Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 65

The Nationalisation of Land

page break

The Nationalisation of Land.

Between reality and reverie there is a great gulf; and, if it be true that this age is eminent in its arts, its conquests of nature, its realities, it is also eminent undoubtedly for its reveries and its rants. A subject of display for the latter kind of eminence is at present found in what is called the nationalisation of land. Private property in land should cease or be drawn within narrower limits, and the civil magistrate, along with his other duties, should take upon him that of general landlord and rent-collector also. Pauperism is said to be increasing in all old countries. The wages of labour are falling. Employment is becoming daily more difficult to get. The lands of Britain are being daily more and more engrossed, and harder bargains are being driven between the landlord and his tenant—the former looking more to his own pleasure than the profit of the commonwealth. page 105 The unearned increment is also in the front, and is of course said to be the natural outcome of a swindled community.

Now, there are one or two things which one would think must strike everyone at the threshold of the scheme, and yet which the bold advocates of it never seem to have noticed. The first is: If this mode of dealing with land will honestly enrich the people, it seems strange that it did not sooner occur to the very able men who have written on political economy. It is strange that neither Adam Smith nor Ricardo, Stuart, nor Quesnay should have noticed this mighty power in adding to the wealth of nations; though they gave their subject a life-long study. And it is strange that it should only be revealed to Messrs George and Wallace, and a few others here whose studies in that direction have not, we may guess, been quite so long or profound.

Another thing which must strike everyone, is the preposterously absurd price which the nationalisation would cost. The lands of England would have to be bought. The people need not gather around the land-owner and howl out—"This is the heir; come let us kill him, and the inheritance will be ours." They will find a good many difficulties in that way of gaining their point. The heir has a habit of dying page 106 very hard in such straits. His inheritance may cost to gain more than it is worth; while a third party may step in and appropriate from the heir and his killer, and thus snatch the fruits of the victory from both. The lands of Britain would probably cost £70 an acre, while much better lands in other and unoccupied parts of the world would not cost the thirty-fifth part of that. If, then, the want of land keeps the British people from their proper exaltation, it is surely probable that 35 acres for their money will exalt them more than one. But, assuming that the British cannot see this, and that they are determined to buy English land, the question next arises: "Where is the money to come from to buy it with?" To tax the land-owner openly and avowedly to buy his own land on a national scale, is of course ridiculous. It seems manifest then that the purchase of English land at a speed which would be appreciable would be impossible. But supposing that the money was forthcoming and the lands procurable, a matter of no small difficulty would be the arranging the boundaries and sizes of the farms; It would be necessary herein, I apprehend, to throw all pre-conceived economical opinions, regarding the size of farms (about which discussion has been considerable) and the suiting them to population and climate, to the winds, and lay them off in squares. page 107 This would divide the land, but would not enrich the nation; and that in a world of competition.

Assuming further that they are divided, the fixing the rental would be a peculiar task. Would competition and free trade in grain from other countries be allowed? I doubt if small farms and open competition would be very surely based on such, and that for reasons very clear. Wages, if paid at any rate in silver and gold, would not be likely to be very high. If, then, it could be afforded, the imagination should be followed herein also.

The next trouble and the darkest would be the collecting the rents. Our deferred payment men here, and our Irish friends there, are examples; but these would be easily managed and understood as compared with the national host of the future. "Hould the crops and hould the rints," would never indeed be heard in the country or the town. It would be a mere waste of wind, and utterly unnecessary. Each rent-ower would simply retire under his vine and fig-tree, would call them his own, and none would dare make him afraid. But suppose that the people were good, and that the tenant pay accordingly, where would the rints go to? Would other taxes be foregone? We shall hope so—with an effort. Otherwise a state department would be page 108 erected of imposing hugeness and absurdity, where corruption in added force and quantity would not be unknown.

As perhaps this article is getting too long, I may conclude it with these remarks:—Every reverie which has for its object the concentration of population on small and confined patches of the earth's surface—which this nationalisation one has, most undoubtedly—should be deprecated. The foundation of wealth, national and individual, lies in these three simple laws—Take your labour to the best field; Labour diligently; and Save the fruits of your labour. This is the Problem of Poverty. Now, a moment's reflection shews that the greater part of our race has never even dreamed of obeying, for ages past, any of these simple laws. Here is a house in Edinburgh 14 stories high, and packed with inhabitants; and there are lands within a few days' travel, calling day and night for occupiers. But while the labourer so rarely takes his labour to the most productive field (the cause of which, if I am not mistaken, may be found in his cowardice), it is just as manifest that the other laws are very consistently broken. How many won't labour at all on any field? How many refuse to save the fruits of their labour? Let statistics declare.

I believe that were the lands of Britain forbidden page 109 by law to be sold to anyone under £500 the acre, it would be better for the British, and better for everybody. It would tend to drive population from where it is not wanted to where there is room for it.

Yet it may be admitted that should a people be of opinion that a large agricultural population is necessary in any country, to balance say, the mining, manufacturing, and commercial, they have a perfect right to place and keep such population on the land, provided always they acquire the land by honest means. Yet to specially support agriculture seems indeed—when we count the number of heads and the number of acres in the world—a most absurd proceeding. Freedom, common morality, and common sense, seem all that is necessary to support any industry.

1883.