Land.

Now that landowning has been in practice substituted for land-ruling, the purpose of entail and primogeniture no longer exists. Failing more radical remedies, they should be abolished, together with distress and hypothec, which have no raison d'être except sheer favoritism. But if this were done, and even if trade in land could be made free (which does not seem very feasible), that would not solve the land problem. The danger of landowning lies here: Land can be bought for a twenty-five to thirty-five years' purchase—that is to say, for the value of the usufruct of the land for the space of a generation. The after-consequences are not thought of or cared for by anyone. Posterity is left to protect itself, which means left to fight with its hands tied. The same thing is true of all property, only the injury in other cases is both less apparent and also far less considerable.

Undoubtedly the nationalisation of the land could be effected legally, since, in theory, all estates in land are still held of the Crown for the public service, and subject to conditions which may be altered in any manner which the exigencies of the times demand, nor would there be any hardship in the exercise of this prerogative, inasmuch as inheritors and purchasers of estates have always well understood upon what terms they held them, and that landowning is something unknown to the English law. It would not be necessary to buy the land from the present holders, since it was never theirs, but only to provide page 14 them with handsome pensions. When or how a landlord acquired his estates does not affect the question. Any way, he holds them according to the law, and with the attendant risks. At the same time it might be well to buy up the smaller estates at market rates and to compromise with the larger holders. Truly the men of this generation are not answerable for the sins of all their predecessors, whether or no their predecessors have likewise been their forefathers, and a revengeful policy towards them would be no less irrational than wicked. But before any steps at all are taken there is urgent need of deliberation. I am no advocate for shooting Niagara.

The Irish under the Brehon code and the Scottish Highland clansmen held their lands in common, and the ryots of Hindustan held their lands immediately of the sovereign, subject, however, to the government or superintendence of the zemindars, a species of hereditary officials, and at a fixed quit-rent, until John Bull, playing the part of Providence, and with a truly god-like recklessness, deprived those poor peoples of their immemorial rights. There have also been a good many other instances of lands having been held in common, or upon a more or less communal basis. Yet in no very highly advanced state has the land been nationalised. It were idle to deny, therefore, that the question is surrounded with difficulties, and demands the highest statesmanship to solve it.

The most salient features of the existing situation maybe briefly summarised. The poorest land in England, which can grow wheat or grain as cheaply as it can be sent from America or the Black Sea or Baltic ports, now does so rent-free, and lands of better quality are rented, and the amount of the rentals is partly determined by the law of supply and demand, yet not so much so as the price of common articles of merchandise, by reason of some disturbing causes, by far the most operative among which is this, that many landlords lease their farms to old tenants at much below a market price. This is a common custom, and it proceeds from the worthiest motives, for the landed gentry are by no means bad men as men go. But the cheapening of transport rates always tends to throw the poorer lands of old countries out of cultivation, and to reduce the rents of other lands, and this is precisely what is now taking place, page 15 and in the circumstances it inevitably must take place under any system of holdings. It is not the result of the land laws of either England or America. I urge this with some insistence, because it is very mischievous to make random accusations easily shown to be unwarrantable. The speculative farmer is no more aggrieved by paying rent than is the manufacturer by paying usury or rent for houses, or mills, or machinery, or anything else. The aggrieved party, if any, is the public. Of course, the rent-rolls of the gentry are not lost to the country, except in cases of absenteeism, but they are often wastefully or viciously expended, as upon horses, hounds, game and gamekeepers, lacqueys, and retainers, many of them unworthy beings and all of them non-producers. But the worst mischief is that the gentry are possessed of a dangerous power, social and political, and that estates are often badly administered.

America can teach England nothing on the land question. The conditions of the two countries are too dissimilar. And not only so, but trouble is already brewing in America notwithstanding her broad, rich territory. Large estates are growing up on terms of irresponsible ownership, and the U.P.R. Company owns a territory of fertile soil larger than France. What a power in the hands of one corporation! What may not this one day lead to? Much more is to be learned from a study of the land systems of the Continent. If the land were national property, taxation could be discontinued, and the Treasury would still be in receipt of a large annual surplus revenue, incredible as that sounds. That, however, could hardly be embarrassing. Failing other resorts, the Government might constitute itself a gigantic loan society. As to the land, the most suitable plan would seem to be to let it upon long or life leases, with judicious guarantees for the preservation of the soil in good order. If it could be let to capitalists of the Mechi stamp it would probably yield much-improved returns in crops, but the laborer's lot might not be immediately ameliorated. If let to peasants the crop yield would again be good, though not so good. Co-operative farming would be the hopefullest arrangement if it could once be got fairly under weigh. Further experimentation in this line were much to be desired.

page 16

What is most essential is to organise a system which shall produce or favor a high morale in the cultivators. Michelet describes the French peasant's passion for the soil, which he compares to love for its intensity. This is excellent indeed, but I am persuaded that landowning is not necessary to the sentiment. I have known tenant-farmers, and even day laborers, inspired by a like enthusiasm and devotion to the art. Many a leisure Sunday, true Sabbath, have I stood in such society, as Michelet pictures his model peasant, absorbed in worship of the goddess Ceres, nor have I seen such men to be less prone than Michelet's peasant to cast aside the offending weed or stone, regardless of clean clothes, nor have these been among the least moral occasions of my experience. Peasant proprietorship sharply severs the people in a dangerous manner, creating a conservative class, not too fertile in ideas, and an outside aggressive class, blown about with every wind of doctrine. This double evil undeniably exists in France, although the French proletariat is growing soberer and wiser every year, and the French peasant possesses some most admirable qualities. Napoleon's trust was in the peasantry.