Images de page
PDF
ePub

too long, and the people, in whose hands political power now rests, should at last insist upon some hasty and illconsidered remedy which, while bringing ruin on many, should only afford a temporary and imperfect cure of the disease.

The present writer had his attention forcibly drawn to this great question about forty years ago, by the perusal of Herbert Spencer's demonstration (in his Social Statics) of the immorality and impolicy of private property in land, and since that time he has endeavoured to make himself acquainted with what has been written on the subject, and by means of constant thought and discussion to arrive at the true solution of the problem. This he believes he has at length done. The difficulties that surrounded the subject were many and great. It was necessary, firstly, to find a means of transferring the ownership of the land from individuals to the State without taking anything away from existing owners, or infringing any right, real or sentimental, which they actually possess; secondly, to devise a new tenure of the land which should combine all the incalculable advantages of safe possession and transmissible ownership, together with the full benefit of every improvement and increase of its value, while guarding against the recurrence of unlimited landed estates, absentee landlords, life-interests, subletting, building leases, restriction on improvements, and all the other evils which accompany our present system; thirdly, to avoid the dangers which have been hitherto believed to be inherent in State-Landlordismjobbery, favouritism, waste, and the creation of a vast addition to State patronage ; and, lastly, to render the land a productive and practically inexhaustible source of national income, and to bring all these changes about in a gradual and almost imperceptible manner, by the action of a few simple principles embodied in law, so that society may have ample time to adapt itself to the new conditions; while, during the process of adaptation, successive generations may grow up to whom they will bear the aspect of being as natural, as orderly, and as beneficial, as private ownership does to most of the present generation.1

compensate the present owners." These quotations from one of the latest and best informed writers on the land question sufficiently prove that previous writers have not seen how the land may became State property without paying for it and yet without injury to any one; and this is the very essence of the question which determines its practicability. My plan not only does this, but it also, as already shown, completely removes the difficulty of State-Landlordism by retaining the tenant-right as saleable and heritable property-a system which has been in actual operation on Lord Portsmouth's estates in Ireland for more than half a century, and with the most beneficial results.

All these essential conditions of a true system of landreform are embodied in the scheme now briefly explained. Although not really injurious to existing landowners, it is not expected that it will meet with any support from them, since it has not been framed in their exclusive interest, but with a view to the well-being of the entire population. It will, no doubt, be said that the title of this chapter is misleading, since the arguments I have used are equally applicable to England as to Ireland. This is quite true. The principles laid down are of universal application, but the time and the mode of applying such principles are matters of expediency. The land-question in Ireland is a burning one. It is a source of chronic discontent and disaffection, and is likely to be so in spite of all the patchwork remedies that may be applied to it. More than anything else it maintains the antagonism of the Irish representatives in the British Parliament, an antagonism which has unhappily too much justification, and which, so long as it exists, will be a drag on the wheels of the legislative machine, and thus be directly injurious to every British subject. The solution of the Irish landquestion is, therefore, urgent. It is of importance to every one that it should be settled on a sound and permanent basis, and this can never be the case unless the true principles of land-tenure are discovered and acted upon. The present scheme is, therefore, proposed to be applied, in the first instance, to Ireland alone. It is claimed that its very gradual operation-which to some will appear an objection-renders it far safer and more likely to be effective than more heroic measures, while its discussion need not interfere with any remedial legislation which successive Parliaments are willing to enact. It is further claimed that it is founded on principles of abstract justice, and that, while respecting all existing rights and possessions, it will ultimately abolish that system of unlimited property in land which was founded originally by conquest, oppression, or rapine, and which, although perhaps useful in a transition stage of civilization, is incompatible with our national well-being, or with the general happiness and advancement of the community.

1 Although any change of the nature here proposed will no doubt be fiercely opposed by most landowners, and will perhaps not be admitted to discussion in Parliament for many years, yet changes more directly affecting vested interest in land have been made in the present century. Mr. Nassau Senior tells us in the work already referred to (Ireland, p. 8), that "Until January, 1834, no person could inherit the freehold property of his lineal descendants. On the death of a person possessed of such property, intestate and without issue, leaving a father or mother, or more remote lineal ancestor, it went over to his collateral relatives. In 1833 this law was totally altered. In such cases the property now goes to the father or mother, or remoter lineal ancestor, in preference to the collaterals. The brothers, uncles, nephews, and cousins, of lunaties, or of minors in such state of health as to be very unlikely to reach the age at which they could make a will had, until the 3rd and 4th Will. IV. cap. 106, was passed, prospects of succession so definite, that in many cases they would have sold for considerable prices. All these interests, though lawful and capable of valuation, have been swept away without compensation. And it was necessary that this should be done; the old law was obviously inconvenient, and to have attempted to compensate all those who, if the principle of compensation had been admitted, must have been entitled to it, would have involved such an expense as to have rendered the alteration of the law impracticable." This precedent is very valuable, because no such calculable vested interests occur in the present case, while the political and social importance of the change, and its beneficial effects on the bulk of the community, are vastly greater. The discussion, therefore, becomes limited to the question whether the proposed change would be a beneficial one.

To the independent Liberals of Great Britain and to the long-suffering Irish nation I now submit my proposals, asking only for a careful perusal, an unprejudiced consideration, and a searching criticism.

CHAPTER XVII

THE "WHY" AND "HOW" OF LAND NATIONALIZATION 1

IN Macmillan's Magazine (for July, 1883) an article appeared on "State Socialism and the Nationalization of the Land," from the pen of the late Professor Fawcett, in which he referred to two books as having more especially drawn attention to this question-one of these being my own volume on Land Nationalization, the other, Mr. Henry George's well-known Progress and Poverty. In consequence of the wide circulation of the latter work, Professor Fawcett thinks it important to examine carefully the proposals there advocated, and he proceeds to do so, though, as it seems to me, far from "carefully," since he starts many difficulties which would never arise under Mr. George's proposals, and entirely ignores the vast mass of fact, argument, and illustration, by means of which the radical injustice of private property in land, and its enormous and widespread evil results, are set forth and demonstrated. With the treatment of Mr. George, however, I do not here propose further to meddle; but as Professor Fawcett has quoted the title of my book as one of those which have drawn attention to the subject, while he deliberately ignores every fact, argument, and proposal contained in it; and as the press has very widely noticed

1 This article first appeared in Macmillan's Magazine (August and September, 1883). It is now reprinted, because it discusses and replies to many of the popular objections against Land Nationalization which are still used, and explains details which are not touched upon in the preceding chapter. A few verbal alterations have been made in order to make it more intelligible at the present day.

and praised this article as demonstrating the futility and impracticability of land nationalization, I gladly seize the opportunity afforded me of stating the other side of the question. This is the more necessary because the readers of Professor Fawcett's article will certainly carry away the impression that my proposals are substantially the same as those of Mr. George, and that a criticism of the one will apply equally to the other; whereas not only are they absolutely distinct and unlike, but those first advanced by myself have commended themselves to a considerable number of advanced thinkers who previously held nationalization to be impracticable, and have led to the formation of a Land Nationalization Society, which has now been twenty years 1 in existence, and is gradually but surely aiding in the formation of a distinctively English school of land reformers. These facts, to which Professor Fawcett's attention has been specially directed, surely required that some notice, however brief, should be given to them in an article written expressly to instruct the public on this great question.

In order to place this problem fairly before my readers within the limits here assigned to me, it will be necessary to omit the consideration of some of its aspects altogether, and to treat others very briefly. The fundamental question undoubtedly is, the right or the wrong, the justice or the injustice, of private property in land. And then follows the question of results; right and justice lead to good results-to happiness and general wellbeing; wrong and injustice as surely lead to bad results, and their fruits are moral evil and physical suffering. We have to inquire, then, what are the actual results of modern landlordism? and thus confirm or modify the conclusions we have reached from general principles. Finally, we have to consider how we can best carry into effect right and just principles so as most certainly to reap the reward of moral and physical well-being. This really exhausts the subject. The historical inquiry-how private property in land arose, what changes it has under1 Founded in March, 1881.

« PrécédentContinuer »