hard till middle life, for the support of their families; and besides these, there would be not a few younger sons who had retired to pass the evening of their days on little properties near the place of their birth, either left them by will or bought out of their own acquisitions. With these would be mingled other elements in far larger measure and greater variety than at present-wealthy capitalists eager to enter the ranks of the landed gentry, merchants, traders, and professional men content with a country villa and a hundred freehold acres around it, yeoman-farmers, and even labourers of rare intelligence, who had seized favourable chances of investing in land. Under such conditions, it is not too much to expect that some links, now missing, between rich and poor, gentle and simple, might be supplied in country districts; that "plain living and high thinking" might again find a home in some of our ancient manor houses; that with less of dependence and subordination to a dominant will there would be more of true neighbourly feeling, and even of clanship, and that posterity, reaping the beneficent fruits of greater social equality, would marvel, and not without cause, how the main obstacle to greater social equality -the law and custom of Primogeniture-escaped revision for more than two centuries after the final abolition of feudal tenures.

THE PRESENT ASPECT OF THE LAND

QUESTION.

BY WILLIAM FOWLER, M.P.

"I believe we have no adequate conception of what the amount of production might be from a limited surface of land, provided only the amount of capital were sufficient."-COBDEN.

I.

HOWEVER much men may differ as to the principles on which the "Land Question," as it is called, will have to be settled, all will agree that the interest felt in it has largely increased during the last ten years, and that it is one of the questions which press for immediate consideration by Parliament. Already the AttorneyGeneral has broken ground by promising a Bill to abolish what is known as the "Law of Primogeniture," and though this, like so many more promised benefits, still remains a thing to be hoped for rather than expected, yet the fact of its being undertaken by the Government ought to encourage reformers and inspire them with new energy. The progress of the question has, however, been delayed, and will yet be much more delayed, by the important, if not fundamental, differences which prevail amongst those who profess to have at heart the common object of a thorough Land Law Reform. On the one side are those who, like the Land Tenure Reform Association and their distinguished President, call for the resumption by the State of some portion of the revenue of the lands, and those again who wish to "nationalise" the whole of the land by buying it up from its present owners, so that it may be parcelled out into small holdings; and on the other side those who, like

Mr. Cobden, desire to rid the land of all the trammels created by settlements and entails, to give an easy mode of transfer, and to make the ownership, with few and temporary exceptions, nothing but fee-simple ownership throughout the kingdom. The former class deal with the land as a property altogether exceptional by reason of the limits of its area-as a sort of monopoly in fact-and they therefore demand a peculiar revenue from its owners, as if licensees of the State; while the latter, admitting that land as such has peculiarities which may justify special restrictions with regard to limitations for life and other matters, still desire, as far as possible, to leave men to do the best they can for themselves with the land they possess, believing that thus more good will result to the State than by any interference with the action of private owners.

The gravity of the questions at issue is not disputed, but public attention has been recently drawn afresh to them in consequence of a remarkable speech made by Lord Derby,* in which he expressed his belief that we might double our production as a nation were sufficient capital employed in cultivation. More recently the same opinion has been expressed by Lord Leicester, in a speech delivered at Docking, and that nobleman spoke of his opinion as the result of an extensive tour of observation through England and Scotland. Some high authorities put the case even more strongly than these noblemen, but their authority is sufficient, and a very few figures will enable the reader to appreciate what their statements really involve.

During the present year it is estimated that we shall require at least 10,000,000 quarters of foreign wheat, and as we raise ourselves about the same amount, it follows that if our production were doubled, we should be just about independent, and not have to pay £25,000,000 to £30,000,000 to foreign countries for their wheat.

Then, again, we have in Great Britain 5,400,000

*See Times, September 6, 1871.

cattle, and 28,397,000 sheep and lambs. It is easy to see what a change would be made in the present prices of beef and mutton were the production of these animals largely increased; and, if I understand Lord Derby aright, that production also might be doubled.*

The following table will give a clearer idea of the amount of national wealth which is involved in the question discussed by Lord Derby and Lord Leicester:

STATEMENT OF ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF FOOD IN GREAT BRITAIN, AND ESTIMATED VALUE OF SUCH PRODUCTION.

Now every one will admit with Lord Derby, that in order to secure that great increase of production which all desire, there must be an immense increase in the amount of capital employed in agriculture; and the first question is, how far our present laws encourage or discourage the application of capital.

A not less important question arises out of this-viz., what are the social effects of our existing laws, both on the numbers and on the condition of our population?

It will be my object to show that our present land laws are opposed to true "freedom of trade," and I shall take the following points in illustration of my meaning:

* Mr. Dudley Baxter ("Taxation of United Kingdom," p. 164) estimates the value of the "animals" forming part of the "farming capital" of the United Kingdom at £171,000,000. This includes, of course, the horses and the pigs.

1. The system of settlement by which land can be locked up for life or lives in being, and twenty-one years after the death of the last

survivor.

2. The holding of land in mortmain by corporations and others.

3. The difficulty and expense of the transfer of land as compared with the easy transfer of personal estate.*

Before entering on these points in detail it will be convenient to refer more particularly to the proposals, already mentioned, of Mr. Mill and others.

It may be quite true that our present system of tenure is bad, because it creates a kind of "double ownership," and thus discourages the application of capital to the development of the soil; but it does not thence follow that an arrangement by which the existing owners of the land shall be forced to sell their holdings to the Government, which is then to find tenants of smaller holdings, would encourage the application of capital. To me it seems that any such plan would distinctly discourage the purchase and the improvement of land by men of property. Probably this is the object of its promoters, who seem to have the idea that a small owner is of necessity better than a large owner. Doubtless he may be so, as we often see the large estate decaying and desolate, and the smaller thriving and improving; but we can also point to large estates which are models of good husbandry, and to small properties which are pictures of misery and neglect. The facts set forth in the reports of Her Majesty's representatives, as to the tenure of land in foreign countries, show conclusively that a system of small holdings can be made most productive under favourable circumstances; but,

* I have not entered minutely into the question of Primogeniture, as it is to be discussed by another contributor to this volume; and I have omitted the question of enclosures, as one which would extend my essay to an undue length. I have also avoided the "game" controversy, as requiring separate treatment.