantage of their own exertions. The excellent state of
the roads and bridges is another proof that the country is

Occupying Ownership. 141

inhabited by people who have a common interest to keep them
in repair. There are no tolls."

Occupying Ownership in Germany. — We will now turn to
Germany, and here we have the testimony of another well-known
English writer and traveller, the late William Howitt. Speaking
of the Rhenish peasantry, in his " Rural and Domestic Life of
Germany," he says :— " The peasants are the great and ever-
present objects of country life. They are the great population
of the country because they are themselves the possessors.
. . . . The peasants are not as with us, for the most part,
totally cut off from property in the soil they cultivate — they are
themselves the proprietors. It is, perhaps, from this cause
that they are probably the most industrious peasantry in the
world. They labour early and late, because they feel that

they are labouring for themselves The German

peasants work hard, but they have no actual want. Every man
has his house, his orchard, his roadside trees^, commonly so
heavy with fruit that he is obliged to prop and secure them all
ways, or they would be torn in pieces. He has his com plot,
his plots for mangel wurzel, for hemp, and so on. He is his
own master ; and he and every member of his family have the
strongest motives to labour. You see the effect of this in that
unremitting diligence which is beyond that of the whole world
besides, and his economy, which is still greater. ....
The English peasant is so cut off from the idea of property
that he comes habitually to look upon it as a thing from
which he is warned by the laws of the large proprietors, and

becomes in consequence spiritless and purposeless

The German bauer, on the contrary, looks on the country as
made for him and his fellow men. He feels himself a man ;
he has a stake in the country as good as that of the bulk of his
neighbours; no man can threaten him with ejection or the
workhouse so long as he is active and economical. He walks,
therefore, with a bold step ; he looks you in the face with the
air of a free man, but a respectful air."

142 Land Nationalisation.

Admirable Cultivation Under Occupying Ownership. — Now-
let us call another witness to the condition of another part of
Germany. Mr. Kay, well known for his long study, from
personal observation, of the condition of the various populations
of Europe, says of Saxony : — " It is a notorious fact that during
the last 30 years, and since the peasants became the proprietors
of the land, there has been a rapid and continual improvement
in the condition of the houses, in the manner of living, in the
dress of the peasants, and particularly in the culture of the
land. I have walked twice through that part of Saxony called
Saxon Switzerland, in company with a German guide, on
purpose to see the state of the villages and of the farming, and
I can safely challenge contradiction when I affirm that there is
no farming in all Europe superior to the laboriously careful cul-
tivation of the valleys of that part of Saxony." And after giving
a picture of the perfect condition of the crops, the total absence
of weeds, the excessive care of manure, and other details, he
goes on :— " The peasants endeavour to outstrip one another in
the quantity and quality of the produce, in the preparation of
the ground, and in the general cultivation of their respective
portions. All the little proprietors are eager to find out how
to farm so as to produce the greatest results ; they diligently
seek after improvements ; they send their children to agricul-
tural schools in order to fit them to assist their fathers ; and
each proprietor soon adopts a new improvement introduced by
any of his neighbours." And the general result of Mr. Kay's
observations is thus summed up : — " The present farming of
Prussia, Saxony, Holland, and Switzerland is the most perfect
and economical farming I have ever witnessed in any country."

Improvement of the Soil Under Occupying Ownership in
Belgium.— 'Q€i%vixa. is another striking example of what can be
done, under the most adverse circumstances, under the
influence of property in the soil. Much of the country consists
of loose white sand just like the sands of a sea-shore. This

Occupying Ownership. 143

sand has been so greatly improved by laborious cultivation and
manure that it cannot be distinguished from soil naturally of good
•quality. The most highly cultivated part of this country con-
sists of peasant properties managed by the proprietors either
wholly or partly by spade industry ; and Mr. M'CuUoch says
that — " The cultivation of a poor light soil, or a moderate soil,
is generally superior in Flanders to that of the most improved
farms in Britain. ... In the minute attention to the quali-
ties of the soil, in the management and application of manures
■of different kinds, in the judicious succession of crops, and
especially in the economy of land, so that every part of it
shall be in a constant state of production, we have still some-
thing to learn from the Flemings." And he shows by minute
calculations and estimates how it is that a man and his family
can live and thrive on the produce of six acres of land.

Effects of Occupying Ownership in France. — France is often
referred to as an example of the ill-success of small farms, even
when owned by the farmers themselves, owing to the extreme
subdivision of property enforced by the French laws. Mr.
M'CuUoch, writing in 1823, predicted that within fifty years
France would become "the greatest pauper warren in the
Tvorld," and share with Ireland the honour of furnishing hewers
of wood and drawers of water to other countries. Yet almost
•exactly at the end of the fifty years France suffered devastation
by war and had to pay a war-indemnity of unparalleled magni-
tude. And it was the savings of her peasant-proprietors that
enabled her to do this with marvellous ease, and to recover
from a state of collapse with a celerity and completeness which
-astonished Europe. The celebrated Arthur Young, a strong
•advocate of large farms, who travelled in France in 1787-89,
whenever he finds remarkable excellence of cultivation, never
hesitates to ascribe it to peasant property. Speaking of a district
near Dunkirk, he says : — " Between the town and Rosendal
is a great number of neat little houses, built each with its

144 Land Nationalisation.

garden, and one or two fields enclosed of most wretched
blowing dune sands, naturally as white as snow, but improved
by industry. The magic of property turns sand to gold.'" And
again : — " Going out of Gange, I was surprised to find by far
the greatest exertion in irrigation which I had yet seen in
France. . . . An activity has been here that has swept
away all difficulties before it, and has clothed the very rocks
with verdure. It would be a disgrace to common sense to ask
the cause ; the enjoyment of property must have done it
Give a man the secure possession of a bleak rock, and he will
turn it into a garden ; give him a nine years lease of a garden.,
and he will convert it into a desert."

Again, take his description of the country at the foot of the
Western Pyrenees : — " A succession of many well-built,
comfortable farming cottages, built of stone and covered with
tiles; each having its little' garden, enclosed by dipt thorn
hedges, with plenty of peach and other fruit trees, some fine
oaks scattered in the hedges, and young trees nursed up with
so much care that nothing but the fostering attention of the
owner could effect anything like it. To every house belongs a
farm, perfectly well enclosed, with grass borders mown and
neatly kept round the corn-fields, with gates to pass from one
enclosure to another. There are some parts of England
(where small yeomen still remain) that resemble this country of
B&rn ; but we have very little that is equal to what I have
seen in this ride of twelve miles from Pau to Moneng. It is.
all in the hands of little proprietors, without the farms being,
so small as to occasion a vicious and miserable population.
An air of neatness, warmth, and comfort breathes over the
whole. It is visible in their new-built houses and stables ; in
their little gardens ; in their hedges ; in the courts before their-
doors ; even in the coops for their poultry and the sties for
their hogs. A peasant does not think of making his pig
comfortable if his own happiness hangs by the thread of a nine
years' lease."

Ccciipyi7ig Ownership. 145

This same author is often quoted on the other side, as an
opponent of small farms, even when in the hands of peasant-
proprietors ; though what he really says is, that the farming in
many of these small farms in France is exceedingly bad. But
this is owing to ignorance only, which may be easily amended,
not to want of industry ; and we must remember that the time
he speaks of was just before the French Revolution, when the
people were subject to the most oppressive taxes, restrictions,
and exactions, and were kept in profound ignorance.* Yet,
note what he says of the farms he is supposed to be condemning :
— " It is necessary to impress on the reader's mind that
though the husbandry I met with, in a great variety of instances
on little properties, was as bad as can be well conceived, yet
the industry of the possessors was so conspicuous and so
meritorious that no commendations would be too great for it.
It was sufficient to prove that property in land is, of all others,
the most active instigator to severe and incessant labour.
And this truth is of such force and extent that I know of no
way so sure of carrying tillage to a mountain top as by permit-
ting the adjoining villagers to acquire it in property ; in fact,
we see that in the mountains of Languedoc, &c., they have
conveyed earth in baskets, on their backs, to form a soil where
nature had denied it." These extracts are surely sufficient to
prove that the celebrated Arthur Young, like the other writers

*The French peasants were heavily taxed on the profits of their farms,
which profits were assessed by the collectors at their pleasure ; and as the
taxes were farmed out, the condition of the peasant was exactly analogous
to that of the subjects of Turkey at the present day, and in both cases it
was necessary to conceal all signs of wealth or even of comfort. There
were also edicts against weeding and hoeing, lest the young partridges
should be disturbed, and the very best of all manures was prohibited lest
it should give a flavour to the game which fed upon the peasants' com !
The peasants were also subjected to forced labour both for the Government
and for the lords of the manor ; and because, under these conditions, the
peasant proprietors of France were not prosperous, peasant-proprietorship
itself was alleged to be a failure ! (See Thornton's " Plea for Peasant
Proprietors," p. 114.)

146 La7td Nationalisation.

whose opinions and observations have been adduced, gives
his testimony in the most forcible manner in favour oi ownership
as against tenancy, on every ground of economical, social, and
moral superiority.

The Labourers of France under Occupying Ownership. —
That the labourer no less than the farmer is elevated and
improved by the possession of land is shown by a more recent
writer. Dr. Ireland, in his " Studies of- a Wandering
Observer" tells us, that — "At Die, a town of 4,000 inhabitants,
there are about 500 proprietors of land, the properties being of
all sizes, from two-and-a-half acres upwards, but generally small.
The peasant-labourers have been generally improving since the
Revolution in wealth, comfort, and intelligence. They ate
black bread, and now they eat brown ; they wore rags, and
now everybody is decently clad. Their wages have doubled,
while the price of corn has only risen one-fifth. The peasant
proprietors are gradually becoming richer. A frugal and sober
family in fifteen or twenty years generally manages to put by
^600.*

Result of Occupying Ownership in fhe Channel Islands. —
One more example we must give, and one especially valuable
because it is nearer to our shores, and actually under our own
arovernment — that of the Channel Islands. Mr. William

* Corroborative evidence in the same direction is afforded by the
following statements given in Mr. Thornton's " Plea for Pmsant
Proprietors : — ■

" Mr. Henry Bulwer remarks that by far the greatest number of indi-
gent is to be found in the northern departments, where land is less
divided than elsewhere and cultivated with larger capitals" (p. 132).

" Mr. Birkbeck (in his tour in France) noticing that on the road from
St. Pierre to Moulins the lower class appeared less comfortable, found on
inquiry that few of the peasantry thereabouts were proprietors" vp. 133).

" Mr. LeQuesne, who, when asking the causes of the smiling produc-
tiveness of Anjou and Touraine, received for answer that the land was
divided into small parcels, rioticed that the houses of the country people
there were remarkable for their neatness, and indicative of the ease and
comfort of their possessors" (p. 133).

Occupying Ozvnership. 147

Thornton, in his " Plea for Peasant Proprietors," speaks thus
of the island of Guernsey : " Not even in England is nearly so
large a quantity of produce sent to market from a tract of such
limited extent This of itself might prove that the cultivators
must be far removed above poverty, for being absolute owners
of all the produce raised by them, they, of course, sell only
what they do not themselves require. But the satisfactoriness
of their condition is apparent to every observer. ' The
happiest community,' says Mr. Hill, ' which it has ever been
my lot to fall in with is to be found in this little island of
Guernsey.' ' No matter,' says Sir George Head, ' to what point
the traveller may choose to wend his way, comfort everywhere

prevails ' In the whole island, with the exception

of a few fishermen's huts, there is not one house so mean as to
be likened to the ordinary habitation of an English farm

labourer. .... Beggars are utterly unknown

Pauperism, able-bodied pauperism at least, is nearly as rare as
mendicancy."

Mr. Brodrick, writing on the subject only last year, with all
the latest information at his command, shows how economically
successful is the agriculture. He says :— " If we judge of
success in cultivation by the produce, we find that a much
larger quantity of human food is raised in Jersey than is raised
on an equal area, by the same number of cultivators, in any
part of the United Kingdom. Not only does it support its
own crowded population in much greater comfort than is
enjoyed by the mass of Englishmen, bat it supplies the London
market, out of its surplus production, with shiploads of vege-
tables, fruit, butter, and cattle for breeding. Even wheat, for
the growth of which the climate is not very suitable, is so
cultivated that it yields much heavier crops per acre than in
England ; and the number of live-stock kept on a given area
astonishes travellers accustomed only to English farming. Nor
ure these onlv the results of spade-husbandry, for machinery is

I48 Land Nationalisation.

largely employed by the yeomen and peasant-proprietors of the
Channel Islands, who have no difficulty in arranging among
themselves to hire it by turns." Mr. Brodrick, like every one
else, traces this wonderful success and prosperity to the land^
system of the country. The soil is naturally rather poor and
the climate is no better than on our own southern coasts, yet,
he tells us, the land "yields an amount and variety of produce
which seems fabulous to persons conversant only with tenant-
farming on the grand scale, not merely because it is more
liberally manured, but also because it is studded with orchards,
vineries, and other profitable hors d'ceuvres of agriculture,
which nothing but the magic of property will call into existence.
The same lesson is taught by the abundance of markets, the
substantial character of the dwellings, even down to the
humblest cottages, the magnitude of the public works, the
dress and diet of the labouring classes, the- comparative rarity
of pauperism, and other signs which betoken a happy and
thriving community.''

General Results of Occupying Ownership and those of Land-
lordism Compared. — Now, when we consider and weigh carefully
this unvarying mass of testimony as to the happiness and well-
being that everywhere prevail among peasant-proprietors or
occupy ing-owners, and compare it with the facts already
adduced as to the condition of our own agricultural labourers,
and our wide-spread pauperism ; with the chronic starvation of
Ireland, and the landlord-made deserts of the Highlands ; with
our wretched building-lease houses ; with the scarcity of milk,
butter, fruit, and vegetables in all our country towns and
villages ; and add to this the difficulty that any Englishman of
moderate tneans finds in getting a small plot of land for his.
personal occupation and enjoyment, — the only conclusion
any rational and unbiassed thinker can arrive at is, that
modern landlordism is the greatest curse that any country can
^roan under ; that it is utterly incompatible with freedom ;

Occupying Ownership, 149

that it takes away the chief incentives to industry and thrift ;
that it creates poverty, pauperism, and crime, and checks all
real progress in civilisation or in national prosperity.

Will it be said that Englishmen alone are not fitted for a
system which succeeds alike in Norway, in Belgium, in
German)', and in France ? The equal success of the yeomen
of Cumberland and Devonshire, and of Englishmen, Scotch-
men, and Irishmen alike, in every colony where they can
obtain land, contradicts the absurd and libellous statement ;
while the industry and thrift our labourers display whenever a
little land is granted them, even as tenants at fair rents and
very imperfect security, shows what they would do under the
more favourable conditions of an absolutely secure and perma-
nent tenure. Even the much abused Irish themselves, who
are supposed to be lazy because they are Celts, at once become
industrious when they see a fair prospect of being allowed to
retain the produce of their labour. Mr. Jonathan Pim gives
the following illustration on the personal testimony of a friend : —
" Within a few miles of the town of Wexford is a range of
rocky hills, called the Mountain of Forth. They are about
seven hundred feet above the sea, are exceedingly rugged,
bleak, and sterile, and are naturally almost destitute of soil or
vegetation. It was probably for this reason that the district
remained in a state of commonage until within the last thirty
or forty years. It is now sprinkled with little patches of land,
many of them on the highest part of the mountain, reclaimed
and enclosed at a vast expense of labour by the peasant-
proprietors, who have been induced to overcome extraordinary
difficulties in the hope of at length making a little spot of land
their own. The surface was thickly covered with large masses
of rock of various sizes, and intersected by the gullies formed
by winter torrents. These rocks have been broken, buried,
rolled away or heaped into the form of fences. The land when
ihus cleared has been carefully enriched with soil, manured,

ISO Land Nationalisation.

and tilled. These little holdings vary from half an acre to ten
or fifteen acres. The occupiers hold by the right of posses-
sion; they are generally poor; but they are peaceable, well-
conducted, independent, and industrious ; and the district is
absolutely free from agrarian outrage."*

In another part of his work Mr. Pim says : " It is well
known that much waste land has been brought under culture
for several years past. This has been eifected chiefly by
allowing cottiers to take in a portion of the mountain side ;
and when they had tilled it for a few years, and partially
reclaimed it, calling on them either to give it up to the land-
lord, or to pay a rent. In some cases they probably retained
it, and became permanent tenants ; but in others, they gave
it up, and commenced anew, not unfrequently ending near
the top of the mountain, at the bottom of which they
commenced many years before. Thus cultivation crept up
the mountain sides, or encroached on the secluded valleys
heretofore untilled. This mode of reclamation required no
capital on the part of the landlord. The cottier or tenant was
the sole agent. He obtained a bare subsistence by very severe
labour, and rarely effected any improvement in his own
condition."

Here are facts, coldly stated as if they were of the most
ordinary nature, which are yet sufficient to make one's blood
boil, in vievv of the actual condition of Ireland and the reck-
less accusations against its people. Is it not truly pitiable
to think of these poor people, working all their lives at the
endless task of reclaiming mountain land, with no other
prospect than to have the fruits of their labour taken from
them the moment it becomes worth the taking ? What would not
these people effect, if they had that legal security for the products
of their own labour to give which is held to be the first duty

* " Condition and Prospects of Ireland " p. 280.

Occupying Oivnership. 151

of even the most rudimentary government, the first condition
of any social or material progress ? Can we have any doubt
that they would soon rise to that state of well-being, order,
and contentment that everywhere else prevails when the tillers
of the soil have full and complete security in its possession ?"*
Results of Landlordism in Italy. — Lest, however, it be
supposed that there is something specially favourable in the
soil, or the climate, or the character of the people in the
countries we have referred to as examples of the admirable
results of occupying ownership, let us take a glance at the
other side of the picture ; for it must not be supposed that
over the whole Continent peasant-proprietorship prevails.
Landlordism, as with us, is often predominant, and wherever
it is so there is misery and discontent in the place of happiness
and peace. Over large portions of Italy there are still, as in
the times of the Romans, latifundia, or large estates farmed
by middlemen and cultivated by labourers and tenants-at-will.
In a recent work on Italy, by M. de Laveleye, he speaks of —
" Naked and desolate fields, where the cultivator dies of famine

• The example above referred to is especially valuable as showing that
large areas of mountain land may be reclaimed by the simple process of
allowing peasants to reclaim it ; and if they are secured in the wlwU
increased value they give to it, it seems difficult to place limits to what
may be done. The usual proposal is that land should be first reclaimed at
the expense of the landlord or of Government, and that then peasants should
be settled on it at rents proportioned to the money expended. But this is
both unnecessary, wasteful, and unfair to the peasants themselves. The
cost of reclamation by hired labour would be far greater than when it is
effected by the occupying owner, who can do it bit by bit, at times when
he would otherwise be idle, and therefore at a minimum of cost. More-
over, he knows best exactly what and how much to do ; whereas large
schemes of reclamation on the plans of engineers or agriculturists are sure
to involve much work which is needless, and much that will be done in a
needlessly expensive fashion — and for all this the poor peasant will be
saddled with a needless amount of perpetual rent ! It is a most essential
principle that all reclamation and improvement on land let to a peasant
on a permanent tenure should be doije by himself, not for him by others.
If he wants help, a small loan, at fair interest and repayable by instalments,
would be the only proper mode of giving it.

1 52 Land Nationalisation.

ia the fairest climate and on the most fertile soil, such is the
result of the latifundia. Economists who defend the system of
huge properties, visit the interior of the Basilicata and Sicily if
you want to see the degree of misery to which your huge proper-
ties reduce the earth and :ts inhabitants."

Their condition is further shown by the following extract
from a petition of the peasants of Lombardy, in reply to a
Ministerial circular warning them against the dangers of
emigration : —

" What do you mean by the nation, Signor Minister ? Is it
the multitude of the miserable ? Then we, indeed, are the
nation. Look at our pale and emaciated faces, at our bodies
exhausted by excessive labour and insufficient food. We sow
and reap the wheat, but never eat white bread. We cultivate
the grape, but never drink its wine. We raise the cattle, but
never taste meat. We are clad in rags. We dwell in dens of
infection. We freeze in winter, and in summer we starve.
Our only nourishment on Italian soil is a handful of maize,
made costly by the tax. The burning fever devours us in the
dry regions, and in the wet ones we are the prey of the fever
of the marsh. Our end is a premature death in the hospital,
or in our miserable cabins. And, in spite of all this, SignOr
Minister, you recommend us not to expatriate ourselves ! But
can the land, where even the hardest labour cannot earn food,
be called a native country ?"

That this is not exaggeration is proved by the prevalence of
pellagra, a frightful form of leprosy brought on by unwhole-
some food. M. de Laveleye says : —

"Twelve and eleven per cent, of the Lombard and
Venetian population are smitten, and those who are not actually
struck by the plague are debilitated by the bad nourishment.
The statistics of the conscription for the Army give horrifying
results. In 1878 the report of General Torre shows that the
number of conscripts excused for constitutional infirmity was

Occupying Ownership. 153

20 per cent in Lombardy and 18 per cent, in Venetia. . . .
Thus, in the fairest country in the world a fifth of the popula-
tion, in the flower of their life, are incapable of military service,
in consequence of extreme poverty. . . . The Commission
of Inquiry on the subject oi\h& pellagra says, ' The cause of this
malady is extreme misery, so that under the medical question
we find the social question.' "

And in a recent report to the Italian Government by Dr.
Ruseri (as quoted in the Daily News, April i6th, 1881) we
have the following statement : —

"Since 1856 the condition of the agricultural population, in
spite of the improvement in other respects that has taken place,
has remained much the same. In the neighbourhood of the
thriving city of Milan are to be found the poorest labourers of
Lombardy, for many of whom even polenta is a luxury. In
Puglia the agricultural labourers live in small cottages of one
room, and sleep in the clothes they have worn the whole day,
for they never undress, on a bare mattress in a niche left in the
wall They are put under an overseer, who funishes them
daily, at the expense of the proprietor, with about two pounds
of bad black bread each. They work from dawn to sunset,
and have no other food, except during harvest, when about two
. quarts of small wine is added to their fare, in order to enable
them to undergo the extra fatigue. The condition of the
peasants in the Basilicata is no better. There they collect at
evening in the towns or villages, living in damp cellars or caves.
Often a whole family possesses but one bed, upon which men,
women, children, and old people sleep pell-mell."

Yet wherever fixity of tenure, or peasant-properties exist,
there, in Italy as elsewhere, the utmost prosperity prevails. M.
de Laveleye says : — " I know of no more striking lesson in
political economy than is taught at Capri. Whence come the
perfection of cultivation and the comfort of the population ?
Certainly not from the fertility of the soil, which is an arid

1 54 Land Nationalisation.

rock. , . . Before obtaining the crops, it was necessary, so
to speak, to create the soil. It is the magic of ownership which
has produced this prodigy."

From the facts presented in different parts of Italy alone M.
de Laveleye arrives at the very same conclusion as we have
reached from examination of similar facts in the British Isles,
that the prosperity of the country is a question of the establish-
ment of a body of independent cultivators of their own land
instead of a population of dependent, and therefore improvident
and wretched, peasants, who have no security for the enjoyment
of the fruits of their labour.

Residts of Landlordism in Spain and Sardinia. — In Spain
also the greater part of the land is held in large estates strictly
entailed, so that the great mass of the people are deprived of
all interest in the soil. These vast estates are generally
managed by stewards, anxious only to remit money to their
masters. The land is ill cultivated, and the peasantry are
indolent and poor.* In Sardinia the same causes are followed
by the same results. Arthur Young says : — " What keeps it in
its present unimproved situation is chiefly the extent of estates,
the absence of some very great proprietors, and the inattention
of all. . . . The peasants are a miserable set, that live in
poor cabins without other chimneys than a hole in the roof to
let the smoke out." And at a much later peripd M'CuUoch
still writes : " The division of the island into immense estates,
most of which were acquired by Spanish grandees, the want
of leases, and the restrictions on industry, have paralysed the
industry of the inhabitants, and sunk them to the lowest point
in the scale of civilisation."

The Occupying Owner under Extremely Unfavourable Con-
ditions. — The evidence, therefore, on this point appears to be
absolutely conclusive : wherever we find large estates cultivated
by tenants-at-will, there is bad farming, discontent, and

* M'CuUoch's Geographical Dictionary, art. Spain.

Occupying Ownership. 155

pauperism ; Avherever we find the land cultivated by its owners
or permanent occupiers, there we find industry, economy, great
productiveness, content, and comfort. Climate, soil, civilisa-
tion, government may vary, but the results of these two
systems of land-tenure never vary in kind but only in degree.
And we must remember that in no country are the conditions
so favourable to the complete success of occupying ownership
as they might easily be made. Bad fiscal regulations, com-
pulsory division of inheritance, and oppressive taxation often
interfere; while nowhere is the mortgaging of the land for-
bidden ; and thus the cultivator of his own farm may often be
hampered by want of capital, cramped by having to pay interest
equal to a high rent, and be living under a sense of insecurity
hardly inferior to that of a tenant-at-will. Yet with all these
disadvantages, the difference of the two systems stands out in
prominent relief — on the one hand insecurity, with idleness,
poverty, and discontent ; on the other hand " the magic of
property which turns sand into gold."

It is true that even the peasant proprietor is often miserably
poor, but when this is the case it is invariably due to the bad
conditions and unnatural restrictions under which he labours.
This is strikingly shown over a large part of North Germany,
where the old common-field system of culture has led to each
farm or holding consisting of a vast number of distinct plots or
strips, which are scattered about over the whole parish and no two
of them contiguous. Mr. Baring Gould, in his valuable work.
"Germany Past and Present," states that sometimes a farm of
about 50 acres will consist of 1,000 bits of land, distributed
over the whole surface of the parish. This is an extreme case,
but the strips are often only seven yards wide, sometimes only
three or even one yard ! None of these are fenced, so that all
domestic animals, even sheep, have to be stall fed, and then
the sheep produce no wool and very poor mutton. These farms
are transmitted from a father to his sons, and their frequent

1 5^5 Land Nationalisation.

division has led to the minute division of the separate
plots, so that each heir may have a share of each quality of
land. In addition to this the individual farms are too small,
while they are often heavily mortgaged to Jews, who advance
funds for the portions of some members of the family when the
owner dies. Mr. Baring Gould thus describes these farms : —
"In almost every parish are a large number of small
proprietors, existing on the fragments of a parcelled farm.
They have too little land to allow of their keeping a horse or
oxen, consequently they have to dfepend on the great bauers
for the tilling of their land and the carting of their harvests.
These little holders have to pay dear for this hire, and they
can often only obtain it too late in the season. They are
behindhand with their ploughing, and their crops are not
.carried till bad weather sets in. An English labourer lives in
luxury compared to these small farmers, who drag on in
squalor and misery, bowed under debt to the Jew who waits to
sell them up."

It is clear enough that this want of success is due to the
utterly abominable conditions under which these poor, people
live — conditions handed down to them from the past and fronj
which they are unable to escape. Yet even here they have
advantages which neither our agricultural labourers nor our
factory-workers possess — that of independence and personal
interest in their work, Mr. Baring Gould says : —

" The artisan is restless and dissatisfied. He is mechanised.
He finds no interest in his work, and his soul frets at the
routine. He is miserable, and he knows not why. But the
man who toils on his own plot of ground is morally and
physically healthy. He is a freeman ; the sense he has of
independence gives him his upright carriage, his fearless brow,
and his joyous laugh."

These cases in which occupying ownership is a comparative
failure are therefore instructive, because we find that the

Ocaipying Ownership. i^f

failure depends wholly on adverse conditions of custom or
law — conditions which no sane man would adopt in establish-
ing a system of land tenure, but which would necessarily
lead to adverse results under any system. This is pre-
eminently a case in which the exception proves the rule.
For it is an exception, the rule being that wherever the conditions
are only in a very moderate degree favourable, we find those
striking results of prosperity, contentment, order, and general
well-being which we have already set forth on the unimpeach-
able and consistent testimony of a large body of competent
observers.*

Large Farms versus Small Not the Question at Issue. — Tlje
opponents of any alteration of our system of land-tenure in
the direction indicated by the evidence here adduced usually
evade the real point at issue by treating it as if it were solely a-
question between small and large farms. They endeavour t&
show that large farms can be cultivated more economically
and produce larger returns than small ones, and that therefore
" peasant-proprietorship " is wasteful, and should be dis-
couraged. To this there are two valid replies. In the first
place, the objection is not applicable to the proposals here

* An article has recently appeared in the "Contemporary Review"
on " Peasant Proprietors in France," in which a very discouraging account
is given of the peasants in some parts of Savoy, more especially as regards-
the discomfort and dirt of their dwellings. The adjacent Departments of
France are also remarkable for the dirty habits of the people, but this
depends more on custom than on want, and is often no indication what-
ever of poverty. It must be remembered that Savoy has been till recently
very isolated, being cut off by the Alps from Piedmont, to which it
formerly belonged ; and the ignorance which even now widely prevails in
Italy was perhaps there exaggerated, and may have checked the outflow of
the surplus population and the influence of new ideas and habits. It
is clear from the article itself that the properties are often too small, and
also that they are in some cases let out to tenants on the metayer system ;.
while there is a total absence of details as to the average size and character
of the tenures and the political and social surroundings, present and past,
which renders it impossible to form an accurate judgment as to the real
conditinn of the population.

158 Land Nationalisation.

advocated, which are, to secure occupying ownership in farms
of any and all sizes that there may be a demand for, not in
small farms for peasants only ; and, in the next place, the
allegation of the inferior productiveness of small farms under
equally favourable conditions with large ones is not only not
proved, but is directly opposed to all the evidence. The
small farms of the Channel Islands, of Belgium, and of the
Palatinate surpass in productiveness those of equal areas in the
best examples of large English farms ; while the political,
moral, and social superiority of peasant proprietors to mere agri-
cultural labourers is so overwhelming, that even if the produce
were in some cases smaller, there could be not a moment's
hesitation in preferring the well-being of the whole rural
population to the increased wealth of a few capitalist farmers
and great landowners.*

* The evidence on this point is conclusive. Mr. C. Wren Hoskyns,
M.P., in his work on "The Land Laws of England, " says : " It is obvious,
ahnost to a truism, that the occupation which most resembles ownership
itself must, by the imperative laws equally of the soil and of human instinct,
be the most profitable to both parties by the uninterrupted progress of
improvement and addition to the land." Dr. Ireland, in his " Studies of a
Wandering Observer," says : — " People find that a man who puts his own
work into his land, or employs his whole attention in directing a few work-
men, can make a great deal-more out of it than the scientific farmer, who
has to struggle with the weary negligence of bands of day-labourers." M.
Passy, in his "Systems of Cultivation in France and their Influence on
Social Economy," gives the following as the result of his investigations : —
" I. That in the present state of agricultural knowledge and practice it is
the small farms, owned by the farmers, which, after deducting the cost of
production, yield, from a given surface, and on equal conditions, the greatest
net produce ; and, 2. That the same system of cultivation, by maintaining
a larger rural population, not only thereby adds to the strength of a State,
but aflfords a better market for those commodities the production and
exchange of which stimulate the prosperity of the manufacturing districts."
And of the character of the cultivation by peasant-proprietors, M. Passy
says : ' ' They carry into the least details of their undertaking an attention
and care which are productive of the most important advantages. There is
not a corner of their land of which they do not know the special qualities
and capabilities, and to which they do not know how to give the peculiar
treatment and care it requires," and after comparing some of the best
English agricultural counties with an extensive area of the north of France,
he states that the net produce of the latter is the larger of the two. M.

Occupying Ownership. 159

Various Objections to Peasant-Proprietorship Answered by
Facts. — Another objection sometimes made is that land cannot

<le Laveleye, in his Essay on Systems of Land Tenure, shows that the
small peasant-proprietors of Belgium and Flanders use an enormous quantity
of manure, and obtain crops far surpassing those of the best large farms in
any part of the world. In Switzerland, wherever the Government have sold
to peasants the land which formerly belonged to the State, "very often a
third or a. fourth part of the land which was before let out to farmers
produces at present as much com, and supports as many head of cattle, as
the whole estate formerly did when it was cultivated by leasehold tenants. "
Mr. Thornton's "Plea for Peasant-Proprietors," and Mr. Kay's " Free
Tiade in Land," are literally crowded with facts, of the same
character as these and leading irresistibly to the same conclusion.
Notwithstanding this mass of evidence, English writers still maintain that
English ^[riculture is more advanced and more productive than that of
France, grounding their conclusions solely on the average crop of wheat.
To one such writer the following letter, which appeared in the Daily News
(Dec. 28th, 1881), is a complete reply and full explanation : — "Mr. Caird
and other writers have recently asserted that ' the average wheat crop in
England yields 28, as opposed to 18 bushels to the acre in France ;' thus
attempting to prove that the English system is the most productive in a
national point of view. I submit that if we examine the effect of the
English and French systems of land tenure on an entire province, consist-
ing of good, indifferent, and waste soil, we shall arrive at a very different
conclusion. In France the peasant proprietor (aided by his family, and
thus commanding the cheapest possible labour) will successfully attack
land of the very poorest description and bring it into cultivation. It may
possibly produce but five bushels to the acre, but it repays the ' owner. '
In the French official returns of cultivated land the average is thus brought
down to a very low figure. In England such poor soil is as a rule left
waste, simply because it will not repay cultivation — i.e., it will not produce
rent after maintaining the farmer and labourer, and, as the English
proprietor cannot command either cheap labour or apply the stubborn
energy and minute attention and thrifty habits of the French peasant
proprietor, we see immense tracts in England left in a state of nature which
in France would be gradually but surely reclaimed. The French peasant
cannot afford hedgerows, waste land, and game preserves, but he is the
owner of his own farm, and devotes all his energies to its improvement.
He is consequently the backbone of France in more than one sense. — I am,
Sir, yours truly, French Resident." A further demonstration of the
superiority of the French to the English system of land-tenure is afforded
by one whose facts at all events will not be disputed — Mr. Gladstone. In
his speech at West Calder he makes the following important remarks : —
" A peasant proprietary is an excellent thing to be had, if it can be had,
in many points of view. It interests an enormous number of the people in
the soil of the country and in the stability of its institutions and its laws.
But now look on the effect it has on the progressive value of the land.
What will you think when I tell you that the agricultural value of France —
the taxable income derived from the land, and therefore the income to the

i6o Land Nationalisation.

be efficiently cultivated and permanently improved without
capital, and that peasant-proprietors have usually no
capital. Here again the facts are against the objectors. In
several countries, notably in Norway, in Jersey, and in Switzer-
land, co-operation has effected quite as much in these respects
as the most lavish expenditure of capital in a country of large
estates.* Moreover, occupying owners need not necessarily
be without capital, and most certainly they will expend it with
more judgment and more confidence, than either a landlord
ignorant of practical agriculture or a tenant without any
permanent interest in the soil. The scheme of land-tenure
here advocated (as will be seen further on), owing to the
prohibition of mortgages, renders the application of capital to
the land far more easy and more likely to be general than
under any existing system.

It has also been objected that peasant-proprietorship leads:
to too rapid increase of the population, and must thus soon
produce over-crowding and pauperism. But here again the
facts are all the other way. Nothing is such a powerful check-
to early marriages as the need of first obtaining a farm sufficient
to support a family; and in every country where peasant-
properties largely prevail the age of marriage is higher than
among our agricultural labourers. John Stuart Mill h^s.
brought a mass of interesting evidence to bear upon this
question, and the reader who desires to become acquainted

proprietors of that land — has advanced during our life-time far more rapidly
than that of England ? . . . While the agricultural income of France
increased 40 per cent, in thirteen years [from 1851 to 1864], the agricul-
tural income of England only increased 20 per cent, in thirty-four years
[from 1842 to 1876]. . . , What I do wish very respectfully to-
submit to you is this — this vast increase in the agricultural value of France
is not upon the large properties, which, if anything, are inferior to the
cultivation of the large properties in England, but it is upon these very
peasant properties which some people are so ready to decry. "

* See on this point the evidence adduced by Mill and Fawcett in their
works on " Political Economy."

Occupying Ownership. i6r

■with it is referred to his " Political Economy," Chap. VII, or
to Mr. Thornton's " Plea for Peasant Proprietors," Chap. II,
where the subject is fully examined by the light of history and
experience.*

The Last Argument in Favour of Landlordism Shown to be
Unsound. — Yet one more objection must be noted, and this
is perhaps the weakest of all, though it is made much of by
the advocates of landlordism. It is said that by abolishing
landlords and transferring all the land to peasant-proprietors
the great advantage will be lost of a wealthy and educated
man in every, parish, whose interest it is to promote good
feeling no less than good agriculture, and whose refinement and
talents tend to elevate and improve the whole population.
Now, waiving all objection to this as a true picture of the
average landowner and country gentleman, we must first note
that, according to the corrected returns given in Mr. Brodrick's
work, there are only about 4,200 great landowners and squires
in England and Wales (owning considerably more than half
the total area of the country), while there are 10,000 parishes;
so that, allowing for the number of non-resident landowners,
and the still larger number of those who, being only occasion-
ally resident, leave the management of their estates to their
agents, it is evident that only one parish in four or five can
now enjoy the supposed advantages of the resident influential
landowner. In the next place, what reason have we to suppose
that all (or the greater part of) these country gentlemen would
quit their ancestral houses and lands if they no longer derived
their income mainly from the rents of farms ? They could
still have their own houses and grounds and home-farms,
which, if they were really fond of agriculture and had no other
estate to manage, they would probably make larger than at

* In Prof. Fawcett's " Political Economy,'' the same view is strongly
maintained.

M

1 63 Land Nationalisation.

present and cultivate with more care and personal attention.
Would such a man be of less value in a district because he
had lost the despotic power he formerly possessed over his
tenants and labourers ? Would not his advice carry more
weight and his example have more influence, as the best
educated, the most gentlemanly, and the richest man in his
parish, when his advice would be wholly disinterested and his
neighbours would be influenced by genuine respect for his
abilities and his character? Then again, if we look at the
number of separate mansions now belonging to the same owner,
and, except perhaps for a few weeks in the year, occupied only
by servants, and remember that each of these would almost
certainly be occupied by a resident gentleman owning and
cultivating a greater or less extent of land, we should here
have a decided increase of that beneficial influence in country
life which our actual landlordism sometimes, but by no means
always, exerts.

Beneficial Influence of Ownership on Agriculture. — Yet
more important is the consideration that the class of English
farmers would itself be greatly improved, and would perhaps
exert an influence quite as beneficial as that of the existing
squire. For each of these would be the potential owner of the
land ;he cultivated, and every improvement in its value or
enjoyability would be his own. The same land would then, as
a rule, be cultivated by the same family generation after gener-
ation, and this would certainly lead to improvements such as
none but a permanent occupying owner would ever think of
making. The poorer land would be planted for timber, the
more sheltered and otherwise suitable with fruit trees. The
farm houses would be improved and beautified ; and the whole '
charactei of many parts of our country would thus be altered
for the better. Farmers of this class, unhampered by any
tenancy restrictions, with a good knowledge of agricultural
chemistry, and often with the experience gained by visits to the

Occupying OivnersJiip. 163

United States, to European countries, or Australia, would
introduce new modes of culture, would make experiments with
new crops, and thus do more to develope the capabilities and
increase the production of our land than has been or ever
can be possible under the old system of landlord and tenant,
with its conflicting interests, its divided responsibility, and its
mutual jealousy, which throw obstacles in the way of all
advances in cultivation and render many of the most important
kinds of permanent improvement all but impossible.

This is well shown in the contrast between the Eastern
States of America and England. The former have felt the
pressure of competition by the Western States almost as much
as we have ; but wherever the farmer cultivates his own fand
he has adapted himself to the circumstances by a more varied
system of cultivation, leading to a considerable increase in the
total value of farm produce. Mr. Brodrick tells us that, though
only half as much barley was grown by Massachusetts farmers
in 1875 as in 1865, and only one-third as much as in 1855,
the yield per acre rose during this period from nineteen and a
half bushels to twenty-five and a half bushels, and a similar
increase was realised in wheat, oats, Indian corn, beet-root,
and potatoes. In the meantime the production of milk was
far more than trebled. The total value of the farm products of
Massachusetts in 1875 exceeded their value in 1865 by
8,000,000 dollars, notwithstanding the stress of western com-
petition and the general reduction of prices. No such power
of adapting our agriculture to new conditions has been
exhibited in England, nor was it possible to tenant farmers
hampered by restrictive covenants and with no permanent
interest in the soil.

That English farmers, however, are equally capable and
energetic when they have the inducement and the means of
being so, is shown by the example of Mr. John Prout, who,
nearly twenty years ago, purchased a farm near Sawbridge-

M 2

164 Land Nationalisation.

worth, in Hertfordshire, and has since cultivated it himself so
as to compete successfully in wheat-growing with America,
obtaining during the whole of that period fair interest on his
capital and a good profit besides. This has been effected by
a system of cultivation which no landlord would ever have per-
mitted ; and though there is some difference of opinion as to
whether this can be carried on indefinitely, the fact seems to be
admitted that his later crops are even better than his earlier
ones, and that the cleanliness and general character of the soil
has been greatly improved. The great fact to be noted is, that
while tenant farmers are being everywhere ruined and hundreds.
of farms are going out of cultivation, an occupying owner has
been able to pay the equivalent of rent in interest on capital,
and to obtain a handsome average return for his agricultural
skill and personal supervision.*

The Conclusion from the Evidence. — We thus see, not only
that an overwhelming mass of evidence, afforded by the chief
civilised countries in the world, proves the vast superiority of
occupying ownership to landlordism as it exists with us ; but,
further, that every objection urged on behalf of landlordism
only serves more clearly to bring out the numerous advantages
— political, social, and moral, as well as merely economical —
of occupying ownership, whether exhibited in small, in moderate,
or in large farms.

* " English Land and English Landlords,'' p. 296 ; Daily News, Feb.
9th, 1 88 1, where an excellent account of Mr. Front's farm and its results
is given.

Cause of Loiv Wages and Pauperism. 165

CHAPTER VII.

row WAGES AND PAUPERISM THE DIRECT CONSE-
QUENCES OF UNRESTRICTED PRIVATE PROPERTY
IN LAND.

PROGRESS AND POVERTY — LABOUR, NOT CAPITAL, THE FIRST MOVER
IN PRODUCTION — INDUSTRY NOT LIMITED BY CAPITAL BUT BY
RESTRICTED ACCESS TO THE LAND — INTEREST DETERMINED BY
LAND MONOPOLY AND RENT — CAPITAL AND LABOUR NOT ANTAGO-
NISTIC — PROGRESS OF SOCIETY CAUSES A RISE OF RENTS — PRIVATE
PROPERTY IN LAND LEADS TO AN INEQUITABLE DIVISION OF
WEALTH — SPECULATIVE INCREASE IN LAND VALUES — MR. GEORGE's
WORK SUPPLEMENTS AND ENFORCES THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED
AT IN THE PRESENT VOLUME.

Since the greater part of this volume was in MSS., the
writer has become acquainted with the remarkable work of Mr.
Henry George — "Progress and Poverty" — in which, among
other valuable matter, the statement at the head of this chapter
is demonstrated by an irresistible appeal to logic and to facts.
This demonstration, as a part of the science of poUtical
economy, so well supplements and supports the conclusions
here arrived at that a short account of Mr. George's treatment
of the subject may be appropriately given.

Mr. George first shows that political economists, from Adam
Smith downwards, have adopted an erroneous starting-point,
through making their observations in a state of society in which
a capitalist generally rents land and hires labour. The capitalist
therefore appears to be the first mover in production, and
capital a necessity before labour can be employed. Our author
points out that this is not the natural sequence of the three
essentials to the production of weath. He says : — " There
must be land before labour can be exerted, and labour must be

1 66 Land Nationalisation.

exeited before capital can be produced. Capital is a result of
labour, and is used by labour to assist it in further production.
Labour is the active and initial force, and labour is therefore
the employer of capital. Labour can only be exerted upon
land, and it is from land that the matter which it transmutes
into wealth must be drp.wn. Land, therefore, is the condition
precedent, the field and material of labour. The natural order
is land, labour, capital ; and instead of starting from capital as
our initial point, we should start from land. There is another
thing to be observed. Capital is not a necessary factor in
production. Labour can produce wealth without the aid of
capital, and in the necessary genesis of things must so produce
wealth before capital can exist."

Capital, therefore, in the hands of a capitalist, is not
necessary before labour can reap its reward, in other words,
earn wages, for " where land is free, and labour is unassisted
by capital, the whole produce will go to the labourer as wages."
Thus the natural wages of labour is the whole of the produce
of that labour. But, " where land is free and labour is assisted
by capital, wages will consist of the whole produce, less that
part necessary to induce the storing up of labour as capital."
Here again there is no need for the labourer to be employed
by the capitalist for wages, for the labourer will employ the
capital himself, paying interest for it. It is only when land is.
all monopolised and rent has to be paid for the use of it that
the labourer, unable to obtain land to exert his labour upon, is
forced to work for wages for the capitalist who hires the land ;
and then " wages may be forced by the competition among
labourers to the minimum at which labourers will consent to
live."

This important conclusion becomes clear if we consider that,,
were the monopoly not complete, and any considerable quantity
of land left open for labourers to work on for themselves, wages.
would certainly rise, since no man would consent to work for

Cause of Low Wages and Pauperism. 167

another unless he could get considerably more than he could
earn when working for himself. It is when all natural oppor-
tunities are taken away from him, that he is compelled to labour
for whatever wages he can obtain, and thus, when labourers are
superabundant, wages are always kept down to the minimum
at which life can be supported.

An elaborate enquiry as to the true use and function of
capital leads Mr. George to the conclusion that it does not
limit industry, as is erroneously taught; the only limit to
industry being the access to natural material. But capital may
limit the form of industry and the productiveness of industry,
by limiting the use of tools and the division of labour. As
illustrative of this important conclusion, he observes : —
" But whether the amount of capital ever does limit the produc-
tiveness of industry, and fix a maximum which wages cannot
exceed, it is evident that it is not from any scarcity of capital
that the poverty of the masses in civilised countries proceeds.
For, not only do wages nowhere reach the limit fixed by th.>
productiveness of industry, but wages are relatively the lowest
where capital is most abundant The tools and machinery of
production are in all the most progressive countries evidently
in excess of the use made of them, and any prospect of remu-
nerative employment brings out more than the capital needed.
The bucket is not only full ; it is overflowing. So evident is
this that, not only among the ignorant, but by men of high
economic reputation, is industrial depression attributed to the
abundance of machinery and the accumulation of capital ; and
war, which is the destruction of capital, is looked upon as
the cause of brisk trade and high wages — an idea, strangely
enough, so great is the confusion of thought on such matters,
countenanced by many who hold that capital employs labour
and pays wages."

Exactly the same thing happens with interest. Its variations
in different countries, and at different times, depend.

i68 Land Nationalisation.

primarily, on the average profits that can be made by labour,
when applied to land or other natural opportunities which can
be had free of rent. When, however, land is monopolised
and rent has to be paid for the use of even the poorest land,
then interest, like wages, is kept down to the lowest point
which will tempt its investment; and this point becomes
lower and lower, in proportion as rent, ever growing higher and
higher, absorbs a larger proportion of the joint produce of
labour and capital

As Mr. George well puts it : — " Wages and interest do not
depend upon the produce of labour and capital, but upon what
is left after rent is taken out; or, upon the produce which
they could obtain without paying rent — that is, from the poorest
land in use. And hence, no matter what would be the
increase in productive power, if the increase of rent keeps pace
with it, neither wages nor interest can increase. The moment
this simple relation is recognised, a flood of light streams in
upon what was before inexplicable, and seemingly discordant
facts range themselves under an obvious law. The increase of
rent which goes on in progressive countries is at once seen to
be the key which explains why wages and interest fail to
increase with increase of productive power. For the wealth
produced in every community is divided into two parts by what
may be called the rent line, which is fixed by the margin of
cultivation, or the return which labour and capital could obtain
from such natural opportunities as are free to them without
the payment of rent. From the part of the produce below
this line wages and interest must be paid. All that is above
goes to the owners of land. Thus, where the value of land is
low, there may be a small production of wealth, and yet a high
rate of wages and interest, as we see in new countries. And
when the value of land is high, there may be a very large
production of wealth, and yet a low rate of wages and interest,
as we see in old countries. And when productive power

Cause of Low Wages and Pauperism. 169

increases, as it is increasing in all progressive countries,
wages and interest will be affected, not by the increase,
but by the manner in which rent is affected. If the value of
land increases proportionally, the increased production will be
swallowed up by rent, and wages and interest will remain as
before. If the value of land increases in greater ratio than
productive power, rents will swallow up even more than the
increase ; and while the produce of labour and capital will be
much larger, wages and interest will fall It is only when the
value of land fails to increase as rapidly as productive power
that wages and interest can increase with the increase of
productive power."

It follows that the old idea, so prevalent still among work-
men, that capital and labour are antagonistic, is a mistake.
Both alike suffer from the common enemy — the landlord ; and
rent absorbs the profits which the steady increase of productive
power in all civilised countries should give to labour and capital
And the facts strictly agree with this conclusion. For, though
neither wages nor interest anywhere increase as material
progress goes on, yet the invariable accompaniment and mark
of material progress is the increase of rent — the rise of land
values. " It is the general fact, observable everywhere, that
as the value of land increases, so does the contrast between
wealth and want appear. It is the universal fact that, where
the value of land is highest, civilisation exhibits the greatest
luxury side by side with the most piteous destitution. To see
human beings in the most abject, the most helpless and
hopeless condition, you must go, not to the unfenccd prairies
and the log cabins of new clearings in the backwoods, where
man single-handed is commencing the struggle with Nature, and
land is yet worth nothing, but to the great cities, where the
ownership of a little patch of ground is a fortune."

Mr. George then goes on to show that increase of population
and improvements in the arts necessarily cause a steady

170 Land Nationalisation.

increase of the rent of land ; and that this is so is shown both
by fact and by reasoning. It is a fact that Free Trade has
enormously increased the wealth of England ; and this increase
of wealth has not diminished pauperism, but has simply
increased rent This, same result may be arrived at logically,
by supposing that the labour-saving machinery which has had
so large a share in increasing the wealth of all civilised
countries arrives at such absolute perfection that the
necessity for labour in the production of wealth is entirely
done • away with, so that everything the earth can yield
may be obtained without labour. " Wages then would be
nothing, and interest would be nothing, while rent would take
everything. For the owners of land being enabled without
labour to obtain all the wealth that could be procured from
nature, there would be no use for either labour or capital, and
no possible way in which either could compel any share of the
wealth produced. And no matter how small population might
be, if anybody but the landowners continued to exist, it would
be at the whim or by the mercy of the landowners — they
would be maintained either for the amusement of the land-
owners, or, as paupers, by their bounty." Now as labour-
saving machinery is ever improving, and man's power over
nature ever increasing, the tendency is towards this state of
things, .that is, to the greater wealth and greater power of the
landowners, to the more complete dependence or the more
abject poverty of the rest of the community.

One more quotation still further to elucidate this point : —
" The recognition of individual proprietorship of land is the
denial of the natural rights of other individuals — it is a wrong
which must show itself in the inequitable division of wealth..
For, as labour cannot produce without the use of land, the
denial of the equal right to the use of land is necessarily the
denial of the right of labour to its own produca If one man
can command the land upon which others must labour, he can

Cause of Low Wages and Paiipei'ism. 171

appropriate the produce of their labour as the price of his
permission to labour. The fundamental law of nature, that her
enjoyment by man shall be consequent upon his exertion, is
thus violated. The one receives without producing ; the
others produce without receiving. The one is unjustly
enriched ; the others are robbed. To this fundamental wrong
we have traced the unjust distribution of wealth which is
separating modern society into the very rich and the very poor.
It is the continuous increase of rent — the price that labour is
compelled to pay for the use of land, which strips the many
of the wealth they justly earn, to pile it up in the hands of the
few who do nothing to earn it"

The only political economist who, so far as I know, has
independently arrived at these results is the late Professor
Cairnes. He says : —

" The soil is, over the greater portion of the inhabited globe,
cultivated by very humble men, with very little disposable
wealth, and whose career is practically marked out for them
by irresistible circumstances as tillers of the ground. In a
contest between vast bodies of people so circumstanced and
the owners of the soil — between the purchasers without reserve,
constantly increasing in numbers, of an indispensable com-
modity, and the monopolist dealers in that commodity — the
negotiation could have but one issue, that of transferring to the
owners of the soil the whole produce, minus what was sufificient
to maintain in the lowest state of existence the race of culti-
vators. This is what has happened wherever the owners of
the soil, discarding all considerations but those dictated by self-
interest, have really availed themselves of the full strength of
their position. It is what has happened under rapacious Govern-
ments in Asia ; it is what has happened under rapacious land-
lords in Ireland ; it is what now happens under the bourgeois
proprietors of Flanders ; it is, in short, the inevitable result
which cannot but happen in the great majority of all societies

172 Land Nationalisation.

now existing on earth where land is given up to be dealt with
on commercial principles, unqualified by public opinion, cus-
tom, or law" (J. E. Cairnes, Fortnightly Review, Jan., 1870).

Again, in a later work, " Some Leading Principles of Political
Economy Newly Expounded," published in 1874, he still
further illustrates the same views, distinctly laying down the
proposition that neither profits nor wages have advanced with
the increasing wealth of the community due to advancing
civilisation and increased power over the forces of nature : —

" Not indeed that the introduction of improved processes
into agriculture has been for nought : it has resulted in a large
augmentation of the aggregate return obtained from the soil,
but without permanently lowering its price, and, therefore,
without permanent advantage to either capitalist or labourer,
or to other consumers. The large addition to the wealth of
the country has gone neither to profits nor to wages, nor yet to
the public at large, but to swell a fund ever growing, even while
its proprietors sleep — the rent-roll of the owners of the soil.
Accordingly we find that, notwithstanding the vast progress of
agricultural industry effected within a century, there is scarcely
an important agricultural product that is not at least as dear
now as it was a hundred years ago — as dear not merely in
money price but in real cost. The aggregate return from the
land has immensely increased ; but the cost of the costliest
portion of the produce, which is that which determines the
price of the whole, remains pretty nearly as it was. Profits,
therefore, have not risen at all, and the real remuneration of
the labourer, taking the whole field of labour, in but a slight
degree — at all events in a degree very far from commensurate
with the general progress of industry " (p. 333).

In these passages from the works of an English writer of
established reputation we have a very remarkable and quite
independent accordance with the special views of Mr. George —
an accordance which must add greatly to the vyeight of their
teaching.

Cause of Low Wages and Pauperisin. 175

There is, however, another important consideration, which
tends still further to intensify the monopoly of land and the
consequent helplessness and poverty of the labourer. This is,
the constant expectation of a further rise in land value, due to
its steady increase with increase of population and advance of
industrial development. This expectation leads to speculation
in land; and it has all the effect of a combination among
landowners to keep up the price. The result is, that land is
constantly held for an advance in price, based, not upon
present value, but upon the added valye that will come with
the further growth of population. Hence it happens that —
" Labour cannot reap the benefits which advancing civilisation
brings, because they are intercepted. Land being necessary to
labour, and being reduced to private ownership, every increase
in the productive power of labour but increases rent — the price
that labour must pay for the opportunity to realise its powers ;
and thus all the advantages gained by the march of progress
go to the owners of land, and wages do not increase. Wages
cannot increase, for the greater the earnings of labour the
greater the price that labour must pay out of its earnings for
the opportunity to make any earnings at all. . . Begotten
of the continuous advance of rent, arises a speculative
tendency which discounts the effect of further improvements
by a still further advance in rent, to drive wages down to the
slave point — the point at which the labourer can just live."

It is not necessary here to go further in this very imperfect
exposition of Mr. George's views. It will be seen that they
afford a most remarkable theoretical confirmation of the con-
clusions here reached by an examination of the actual condition
of the people under different kinds of land-tenure ; and if, as
I maintain, these conclusions have now been demonstrated by
induction from facts, that demonstration acquires the force
of absolute proof when exactly the same conclusion is reached
by a totally distinct line of deductive reasoning founded on
the admitted principles of political economy and the general

17'' Land Nationalisation.

facts of social and industrial development. I will now only
add the striking passage with which Mr. George concludes
that part of his work which specially discusses " The Persis-
tence of Poverty amid Advancing Wealth" : — " The ownership
of land is the great fundamental fact which ultimately
determines the social, the political, and consequently the
intellectual and moral condition of a people. And it must be
so ; for land is the habitation of man, the storehouse upon
which he must draw for all he needs ; the material to which
his labour must be applied for the supply of all his desires ;
for even the products of the sea cannot be taken, the light of
the sun enjoyed, or any of the forces of nature utilised without
the use of land or its products. On the land we are born,
from it we live, to it we return again — children of the soil as
truly as is the blade of grass or the flower of the field. Take
away from man all that belongs to land, and he is but a
disembodied spirit Material progress cannot rid us of our
dependence upon land ; it can but add to the power of produc-
ing wealth from land ; and hence, when land is monopolised,
it might go on to infinity without increasing wages or improving
the condition of those who have but their labour. It can but
add to the value of land and the power which its possession
gives. Everywhere, in all times, among all peoples, the possession
of land is the base of aristocracy, the source of power. As
said the Brahmins ages ago : — To whomsoever the soil at any
time belongs, to him belong the fruits of if. White parasols and
elephants mad with pride are the flowers of a grant oflandj'

We have now to consider the important question, how our
present system can be best exchanged for a better one ; and
also, how we can secure all the benefits which occupying
ownership confers, how we can extend those benefits to the
largest number and over the widest area, and how most
effectually prevent the economical and moral evils of land-
lordism from again asserting themselves.

Tlie Solution of the Problem. 17 S

CHAPTER VIII.

NATIONALISATION OF THE LAND AFFORDS THE
ONLY MODE OF EFFECTING A COMPLETE SOLU-
TION OF THE LAND QUESTION.

SUIIIIARY OF THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS — THE CONTRAST OF OUR
WEALTH AND OUR POVERTY AMAZES ALL FOREIGNERS — OUR
POVERTY AND PAUPERISM PERSISTS, NOTWITHSTANDING THE MOST
FAVOURABLE CONDITIONS — THE IRISH LANDLORDS FOLLOW THE
TEACHINGS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY — EFFECTS OF LANDLORDISM
IN THE HIGHLANDS AND LOWLANDS OF SCOTLAND — THE DESPOTIC
POWERS OF ENGLISH LANDLORDS^THE COMPLETE AND OVER-
WHELMING MASS OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOUR OF OCCUPYING
OWNERSHIP — THE REMEDIES PROPOSED — FREE TRADE IN LAND
SHOWN TO BE COMPARATIVELY USELESS — MR. KAY'S ARGUMENTS
IN FAVOUR OF FREE TRADE IN LAND — SMALL LANDED ESTATES
ARE CONSTANTLY ABSORBED BY GREAT ONES — FREE TRADE IN
LAND WOULD NOT HELP EITHER THE TENANT OR THE LABOURER
—NATIONALISATION OF THE LAND THE ONLY EFFECTIVE REMEDY
— OCCUPANCY AND VIRTUAL OWNERSHIP MUST GO TOGETHER^
TO SECURE THIS THE STATE MUST BE THE REAL OWNER OR
GROUND-LANDLORD — THE STATE MUST BECOME OWNER OF THE
LAND APART FROM THE IMPROVEMENTS UPON IT— MODE OF
DETERMINING THE VALUE OF THE QUIT-RENT AND OF THE
TENANT-RIGHT — HOW EXISTING LANDOWNERS MAY BE COMPEN-
SATED — ALLEGED UNFAIRNESS OF COMPENSATION BY MEANS OF
TERMINABLE ANNUITIES — HOW TENANTS MAY BECOME OCCUPYING
OWNERS — SUB-LETTING MUST BE ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED — EVILS
OF SUB-LETTING IN TOWNS — MORTGAGING SHOULD BE STRICTLY
LIMITED — WHETHER ANY LIMITS SHOULD BE PLACED TO THE
QUANTITY OF LAND PERSONALLY OCCUPIED — SUPPOSED OBJECTIONS
TO LAND NATIONALISATION — MR. FOWLEr'S OBJECTIONS — MR.

ARTHUR Arnold's objections — mr. g. shaw lefevre's objections

— the HON. G. C. BRODRICK'S OBJECTIONS — MR. J. BOYD KINNEAR'S
OBJECTIONS — HOW NATIONALISATION WILL AFFECT TOWNS — FREE
SELECTION OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS BV LABOURERS AND OTHERS —
OBJECTIONS TO THE RIGHT OF FREE-SELECTION — WHY FREE-
SELECTION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONCE IN A MAN's LIFE —
FREE SELECTION WOULD CHECK THE GROWTH OF TOWNS AND ADD
TO THE BEAUTY AND ENJOYABILITY OF RURAL DISTRICTS — HOW
COMMONS MAY BE PRESERVED AND UTILISED — HOW MINERALS
SHOULD BE WORKED UNDER STATE ' OWNERSHIP — PROGRESSIVE
REDUCTION OF TAXATION ; ABOLITION OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
■ — SUMMARY OF THE ADVANTAGES OF NATIONALISATION — SUMMARY
OF THE EVIL RESULTS OF LANDLORDISM — CONCLUSION.

176 ■ Land Nationalisation.

In the preceding chapters we have laid before the reader a
body of facts sufficient to form a sound basis for a solution of
the Land Problem. They comprise the more essential portions,
of most of the chief works which have been written on the
subject, and it is, perhaps, because these statements and facts
in their whole extent, have never before been systematically
collected and compared, that the remedies proposed have
hitherto been so inadequate, and the arguments by which these
remedies have been supported so illogical. Before proceeding
to discuss these proposals, or to explain what appears to the
present writer the only adequate remedy, it will be as well
briefly to summarise the facts and conclusions already
established.

Summary of the Preceding Chapters. — In the first chapter we
have called special attention to the astounding facts of the
vast riches and the degrading poverty of our country, which,
in their terrible combination and contrast, are unparalleled in
the civilised world. Many writers have commented on this
fact incidentally, but none (except the American author whose
work we have sketched in the preceding chapter) have made
it the foundation and key-note of a discussion, or have
endeavoured to trace out its causes and its possible cure. To
show tHat I have not overstated the facts of the case, I will
here quote the words of the late Mr. Joseph Kay, Q.C., who
says : — " The French, the Dutch, the Germans, and the Swiss
look with wonder at the enormous fortunes and at the enor-
mous mass of pauperism which accumulate in England side
by side. They have little of either extreme." And again : —
"The objects which strike foreigners with the greatest
astonishment, on visiting our country, and of which they see
nothing at all similar in their own countries, are : — (i) The
enormous wealth of the highest classes of English society. (2)
The intense and continued labour and toil of the middle and low-
est classes. And (3) the frightful amount of absolute pauperism

The Solution of . the Problem. 177

among the lowest classes." And as to the condition of the agri-
cultural labourers of England, Professor Fawcett (in his "Political
Economy") states, that there are "few classes of workmen
who, in many respects, are so thoroughly wretched as the
English agricultural labourers. They are so miserably poor
that, if they were converted into slaves to-morrow, it would be
for the interest of their owners to feed them far better than
they are fed at the present time •" v/hile in his " Essays " he
says, speaking on the Authority of a Parliamentary Report, that
the men, women, and children who compose the agricultural
gangs which cultivate a wide tract of highly-farmed land "are
living in such a condition that some of the worst horrors of
slavery seem to be in existence among us in the nineteenth
ceintury."

Now this state of things not only co-exists with an unexampled
accumulation of wealth, but with a whole series of favourable
conditions which few other countries have enjoyed. We had
the start of all Europe in the development of the railway
system ; we had endless stores of coal and iron, which all the
world required and bought of us ; for a long time we supplied
half the population of the globe with cotton and iron goods ;
we have a greater colonial system than any other country, and
a freer outlet for our people and our trade to lands where our
own language is spoken ; our home-trade is little burdened by
fiscal trammels, while we enjoy free imports from all the world ;
and our capital, London, is, and long has been, the financial
and commercial centre of the globe. Surely the amazing
anomaly of the degrading poverty of our labourers co-existing
with such favourable conditions deserves, not a mere passing
notice, but a serious and continued study. It has, however,
unhappily, become so familiar to us that most people pass it by
as an insoluble problem, and content themselves with suggesting
certain possible ameliorations or palliations. In my first
chapter I have gone a little further than this, and have

178 Land Nationalisation.

endeavoured to define, with some precision, the cause of this
frightful anomaly — a cause which the series of facts stated in
the subsequent chapters forced me to adopt as the only
adequate one, and which I have thus early enunciated as a
postulate to be either affirmed or negatived by the evidence
adduced subsequently. It is a cause which appears to me to
afford the only clue to a general solution of the problem of
how to secure the social well-being of the great mass of the
community, and it leads irresistibly to the conclusion that the
most vital of all the questions of modern civilisation is the
proper utilisation of the land.

In the second chapter I have briefly sketched the rise and
development of the semi-feudal system of land-tenure now
existing in this country, showing that neither its origin nor its
history gives it any claim to our respect, or renders it at all
likely to be suitable to the wants of a free and civilised
people.

In the third chapter I give some account of the effects of
modern landlordism in Ireland. The law has hitherto given
to the landlord complete power over the land he holds, to deal
with it as he pleases. Millions of people who possess no land
nor any other property are absolutely dependent, not for
happiness only, but for the power to live, on having a portion
of this land to cultivate. Under these circumstances the
landlord is master of the situation. He can demand what he
pleases for his land ; he can let it on what terms he pleases J
and he can subject his tenants to any rules or regulations he or
his agents think proper. The people must have land or starve ;
so they offer any rent, agree to any terms, and are consequently
always the virtual, if not the actual, slaves of the landlord.
Hence the perennial misery and crime of Ireland.. Hence
famines, and evictions, and the shooting of landlords or agents.
Some people blame the landlords ; but why ? The law tells
them that their land is their /w/*/-^. Political economy tells

The Solution of tJie Problem. 179

them to sell it, or the use of it, in the dearest market ; that
supply and demand regulate the price of all commodities ; and
that it is best for all that it should be so regulated. They
■simply act on these principles, which have been drilled into
them as the highest teaching of political science; yet the
result is a nation in the most hopeless misery to be found any-
where in the civilised world. The only logical conclusion
from these facts is, that the law which makes land private
property is wrong ; and this being so, we can understand why
it is that the very same principles of free contract, buying
cheap and selling dear, supply and demand as the regulator of
price — principles which work good for mankind in every other
case, work evil here. That this is the proper conclusion is
clearly demonstrated by the necessity for exceptional legislation
for the land of Ireland, whereby the greatest modern statesmen
and legislators go back to the exploded nostrums of the
middle ages, and attempt to regulate the price of this commodity.
If land is and should be private property, why determine its
fair price or fair rent by Act of Parliament any more than the
price of bread or of cloth ? The fact that the only way found
by Parliament to save a nation from chronic insurrection and
a people from chronic misery and starvation is thus to interfere
in the case of land, proves of itself that land should not be
private property, but should be held by the State for the free
use and general benefit of the community. The question of
Iww the land became the property of its present owners is not
important. There is, perhaps, hardly an acre of land in Europe
but has been at one time or other forcibly taken from some
previous holder, and it is not found that the possession of land
(as property — not for personal occupation) leads to less evil
results when it has been simply purchased or inherited from a
purchaser, than when it has been obtained by forcible means in
modern or ancient times. It is the act of ownership of land
as a property, producing an income by its rents, that leaf^s to

i8o. Land Nationalisation.

all the trouble, not the mode in which the land was acquired
by the present or preceding owners. The only logical people
are those who, like Lord Sherbrooke and Professor Bonamy
Price, maintain that land, being property, should be dealt
with like all other property, by free contract between man and
man, and that therefore all interference between a landlord and
his tenants is contrary to the first principles of political economy
— of those who, like Herbert Spencer, Professor F. W. New-
man, and others, maintain that the land of a country ought
not to be private property at all ; and the fact that the un-
checked operation of supply and demand, with free contract
between purchaser and seller, does produce, in the case of
land, endless evils, proves conclusively that the latter position
is the true one.

The fourth chapter treats of the effects of landlordism in
Scotland, and exhibits a series of facts which, though arising
under a totally different set of conditions from those which
have prevailed in Ireland, have produced equally lamentable
results ; and these still further enforce the same doctrine, that
land cannot safely be allowed to become private property, to be
bought, and sold, and accumulated, and dealt with like other
property. Some account is here given of the "clearances""
which have been going on in the Highlands for nearly a cen^
tury, and which are still in operation. The motive for these
clearances is usually to obtain a larger or securer rental fof
the land, either as sheep-farms or as deer-forests ; and for this
purpose tens of thousands of British subjects have been driven
from their homes — often to swell the mass of indigence and
crime in the great cities, while the country is being denuded of
a hardy, industrious, moral, and intelligent population, to
which our army has been indebted for men and officers who,
in India and elsewhere, have done the noblest deeds, and added
to the nation's roll of fame. Such clearances are a deep
injury to the State, and a positive crime against humanity, of

The S obit ion of the Problem. iSr

the same nature (though less in degree) as despotism or
.slavery. Yet they are legal ; and no power exists which can
prevent them, so long as the land — without which no man can
live — is allowed to be monopolised by the rich. When the
■attention of the Home Secretary was called, by Dr. Mac-
donald, to the recent Leckmeln evictions in Ross-shire, he
leplied that he could not interfere, because the proprietor had
only exercised the suminum jus of property. That answer is
a condemnation of private property in land, because it shows
that the greatest of all the evils which arise from it — the
power of one man to banish another from his home — cannot
be cured so long as it exists.

In the latter part of the same chapter attention is called to
the fact that, in the Lowlands of Scotland, where the agricul-
ture is admitted to be the best in the Kingdom, and where
there is no lack of capital expended on the land, the condition
of the labourer is often as bad as in the worst cultivated parts
of England, while his higher wages are wholly due to the com-
petition of the manufacturers for labour. This is a complete
•disproof of the allegations of those who maintain that, were land
freed from entail and settlements and could pass into the hands
of men of capital, all the evils of the landlord system would dis-
appear. The fact, however, is, that where the amount of capi-
tal expended is greatest, there the evils, as regards the labourer,
are at least as great as elsewhere.

The fifth chapter deals with English Landlordism, and it is
shown that here, too, the evil results are numerous and wide-
spread. The land is badly cultivated ; the country is denuded of
population while the towns are overcrowded; many of the greatest
necessaries of life (which are also its greatest luxuries), such as
milk, butter, eggs, poultry, fruit, and vegetables, are all made
scarce, dear, and bad by the denial of land to labourers and
the middle classes ; and these products have to be imported
from almost every country in Europe, and even from America,

i82 ' Land Nationalisation.

when they could all be abundantly produced at home, and we
could have them at our very doors better in quality and far
cheaper than now. This is a positive injury to every one —
an injury in no way compensated by Free Trade allowing these-
things to be imported in a more or less stale and deteriorated
condition duty free, since the hundreds of millions we pay
for them annually to foreigners might be earned by our own
rural labourers, keeping them from drink and pauperism,
and us from the burthen of supporting paupers.

In England, too, evictions occur as elsewhere, and no man
who does not cultivate his own land can feel secure. He may-
be banished from his home at his landlord's pleasure; and
instances are given showing that men are thus banished on
account of their politics, their religion, their independence, or
their love of sport Every man not a landowner is, in fact, a
serf. His lord may be a benevolent despot and he may not
feel the chain, but it exists nevertheless ; and he cannot be
really free when, for no crime or fault whatever, he may be
compelled against his will to suffer the punishment of having,
at any period of his life, to break up his home and seek a new
one. Attention is also called to the enormous and wide-spread
evils of over-crowded and ill-built dwellings, with insufficient
space of ground for health and recreation, which directly arise
from land being a monopoly in private hands. This again is
an evil which does not affect a class only, but the entire
community, and it is an evil which cannot be got rid of so long
as land remains private property, but which may be made to.
disappear the moment a wise system of nationalisation is.
effected.

The sixth chapter deals with the question of Occupying,
Ownership as opposed to Landlordism. A summary is givem
of the evidence as to the condition of the landholders and
labourers in various countries, and it is shown, by an over-
whelming mass of evidence, that just in proportion as the

The Solution of the Problem. 183

cultivator of land has a permanent interest in it is he well-off,
happy, and contented Climate, soil, latitude, government,
race, may all differ, but the general law remains true, that the
ownership of land by the very persons who cultivate it is bene-
ficial to themselves and to the whole community ; that the
cultivation of land which belongs to another, and in the
improvement of which the cultivator has not a large or an
exclusive interest, is injurious to the cultivator and to the whole
community. This law is absolute, and has no exceptions. It
is not a question of large or small farms ; it is a question solely
of ownership or tenancy of land. It applies equally to the
agricultural labourer with his acre of garden as to the yeoman
farming 500 acres of his own land. We English maintain Free
Trade, though all the world be against us, because the immutable
laws of labour, production, and self-interest prove that the free
exchange of the products of labour is for the mutual benefit of
all. But in the case of the land, the benefits of occupying
ownership are far greater ; for they are social and moral as
well as material. Free Trade has not diminished drunkenness,
Free Trade has not diminished pauperism. Free Trade has not
given our labourers decent houses or raised them out of that
state of misery which is a disgrace to our civilisation. But
occupying ownership does do all this wherever it prevails. Just
in proportion as it is wide-spread and untrammelled, so do
pauperism, drunkenness, and crime disappear, and give place
to plenty, peace, and content. If, then, we uphold Free Trade
because it is theoretically right and true, and because it makes
our riches increase and multiply, ought we not to adopt with
equal eagerness that principle of occupying ownership of the
soil which is recognised by all enquirers as producing such
universally beneficial results, results which are clearly traceable
to no less universal and indubitable facts of our mental and
moral nature, In the whole field of political and social
science there is no induction so complete and so universal as

184 Land Nationalisation.

that which connects landlordism and tenancy with a pauperised
and degraded population, occupying ownership with a thriving
and contented one.

In the seventh chapter I have given a brief sketch of that
part of Mr. George's work on " Progress and Poverty" which
shows, by a totally distinct line of argument and proof, that
private property in land is the direct cause of low wages and
pauperism, thus confirming and enforcing the results we have
arrived at in the preceding chapter. Having thus set forth a
large body of facts, and having found that they point invariably
to one conclusion, a conclusion arrived at independently by a
Avriter who has investigated the question from another stand-
point, let us proceed to examine the remedies proposed by
those earnest and philanthropic writers to whom we are
indebted for most of the facts we have made use of, and who
all admit the failure of our present land-system and the serious
nature of the evils which co-exist with it

Free Trade in Land Shown to be Comparatively Useless. —
The great school of English land-reformers, among whom we
have the distinguished names of Mr. Bright, Professor Fawcett,
Mr. Arthur Am old, Mr. Thornton, Mr. J. Boyd Kinnear, the
Hon. George Brodrick, and the late Mr. Joseph Kay, while
fully admitting most of the facts here adduced, and often
dwelling upon them at greater length and more forcibly than I
have been able to do, all agree in advocating the same
universal panacea — the abolition or radical modification of the
laws which restrict the transmission and possession of land by
means of settlements and entails, so as to bring about a state
of things which may be breifly summarised by the term " Free
Trade in Land." They all show, with great force and irresistible
logic, the evils incident to the system of limited ownership, pro-
duced alike by settlements and entails, and by the costly and
difficult transfer of land which these necessitate. They urge
that the one thing needful is that every acre of land in the

The Solution of the Problem. 185

country should be in the possession of some one owner, with
absolute power to sell or transfer it in any way he pleases to
some other absolute owner. They maintain that by this
means land would get into the hands of those who have
capital to expend on its improvement, and whose interest it
would be so to improve it. They maintain, in fact, that what
is wanted is not to abolish landlordism, but to arrange matters
so that the landlord shall have still greater power than he has
now to deal with the land as he pleases. Some of them main-
tainthat this would favour the creation of a class of yeomen or
peasant proprietors, by throwing much more land into the
market and rendering its sale in small lots inexpensive as well
as profitable ; while others dwell chiefly on the fact that more
capital will thus be diverted to the land. Not one of them
seems to recognise anything evil in landlordism itself; not one
of them appears to perceive the bearing of the whole mass of
the evidence in every civilised country in the world— evidence
which proclaims in the most unmistakable manner that
the fruits of landlordism are always evil, those of occupying
ownership always good.

How is it, it may be asked, that among so many great men
■who have paid special attention to this subject none have seen,
or if they have seen have declared, the inherent evils of land-
lordism 1 One such man, and a greater than any of those
-whose names I have quoted — John Stuart Mill — did see it,
and stated his opinion with sufficient plainness ; but he did not
see any practical and just mode of aboHshing landlordism, and
therefore contented himself with claiming for the State " the
unearned increment of the soil." Other land-reformers are
most likely deterred by the vast difficulties in the way of such
reform; and, though satisfied that landlordism does always pro-
duce evil results, do not see any possibility of changing so
ancient and so powerful an institution. Before proceeding to
show that the problem of radical land reform is not nearly so

1 86 Land Nationalisation.

difficult as has teen supposed, when once the source of the
evil is detected and it is determined not merely to palliate but
to abolish it, it will be well to point out the total insufficiency
of the free-trade-in-land panacea to remedy the great and cry-
ing evils of landlordism; and, in doing so, we shall refer chiefly
to the most authoritative work on the question — Mr. Kdy's
" Free Trade in Land."

Mr. Kay's Arguments in Support of Free Trade in Land.
— Mr. Kay's book is throughout an elaborate argument,
founded on a copious and most valuable collection of facts ;
but rarely do we find an argument set forth with such evident
care, and yet so entirely illogical and unsound. It is essen-
tially as follows : — Over a large portion of Europe we find
peasants cultivating lands of which they are the owners, and they
are invariably well-off and contented. In our own country we
have mostly large estates cultivated by tenant farmers, and here
the labourers are pauperised and discontented. Wherever the
former condition prevails there is also a free trade in land. With
us, and in some other countries where the people are equally
wretched, entails and settlements and costly conveyancing pre-
vail ; therefore " free trade in land " causes the difference ; give
us " free trade in land " and our country will soon resemble
Switzerland or Sweden or Prussia. This is positively the
whole argument, and so blindly is it applied that the most
vital differences between other countries and our own are
slurred over or totally ignored. Thus, he speaks of the misery
of the peasants of France before the Revolution, of the aboli-
tion of feudal customs and laws, of the peasants having "become
the owners of the farms on which they used to labour," and asserts
that " the system of peasant proprietorship is literally a system
of free trade in land ;" but he quite ignores the fact that even
before the Revolution there were more than a million of
peasant proprietors in France, and that afterwards the enormous
Church property and many confiscated estates were sold at low

The Solution of the Problem. 187

prices to the peasants, who then had no competitors in the
market, thus adding, according to Arthur Young, 1,220,000
more to the already large body of French peasant-proprietors.
In speaking of Prussia, he refers to the alteration of the
" Land Laws " as the one essential thing which has produced
the existing peasant-proprietors, ignoring again the fact that there
were already in existence an enormous body of peasants culti-
vating land held under various feudal tenures, often very
oppressive, but still, to a great extent, permanent ; and that the
reforms enabled the peasants to become freeholders on easy
terms. And here, too, large ecclesiastical and Crown estates
were also sold to' the peasants. In England, on the other
hand, that beneficial feature of feudalism — the permanent con-
nection of the peasant with the land he cultivates, has been
long totally destroyed ; the Church lands were all given to
feudal lords or court favourites three centuries ago, and have
gone to swell great estates, instead of remaining, as in most
European countries, to be divided among the people ; while the
number of wealthy persons seeking to purchase land for specu-
lation or for power is so great, that it is the wildest delusion to
suppose that the agricultural labourers of England (rarely able
to escape the workhouse in old age) will ever secure an acre of
it.

Small Landed Estates are Constantly Absorbed by Great Ones.
— Mr. Kay himself adduces abundant evidence to this effect.
He shows that " the great estates, vast as they already are,
are continually devouring the few remaining small agricultural
properties," and that " the class of peasant-proprietors formerly
to be found in the rural districts is tending to disappear, " Mr.
Shaw Lefevre, his relative and disciple, further states that — "In
s jme counties, all the land which comes into the market is
bought up by the trustees of wills directing the accumulation of
land ; while in most parts of the country, if a small freehold
of a few acres comes into the maik;t, it is almost certain to be

1 88 Land Nationalisation.

bought up by an adjoining owner, either for the purpose of
rounding off a corner of his estate, or for extending political
influence, or still more often by the advice of the family solicitor,
-who is always in favour of increasing the family estates."
Professor Fawcett also writes strongly on this " greed for land."
He says : — " Two or three large proprietors continue increas-
ing their estates until they come at length to think that the
whole locality ought to be apportioned among them. If the
symmetry of their estates should happen to be disturbed by
anyone possessing a few acres of land, he is considered an
intruder, and his little freehold is an eye-sore to the great pro-
prietors. A. common affects them much in the same way ; and
in order to achieve the grand object of being able to say that
no one else in the neighbourhood possesses a single rood of
land, they appeal to Parliament to aid them in destroying these
commons over which the public exercise some proprietary
rights. A Parliament so largely composed of those who are
great landowners, or who wish to become great landowners,
respond to such an appeal with cordial sympathy." (" Pauper-
ism," p. 254.)*

* In an article on the Land Question in the EdLinhurgh Beview of October,
1 87 1, the same view is forcibly upheld. It is shown by the testimony of
M. de Laveleye that even in Belgium peasant properties are diminishing, on
account of facilities of sale and the general desire for land by capitalists.
In the Eastern States of America also small farms are being bought up for
investments or for residential purposes, and the writer continues : — " If you
could divide England into lots ; if you could restore the imaginary times of
village communities and joint ownership of the soil ; still, if, at the same
time, you left the disposal of land free, the same result would recur.
Landlordism would revive and grow again. After a jjeriod of transition
capital would very certainly re-assume its ordinary predominance, and the
land would be engrossed once more. Nothing could prevent this, except
the enactment and enforcement of agrarian laws. This, and no other,
is the price which we must pay for reducing our landed property to the
condition of comparative level for which Mr. Mill wishes, and of absolute
level which alone will content his more advanced disciples. Does it not
st.ind to reason that if the sale and purchase of land were perfectly easy and
free, those persons would buy most land and give the best price for it who
had most money to buy it with ?"

The Solution of the Problem. 189

Free Trade in Land would not Help either the Tenant or the
Labourer. — Now, with all these influences at work, and taking
note of the enormous fortunes annually made by contractors,
merchants, or speculators, as well as those brought home by
successful colonists, all seeking investment in land or some
form of landed property, what reason is there to suppose that
the great bulk of the estates that come into the market will not
be at once absorbed by the various investors of this type,
and by speculative builders or by building companies, where the
land is suitable for creating a residential district ? No facts
have been adduced to show that the demand for land by the
wealthy will cease or at all diminish, except the totally inapposite
fact that much land sold by the Encumbered Estates Court iri
Ireland was purchased by the occupying tenants, largely helped
by their relations in America. The condition of Ireland,
however, neither was nor is at all comparable with that of
England. The absentee landlords of Ireland are not generally
eager to mcrease their estates, and there is no constant influx of
newly-created wealth ever on the look-out for land, as there is
in England and Scotland. It is, therefore, as certain as any
anticipated result can be, that " free trade in land " would in no
appreciable degree add to the number of yeomen or of peasant-
proprietors, or do anything to check their complete extinction.
What it would do would be to transfer many estates to the
hands of men of capital, and to consign some beautiful
demesnes to the speculative builder. But this would in no
way benefit either the labourer or the tenant-farmer, or the
public at large. We have seen that on some of the best-farmed
land in the country the condition of the labourers is a disgrace
and a degradation ; while alike in Ireland, in the Highlands,
and in every part of Europe, it is the new purchasers of land,
whether in large or small estates, who are the hardest land-
lords, who seek to obtain the greatest possible return for their
outlay, who buy cheap and sell dear, as they aretaught to do

190 Land Nationalisation.

by the best-known maxims of political economy — maxims
which, when applied to the products of human labour, are
beneficial to all parties alike, but which, when applied to the
land (which is limited in quantity, which no man can make, and
which is as necessary to human existence as the air we breathe),
■carry with them the inevitable curse of pauperism to the
labourer, and the innumerable evils of a half-cultivated and
poverty-stricken country to the whole community. For, why
do we import eggs to the amount of two and a half millions
.■sterling annually from France, poultry from France and Italy,
butter, or some bad imitations of it, to the amount of more
than ten millions sterling from various parts of the Continent,
rabbits from Belgium, fruits and vegetables from France, Jersey,
and America, while milk, which cannot be imported, is con-
stantly adulterated, is only to be had even in the country at an
■exorbitant price, and often only as a favour ? This all happens
because our labourers of every kind are landless, and for no
other reason whatever. Every English child who cannot get
abundance of pure milk, every one who suffers from the want
of cheap, fresh, and abundant fruit, vegetables, eggs, butter, and
poultry, has the right to protest against this system. The
wealthy landowners know nothing of these evils, for they grow
all these products themselves ; but thirty million people cannot
for ever live as if in a desert, or in a state of siege, in order that
one million or less may be territorial lords and possess undue
political and social power.*

*As an authoritative exposition of the " free trade in land " arguments and
views, we may refer to Mr. William Fowler, M.P., who, inthe"CobdenClub
Essays" (Vol. II, p. I2l), argues justly against the scheme of the late J. S.
Mill that it would render the charges against land uncertain and fluctuating,
and would thereby diminish its value as a secure investment. He maintains
throughout his essay that the great thing, and the only needful thing, is to
cause capital to be expended on the land, and for this purpose he advocates
the removal of all restrictions on its ownership and its transfer. This, he
believes, will do all that is necessary for the labourer, by rendering it the
interest of the landlord to house and feed him well, just as the farmer

The Solution of the Problem. 19 r

Nationalisation of the Land the only Effective Remedy. —
Having now shown that the panacea of the " free trade in
land " school would not sensibly diminish the various evils of
landlordism which have been pointed out in the preceding
chapters, but that it would, on the contrary, very probably
intensify some of them, it remains to be shown that a remedy
£an be found for the terrible disease under which the social

houses and feeds his horses well. But this very same argument was used
in the case of slavery. It was said that slaves could not be seriously ill-
treated, or maimed, or murdered, because it was against the interest of
their owners to deteriorate their own property. Yet no fact is more certain
than that they were so ill-treated, or that in many cases they were systema-
tically worked out, it being found cheaper to exhaust them and buy others
than to keep them in old age. So, the fact is certain (and has been proved
in the preceding chapters) that, however much capital is expended on the
land, the labourer does iwt benefit. On the highly cultivated farms of the
lowlands of Scotland, the cottages and bothies in which the hinds are
lodged are often bad and insufficient, as bad at least as in the worst
cultivated parts of England. It does not do, therefore, to look at this
question solely from a landlord-and-tenant point of view, and treating the
labourer solely as a part of the necessary " stock " of the farm. Yet this
is what Mr. Fowler and the free-trade-in-land men do. We find it stated
that, "a good cottage can only be considered self-supporting in the same
sense that good stables and good cattle-sheds are self-supporting, and tlw
■only hope thai, the labourer can have of heing properly housed is, that the
landowners should accept ihe position that good cottages conveniently placed
pay, in the same sense that good farm offices $0 placed pay." And it is
assumed that the only reason why landlords do not act on this principle is,
that they have only life-interests in the land. To support this view it should
have been shown that wherever an estate is not encumbered by entails, the
cottages are ample and convenient, but no attempt whatever has been made
to do this, while the universality of bad, dear, and inconvenient cottages
•over the whole country, and the absence of all adequate provision of garden
ground attached to them, is a strong proof that this is not the only or the
chief cause of the deficiency. On the other hand, it is a fact established by
overwhelming evidence, that wherever the labourer possesses land from
which he cannot be ejected at the will of his landlord or his employer, he
invariably secures for himself decent house-accomodation, while he has also
that feeling of independence and security which is the foundation of every
social and political virtue. The labourer, therefore, has a right to refuse
to be treated as a mere portion of the farming stock, to be housed well or
ill as the landlord chooses ; and the placing him in this position is the
condemnation of "free trade in land," as the panacea for all the evils
connected with the land-system, put forward by the Cobden Club School
of Reformers.

192 Land Nationalisation.

organism in our country is labouring, that this remedy may be
applied without injury to anyone, and that its results will be irk
the highest degree beneficial to every class of the community.

Let us first state what are the necessary requirements of a.
complete solution of the land problem as enunciated in these
pages : —

(i) In the first place, it is clear that landlordism must be-
replaced by occupying ownership. No less radical reform will
get rid of the widespread evils of our present system.

(2) Arrangements must be made by which the tenure of
the holder of land must be secure and permanent, and nothing,
must be permitted to interfere with his free use of the land, or
his certainty of reaping all the fruits of any labour or outlay he
may bestow upon it.

(3) Arrangements must be made by which every British
subject may secure a portion of land for personal occupation at.
its fair agricultural value.

(4) All suitable tracts of unenclosed and waste lands must
(under certain limitations) be open to cultivation by occupying
owners.

(s) The freest sale and transfer of every holder's interest in
his land must be secured.

(6) In order that these conditions be rendered permanent,
sub-letting must be absolutely prohibited, and mortgages strictly
limited.

Occupancy and Virtual Ownership must go together. — The
first of these propositions hardly needs further elucidation or
discussion. The whole bearing of the facts adduced in this-
volume is to show that landlordism per se is necessarily evil,
while the occupation of land by its real or virtual owners is
good just in proportion as the owner is in a position to receive
the whole benefit, present and future, of his outlay on the land.

To Secure this, the State must be the Real Owner or Ground-
Landlord. — It is, however, equally clear that the nature of

The Solution of the Problem. 193

ownership of land must not be the same as that of other
property, as, if so, occupying ownership (which alone is
beneficial) would not be universally secured. A person must
own land only so long as he occupies it personally ; t^iat is, he
must be a perpetual holder of the land, not its absolut? owner ;
and this implies some superior of whom he hold* it We
thus come back to that feudal principle (which in theory still
exists) that every one must hold his land from the State,
subject to whatever general laws and regulations are made for
all land so held. The State must in no way deal with
individual landowners, except through the medium of special
Courts which will have to apply the laws in individual cases.
Thus no State management will be required, with its inevitable
evils of patronage, waste, and favouritism,

It is also essential that the State should be the actual owner
of the land, in order that it may be untrammelled in making
from time to time such general rules and regulations for its
tenure as may be found needful for the public good. If
absolute ownership— or what is now termed a freehold — be
continued, every such absolute owner becomes an obstacle to
needful reform, and the right to purchase land (under limita-
tions to be hereafter mentioned) which every Englishman
ought to possess would seem a harsh interference with the
rights of property. The State alone, as universal landowner,
will be able to provide means by which every man, from the
labourer upwards, may procure suitable land for his personal
occupation ; and, unless this is done, fully half the benefits of
a good land-system will be lost.

The State must become Owner of the Land apart from the
Improvements added to it. — It being thus determined that the
State must be the only landowner, but that the tenants of the
State must be permanent, must be subject to no restrictions or
interference in dealing with the land, and must be able to sell
or transfer it with a minimum of trouble and expense, we

o

194 Land -Nationalisdhon.

proceed to show how this may be done in the simplest and
most beneficial way,- and so as to interfere as little as possible
with the rights and Interests of existing landowners. All
previous writers on the possibility of nationalising the land
have overlooked a very obvious fact, which is really the key to
a practical solution of the problem. This fact is, that all
enclosed or cultivated land has its value made up of two
distinct portions, easily separable and affording a basis for an
important division of ownership. These portions are— ^firstly,
the inherent value, and, secondly,- the improvements or
additions added to the inherent value by the labour or outlay
of the owners or occupiers. The important difference of these
two portions of value is, that the one can be maintained,
increased, or destroyed by the energy or the neglect of the
holder of the land ; the other— the inherent value — cannot
(except in rare cases) be so destroyed or even deteriorated; for
it depends on such natural conditions as geological formation,
natural drainage, climate, aspect, surface, and subsoil— or on
such general facts and conditions as density of population,
vicinity of towns, ports, railroads, or public highways, none of
which were created or are capable of being much altered by
the individual action of the landholder. This portion of the
value of the land, therefore, may conveniently become the
property of the State, which iriay be remunerated for its use by
payment of a perpetual quit-rent. The other portion, which is
that created by the exertions of the landholder or his
ipredecessors— consisting of buildings, fences, drains, gates,
private roads, plantations, &c., &c. — should always be the
property of the tenant and holder of the land, and it may
conveniently be termed the tenant-right, because its possession
will constitute him a tenant of the State, and because It is
that portion of the value of landed property which must
always belong to the tenant, while the land or soil itself
remains fn the possession of the supreme lord of the soil, the

The Solution of tlie Problem. 19S

State. The term is familiar from its use in Ireland, as
applied to that portion of the value of land which the tenant
has created by his labour, and which, by custom, he has the
right to sell or transfer.

As the possibility of practically determining the comparative
value of these two elements in landed property has been
doubted by some critics — among others, by Professor F. W.
Newman, who is favourable to my scheme if it can be worked
— it will be well here to say a few words on this supposed
difficulty. .

Mode of Determining the Value of the Quit-Rent and the
Tenant-Eight. — During the interval between the passing of the
Act providing for Nationalisation and the date of its coming
into operation — perhaps five, or even ten years — a complete
valuation of the landed property of the whole kingdom will
have to be made. This valuation must be of the annual or
rental value of the land, and it must be of each field, enclosure,
or other separable plot of land, however small — not on estates
or holdings. This estimate of the annual value of each plot
of land as it stands must then be divided into two parts, the
one the value of the landlord's own portion — the future
tenant-right ; the other the inherent value, including th^t
given to it by the community as well as by the cultivation of
preceding generations of tenants. The separation of these
two values would be by no means a difficult task, as a few
considerations will show. By the general custom of the
locality it would be found what had usually been done by the
landlord, what by the tenant. In most parts of England it
would be the presumption that the buildings and gates had
been provided by the landlord, and this presumption would be
acted on by the valuers in the absence of evidence to the
contrary. As to fences, the presumption would probably be
the other way. Very old enclosures have almost certainly been
made by successive occupiers, and where any considerable

o 2

196 Land Nationalisation.

amount of new fencing had been done by the landlord within
living memory, or even beyond it, personal or documentary
evidence of the fact would be forthcoming. The expenditure,
or rather the work done, by the landlord or his predecessors
could thus be ascertained with considerable accuracy, and
would form the basis for the valuatioa

There are two extreme cases in which the separation of the
two values would be easy — the one in which buildings are the
main feature of the plot, the other in which nothing has been
done to the land but mere enclosure and cultivation. In the
former we have the case of house-rent and ground-rent, which
any valuer could determine, especially as certain general prin-
ciples would be laid down for his guidance — as, for instance,
that the area of ground occupied by a farm-house, garden,
farm-yard or buildings should be estimated at the average
agricultural value of the whole farm ; while the buildings
would be estimated at a fair interest on their approximate cost,
less depreciation and repairs, if they were convenient and well
suited to their purpose. If, on the other hand, they were badly
arranged, badly built, or inconvenient, then a further deduction
would have to be made to arrive at their value, which is often
vfry different from the cost cf a thing. In the other extreme
are old enclosures which have never been drained, and which,
presumably, have had nothing whatever done to them by the
landlord or his predecessors, except perhaps supplying gates ;
and here the tenant-right would be a minimum — sometimes
perhaps only a few shillings— while the fair rental value of the
land, less this amount, would be the quit-rent In this valua-
tion the landlord would receive the benefit of the increased
value given to the land by the continued cultivation of succes-
sive generations of tenants, as well as that due to the increase
of population and civilisation in the community ; and in every
case the sum of these two values — the tenant-right and the
-quit-rent — would make up the fair rental value of the farm.'

The Solution of the Problem. igy

The annual value of the tenant-right, capitalised on a scale
determined by the durability of these landlord's improvements,
would be the sum to be paid him by the tenant who wished
to hold the land under the State.

We have thus shown how the two values which make up all
landed property may be separated with comparative ease and
•certainty, and with quite sufficient accuracy. While writing
these pages the thing is being done in Ireland by the various
Land Courts, so that impracticability can no longer be urged
against it. It is, as we have shown, the very foundation of a
practicable scheme of land-nationalisation, and even were it
more difficult than it is, it would be worth any amount of
time and trouble to do it

There remains only now to consider how existing landlords
may be compensated with the least permanent injury to the
community for the quit-rents which will henceforth be payable
to the State.

How Existing Landowners may be Compensated. — In order
that the State may become possessed of this portion of the value
of all landed property in the kingdom, it must compensate
existing landowners and their expectant heirs. This may be
done either by its purchase for a fixed sum, or by securing
them the full revenue they have hitherto derived from it For
many reasons this last is by far the best way. It would involve
no great financial operation, no elaborate determination of
absolute value, in which the seller would almost certainly obtain
more than his due, to the detriment of the public ; while it
would at the same time serve to mark a great principle, that
the soil itself is, and has always been, the property of the State ;
and that the State merely resumes its own for the public good,
but of course without diminishing the income which any living
person does or may derive from it

The period for which such annuities are to last is a matcer of
detail, but it is clearly better that they should depend upon a

198 Land Nationalisation.

certain number of lives than be for a fixed term of years,
because in the former case the recipient does not suffer the
inconvenience and sense of loss caused by the cessation of an,
important part of his income during his lifetime. That they
should not be perpetual is also clear ; for that would be to
acknowledge a perpetual right of individuals to the land and
its produce; it would burthen the land with a permanent tax
for the future benefit of persons who would have done nothing
whatever to earn or deserve it ; and it would help to create and
keep in existence a class of pensioned idlers, living upon the
labours of others, without the smallest exertion of body or mind
on their own part. That there should be some such persons in
every highly complex society may in our present state of civili-
sation be a necessity, but that any great extension of this class
is a serious evil is so universally admitted that it would be
little less than criminal for any legislature actually to provide
for their perpetual existence, a constant burthen on the commu-
nity, a hindrance to true social advancement. This perpetuation
of a large body of persons living on the labours of others i'i
one of the necessary evil results of landlordism. It has been
hitherto palliated by the supposed duties which they exercise
in the " management " of their estates, and their supposed
beneficial influence over the districts in which they reside ;
but the former have been shown to be injurious, and the latter
illusory. Their continued existence for a time, as pensioners
on the land, can only be defended on the ground that the
property of living individuals should be strictly respected by the
State as well as by their fellow citizens. Their accustomed
enjoyments and reasonable expectations must not be interfered
with. But no such rule applies to the unborn. They , have
neither expectations nor proprietary rights, arid they may be
justly disregarded when their supposed rights are opposed tO'
the general well-being of the community.

In accordance with these considerations, the principle that

The Solution of the Problem. 199

seems most consonant with justice is, to continue the annuity
successively to any heir or heirs of the landowner who may be
living at the passing of the Act, or who may be born at any
time before the decease of the said owner. This would ensure
to the owner himself and to all persons in whom he could
possibly have any personal interest the same net income from
the land which they enjoyed before the passing of the Act. It
would take away from them only the right of sale, but as this
is the very thing which the majority of English landowners
themselves take away from their heirs, and the power to do
which they account one of their greatest privileges, they can
hardly object to the same thing being done by the State for a
great public purpose. It must also be remembered that the
annuitants will enjoy the State's guarantee of the income, and
so be saved from the fluctuations of annual produce to which
landed property is now pre-eminently liable ; and, further, that
that portion of the value of the land which has been created by
themselves or their predecessors — the tenant-right — will still be
their own absolutely, either to retain themselves, or to sell to
the highest bidder, the power of letting only being taken
away as manifestly inconsistent with the public welfare.

Alleged Unfairness x)f Compensation by Means of Terminable
Annuities. — ^The objection to this mode of dealing with land-
owners most frequently put forward is, to suppose two men
with, say, ;^io,ooo each, one of whom invests his money in
Consols, the other in land. The former, it is said, derives a
perpetual income from hiG property ; the latter intends to do
the same, but you change it into a terminable annuity and so
rob him. The answer to this is, that the " perpetual income" is
purely imaginary. > No man can enjoy an income longer than
for his life, with the power of leaving it to his next heir. Here
his actual enjoyment of it ceases absolutely, and all this enjoy-
ment he retains under the new system. His heir may spend,
or give away, or lose the ;:^io,ooo in Consols, and his wish or

200 Land Nationalisation.

expectation that the money will be increased and go to enrich
unborn generations of his family is not a thing to be valued or
compensated.* It is true that the selling value of the land, on
the probability of the Act passing, or when it has passed, may
be diminished; but, whenever such a diminution of value takes
place in any other kind of property from a similar cause,
confiscation is not admitted and compensation is not allowed.
Many manufacturers have been ruined and many workmen
reduced to beggary by the direct action of the State in remov-
ing protective duties, on the faith of which they had invested
their capital or their manual skill, and in no case have they
been compensated for the loss, compensation being refused on
the ground that the measure was for the benefit of the whole
community, and that they participate in that benefit. In such
cases both property and income were often destroyed at one
blow, while here the income remains untouched, and even
acquires increased stability ; and the general welfare will
assuredly be advanced to a greater extent by occupying owner-

* Not only is the supposed " perpetual income " derived from Consols or
any other form of investment non-existent as regarjJs any living owner, but
it may be shown to be altogether unjust in principle and impossible in fact.
Let us see what the contrary assumption — that interest on capital paid in
perpetuity is altogether right and expedient— rleads us to. The surplus
capital of each generation will be invested to produce a " perpetual income "
for all succeeding generations. But as each generation creates more surplus
capital, its amount, and thaf of the " perpetual income " derived from it(
will go on increasing ; and without approaching perpetuity we should very
soon arrive at a state of things in which this interest would be of so vast an
amount that the workers-r-the producers of all wealth — could not possibly
pay it. This period would arrive sooner because, with the increase of the
"perpetual incomes," those supported in idleness on these incomes would
also increase continually ; and we come, at last, to the redvMa, ad eibsusr-
dwm, that the "income" would be so ^reat that it would support everybody
if there was only anybody else to pay it'! It is evident that before long the
result must be, either a tevolution, in which all such incomes would be
swallowed up, or a progressive decrease in the purchasing power of money,
which, if the " income " were really perpetual, would inevitably end in its
becoming worthless. As a matter of feet we see this tendency already in
in action, in the constantly increasing cost of living with the constantly
decreasii^ rate of secure interest The conception of " perpetual income '*
is therefore a fallacy from two distinct points of view.

TJie Solution of the Problem. 201

ship of the land than it has been by the extension of Free
Trade to articles of luxury, such as silk and jewellery. The
general well-being is, of course, the sole justification for any
such interference with any form of property, or with the
established condition of society. It has been shown by an
overwhelming mass of evidence that the great change here
proposed is essential to the welfare of the whole community j
and it is certain that no great reform was ever effected with so
little interference with the property or the means of enjoyment
of individuals as will be necessary here.

It may, however, be doubted whether even the selling value
of land would be at all diminished by the proposed legislation,
and for the following reasons. Till quite recently there has
always been much competition for farms, and there is always a
great demand for small plots of land at anything like an agri-
cultural value. But when this proposed Act has passed, every-
one wishing to purchase land will have to purchase the tenant-
right only, paying the annual quit-rent, as above defined, to the
State. This will render the purchase of land very easy, and
will certainly bring in more purchasers. The demand for land,
either as residential estates, or in small lots for farms or
gardens, will probably exceed the supply ; and thus the price
will rise, perhaps, sufficiently to cover the margin between the
value of an annuity for, say three lives, and that of one nomi-
nally in perpetuity ; and, if it does so, then the landlord will
suffer no loss whatever.*

* In order to render any diminution even of the selling value of the land
less probable, the annuity might be extended to three generations certain,
in the direct line, that is, to the actual owner, his sons, and grandsons, as
well as to any collateral or other heirs living at the time the Act came into
operation. As it is practically certain that the power of entail, and,
perhaps, that of transmitting any property to unborn heirs, will be abolished
long before Nationalisation is effected, and as land could then be used only
for personal occupation, the valiieof such an annuity would be very great
to those who wished to secure a competency to their family during the two
generations after them, because they could do this in no other way so easily
and so securely. There will, therefore, in all probability, be a great demand
for these annuities by trustees and others.

203 Land Nationalisation.

How Tenants may become Occupying Owners. — Having thus
shown how the owner would be compensated for the land itself,
we proceed to show how the tenant-right would be dealt with,
and what would be the position of the purchasers of tenant-
right.

The land having been acquired by the State, every existing
tenant, at the date the Act came into operation, would be
entitled to continue in the occupation of his house, his farm, or
his 'land of any description, as a holder under the State, oa
payment of the fixed quit-rent ; but to constitute him such a
State tenant, he must first purchase or otherwise acquire the
tenant-right. He will be enabled to do this, either by purchas-
ing it from the landlord under a private arrangement, or, if an
agreement as to its value cannot be arrived at, then the official
va:luer or a " land court," similar to those which administer the
Irish Land Bill, may be called in to determine the fair value.
As soon as this is paid by the tenant, he becomes the absolute
owner of the tenant-right, and as such the holder of the land
under the .State in perpetuity, so long as the quit-rent is paidi.
The tenant-right, which thus carries with it the right to the land
(subject to the quit-rent), -will be as freely saleable as any other
property ; it will be capable of being sub-divided, and' sold, or
bequeathed in portions, and thus the holder of land will, for all
beneficial uses, be as much the real owner as if it were a freehold.

As Nationalisation is proposed in order (among other things)
to prevent any one being ejected from his house or farm
against his will, and as some tenants would not be able to
provide the sum necessary to purchase the tenant-right, provi-
sion must be made (either by authorised Loan Societies or
by municipal authorities) for the advance of the sum required,
to be repaid by a terminable rental extending over periods of,
say, from 14 to 40 years.

Subletting must be Absolutely Prohibited. — Such a holder
under the State would be absolutely free to use his land as he

Tlie Solution of the Problem. ?03

pleased, just as much as a freeholder is now, because he would
be the owner of everything but the land itself, and if he chose
to deteriorate his property, that would injure no one but him-
self As a rule, he would immensely improve it, because it
would be his own. There must, however, be one restriction
on his use of the land, which is, that he must not sublet it
This is absolutely essential to secure the full benefits of Nation-
alisation, because, once admit subletting, and landlordism would
again rise under another name, and the subtenants would be
subject to all the injurious influences and conditions the aboli-
tion of which is the very raison {Tetreoi the reform. The State, as
owner of the land, can prohibit subletting, and the impprtance
of doing so is admitted by all who have studied the subject
It is well known that in Ireland the middlemen were often the
hardest landlords, while none rack-rent their tenants more
than those who have purchased land for the purpose of deriving
an income from it Even where peasant proprietorship largely
prevails, its benefits are often neutralised by the more success-
ful owners purchasing farms to let to tenants, and it is the
universal testimony that evil results ensue. Mr, Thornton
states that : — " Peasants who let their land to be cultivated by
others are, of all landlords, the most griping. Anything but
satisfactory is the condition of the actually cultivating class,
wherever, on the one hand, landed property is minutely sub-
divided, and, on the other hand, is not occupied by its owners.
Such is the case throughout Flanders generally, and quite
saddening are some of the details . given by M. de Laveleye
with respect to Flemish tenant-farmers." It is, therefore, quite
clear that subletting must be prevented and personal occupa-
tion be insisted, on, and this is a sufficient answer to those who
advocate assisting tenants to purchase the., freehold oi i)\tit
farms, instead of being holders under the State. For where-
ever, in thickly populated countries, there are small freeholders,
they are dying out, owing to the demand for land as an invest-

204 Land Nationalisation

ment This has been the case, not in England only, but, as ve
have shown, in many parts of Europe and in America ; and it
is probable that any such system of purchase would, as the
Edinburgh Reviewer already quoted maintains, have to be all
done over again after a few generations, while in the mean-
time it would hardly touch the more important evils which have
been shown to be inherent in landlordism.*

Evils of Subletting in Towns. — Still greater evils arise from
subletting in the vicinity of towns, a good illustration of which
is furnished by the following statement of the Daily News
special commissioner as to the present condition of the town of
Killarney. He says : — " The great estates of the Lord
Chamberlain have curiously enough been equally damaged by
the care and carelessness of his ancestors. His great-grand-
father was disgusted at the condition of the town of Killarney,
and offered any tenant who would build a decent house with a
slate roof a perpetual lease of the land it stood upon and the
adjoining garden for the nominal rent of of four shillings and
fourpence per annum, without other important conditions. The
result has been that Killarney can boast of as filthy lanes as any
in London or Liverpool. The ordinary process, the same as
that which formed the hideous slums between Drury-lane and
Great Wild-street, now happily demolished, has gone on in
Killarney. Tenants under no restrictions gradually converted
their gardens into lanes of hovels, and made money thereby,
and the result is a concentration in Killarney of filth which
would be better distributed on the side of a mountain, and
which is under the nose of a landlord who is powerless to apply
a remedy."

Mortgaging should be Strictly Limited. — Next in importance
to the evil of subletting is that of heavy mortgages on the land
of the cultivator. Many writers point out this evil, but none

* This would not prevent temporary subletting by permission of the
Courts, to keep house or land for minors, and in other analogous cases.

The Solution of the Problem. 205

suggest any remedy. In Ireland the " Gombeen " men, or
usurers, were the curse of the country, while in parts of Austria
the small landowners are so deeply indebted to their mortgage
creditors that a party has been formed who advocate the
annulment of all mortgages on small estates. The State being
owner of the land, and the ienant-righi being its security for
the quit-rent, it may properly regulate the proportionate amount
to which mortgages may be permitted on landed property, and
may only allow them on condition that they are to be extin-
guished by annual repayments within a definite period, and
it might also very properly refuse to allow the same landowner
to mortgage his land more than once, on the ground that he
who cannot farm except under a perpetual mortgage should
either reduce the amount of his land or give way to those who
have sufficient capital.

Whether any Limits should be Placed to the Quantity of Land
Personally Occupied. — Before leaving this part of our subject
there is one question that must be clearly answered. What
limit, if any, should be placed on the quantity of land one
person might hold under the State? The Land and Labour
League have proposed "that the lands of the country be
divided into cultivable quantities, according to quality, of from
two to twenty-five acres," and they further wish all parks and
similar large areas of land held for pleasure to be cut up into
farms for cultivation. Mr. Fowler, in the " Cobden Club
Essays," seems to think that Some such scheme of division is an
essential part of all systems of nationalisation, and he thus argues
against it : — " But forced sub-division is as objectionable as
forced accumulation. The one and the other alike interfere
with the natural distribution of the land among the people, and
ought, therefore, to be alike opposed by those who advocate
the principles of Richard Cobden. We have no right to decide
that a holding of one size as such is better in itself than another.
It is our place to leave people to find out for themselves what

206 Land Nationalisation.

suits them best, provided always that we leave them really
free."

All this is perfectly true, and it is, therefore, proposed to
place no restriction whatever on the quantity of land one man
may hold for personal occupation. Some men might wish to
farm a thousand acres or more, while others would prefer. only
ten or twenty. And as for parks, woods, and pleasure grounds,
there is not the slightest reason, at present, for interfering
with these. When the land is really free to all to be held and
cultivated without restriction, there will be ample scope for
increased production without interfering ' with these charming
oases of sylvan scenery in the midst of often unpicturesque
cultivated fields. But it may be said : — " Would you allow a
duke or a millionaire to continue to hold ten or a dozen parks
and houses in as many counties, as some of them do now ?"
Even here I see no need for restrictive legislation so long as
the duke retained them for his personal occupation. But, as
he could, not sublet them, and as the estates attached to each
of them would be no longer his, what possible reason could he
have for retaining them ? Now, they are each the centre and
visible indication of an estate, and it is a point of honour and
dignity to retain them. When the estate was gone there would
be no reason whatever for keeping the demesne and house,
except in those cases where it, was a favourite dwelling. I -very
much doubt whether, under the conditions here proposed, any
proprietor in the kingdom would care about keeping up more
than two country houses, and there is certainly no possible
reason why he should not do this if he pleases.

It is a strange thing, however, that such men as Mr. Fowler
do not see that under mere free trade in land there could be
no such freedom of cultivation as he strongly urges us to allow.
The whole mass of evidence adduced in this volume shows a
constantly increasing monopoly of land by the rich as the wealth
of the pountry has increased, accompanied by a constantly

The Solution of the' Problem. 207

increasing limitation of freedom in the occupation and enjoy-
ment of land. It is useless "leaving people to find out what
suits them best," when land monopoly absolutely prevents them
from obtaining what suits them best.

Supposed. Objections to Land Nationalisatioti. — Before pro-
ceeding to show how the labourers and the public in general
are to be directly benefited, it may be well to reply to a few of
the chief objections which have been made to all previous
schemes for nationalising the land, and to show that none of
them are in any degree applicable to that here advocated. We,
will begin with Mr. Fowler, who, in the work already quoted,
refers to schemes of this kind as being usually vague, adding :
— " But the general thought of the proposers is clear enough,
viz., that the management of land can safely be entrusted to a
department of State, and that thus the interests of the people,
as such, in the land can be extended, with the best results to the
nation." He then goes on to argue that the State could not
*' manage " land advantageously, any more than Corporations,
which notoriously manage it very badly. "We know," he
says, " what can be done by private ownership where the. law
leaves it unfettered, but the experience we have of State
management is not encouraging. .... In State manage-
ment there is the minimum of private interest with the danger
of a maximum of jobbery."

All this is perfectly true if the State were to acquire ^twliole
of a landed estate (including the tenant-right), and were to let
it out and manage it as an existing landlord does ; but it is
totally untrue as regards the present scheme, in which no
" management " whatever is required or is possible, any more
than the State " manages" house property because it collects a
land-tax from each householdei:.

■ Again, Mr. Arthur Arnold, in his " Free Trade in Land,"
says : — " The main object for which private property in land
is sanctioned by the State, with the concurrence of all

208 Land Nationalisation.

rational people, is the belief that such ownership is most suc-
cessful in promoting production. Production is at present
very much neglected, but that is because private ownership is
baulked by settlement, and by the " ungodly jumble " of our
legal" processes. Production would undoubtedly be much
greater if private property in land were more firmly and fully
established. I cannot think it possible that a Government
could promote production with anything like the power which
may be obtained from private ownership."

Here again we have the idea of " management," in "Govern-
ment promoting production." But on our system Government
would do nothing but leave production absolutely free under a
system of universal " occupying ownership," which has been
clearly demonstrated to be the form of ownership which most
stimulates "production." Mr. G. Shaw Lefevre, M.P.,
although an advanced land-reformer, and fully aware of the
advantages of any form of occupying ownership, is yet stag-
gered by the practical difficulties in the way of its realisation.
At a meeting of' the Statistical Society in November, 1880, he
said, after referring to the differences between Ireland and
England : — " In this country, where the farms were larger, it
would require a very, large amount to be advanced by the
State to enable a tenant to become the owner of his holding,
and, apart from all other considerations, he believed the finan-
cial difficulties would be insurmountable. But he hoped that
wilh greater freedom in the sale and transfer of land, there,
would be many instances in England in which ownership would
be annexed to the cultivation of land, and the more this,
condition of things spread, the greater would be the induce-
ments to good agriculture."

By the scheme here developed, however, no ^.dvance what-
ever need be made by the State; while ownersjiip annexed to
the cultivation of the land, which Mn Shaw Lefevre declares to.
be so beneficial, would become universal

Tlie Solution of the Problem. 209

The Hon. George C. Brodrick, in his excellent work on
"English Land and English Landlords," remarks:— "No
doubt, it is a perfectly intelligible proposition that all the land
in the Kingdom ought to be ' nationalised ' and placed under
public management, because individual owners cannot be
trusted with full dominion over that part of the earth's surface
by which and upon which all the natives of England must live,
unless they choose to emigrate. It is evident that, apart from
all other objections, this doctrine is the very negation of the
belief in peasant-proprietorship and ' the magic of property,'
being, in fact, an essentially urban sentiment, and inevitably
destructive to all independence of rural life. Nor can it be
said that our experience of corporate administration, in the
case of lands held by collegiate, ecclesiastical, and municipal
bodies, as well as by trustees of charities, is such as to recom-
mend the substitution of public for private ownership on a
much grander scale." Here we have exactly the same idea of
the necessity for " management " by the State as land-owner,
and a complete misconception of the real nature of " natioiiali-
sation " as here developed.

Even Mr. J. Boyd Kinnear, who, in his valuable work,
" Principles of Property in Land," has written so strongly on the
evils of landlordism and the benefits of occupying ownership,
sees the same supposed difficulties in nationalisation. He
asks: — "But how is the State to perform the functions of
landlord?" and he proceeds to show, at great length and
with irresistible logic, the evils of any interference of the Stale
in the cultivation or use of land. But this is all quite beside
the question if the State owns the land only, not the improve-
ments on the land, or " tenant-right" The late John Stuart
Mill also was only withheld from proposing nationalisation of
the land by the same difficulty. In his opening address to the
Land Tenure Reform Association he said, speaking of nationali-
sation : — " I do not know that it may not be reserved for us in
the future ; but at present I decidedly do not think it expedient.

p

210 Land Nationalisation.

I have so poor an opinion of State management, or municipal
management either, that I am afraid many years would elapse
before the revenue realised for the State would be sufficient to
pay the indemnity which would be justly claimed by the dis-
possessed proprietors."

This is really the sole objection of the slightest impor-
tance that has been urged by most writers of eminence who
have made a special study of the subject, and I have sought in
vain for any more serious one. It follows that no valid
objection has been yet urged which applies to the system of
nationalisation here proposed.

How Nationalisation will Affect Towns. — However disas-
trous landlordism has been in the agricultural districts, its evils
have been still more severely felt in towns and cities. Here
the landlord has been complete master of the situation, and
has been able to make his own terms, which the people have
been bound to accept. These terms have amounted to the
systematic confiscation of the property of others by the custom
of building-leases and renewals ; and, together with the temp-
tation of large profits to be made by speculation in building
sites, have led to cheap and bad building, and frightful over-
crowding of the poorer classes in courts, alleys, and cellars.
These unsanitary conditions necessarily produce persistent
disease as well as many social evils, while they greatly intensify
if they do not originate most of the severe epidemics which
still periodically attack us. These evils continue in full force
to this very day, and under the present system of land-monopoly
are quite incurable. As an example of confiscation — strictly
legal, but none the less real — I give the following letter, which
appeared in the Echo of October last year : —

"to the editor of the echo.

" Sir, — Through the medium of your valuable columns allow
me space to explain my grievance. Two years ago I purchased
-a house on the Portman Estate (eighteen years' lease) at

The Solution of tJie Problem. 211

;^io los. per annum. I spent more than ^^300 to put it into
tenantable repair, thinking that I should get a renewal at a
fair ground-rent. I applied, and the agent came to inspect
the premises, and a few days after sent me the terms as follows :
—Lease for 34 years— ground-rent to be ;^8o instead of ;^io ;
fine ;!^i,ooo renewal, to be paid from the day of application,
or s per cent, interest on the ^1,000 from that date, which
would be principal and interest for eight years, ^£'1,400 ; im-
provements to be done as stated in agreement, amounting to
about £,t,oo, before a new lease is granted j all Viscount
Porlman's solicitor's fees to be paid by me. For the simple
drawing of this agreement I paid ^15. The last year of the
34 years' lease the house to be re-decorated throughout ; the
property to be insured by me in the Portman Fire Office. Upon
remonstrating at the exorbitant terms, I received a letter from the
agent that I could accept them or not, but in the event of my
not accepting I should not have any further opportunity of
applying.

" Now, Sir, what right can the landlord have to take away my
house? He has never spent id. towards its improvement Of
course the ground has increased in value, but that is through
the tradespeople, and not through the landlord. The ground-
rent is increased eight times ; then what right has the landlord
to demand ^1,400 for a house that I bought, and what right
has he to dictate improvements that I have to pay for, so that
after the expiration of a few years he may get larger premises,
and another larger premium, without him spending a fraction,
not even to pay the solicitor for getting the money ? It seems
incredible that people endure such extortion without seeking
redress. I trust that others who are suffering the same wrong
will come forward, so that effective action may be taken to alter
the law, which beggars tradespeople to enrich the aristocracy.
" Baker Street, Oct. 26. "Englishwoman."

This is a typical case — though probably an extreme one —

p 2

212 Land Nationalisation.

and it well shows how helpless the public are, and how, under
the threat of eviction, they can be robbed by the form of free
contract and under the protection of the law. We next give
one example, equally typical but far more common, of the kind
of dwelling landlordism provides for the poor.

It is from a coroner's inquest on the body of a child which
was killed simply by the foul air of the dwelling, as reported in
^& Daily News, of November i6th, 1881 : — "Last evening
Mr. Samuel F. Langham, deputy coroner for Westminster, held
an inquest at St Martin's Vestry Hall, Strand, touching the
death of William Howard, aged 1 1 months, lately living with
his parents at No. 6, Hanover-court, Long-acre, who died on
Friday, it was alleged from the unhealthy and unsanitary
condition of the house. — Mrs. Emily Howard, wife of a labourer,
and mother of the deceased, said that her child had been
sickly from its birth. At about seven o'clock last Friday
deceased was taken with a fit, and it rallied until ten o'clock,
when it had another, and died in half an hour. She believed
her child had died from the stench that came from the water-
closet and yard, which were abominably unhealthy. She had
occupied the first floor back for 18 months. She had not made
any complaint to the landlord until after the death of the
deceased. The cistern was right underneath the window and
over the dusthole. — William Howard, the father, said that his
window was just over the watercloset, and the stench was
sometimes suffocating. He did not give notice because it was
difficult to get another cheap place to live in. — Mr. Robert
William Dunn, surgeon, 13, Surrey-street, Strand, deposed to
having attended at the house and finding the child dead.
Several people in the house complained of the unhealthy state
of the place, one man saying he had never been well , since he
had lived in the house. The place smelt of sewage. It made
him sick when he entered. The deceased died from convul-
sions. — ^The Foreman of the Jury : I myself am suffering from

The Solution of the Problem. 213

bad drainage in this neighbourhood, and several people in my
house are suffering from the same cause, and the chances are
that someone will become seriously ill, — The Doctor : I should
not be surprised if typhoid fever were to break out in the house,
especially seeing the position of the cistern and the water-
closet."

In another inquest reported in the same day's paper in
another part of London, the Divisional Surgeon of Police said —
" that the parents and two children slept in one bed ; that the
room was very unhealthy and quite unfit for human habitation."
The coroner "had no doubt that, if the wretched, poverty-
stricken people could go to clean and decent houses for a little
money, such scandals as the Marylebone fever dens would
cease to exist. The poor were compelled to herd and crowd
and shift for themselves as best they could, and the fever and
disease and death went on year by year, notwithstanding the
march of science and medical sanitation."

Now, these are the direct results of private property in land
under the conditions which prevail in this country. The
consolidation of farms, and the destruction of cottages, so much
favoured by great landlords and their agents, have driven the
labourers from the country into the towns ; and land-monopoly
in its necessary action brings about the condition of their
dwellings above indicated. That the labourers are thus forced
to the towns has been shown in my earlier chapters. The fact
is clearly proved by the returns of the last census, and public
writers have been deploring it, without, apparently, seeing its
cause and its only cure ; and if further evidence is wanted of the
serious character of this movement and its danger to the
country, it is to be found in Mr. John Bright's speech at Roch-
dale, on his 70th birthday. He says: — "There is another
question which workmen everywhere should learn and bear in
mind — that the labour in the agricultural districts was becom-
ing more and more costly, whilst it was worse in quality, because

214 Land Nationalisation.

the younger people, finding that they had no tie to the soil,
that they can never become anything but labourers at very low
wages, are leaving the rural parishes in which they have been
born. They are emigrating to the great towns in the neighbour-
hood, and not a few of them are emigrating to the countries
across the ocean. The result is that our landed system, with,
its great estates and farms, cuts off the labourer almost entirely
from the possibility of becoming either a tenant or an owner oj
the land, and as he has no object in remaining there, he goes
away. The Education Act now being put in force throughout
the rural districts will add greatly to this effect I had a letter
riot long ago from a clergyman who had lived many years in
the south, and he told me he had noticed the result continually,
and he thought it was one which must be seen much more in
the future than in the past, because as all young people got
some sort of education in the school, although not a thorough
education, they were so far educated that they could read the
newspaper and see what was being done in other parts of the
country and in other countries ; and they, looking with a hope-
less feeling at their position, emigrate therefore to the large towns,
in the hope of bettering their condition, or they emigrate to
foreign countries, and the result is that only the poorest labour
is left behind, whilst it also becomes costlier and becomes more
and more an increasing burden upon the farmer."

I have called attention, by italics, to a few passages in this
weighty paragraph, because they show that up to this very day
there is no tendency whatever to better the condition of the
rural labourers; while they fully support my contention that the
overcrowding of towns, with its inevitable accompaniments of
misery, vice, and disease, is the direct product of " our landed
system.''

The cure of the evils of building-lease confiscation and some
of those of overcrowding will probably be effected earlier than
complete nationalisation ; for already there is a movement on

TJie Solution of the Problem. 2 1 5

foot for obtaining " tenant-right " for London, and, certainly,
the case is exactly analogous to that of the Irish tenant-farmer
who has made all the improvements on the land. If justice
requires that he should be protected from having his property
confiscated, the same rule applies still more strongly in cases
where the property on the land bears so large a proportion to
the value of the land as it does in the case of the leasehold
houses of London and other great cities. The true and only
effectual cure for all these iniquities and horrors is, however, to
draw back the population from the towns to the country by the
natural and healthy process of offering that greatest of all
attractions — a free choice to every one of cheap land ; and how
this is to be done will be shown immediately. Till that takes
place some arrangement will have to be made by which the
occupiers of town houses may become their owners. With the
better class of houses this will follow exactly the same lines as
the transfer of the land. The owner of the freehold or of the
improved ground-rent will be compensated by a State annuity,
while the house itself will be purchased by the tenant at a fair
valuation, and, if desired, by means of a terminable rental As
regards the poorer class of houses and those large buildings let
out as offices or in fiats, either the municipality or some other
authorised associations might purchase them, and let them out
to such tenants as do not require entire houses or permanent
dwellings.

We now pass on to the mode by which labourers and the
public might acquire land.

Free-selection of Residential Plots by Labourers and others. —
The large mass of evidence collected in this volume conclusively
shows that innumerable evils arise owing to the impossibility,
under the present system, of acquiring land in small plots at
agricultural prices. Such an unnatural state of things has been
brought about by land monopoly, and so complete is the divorce
of the great body of Englishmen from any right of ownership-

2i6 Land Nationalisation.

in their native soil, that, when nationalisation permits it, special
arrangements must be made to allow of a speedy return to a
more healthy condition.

There is no one privilege so beneficial to the members of a
community as to have an ample space of land on which to live.
Surround the poorest cottage with a spacious vegetable garden,
with fruit and shade trees, with room for keeping pigs and
poultry, and for storing the house-refuse and manure at some
distance from the dwelling, and give the occupier a permanent
tenure at a low quit-rent, and the result is absolutely invariable.
Such conditions, or anything approaching to them, always
produce untiring industry and thrift, always remove the
occupiers above poverty and pauperism, always produce health
and contentment, always diminish, if they do not abolish,
drunkenness and crime. Under such conditions the poorest cot
would soon be improved and made into a comfortable dwell-
ing ; the surplus fruit, vegetables, eggs, bacon, and other
produce would benefit all the dwellers in the neighbouring
towns, while the increased well-being of the rural population
would react on all other occupations and revivify our home
trade.

Equally important is it to every tradesman to be able to have
a country house (if he can afford one) in which to bring up a
healthy family, and this blessing a free choice of land at its
fair agricultural value would give to thousands to whom it is
now an unattainable dream. When the land has been acquired
by the. nation, every Englishman may claim an equal right to
possess a portion of it for personal occupation at its fair value,
subject only to the equal rights of others, and to some amount
of restriction as to quantity and situation in order not to
interfere unnecessarily with agriculture or to inconvnience
those already in possession.

The mode in which this great boon may be obtained is
simple. Every Englishman should be allowed, once in his life.,

The Solution of the Problem. 217

to select a plot of land for his personal occupation. His right
of choice will, of course, be limited to agricultural or waste
land ; it will also be limited to land bordered by public roads
affording access to it ; it will further be limited to a quantity of
not less than one acre or more than five acres, and will cease
on any estate from which a fixed proportion, say ten per cent,
of the whole, has been taken, while it should not apply at all to
very small holdings ; and finally, it will be limited by proximity
to the dwelling of the occupier of the land, so as to subject him
to no unnecessary annoyance. These limrtations would be deter-
mined in each case by a local Court of the same character as
the Sub-Commissions under the Irish Land Act, who would
visit the ground, hear the statements of both parties, and finally
mark out the lot granted. The Court would also determine
the proportion of the quit-rent to be taken over by the new
occupier, and the amount to be paid the farmer for his tenant-
right of the plot in question.

The limit of quantity has been fixed by the consideration
that it is not for the public benefit that a house shall occupy
less than one acre of land. Any labourer may easily cultivate
this quantity in his spare hours with the assistance of his
family, or he may stock it with fruit trees and devote it to
poultry runs; while it would afford sufficient space for keeping all
disagreeable smells some distance from the house or road,
thus avoiding any unhealthiness or public nuisance. The
higher limit of five acres is intended for those who want land
enough to keep a horse or cow, which thousands would do
could they have land with their house at a moderate price ;
and it need hardly be said how much this would add to the
health and enjoyment of a country life. Many have recognised
he advantages of such a right of purchase of land, but under
no system but Nationalisation is it possible to realise it. Dr.
Macdonald in a letter to the Echo newspaper well says :— ^

" There must be freedom of land and its equitable distribu-

2i8 Land Nationalisation.

tion. It is simply scandalous that a poor man cannot get an
acre of land for his cottage and garden, while the rich have
tens of thousands of acres for parks and sporting grounds.
Every person has a natural right to a permanent home in his
native land, and how can we expect patriotism if this cannot
be obtained ? Moreover, the acquisition of a bit of land is the
only thing that will raise a man from serfdom to comparative
independence. . . ., A man with an acre of land of his
own is virtually independent, as he has always something to
fall back upon when work fails, and it encourages in him a
spirit of enterprise and thrift which may enable him to acquire
five acres or more in time. He could build himself a comfort-
able cottage, instead of living in the wretched hovels we see in
most of our villages. For an industrious man to grow food for
himself and his family on his own land is the straight road to
prosperity and happiness; and there is no occupation so
healthful and natural, and none so calculated to bring out the.
best qualities of man's nature as husbandry. Moreover, the
prosperity of agriculture very greatly depends on the cultivator
having a permanent holding on the land he cultivates.
Excessive rents and evictions insure a ruined people and a
ruined soil." But he suggests no method of bringing this about
except by the purchase of land from existing landowners, and
selling it again to labourers — of course, at present monopoly
and speculative prices.*

* The permanent possession of a plot of land would have the effect of secur-
ing the labourer of all kinds from that absolute dependence on the
capitalist which, as pointed out in my first chapter, is one great cause of
poverty and pauperism. It would be the first and greatest step in bringing
about the state of things which Professor Cairnes recognised as that which
alone would elevate the labourer. He says : — " It appears to me that the
condition of any substantial improvement of a permanent kind in the
labourer's lot is, that the separation of the industrial classes into labourers
and capitalists which now prevails shall not be maintained ; that the
labourer shall cease to be a mere labourer " (p. 339, Cairnes, "Some Leading
Principles," &c.) Now the possessor of land would be a capitalist as well
as a labourer. He would b* in a position to bargain on equal terms with
his employer. He would be, what he is not now, a free man.

The Solutiotf. of the Problem. 219

Objections to the Right of Free-selection. — The only objection
that has been made, or that perhaps, can be made, to the
exercise of this right of selection and purchase of a plot of
land, is, that it will injuriously cut up farms and interfere with
farming, and that the farmers will violently oppose it. But
with the careful restrictions and limitations above indicated, it
is absurd to place the small injury or inconvenience it might
be to a few farmers against the vast benefit to the acquirers
of the land and to the whole community. Do farmers now
refuse to take farms when the landlord reserves the right of
taking portions to let for building? Are they seriously
injured when a railroad or other public work takes some of
their land ? Yet in both these cases the injury is far greater
than would ever be the case under free-selection. For there is
in the former cases no limitation to quantity, shape, or
position. A man's fields may be cut across diagonally by a
railroad, or his best piece of pasture may be taken away to
build on, and the farmers have never cried out against this
cutting up of their lands, probably because they know it would
be useless. It is almost certain that the quantity of land taken
for occupation would in most districts be not very large, and
might not in many years equal the quantity taken for railroads
and the waste-heaps of mines and factories. In this case, too,
the farmers would directly benefit by the operation. It would
secure them a body of thrifty and industrious labourers,
attached to the soil, and therefore always at hand to labou
when wanted ; while, having resources of their own, they would
never require to be set to unprofitable work merely to keep
them on, nor would they swell the poor rates by being
periodically in the receipt of parish relief. It would also
secure a comparatively wealthy rural population, which would
aid in keeping the labourers employed at odd jobs when farm-
ing work was slack, and would furnish a market for some of
the farmers' produce or stock. It must also be remembered

320 Land Nationalisation.

that for all land taken from his farm for this purpose the
farmer would be fairly and fully compensated, while his.
objections and wishes would be so far respected as to keep
away all intrusion which could be any real injury or annoyance
to him. He would, therefore, have no solid grounds for
objection to a measure calculated to produce such v,'idely
beneficial results, and would probably have the good sense to
see that personal predilections must, in this case, as in every
other, give way to the public benefit*

* In the Contemporary Eeview of March 1882, the Rev. W. L. Blackley,
(author of the admirable scheme of National Insurance now exciting so
much attention) endeavours to demonstrate the absurdity of this proposal
" by a very simple process of arithmetic." He shows clearly that if every
man and woman over 20 years of age should claim his or her five acres, the
whole agricultural land of the country would not suffice to supply them. It
is surprising that a writer so acute and logical as Mr. Blackley usually is
did not see the futility of such an objection. Its whole force depends on
the supposition that such classes of people as domestic servants, City clerks,
small tradesmen, and shopkeepers, and the whole body of unmarried men
and women, should have the desire and the means of suddenly quitting
their present mode of life and purchasing or renting five acres of land each
for personal occupation I As well might a person reading for the first time
of the ICO acre lots offered in Canada and Australia, almost for nothing,
and knowing the high wages of mechanics and domestic servants in those
countries, jump to the conclusion that these same classes will at once emi-
grate en masse, and thus leave England entirely destitute of workers. Let
us, however, see what are the actual probabilities of the case.

The total number of families in Great Britain is about six millions, and
it is with families we have to deal, since single men and women do not, as
a rule, occupy separate houses, much less land. Of these about a million
will be comprised in the categories of landowners, farmers, merchants, and
the official and professional classes, whose wants as regards land for per-
sonal occupation are already, for the most part, supplied. Of the remainder,
about three millions are town dwellers, and probably only a small per-
centage of these would be in a position to utilise land in the country. Per-
haps 10 per cent, would be a sufficient estimate, but to give ample margin
we will take 16 per cent., or about half a million in all, and most of these
would not care to have more than an acre or two. There remains the
poorer country dwelling families, mostly labourers, mechanics, and village
tradesmen, and of these a larger proportion — perhaps half the whole num-
ber — might take advantage of the right of pre-emption within the first ten
years. This would make, together, one and a half million families ; and if
we put the average amount of land taken by each at two acres, we arrive at
a total of three millions of acres thus occupied, or rather less than 10 per
cent, of the whole agricultural land of the country. Probably, however, a
portion of this amount would be taken from the commons and waste lands.

The Solution of the Problem. 22 1

Why Free-selection should be restricted to Once in a Man's
Life.-~l\. may, perhaps, be said, it this free-selection is so
beneficial to the community, why restrict it to once in a man's
life ? When he wants to settle in another part of the country
why should he not select again ? The reason of this restriction
is, however, obvious. It is granted once, because, in many
■districts, all the land being already occupied, the landless
Englishman has no means of acquiring land to live upon in the
•quantities and situations most advantageous to him. He
would have to bribe the actual holders with a high price, and
even then would often be refused. It is to give him the
opportunity of living where he pleases, when he is in a position
to require a permanent home, but it is not intended to afford
the means of speculation, or of making a profit by selecting
choice spots, building houses on them, and then selling them.
This restriction to one choice will make men very careful not
to choose too early, and thus not to throw away their
privilege ; while, as there will always be a certain number of
persons in every part of the country who are obliged by
circumstances to sell their lots, these, in addition to the houses
always in the market, will enable those who require temporary
houses as well as those who have been obliged to part with
their selected lots, to find houses more or less suitable to them
■with greater ease than at present These considerations show
that there will be no great rush for lots, as some critics of the

which could be had at a cheaper rate. The quantity thus taken would no
■doubt go on slowly increasing, and possibly, in the course of centuries, the
"bulk of the whole land of our country might come to be occupied in small
farms or residential plots, the produce of which would, in most cases, be
supplementary to the gains of some industrial occupation. But so far from
there being anything to dread in this, if the illustrative facts adduced in
this volume teach us one thing more clearly than another, it is that such a
consummation would be an unmixed blessing — that it would give us a
-healthy, happy, and contented population, in which want and pauperism
would be unknown, while our land would be covered with a succession of
gardens and of cottage farms as in the Channel Islands, producing far more
both of human food and human happiness than it could produce in any
■other way.

222 Land Nationalisation.

scheme have hastily imagined, but that, except near towns,
farmers would be comparatively little troubled by the free-
selectors. It must also be remembered that it is often the
most worthless parts of an estate that are most desired for
residential purposes — bits of healthy upland, or woody spots
with a fine view, while the rich, open arable fields, the low
meadows, or the open pastures would be comparatively
neglected.

Free-selection would Check the Growth of Towns, and Add to
the Beauty and Enjoyability of Rural Districts. — ^There can be
no doubt whatever that the power of obtaining land where and
when required would lead to a steady flow of population from
the towns to the country. Villages in all the more picturesque
parts of the country which, at the will of great landowners, have
remained for generations stationary, would steadily increase ih
population ; but, as building speculation would be almost im-
possible, they would grow in the most picturesque manner by thfe
addition here and there of single houses, of every size and cost,
but never crowded together, so that the rural beauty of the
district would not be marred. We should never see then (as
we may often see now) noble old trees ruthlessly cut down,
because they interfere with building on the narrow strips into
which the land-speculator cuts up his lots, while no further
additions would be made to those unsightly rows of hideous
cottages which the farmer, the manufacturer, or the local
speculative builder now provides for the labouring population.

The quantity of land, even in the smallest lots, would enable
the occupier to dispose of all the house sewage, in the only
natural and economical manner, by applying it to the fertilisa-
tion of his own ground ; and this application should even be
made compulsory, so that no further pollution of streams and
no more gigantic drainage works would be necessary. It may,
perhaps, be said that the owner of an acre lot would cut it up
into three or four smaller lots to dispose of at a profit ; but it

The Solution of tJie Problem. 223

may safely be predicted that this would not be done. The
working man is too anxious to obtain land, and is too keenly
alive to the inestimable benefits it confers upon him, to take a
smaller quantity than his acre when the amount to be paid for
that acre would be merely its agricultural value. No
compulsory enactment against the subdivision of lots would
be needed, because their subdivision would rarely or never be
profitable.

How Commons may be Preserved and. Utilised. — Some
reference has been made in the fifth chapter to the way in
which so many of our commons have been enclosed, for the
sole aggrandisement of landlords and to the injury of all other
residents and of the whole community. In some parts of the
country, however, extensive commons still remain unenclosed,
but usually where there is a very scanty rural population to
benefit by them. Such is the case on the borders of Surrey,
■Sussex, and Hampshire, and there are enormous tracts in
Wales, Ireland, and Scotland which, though claimed as private
property, have never been enclosed, but remain in an absolute
state of nature. On all such lands there can be no claim for
tenant-right, and they would therefore become the property of
the State on payment of annuities, in the one case to the
Lords of the Manor, in the other to the present owners, of an
amount equal to the average annual proceeds.

When these commons are not very extensive they would, of
course, be preserved as common pasture land for the surround-
ing occupiers and cottagers, who might also have the customary
rights of cutting fern or gorse, digging sand, gravel, or peat,
under proper supervision of some local authority. All the
more extensive of these wastes, however, would afford the
opportunity for cultivation by labourers or small farmers, who
might have choice of sites, on areas marked out as open to
selection, on payment of a low quit-rent, which might be higher
than the value of the land as unenclosed pasture, but much

224 Land Nationalisation.

lower than that of the surrounding enclosed fields. A limit
should be placed to the quantity allowed to be taken by one
person, and this need not be high, because the holder would
have extensive rights of pasturage over the whole common in
addition. Ten acres might be a proper first limit, but when
this quantity was brought into good cultivation and a house
built, another ten acres might be granted on the same terms.
In this way the more fertile and sheltered portions of all the
great commons, heaths, and mountain wastes of the country
might be gradually covered with small farms and cheerful
homesteads, while still retaining extensive tracts of unenclosed
land as common pasture, and as recreation ground and health-
resorts for our ever-growing population. The numerous cases
of the reclamation of the worst mountain land in Ireland by
tenants with only a temporary occupancy afford us some idea
of the beneficial results to our pauperised and landless popula-
tion of the right to improve and cultivate waste land for their
own exclusive benefit, with no fear of the interference of lords of
the land or of the manor.

How Minerals should be Worked under State Ownership.— ^
In the fifth chapter I have briefly alluded to the evil conse-
quences to the public at large of allowing our mineral wealth to
be appropriated by individuals, and our country permanently
deteriorated and impoverished for their benefit. I have not,
ho^yever, yet referred to the unfair manner in which landlords
often absorb all the profits of mines, leaving nothing whatever
to those who have supplied the large capital required to work
them. Minerals are usually worked by companies, on short
leases, and the landowner is compensated by payment of a
royalty on all the produce, not by a share of the profits. This
was reasonable in the early days of mining, when no expensive
machinery was required, and small parties of working miners,
or " adventurers," often with little or no capital, extracted rich
ores from near the surface. Then the produce was nearly all

The Solution of tlte Problem. 225

profit, and a royalty of one-tenth to one-twelfth of the actual
value of the ore extracted was not found to be oppressive. Now
the case is very different. Mineral lodes are worked at an
enormous depth, and poor ores, neglected by the old miners,
are extracted, and the metal obtained from them by complex
and expensive operations. Enormous pumping and lifting
engmes are required, tramroads have to be made, workshops to
be built, and coal brought up to the mines at heavy cost. It is
not uncommon for the mere working expenses of a mine to be
a thousand or fifteen hundred pounds a month, and it is only
after ore enough has been extracted to pay this amount that
any profits are obtained to pay interest on the capital expended.
■ It thus often happens that for years a mining company never
obtains sufficient to pay a single penny of dividend, notwith-
standing all possible skill and economy in working the mine.
I The shareholders lose their whole capital ; but not only does the
! landlord lose nothing, but he receives a large income the whole
time from this mine which is really proved to be worthless.
The chances oi great profits in mining cause numbers of such
mines to be opened and worked every year, a!nd from all these
the landlord alone gets a profit, while everyone else loses. It
is a partnership in which one partner supplies a chance of some-
thing valuable, the other partner a large capital to be spent in
proving whether that something valuable exists or not Yet
the partner who gives only the chance, and does not risk a penny,
secures a certain gain, even when his chance is proved to be
valueless, while the other partners, who advance all the money,
risk losing it all, or, if they succeed, share all the gain with the
partner who risks nothing.

Under the present system of mining the only equitable mode
of arranging the partnership between owner of the soil and those
who find the capital to work a mine would be, that the former
should receive a share of the profits — not of ^& produce; that
is, that the land to be explored should be estimated at a certain

Q

226 Land Nationalisation.

portion of the total capital, and the landowner should receive
his dividends on that nominal capital pro rata with the other
shareholders. The present system is simple confiscation,
analogous to that of leasehold houses, but even more cruel,
since, in many cases, the profit realised would give a fair
interest on the capital expended were it not all absorbed in the
prior claim of the landlord's " royalty."

When the State owns the land, the more equitable system, of
a small fixed quit-rent for the land occupied and a fixed pro-
portion of the profits realised, would be adopted ; and it would
greatly benefit the mineral industry of the country by rendering
the working of many poor ores profita;ble. In the case of coal
and iron, so essential to the well4)eing of a nation, and, owing
to their bulk and weight, most disadvantageous to import from
other countries, the State might properly place a heavy duty .on
their export, which would have the effect of limiting the trade
in them to those countries in which they do not exist, while it
would stimulate the development of the mineral resources of
countries which do possess them but have hitherto depended
upon getting them from us at very cheap rates.

As it would be almost impossible to estimate the average
value of the produce of minerals in any plot of land, some
other mode would have to be adopted in compensating land-
lords for the minerals they have so unfortunately' been allowed
to claim possession of. The fair way would probably be for
Government to fix the percentage of the -whole pro^ Twhich
should in future be paid for each class of mines by the workers
of mineral property, and to allow each landowner to recdve
this percentage from the companies or private persons who
work the mines during his own life only. Afterwards the same
percentage would be paid to the State, which would, however,
repay half the amount to the next heir for his lifa AM new
mines opened after the Act came into operation would, of
course, wholly belong to the State. Considering the very

The Solution of the Problem. 227

exceptional character of the mineral wealth of a country, and
the enormous fortunes landowners have derived from it without
spending or risking a penny, this proposal is, perhaps, hardly
fair to the public, and, when land nationalisation is effected,
may require to be somewhat modified. '

Application of the Same General Principle to All Other
Charges on the Land. — The principle here developed, by which
the land itself becomes the property of the State on payment to
the actual owners of an annuity for themselves and their
living heirs, is applicable to all kinds of landed property and to
all charges whatever upon the land. Tithes, for example, would
in this way be extinguished so far as they belong to lay impro-
priators, and the payments by the future tenants would form
part of the State quit-rent Tithes payable to the clergy would
be dealt with in the same way, but the annuities for which they
were commuted would, of course, be continued so long as the
endowment of the Church continues, and whenever that ceases
-the revenues would merge into those of the State. In like
manner every kind of ground-rent, whether original or improved,
whether for terms of years or in reversion, would each be valued
on actuarial principles, and commuted into annuities of the same
nature and the same duration as those paid to owners of the
fee«imple of land. The quit-rent payable by the holder of
the land in question would be divided among the several
holders of distinct interests in the land in proportions deter-
mined by official actuaries, and each would receive the corres-
ponding annuity.

Progressive Reduction of Taxation ; Abolition of Customs and
Excise.' — Among the advantages resulting from this scheme of
land nationalisation, not the least important would be, the
great alleviation of public burdens and reduction of public ex-
X>enditure. In a very few years after it came into operation
some properties would fall to the State, owing to the successive
deaths of the two or three generations of heirs. This might

Q 2

22S . Land Nationalisation.

happen in some few instances within a year or two, and a
regular stream of such cases would certainly begin in ten or
twenty years, and would thenceforth increase, till in about a
century the whole of the quit-rents would be payable to the
State. This would enable the Government to take off one by
one all the more oppressive taxes, and to gradually abolish
altogether the Customs and Excise duties. The effect of this-
would be to release from unproductive labour the v?hole body of
officials in these departments, whose salaries and office expenses,
amounted in 1880 to ;^2, 784,316 ; and if we add to this a
proportion of the cost of public buildings, we shall have a sav-
ing of-;^3,ooo,ooo annually, besides a large capital sum derived
from the sale of all the offices and warehouses connected with
these departments and an income from the quit-rents of the land
they occupied. As the net receipts from these two sources of
revenues are about _;^45, 000,000, while the quit-rents derived
from the whole land of the country will certainly be more than.
;^ioo,ooo,ooo, the same generation which sees nationalisation
established will derive the benefit of much of the reduction,
while many persons now living may see these injurious taxes
wholly abolished. Thereafter there will be a possibility of
rapidly extinguishing our huge national debt, which, though
capitalists and speculators may find it a convenience, is at once
a clog upon industry and a danger to the State.

The benefit to the trade and commerce of the country
produced by the abolition of all customs and excise duties
cannot be overrated. Mr. Bright has long advocated a " free
breakfast table " as the extreme reform in this direction he can
even hope for ; but nationalisation would afford us the power
to obtain absolute freedom in our whole internal trade; and the
more important part of this is, perhaps, not the release from
money payments, but the freedom from all those vexatious
interferences and restrictions which are the greatest clog on the
■wheels of industry.

The Solution of the Problem, 229'

These advantages are so enormous, so totally beyond what
any other reform can give or promise, that even if they stood
alone they would afford a justification for Land Nationalisation.
Yet they are really mere incidental effects of the scheme, which
Jests its claim to support, primarily, on the improvement it
would effect in the condition of labourers and producers of all
kinds, an improvement which would be social and moral as well
as merely physical, and would raise the status and add to the
well-being of the whole community.

Summary of the Advantages of Nationalisation. — Having
now completed our necessarily imperfect survey of this great
question, let us endeavour to summarise, in the form of a series
of brief propositions, the conclusions we have arrived at, and
which, it is maintained, have been demonstrated by an over-
whelming body of evidence.

It has been shown that unrestricted private property in
land is inherently wro7ig, ' and leads to serioits and widespread
<evils — for the following reasons : —

J3ECAUSE — It gives to the class of landowners despotic power
over the freedom, the property, the happiness, and even
over the lives of their fellow citizens who are not land-
owners. The wholesale evictions in the Highlands of
Scotland and in Ireland, where houses and whole villages
have been destroyed and the human inhabitants have been
leplaced by cattle or deer, often for no crime or fault of
theirs, but simply to carry into effect the will of the land-
lord, are the most glaring examples of the truth of this
proposition. Even in England similar cases occur, though
less frequently ; but the tenant is often coerced in his
political rights, is interfered with in the free exercise of his
religion, and is generally subject to the will of his landlord
in many other ways. In all these cases the State is
avowedly powerless to protect the tenants, who are never-

230 Land Nationalisation.

theless told that they are free citizens of a free country,
that the Englishman's house is his castle, and that there
is no wrong without a legal remedy.

Because — by possession of the land, which is absolutely
essential to all productive labour, and even to life itself, it
enables the landowners to absorb all the surplus profits of
both labour and cajMtal, keeping down the wages of
Unskilled labour (which regulates that of labour generally)
to the lowest point at which life can be supported, the
result being, that large masses of the working people are
condemned to exist under unnatural and degrading condi-
tions of poverty, and that pauperism is made chronic among
us notwithstanding our ever-increasing wealth. For the
same reason it keeps down the rate of interest, enabling
large capitalists alone to thrive, while small capitalists can
hardly live. In all civilised countries, and at various
periods of history, the same phenomena have been ob-
served — where land is cheap^ wages and interest are
comparatively high; where land is dear, both are com-
paratively low.

Because — ^the divided and often conflicting interests it creates
in the soil check permanent improvement, limit the
variety of crops and of agricultural industry, and seriously
diminish production. This evil is admitted to be great
even where leases are granted, but is at its maximum under
the system of yearly tenancies which are now the rule in
this country.

Because— it has to a large extent caused and now perpetuates
pauperism, by depriving the labourer of any rights in the
soil of his native land, and destroying to a large extent 'his
home feelings and interests. This has been aggravated
by the enclosure of so many of the commons, which were
the labourers' heritage from the past, by the clearing estates

The Sobttion of the Problem. 231

of cottages to avoid the burthen of poor-rates or to make
" show villages^" and by leaving the poor to the mercy of
speculators for their dwellings, usually of the most wretched
character, without land or gardens, and often far removed
from the scene of their daily labours.

Because — it interferes with the freedom which every citizen
of a free country should have of obtaining a healthy
dwelling (in proportion to his means) in any part of the
country he may prefer, and with a sufficiency of land
aroond it for health, recreation, and garden cultivation, at
approximately the same cost as agricultural land. He is
now forced to live only where landowners will allow him,
in houses erected by speculative builders for show rather
than for health, comfort, and permanence, on land costing
from ten to a hundred times its agricultural value, or
leased out for a term of years in order finally to be con-
fiscated by the landlord for the aggrandisement of his
successor.

Because — it has led and still leads to the enclosure or
appropriation of all unenclosed lands for the exclusive
benefit of landowners, thus depriving the entire popula-
tion of the country of rights they have enjoyed from time
immemorial ; to the stopping of footpaths, the destruction
of roadside greens, and the exclusion of the people from
much of the wild and beautiful scenery of their native
land.

Because — it gives to a limited class the power of permanently
impoverishing the country for their private benefit by the
excessive export of mineral^ which, being limited in
quantity and not producible by man, should be jealously
guarded for the use of the nation, with due regard to the
needs of our successors.

Because — it gives to individuals a large proportion of the

232 Land Nationalisation.

wealth created by the community at large. All land has
doubled in value — much of it has increased a hundred-
fold or even a thousand-fold in value during the present
century,; and this increased value, due to the growth,
industry, and enterprise of the people at large, has
become the property of a body of men who, for the most
part, have had the very smallest share in creating it.

BECAUSE^t involves the continued existence of a large body
of citizens living in idleness on revenues derived from the
labour and skill of the working classes, and who constitute
therefore, a permanent and injurious burden on the industry
of the people.

For these reasons it is essential to the well-being of the com-
munity that unrestricted private property, in land be abolished.

And further :-r-,

Because — in every one of these, cases in which the present
system of Landlordism, produces evil results, and carries
with it the curse of pauperism and crime, a well-guarded
system of Occupying Ownership under the State is cal-
cujated to produce beneficial results— to diminish pauperism
and crime, and to add to the general well-being of the
whole community — it therefore becomes necessary that
some such system of Land Nationalisation as that here
sketched out be speedily established.

I conclude with a quotation from Mr. J. Boyd Kinnear's
important and instructive volume : —

" Who does not see how much happier England will be when,
instead of one great mansion surrounded by miles beyond
miles of one huge property, farmed by the tenants-at-will
of one landlord, tilled by the mere labourers, whose youth and
manhood know no relaxation, from rough mechanical toil,
whose old age sees no home but the chance of charity or the

The Solution of the Problem. 233

certainty of the workhouse, there shall be a thousand estates
of varying size, where- each owner shall work for himself
and his children, where the sense of independence shall
lighten the burdens of daily toil, where education shall give
resources, and the labour of youth shall suffice for the sup-
port of age."

Working men of England ! I have here shown you how
this improved social condition may be brought about. It
is for you to make your voices heard and insist that it be
made the question of the day by your chosen representatives
in the Legislature.

INDEX.

FACE

Agents, powerof 47

Allotments, beneficial effects of 191
„ insufficiency of...98, 1 18
„ very inferior to cot-

tage gardens...... 120

Ancient monuments, destruction

of 129

Arnold, Mr, Arthur, objec-
tions to land nationalisa-
tion 207

Associated workmen 17

Avebury, destruction of 129

Barclay, Mr. J. W., M.P., on

rise of wages in Scotland 91
Belgium, occupying owners of 142
Blackley, Rev. W. L., object-

tions of to free selection — 220
Eothysystem in Scotland ....... 92

Bright, Mr. John, on effects of

landlordism 213

Erodrick, Hon. G. C, on des-
potic power of land-
lords 98

„ on agricultural occu-
pation 105

„ on the value of cot-
tage farms 120

„ on land nationalisa-
tion 209

,, on productiveness of

Jersey 147

Building leases, evil effects of 123
Burns, on Scotch agricultural

labourers 95

Buxton, C, on security of
tenure 45

Cairnes, Prof., on national
wealth absorbed by
landlords 116

PAGE

Cairnes, Prof., on rent and

wages 171

„ on labourers becom-
ing capitalists 218-

„ on constant rise of

rents 172

Capital and labour, relations

of. 165, 169

Capital not always beneficial... 14.
Carlyle on government in

Ireland 44

Channel Islands, occupying

ownership in 146-

Civilisation, outcome of ^

Clearances in the Highlands 56, 61

68, 72, 82, 83, 85
Clearances in Ireland ... 27, 39, 41
Collings (Jesse) on labourers'

wages 10

Commons, enclosure of ... 117, 126

„ how, should be pre-
served and utilised 223
Compensation of landowners ... 1 97
„ by terminable

annuities 199

Confiscation by landlords 33, 35, 46

„ by town landlords 210
Co-operation of peasant-pro-
prietors 160

„ of small fanners 140

Co-operative workshops 17

Cottage-gardens, beneficial

effects of 119

Cottage-farms, value of ... 120, 122
Country districts, depopulation

of 213;

Country deteriorated by export

of minerals 132

Crofters, character of 54

,, treatment of in Lewis 791
Croft-system, modern writers on

236

Index.

PAGE

Croft-system, Dr. MacDonald

on 73. 75

Customs and excise, abolition of 227

Deer forests in the Highlands 83
Destruction of ancient monu-
ments 129

Devon Commission 36

Economy of time and labour... 7

Enclosure Acts, results of. 117

Ejectments in Ireland 28, 39

Eviction, dread of 47

,, account of an 48

Eviction of Mr. Hope, of Fen-
ton Barns 102

Eviction of an entire village ... 103
Evils of landlordism 190

Earms, scattering of in Germany .155

Earms, large and small 157

,, productiveness of small 158
,, French and English

compared 158

Eawcett, Prof,, on agricultural

labourers 177

,, on Artisans' Dwell-
ings Act 126

„ on agricultural labour-
ers 114

,, on British labourer... 10
,, on the greed for land 188

Fences, ownership of ... 195

Eeudal system 23

France, occupying ownership in 143
Free selection of land, objec-
tions to 219

Free selection would check

growth of towns 222

Free trade, why maintained by

us 183

„ in land, uselessness

of 184

French labourers with land ... 146
Erench peasants before the Re-
volution 145

Fowler, Mr., objections to na-
tionalisation 207

J, on evils of forced sub-
division 205

PAGE

Fowler, Mr., on free trade

in land 190

George, Mr, H., remarkable

work of 165

„ on progress and pov-
erty 8, 184

Germany, occupying owners in 141
Gladstone, Mr., on progress of

. small farms 519

Godkin, J., on landed propri-
etors 26

„ on power of agents ... 47
Gould, Mr. Baring, on small

German farms 155

Grey, Sir G., on English agri-
cultural labourers 112

Guernsey, productiveness of ... 147

Highlands, landlordism in the 81

,, famines in 81

,, pauperism in 82

Highland chiefs 52

,, clearances 56, 61, 68, 72,
82,83

,, crofters 54

„ tenantry 53

„ Q%i,ebe.c Times on ... 67

Home, free choice of a 123

Hope, Mr. Geo., eviction of ... 102
Howitt, W., on the German

peasantry 141

Improvements, owners of 194

,, Sutherland 53

Industry, removal of clogs on... 22S

Inglis on Swiss industry ...... 139

Inherent value of land 194

Interest, its relation to rent ... 168
Ireland, Dr., on French

labourers 146

„ landlordism in 178

Irish cottier, condition of 34

,, numbers of 35

Irish distress, remedies for 41

„ industry '. 149

,, landlordism, origin of ... 31
,, landlordism, condition of

people under 50

„ tenants, improvements by 4.;.

Italy, landlordism in 151

Index.

237

Italy, peasant proprietors in ... 159
„ wretched peasants of 152,153

Jersey, productiveness of 147

Kay, Mr., on wealth and pau-
perism of England r76

,, on free trade in land 186

,, on absorption of small by

great estates 187

,, on results of occupying

ownership 142

Kennedy, Rev. John, on High-
land clearances 85

Killarney, condition of town

of, through subletting .... 204
Kinnaird, Lord, on erection of

cottages 93

. Kinnear, Mr. J. Boyd, on land

nationalisation 209

„ on beneficial effects

of small estates... 232
Labourers, social degradation

of. 112, IIS

condition of Scotch

86, 93

dependence of on

capitalists 16

deteriorated con-
dition of ... no, III
free selection of

land by 216

not benefited by
free trade in

land 189, 191

should have land

as a light 94

want justice, not

charity 117

Laing on industry, of sm^ill

proprietors 140

Land Act of 1S70 45

Land and Labour League,

propositions of 205

Land destroyed by excessive

mining 133

,, effects of ownership of 174
,, evil results of private

property in 179

,', free selection of 215

PAGE

Land, how all charges on, may
be compensated by State

annuities 227

,, how to reclaim 151

,, increase of value of i

,, labour, and capital 166

,, occupied in large quan-
tities 205

„ reclaimed by Irish peas-
ants 149

,, speculative rise in price

of ■. 173

„ the birthright of every

Englishman 122

,, use of to workmen 17

„ problem, a statement of

the 192

„ system, social effects of 18.
Landlordism and slavery com-
pared. ._ 34

,, as affecting the

labouring classes no
,, checks public im-

provements ... 131
,, comparative use-

lessness of. i6i

,, effects of in Eng-
land 181

,, effects of in Ire-
land 178

,, English 97

,, evils of 190

,, inherent evils of 77

,, in Ireland 31

„ in Italy 151

,, in Scotland 51

,, in Spain and Sar-
dinia 154

„ in the Highlands 81

,, results of 148

,, results of in Scot-
land 95

,, rise of modern 23

,, summary of evil

results of- 229

„ the system of bad 115

Landlords absorb much of the

national wealth ... . 116
,, abuse of power by 84
„ & agents in Scotland 55

238

Index.

PAGE

JLandlords and labourers' cot-
tages IIS

„ confiscation by 33, 35, 46
„ despotic power of.... 98
„ influence of, limited to6
„ injurious power of 105

122
„ interference with

religious liberty... 100
,, interference with

political freedom loi
,, interference with a

tenant's sport 102

Land-monopoly, evils of 123, 125

Landowners, compensation of 197

201

,, rights claimed by 24

,, legal rights of 25, 29

JLand-tenure, a good system of T24

„ origin of British 20, 22

Large farms compared with

small 109

,, - supposed bene-
fits of :... 108

Laveleye, on Italian misery... 152
,, on peasant proprietors

in Italy 153

Lavergne, M. De., on large

and small farms log

Lawson, Mr. Thos., on Scotch

cottages 91

Leckmeln eviction. Home

Secretary on the .... 181
Lefevre, Mr. G. Shaw, objec-
tions to Land National-
isation 20S

Legislation, tendencyof 12

Levi, Prof. Leoni, on Highland

clearances... 170
„ on deer

Forests 84

Lewis, island of 78

Limitation of quantity of land

occupied if neceSsary. ....... 205

London, unsanitary conditions

in 212

Lowlands, landlordism in the 86
„ ' labourers' cottages

in the 86, 93

Lubbock, Sir J., on destruction
of ancient monuments 129

PAGE

Macdonald, Dr., on freedom

ofland , 21;

Machinery, increase of 6

MacKenzie on Highland clear-
ances 56

Macleod, Dr. Norman, on High-
land pauperism 82

Matheson, Sir James 78, 90

M'Cullocb, erroneous predic-
tion as to France 143
„ on good farming

in Flanders 143

Milk, scarcity of, through large

farms 109

Mill, J. S., on Irish Cottiers 42, 45
„ on Land Nationali-
sation 209

Miller, Hugh, on Highland

clearances.. 68
I, on Highland

industry ... 82
„ on labourers'

cottages 86

Minerals, how worked 224

„ unfairness of the roy-
alty systeni 225

,, how should be
worked under the

State 226

„ should belong to the

State 132

Mortgaging must be limited... 204
Mountains, public shut out from 12S

National Debt may be extin-
guished under Nationalisa-
tion 228

Nationalisation the only effec-
tive remedy 191
„ objectionsto2Q7,209

„ summary of ad-

vantages of... 229
Norway, occupying owners of 140

Occupancy must be joined to
ownership 192

Occupation, best form of j^-
cultural 105

Occupying ownership 136

Itidex.

239

•Occupying ownership, results

of 148, 182

„ results of, in,

Switzerland 138

„ admirable cultiva-
tion by 142

,, influence of 107

„ uses of 19

•Occupying-owners under bad

conditions 154

O'Connor, T. P., on Irish evic-
tions 39

■Ownership, effects of, on agri-
culture 162

Parks, how dealt with 206

Pauperism 3, 4

„ in the Highlands.... 82

,, remedies for 17

Peasant proprietors of W.

Pyrenees . 144
„ industry of.. 145

,, and artisans 156

„ and popu-

lation..... 160
„ co-operation

of. 160

Teasant proprietorship not per-
manent 188
„ objections

to 159

Perpetual income, fallacy of 199

200
Pim, on ejectments in Ireland 28

„ on Irish industry 148

JPoor, dwellings of, in London 212
Population as influenced by

peasant-properties 160

Portman estate, management of 210
Prout, Mr., farming his own land 163
Public right to unenclosed

lands 126, 128

■Quarterly Review on Sir J.

Matheson 80

'Quit-rents payable to the State 194
,, valuation of 195

Railways injured by landlords 131
JRoad-side wastes 127

PAGE

Remedies for chronic poverty 17

Rent, constant increase of. 169

Rents raised in Ireland 41

Robb, Mr. James, on Scotch

cottages 89

Roman camp destroyed r 30

Royalties on minerals, unjust... 225

" Rules of the estate " 47

Russell, Sir C, on landlordism 136

Sardinia, landlordism in 154

Savoy, peasant-proprietors of 157
Scotch labourer an appanage

ofthefarm 93

Scotch landlordism, results of 95
Scotch mountains, appropria-
tion of 128

Scotland, dependence of

labourers in 92

Sewage difficulty overcome by
free selection of resi-
dential plots 222

Sismondi on Swiss peasants ... 138
Small proprietors of N.Germany 155

Social failure, cause of. 11

•Spain, landlordism in 154

State management not required 193
State ownership of land

necessary 192

Steam-power, increase of 6

Subletting, why prohibited .... 202

,, evils of in towns 203

Sutherland evictions 56

Taxation, great reduction of,
consequent on Nationalisa-
tion 227

Tenant farming essentially

wasteful 106

Tenant-right for London 215

„ in Ireland 32, 36, 39

,, defined 194

„ valuation of..... 195
Tenants may become occupy-
ing owners 202

Thornton, Mr., on evils of

subletting 203

„ on productiveness

of Guernsey 147

240

Index.

Tithes, how to be treated
under the system of Nat-
ionalisation 227

Towns, evils of subletting in 204
„ how affected by land

nationalisation 210

„ how to check the

growth of. 215, 222, 125
Tuke, on Irish Distress 45

Wages in relation to rent 168

Waste lands, improvements of 44

Wealth accumulation, effects of 13

,, and capital 11

„ - as affecting labourers 16

,, increase of 2

Westminster Review on High-
land clearances 71

Young, Arthur, on removal of

cottages .... 114
„ onpeasant-pro-

perties in
France .... 143

i<ONi>oir; J. c. sunANi, ciiBUEirx s house, Clements iifx passage, sTSAirs, w.G.

1.^ ^

r i* I

, ' ! r'

^ l"?^s^»t'^I'rr