The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 2
General Conclusions
General Conclusions.
General Conclusions.
These are, that the distribution of ownership of land is such that it is held in amounts far beyond the average means of its holders to perform their duties according to the ideal of the English system, in the outlay of capital on it and the building of cottages; and that the most is not being made of the land as an incentive to individual exertion and as the most powerful agent for the promotion of individual industry and thrift.
General Conclusions.
General Conclusions.
The means by which these objects may be attained may be summed up under the following heads:—
1. | The withdrawal of the State sanction to the accumulation of land by the law of primogeniture. |
2. | The limitation of family settlements to the extent of prohibiting entails in the manner invented by Sir Orlando Bridgeman, by which property can be settled upon unborn persons, and a family law of primogeniture secured. |
3. | The requirement that there shall be for every property some person or persons who shall have full power of dealing with the property by sale or otherwise. |
4. | The assimilation of the law relating to land and other property, and the simplification of the law relating to land tenure, so that its transfer may become simple and inexpensive. |
5. | The withdrawal of all State influence and sanction in favour of accumulation of land, and the exercise of it in future in favour or a numerous proprietary of land, consistently with the full recognition of existing rights. |
It can easily be shown that these measures hang together; and that the pivot of them all is the abolition of primogeniture.
General Conclusions.
General Conclusions.
(2.) When it shall be determined that the law itself will not sanction or invite inequality, it will follow almost as a matter of course, that it must be forbidden to individuals to make a family law of succession different from that of the State. Freedom of willing will be permitted, and every person will be allowed to make what distinction he thinks right among his children or relatives, but he will not be permitted to transmit these distinctions to another unborn generation. If freedom of willing is conceded to him, he must not in his turn deprive the next generation of the same privilege. The freedom of willing is a part of the paternal authority, and no parent should be deprived of this power by an antecedent generation.
(3.) The last principle being decided on, the next one becomes easy of accomplishment. The distinction in favour of an unborn person being cut off and prohibited, it follows that the present generation must have more power over the property, and the power of sale is one of the first and most important attributes of property.
(4.) The two last principles are indispensable to the next, that of simplifying the transfer of land.
page 130General Conclusions.
Why then, it may be asked, should any old State maintain and preserve these entanglements? They are retained only because they are necessary for our present system of family settlements. It will be easy enough to get rid of these difficulties if we come to the conclusion that these entails are injurious equally to those who are the objects of them, and to the community.
(5.) But not less important than all these is it that the general influence of the State shall no longer be used in the direction of the accumulation of land. It is unnecessary to suggest the subjects where an opposite influence might be used, and where it will be possible for a very different policy to be pursued by Parliament than has hitherto been done.
General Conclusions.
As a preliminary, however, to any action, it is necessary that public opinion should pronounce itself strongly on the broad question, whether it is satisfied with the present condition of landowner-ship in this country. Public opinion may even without a change of law produce considerable effect. It may induce not a few of those who have hitherto considered that the interests of a rural district are best concerned where all the land in a parish or district is concentrated in one hand, to change their opinion, and to hold that as a matter of safety to the owners of property generally, as well as in the interest of all classes around them, it will be wise to favour the multiplication of landowners, and to give facilities for the creation of small owners of all classes rather than continually to reduce them. Such public opinion can, however, only be formed by a full and free discussion of the subject.
General Conclusions.
It has been attempted to answer these questions by arguments and illustrations drawn from the history and experience of this and other countries. It is believed that the result of all this experience is that a country is happiest, and its economical, social, and political condition most sound, where there is a numerous and varied proprietary of its land, and where no class is divorced from the soil. This state of things, it is believed, will and can only result where the trade in land is free; that is, where the transfer of land is simple and uncostly, where all dealings in it are reduced to their simplest form, where each successive generation has full and unrestricted dominion over it, where the State gives no sanction or facilities to an accumulation of land for successive generations, and where the laws give equal facility for its dispersion as for its acquisition. Under such conditions, when artificial stimulus is removed, free competition will have its full effect, and will on the one hand prevent the undue subdivision of land, and on the other its too great aggregation.
London : R. Clay, Sons, and Taylor, Printers