(1) “No man made the land.”(2) It is the original inheritance of the whole species.[60](3) Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency.(4) When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust.(5) It is no hardship to any one to be excluded from what others have produced.(6) But it is a hardship to be born into the world and to find all nature’s gifts previously engrossed.(7) Whoever owns land, keeps others out of the enjoyment of it.
(1) “No man made the land.”
(2) It is the original inheritance of the whole species.[60]
(3) Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency.
(4) When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust.
(5) It is no hardship to any one to be excluded from what others have produced.
(6) But it is a hardship to be born into the world and to find all nature’s gifts previously engrossed.
(7) Whoever owns land, keeps others out of the enjoyment of it.
Now let us apply Mr. Mill’s arguments to any other kind of property.
Suppose I say to you:—“My friend! you have two coats; hand one of them over to me! Sacred rights of property don’t apply to it; you did not make it; and Mill says—‘it is no hardship to be excluded from what others have produced;’ but it is some hardship to be born into the world, and to find all nature’s gifts engrossed. Your argument that you paid for it in hard cash is worthless.No man madesilver and gold, ‘it is the original inheritance of the whole species, the receiver is as bad as the thief, and you have connived in the robbery of those metals from the earth, leaving posterity yet unborn to be under the hardship of finding all nature’s gifts engrossed.’
“The manufacture of your coat is based on robbery and injustice, and you have connived at it; the iron and coal used in its production weremade by no man, they are thecommon inheritance of the species, those who have obtained them have robbed posterity. You have bribed them to do so by silver and gold, also robbed from posterity.
“The very wool of which your coat is formed wasmade by no man, it was robbed from a defenceless sheep. Your argument that the sheep was the property of the shearer is useless. No man made the sheep, it is the common inheritance of all, &c. Your argument that his owner reared the sheep, is equally worthless. Monster! if you find a child, have you a right to rob him and make aslave of him? such an argument would justify slavery[61]or worse.
“Whenprivate property is not expedient it is unjust, and from my ground of view, it is not expedient that this private property should be yours; public only differs from private expediency in degree. ‘He who owns property keeps others out of the enjoyment of it,’ the sacred rights of property don’t apply to this coat; so hand it over without any more of your absurd arguments. Nay! if you don’t, and as I see some one is approaching who may interfere, its appropriation is one of expediency,—individual expediency must follow the same law as general expediency,—it is expedient that I should draw my knife across your throat, otherwise I shall lose that which is my inheritance in common with the rest of the species.” And so I might arguead infinitum.
Mr. Mill’s sophisms however are, what Cossa terms, “concessions more apparent than real to socialism,” for further on, in his Political Economy, he completely stultifies his argument by stating that the principle of property gives to the landowners:—
“a right to compensation for whatever portion of their interest in the land it may be the policy of the State to deprive them of. To thattheir claim is indefeasible. It is due to landowners, and to owners of any property whatever recognised as such by the State, that they should not be dispossessed of it without receiving its pecuniary value.... This is due on thegeneral principles on which property rests. If the land was bought with the produce of the labour and abstinence of themselves or their ancestors, compensation is due to them on that ground;even if otherwise, it is still due on the ground of prescription.”“Nor,” he adds, “can it ever be necessary for accomplishing an object by which the community altogether will gain, that a particular portion of the community should be immolated.”[62]
“a right to compensation for whatever portion of their interest in the land it may be the policy of the State to deprive them of. To thattheir claim is indefeasible. It is due to landowners, and to owners of any property whatever recognised as such by the State, that they should not be dispossessed of it without receiving its pecuniary value.... This is due on thegeneral principles on which property rests. If the land was bought with the produce of the labour and abstinence of themselves or their ancestors, compensation is due to them on that ground;even if otherwise, it is still due on the ground of prescription.”
“Nor,” he adds, “can it ever be necessary for accomplishing an object by which the community altogether will gain, that a particular portion of the community should be immolated.”[62]
Unfortunately, however, his mischievous denial of the sacred rights of property in land is eagerly read, while his subsequent qualification of it is neglected by those who, like Mr. Bright, aim at the destruction of a political opponent; or, like Mr. Gladstone, are bent on a particular policy, reckless of the results in carrying it out; or, like Mr. Parnell and his followers, whose hands itch for plunder; and it has produced a general haziness of ideas amongst that well-meaning class of people who are good-naturedly liberal with the property of other people.
Yet, clothe it with what sophism you will, any attempt, whether legalized or otherwise, to deprive the landowner of his property and to violate his rights, is as unjustifiable as the depredations of the burglar or the pickpocket. Nay more so; because the statesman or political economist cannot plead poverty or want of education as his excuse.
FOOTNOTES:[56]If we were to partition out England into a Mill’s Utopia of peasant proprietors to-morrow, it would not last a week; half of the proprietors would convert their holdings into drink, and be in a state of intoxication until it was expended.[57]‘Grande and Petite Culture. Rural Economy of France.’ De Lavergne.[58]The yeomen and small tenant-farmers, men of little capital, have almost disappeared, and the process of improving them off the face of the agricultural world is still progressing to its bitter end; homestead after homestead has been deserted, and farm has been added to farm—a very unpleasing result of the inexorable principle—the survival of the fittest—by means of which even the cultivators of the soil are selected;—but a result which, not the laws of nature, but the bungling arrangements of human legislators, have rendered inevitable. (Bear.,Fortnightly Review, September, 1873.)[59]‘Mill’s Political Economy,’ Bk. II. Chap. II.[60]The original inheritors have, through their lawfully constituted rulers, parted with their property, having, in most cases, received an equivalent for it in the shape, either of eminent services rendered to the State, or else of actual payments in hard cash; and these transactions have been deliberately ratified and acknowledged by the laws of the country from time immemorial. It is therefore simply childish to argue that the land thus disposed of still belongs to the original inheritors, after they have enjoyed for past years the proceeds for which they have bartered the land that once belonged to them.[61]I beg your pardon, my dear Fanatic, I see I have unconsciously made a slight mistake. Mill says, that appropriation is wholly a matter of general expediency, and on that ground youmayjustify slavery.[62]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. II.
[56]If we were to partition out England into a Mill’s Utopia of peasant proprietors to-morrow, it would not last a week; half of the proprietors would convert their holdings into drink, and be in a state of intoxication until it was expended.
[56]If we were to partition out England into a Mill’s Utopia of peasant proprietors to-morrow, it would not last a week; half of the proprietors would convert their holdings into drink, and be in a state of intoxication until it was expended.
[57]‘Grande and Petite Culture. Rural Economy of France.’ De Lavergne.
[57]‘Grande and Petite Culture. Rural Economy of France.’ De Lavergne.
[58]The yeomen and small tenant-farmers, men of little capital, have almost disappeared, and the process of improving them off the face of the agricultural world is still progressing to its bitter end; homestead after homestead has been deserted, and farm has been added to farm—a very unpleasing result of the inexorable principle—the survival of the fittest—by means of which even the cultivators of the soil are selected;—but a result which, not the laws of nature, but the bungling arrangements of human legislators, have rendered inevitable. (Bear.,Fortnightly Review, September, 1873.)
[58]The yeomen and small tenant-farmers, men of little capital, have almost disappeared, and the process of improving them off the face of the agricultural world is still progressing to its bitter end; homestead after homestead has been deserted, and farm has been added to farm—a very unpleasing result of the inexorable principle—the survival of the fittest—by means of which even the cultivators of the soil are selected;—but a result which, not the laws of nature, but the bungling arrangements of human legislators, have rendered inevitable. (Bear.,Fortnightly Review, September, 1873.)
[59]‘Mill’s Political Economy,’ Bk. II. Chap. II.
[59]‘Mill’s Political Economy,’ Bk. II. Chap. II.
[60]The original inheritors have, through their lawfully constituted rulers, parted with their property, having, in most cases, received an equivalent for it in the shape, either of eminent services rendered to the State, or else of actual payments in hard cash; and these transactions have been deliberately ratified and acknowledged by the laws of the country from time immemorial. It is therefore simply childish to argue that the land thus disposed of still belongs to the original inheritors, after they have enjoyed for past years the proceeds for which they have bartered the land that once belonged to them.
[60]The original inheritors have, through their lawfully constituted rulers, parted with their property, having, in most cases, received an equivalent for it in the shape, either of eminent services rendered to the State, or else of actual payments in hard cash; and these transactions have been deliberately ratified and acknowledged by the laws of the country from time immemorial. It is therefore simply childish to argue that the land thus disposed of still belongs to the original inheritors, after they have enjoyed for past years the proceeds for which they have bartered the land that once belonged to them.
[61]I beg your pardon, my dear Fanatic, I see I have unconsciously made a slight mistake. Mill says, that appropriation is wholly a matter of general expediency, and on that ground youmayjustify slavery.
[61]I beg your pardon, my dear Fanatic, I see I have unconsciously made a slight mistake. Mill says, that appropriation is wholly a matter of general expediency, and on that ground youmayjustify slavery.
[62]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. II.
[62]Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. II.
Allow me, my dear Idolator, to make a few quotations from one of your sacred Vedas, on the subject of land.
You are fond of quoting them when it suits your purpose.
Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith.Action of Free Trade.(1.) Every improvement in the circumstances of the society tends, either directly or indirectly, to raise the real rent of land, to increase the real wealth of the landlord, his power of purchasing the labour or the produce of the labour of other people.Free Trade has ruined agricultural industry. Can it be an improvement in the circumstances of the society.(2.) Every increase in the real wealth of the society, every increase in the quantity of useful labour employed within it, tends indirectly to raise the real rent of land.Free Trade has lowered rents. Can it have wrought increase in the real wealth of society?(3) All those improvements in the productive powers of labour which tend directly to reduce the real price of manufactures, tend indirectly to raise the real rent of land.The improvements in machinery, science, steam, and electricity prevented the collapse of agriculture at first, and has even given a semblance of temporary prosperity, and this has been dishonestly claimed by Free-traders as their work.(4.) Whatever reduces the real price of manufactured produce raises that of rude produce of the landlord.In spite of this advantage agriculture has collapsed under Free Trade.(5.) The neglect of cultivation and improvement, the fall in the real price of any part of the rude produce of the land ... tend to lower the real rent of land, to reduce the real wealth of the landlord, to diminish his power of purchasing either the labour or the produce of the labour of other people.Your Free Trade prophets, Bright and Gladstone, are unceasing in their endeavours to destroy the landlord and diminish his power of employing productive labour.(6.) The whole annual produce of the land and labour of every country constitutes a revenue to three different orders of people,—to:—1. Those who live by rent.2. Those who live by wages.3. Those who live by profit.The interest of the firstof these three great orders is strictly and inseparably connected with the general interests of the society.Whatever either promotes or obstructs the one, promotes or obstructs the other.Free trade obstructs the interests of the first of these three great orders, and necessarily obstructs the general interests of the nation at large.(7.) The interest of this third order has not the same connection with the general interest of the society as that of the other two.Free trade has emanated from this order.Merchants and Master Manufacturersare, in this order, the two classes of people who commonly employ the largest capitals.(8.) The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce, which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious, attention.If attention had only been paid to Adam Smith’s warning, we should not now have to mourn the decadence of England’s industries.(9.) It comes from an order of men whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public; who have generally an interest todeceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.(Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, Bk. I. Chap. XI.)How true of your prophet Bright! Free Trade is another fearful example of thedeception and oppressionpractised by this class.
You will probably, attempt to discredit your sacred writings when they do not support your own views.
You will argue that Adam Smith wrote when the conditions of society and commerce were very different from what they are now.
Mathematicians say, that when a formula will not accommodate itself to altering conditions and circumstances, it is unsound. It is the same with political science. Either the political science of Adam Smith is unsound, and he is not reliable, or the serious indictments against Free Trade given in the quotations above are well-founded.
What is the nature of a country-life that it should breed such a vampire,—such a monster of iniquity,—such a “squanderer of national wealth” as the landlord whom your Free-trading friends hold up to public execration? The old classical idea “procul a negotiis” would indicate that it had a contrary influence. How is it then that it produces the unmitigated miscreant whom Bright delights to denounce,—whom Gladstone loves to pursue with ruinous enactments,—and whom Parnell, with his murderous crew, takes pleasure in “boycotting,” maiming, and assassinating? The external appearance of this monster gives no clue to his character. From personal acquaintance with men of this class in England I should have said, that, on the average, they werewell-meaning, harmless, good-natured men; not always of the widest of views, or shrewdest intelligence, but with the best intentions, anxious in bad times to help their tenants, and in good times to improve their property. Even your prophet Adam Smith appears to have been deceived by them.[63]Again, appearances are deceptive; for, to my inexperienced eye, there seemed to be a large amount of kindly sympathy between tenant and landlord.
I am unable to speak from personal experience respecting the same classes in Ireland; but all novels and tales of Irish life, which should reflect, with some degree of truth, the general aspect of things, agree in describing scenes, probably founded on facts, from which one would imagine that, before the present agitation and enactments, there appeared to exist much kindly feeling and sympathy between the peasantry and the “Masther,” who, with all his faults, is represented as a generous, rollicking, devil-may-care sort of fellow,[64]quite opposed to the grasping, grinding miscreant whom your friends denounce; of course, there were exceptions.
Mr. A. M. Sullivan seems also to have been mistaken when he says:—
“The conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period has been variously described, and has, I believe, been generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them too sweeping. I hold it to be in some respectscruelly unjust.... It is impossible to contest authentic cases of brutal heartlessness here and there; but granting all that has to be entered on the dark debtor side, the overwhelming balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. If they did too little compared with what the landlord class in England would have done in a similar case, it was because little was in their power.... They were heritors of estates heavily overweighted with the debts of a bygone generation.... To these landowners the failure of one year’s rental receipts meant mortgage, foreclosure, and hopeless ruin. Yet cases might be named by the score in which menscorned to avert, by pressure on their suffering tenancy,the fate they saw impending over them. They went down with the ship.“No adequate tribute has ever been paid to the memory of those Irish landlords, and they were men of every party and creed, who perished martyrs to duty, in that awful time.”[65]
“The conduct of the Irish landlords throughout the famine period has been variously described, and has, I believe, been generally condemned. I consider the censure visited on them too sweeping. I hold it to be in some respectscruelly unjust.... It is impossible to contest authentic cases of brutal heartlessness here and there; but granting all that has to be entered on the dark debtor side, the overwhelming balance is the other way. The bulk of the resident Irish landlords manfully did their best in that dread hour. If they did too little compared with what the landlord class in England would have done in a similar case, it was because little was in their power.... They were heritors of estates heavily overweighted with the debts of a bygone generation.... To these landowners the failure of one year’s rental receipts meant mortgage, foreclosure, and hopeless ruin. Yet cases might be named by the score in which menscorned to avert, by pressure on their suffering tenancy,the fate they saw impending over them. They went down with the ship.
“No adequate tribute has ever been paid to the memory of those Irish landlords, and they were men of every party and creed, who perished martyrs to duty, in that awful time.”[65]
It is wonderful how, at such an awful time, the Irish landlord should have continued to mask his true character.
Still I am rather puzzled.
I quite admit that the Irish landlord is wrong in rack-renting his tenant to the extent of grinding out of him one-third of the amount that is cheerfully paid by tenants inprotectionistcountries.
I admit that he should not have tried in aFree Trade countryto have extorted more than one-tenth of the rent paid by protectionist tenants. Nay, I will go further. I don’t think that a tenant in Free Trade Ireland would farm to a profit even if he had the landrent-free. I admit also that it was selfish of the landlord to allow the question of his own pauperism to weigh in the question of rent.
Still, after making due allowance for all these faults, I cannot quite understand how his guilt is sufficiently provento warrant his continued persecution and gradual extermination, by enactment after enactment for his ruin, should he chance to escape assassination. A snake or a rat could not be hunted down with greater venom. I must say that, in spite of his crimes, he is an object of pity.
Perhaps an analysis of his villainy may help me to understand the heinousness of his crime; let us apply, therefore, to the political economist for the character of the rent, the instrument with which he commits his crime—what does he say?[66]
“Rent does not affect the price of agricultural produce.”[67]“Whoever does pay rent gets back its full value in extra advantage, and the rent which he pays does not place him in a worse position than, but only in the same position as, his fellow-producer who pays no rent, but whose instrument is one of inferior efficiency.”[68]“Rent is reached by bargaining between the landlord and tenant; bargaining founded on the practical elements existing in the business. Profit must satisfy the tenant, or he will not take the farm; and on the other hand, if he claim an unduly low rent, he will find a rival competitor stepping into the farm house.... The position of an in-coming tenant is that of a man who is buying a business for sale (for whether he purchases the farm outright in order to cultivate it, or hires it, makes no difference in the nature of the transaction). He is buying a specific business in a given locality, as any man might do in a manufacturing town, and his motive isprofit. This consideration governs the whole of the negotiation between the landowner and himself ... upon the terms of an annual payment of the means ofprofitwhich he seeks to acquire.”[69]
“Rent does not affect the price of agricultural produce.”[67]
“Whoever does pay rent gets back its full value in extra advantage, and the rent which he pays does not place him in a worse position than, but only in the same position as, his fellow-producer who pays no rent, but whose instrument is one of inferior efficiency.”[68]
“Rent is reached by bargaining between the landlord and tenant; bargaining founded on the practical elements existing in the business. Profit must satisfy the tenant, or he will not take the farm; and on the other hand, if he claim an unduly low rent, he will find a rival competitor stepping into the farm house.... The position of an in-coming tenant is that of a man who is buying a business for sale (for whether he purchases the farm outright in order to cultivate it, or hires it, makes no difference in the nature of the transaction). He is buying a specific business in a given locality, as any man might do in a manufacturing town, and his motive isprofit. This consideration governs the whole of the negotiation between the landowner and himself ... upon the terms of an annual payment of the means ofprofitwhich he seeks to acquire.”[69]
Yes! This appears to me to be just and business-like; the tenant hires the land for the profit he expects to get out of it, and his rent is a simple debt. Proceed:—
“To refuse to pay debt violently is tosteal, and to permit stealing is not only to dissolve, but to demoralize, society.”[70]“When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it ... plunder is perpetrated.”[71]“Law is common force organized to prevent injustice.”[71]“If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, plunder is still perpetrated under aggravated circumstances.”[71]“To place the position itself of a landlord in an invidious light, as a man who exacts from the labours of others that for which he has neither toiled nor spun, is a most unwarrantable process of argumentation.”[70]“It would be impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this:—the conversion of law into an instrument of plunder.”[71]
“To refuse to pay debt violently is tosteal, and to permit stealing is not only to dissolve, but to demoralize, society.”[70]
“When a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it ... plunder is perpetrated.”[71]
“Law is common force organized to prevent injustice.”[71]
“If the law itself performs the action it ought to repress, plunder is still perpetrated under aggravated circumstances.”[71]
“To place the position itself of a landlord in an invidious light, as a man who exacts from the labours of others that for which he has neither toiled nor spun, is a most unwarrantable process of argumentation.”[70]
“It would be impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this:—the conversion of law into an instrument of plunder.”[71]
Yes, yes! All this appears to me to be just and sensible! but pardon me, I am a little obtuse. I cannot yet see that the landlord’s guilt is proven. Let us recapitulate:—
Rent does not raise the price of corn! The tenant gets value for his rent! He enters into a business contract for profit! The rent is a simple debt. To refuse it, is to steal! To assist legally at this refusal, is to be an accomplice in the theft! In this case Government is the accomplice, and the Government is a plunderer under aggravated circumstances! Moreover, it not only plunders, but demoralizes society. Mr. Gladstone represents Government. Messrs. Bright, Parnell, Davitt and Co. assist in this legalized and illegal plunder; thus demoralizing the society. The property of the landlord passes to anotherwithout his consentand without compensation! Messrs. Gladstone and Co. use that which Professor Bonamy Price terms a most “unwarrantable process of argumentation.”
Stop! Stop!! for goodness’ sake!!! My brain is getting confused; in my innocence, had I not been gravely assuredthat they were angels of light, patriots, philanthropists,[72]I should have mistaken Messrs. Gladstone, Bright, Parnell, Davitt, and Co. for the real criminals.
FOOTNOTES:[63]Adam Smith, in speaking of the class of merchants and manufacturers, says:—“Their superiority over the country gentleman is not so much in their knowledge of thepublic interestas in their having a better knowledge oftheir own interestthan he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed uponhis generosityand persuaded him to give up his own interest and that of the public from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the people.” (Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. XI.)How true in the case of Free Trade![64]The landlordism of the days before Famine (1847) never “recovered its strength or its primitive ways. For the landlord, there came of the Famine the Encumbered Estates Court. For the small farmer and tenant class there floated up the American Emigrant ships.” (‘History of Our Own Times,’ Justin Macarthy.)[65]New Ireland, by A. M. Sullivan, p. 133.[66]Adam Smith contradicts himself about rent—in one set of passages he says it is thecause, and in another theeffect, of prices.[67]Macleod’s Economics, p. 117.[68]Political Economy, by J. S. Mill, Bk. II. Chap. XVI.[69]Profr. Bonamy Price.[70]Profr. Bonamy Price.[71]Political Economy, Bastiat.[72]“Legal plunder has two roots. One of them is in human egotism, the other is in false philanthropy.” (Political Economy, Bastiat.)
[63]Adam Smith, in speaking of the class of merchants and manufacturers, says:—“Their superiority over the country gentleman is not so much in their knowledge of thepublic interestas in their having a better knowledge oftheir own interestthan he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed uponhis generosityand persuaded him to give up his own interest and that of the public from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the people.” (Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. XI.)How true in the case of Free Trade!
[63]Adam Smith, in speaking of the class of merchants and manufacturers, says:—“Their superiority over the country gentleman is not so much in their knowledge of thepublic interestas in their having a better knowledge oftheir own interestthan he has of his. It is by this superior knowledge of their own interest that they have frequently imposed uponhis generosityand persuaded him to give up his own interest and that of the public from a very simple but honest conviction that their interest, and not his, was the interest of the people.” (Wealth of Nations, Bk. I. Chap. XI.)
How true in the case of Free Trade!
[64]The landlordism of the days before Famine (1847) never “recovered its strength or its primitive ways. For the landlord, there came of the Famine the Encumbered Estates Court. For the small farmer and tenant class there floated up the American Emigrant ships.” (‘History of Our Own Times,’ Justin Macarthy.)
[64]The landlordism of the days before Famine (1847) never “recovered its strength or its primitive ways. For the landlord, there came of the Famine the Encumbered Estates Court. For the small farmer and tenant class there floated up the American Emigrant ships.” (‘History of Our Own Times,’ Justin Macarthy.)
[65]New Ireland, by A. M. Sullivan, p. 133.
[65]New Ireland, by A. M. Sullivan, p. 133.
[66]Adam Smith contradicts himself about rent—in one set of passages he says it is thecause, and in another theeffect, of prices.
[66]Adam Smith contradicts himself about rent—in one set of passages he says it is thecause, and in another theeffect, of prices.
[67]Macleod’s Economics, p. 117.
[67]Macleod’s Economics, p. 117.
[68]Political Economy, by J. S. Mill, Bk. II. Chap. XVI.
[68]Political Economy, by J. S. Mill, Bk. II. Chap. XVI.
[69]Profr. Bonamy Price.
[69]Profr. Bonamy Price.
[70]Profr. Bonamy Price.
[70]Profr. Bonamy Price.
[71]Political Economy, Bastiat.
[71]Political Economy, Bastiat.
[72]“Legal plunder has two roots. One of them is in human egotism, the other is in false philanthropy.” (Political Economy, Bastiat.)
[72]“Legal plunder has two roots. One of them is in human egotism, the other is in false philanthropy.” (Political Economy, Bastiat.)
Your friend, John Bright, with his usual disregard for accuracy, describes the large landlord as the “squanderer and absorber of national wealth,” but seeing that the total rent of land in Great Britain and Ireland is less than 5 per cent. of the whole national income,[73]and that of this less than one-seventh is in the hands of large landowners, it would require a more able statesman than Mr. Bright to show how he can squander that, of which such a very small proportion passes through his lands.
No? friend Bright. You and your fellow free-traders are the real squanderers of national wealth, and you seek to shift the blame from your own shoulders, by dishonestlylaying it on those of the landowner. I command to your perusal the graphic description of a large landowner—the Duke of Argyle—who states that, in Trylee, by feeding the tenantry in bad times, by assisting some to emigrate, by introducing new methods of cultivation, by expenditure of capital in improvements, by consolidating small holdings when too narrow for subsistence, he has raised a community, from the lowest state of poverty and degradation, to one of lucrative industry and prosperity.
The prosperity these tenants enjoy is due to the beneficial and regulative power of the landlord as a capitalist. The greater the wealth of the landlord, the greater is his beneficial and regulative power. There were thousands of landowners who acted up to the limits of their power in this way, until you, friend Bright, ruined them and deprived them of the power of helping their tenants.
No, doubt, there are bad landlords, as there are bad men in all classes, but the interests of the landowner and those of the tenant are inseparably bound together; and the landlord is shrewd enough to see that it is to his own interest to improve the property if he can afford to do so.
The old classic, with his insight into human nature, inodimus quos læsimus, shows that human nature has not altered, and it does not surprise me that you should hold up to execration the class you have so cruelly injured.
You, my Free-trading Fanatic, have (thanks to Mill’s unfortunate sophisms and your leaders’ persistent misrepresentations) such a very hazy view about landowner’s rights and duties, that I think a few words on the subject may clear the atmosphere.
(1.) Landed property is the capital of the landlord.(2.) Interest on capital is fair, reasonable, and consistent with general good.(3.) Rent is interest on the capital of the landlord.(4.) The landlord may sell[74]his land, invest the proceeds in any other way, and thus get interest on his capital.(5.) The tenant can get rid of rent, either:—
(1.) Landed property is the capital of the landlord.
(2.) Interest on capital is fair, reasonable, and consistent with general good.
(3.) Rent is interest on the capital of the landlord.
(4.) The landlord may sell[74]his land, invest the proceeds in any other way, and thus get interest on his capital.
(5.) The tenant can get rid of rent, either:—
(a) by borrowing money to buy land, in which case he has to pay interest on the loan;(b) by saving sufficient money to purchase land, in which case he might, instead of purchasing, invest the money, so that its interest would pay the rent.
(a) by borrowing money to buy land, in which case he has to pay interest on the loan;
(b) by saving sufficient money to purchase land, in which case he might, instead of purchasing, invest the money, so that its interest would pay the rent.
(6.) In any case the whole question of rent resolves itself into a question of capital, and interest thereon.(7.) Law, from time immemorial, has recognised the right of property in land.(8.) In most cases the owner has paid hard cash both for the land and for the improvements of it.(9.) Land is therefore actual capital just as much as money, coal, iron, cattle, or any other disposable commodity.
(6.) In any case the whole question of rent resolves itself into a question of capital, and interest thereon.
(7.) Law, from time immemorial, has recognised the right of property in land.
(8.) In most cases the owner has paid hard cash both for the land and for the improvements of it.
(9.) Land is therefore actual capital just as much as money, coal, iron, cattle, or any other disposable commodity.
It is absurd, therefore, to say, that a man possessing capital in land may not act in the same way as the owner of any other form of capital. (Of course he has his moral obligations, but those are applicable to the possession of any other form of capital.) If the tenant desires capital, he must work for it, or obtain it in some legal manner. If he get it in any other way, it is theft; and any legislation that transfers the capital of the landlord to the tenant without due compensation, is legalized theft.
As regards absentee landlords, I admit it is desirable, on many grounds—on the ground of his own personal interest—to put it on the lowest ground, that he should not be absent; but if the life of the landlord and his family be at stake, is he to be blamed if he declines to take the risk of being boycotted or shot? You argue thathe does nothing for his money which he draws, and spends away from the place in which it has been produced, thus impoverishing the district.
Is he different in this respect from the capitalist who invests money in colonial or foreign funds, who does nothing for his money, and spends it away from the country in which it is produced? Is he different in this respect from the London banker, who lends money to the manufacturer in the provinces, or abroad? He does nothing for his money, but spends it away from the locality in which it has been produced. Would you argue on this ground, that the railway shareholder, the foreign bondholder, the London banker ought, in equity, to receive no interest on their money, and should be held up to public execration? If you place any value on the laws of political economy, which you are so fond of quoting, my Fanatical Friend, drop your absurd arguments about landlords. Land is a commodity to be bought, sold, improved by the capital of the landlord, and if you treat it otherwise, you violate every principle of sound political economy.
Admitting that land is capital, and the landlord is the capitalist, what does Political Economy say?—
“If a man has not wealth himself, but only his labour to sell, what is most to his advantage? Why, of course, that there should be as many rich men as possible to compete for his labour.... Nothing can be more fatal than thecry against capitalso often unthinkingly uttered.... It would be impossible to conceive agreater benefactor to his countrythan the one who would permanently reconcile the interests of masters and workmen, andput an end to the internecine wars of capital and labour.”[75]
“If a man has not wealth himself, but only his labour to sell, what is most to his advantage? Why, of course, that there should be as many rich men as possible to compete for his labour.... Nothing can be more fatal than thecry against capitalso often unthinkingly uttered.... It would be impossible to conceive agreater benefactor to his countrythan the one who would permanently reconcile the interests of masters and workmen, andput an end to the internecine wars of capital and labour.”[75]
Verily! Friend Bright, the cry against the landlord is a “cry against capital unthinkingly uttered.” Verily thou encouragest the “internecine wars of capital and labour.” Verily thou art the reverse of a benefactor to thy country.
The verdict of Political Economy condemns thee!!
FOOTNOTES:[73]Total national income£1,247,000,000Total rent for land58,000,000(Mulhall, p. 7.)Percentage of rent to total income, 4⅔ per cent.No.Acres.Average acres per landowner.Large Landowners346,211,000183,000Medium ditto8413,156,0003,760Small ditto179,64960,912,000330———————–———Total180,52470,279,000390(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 266.)The acreage of large and medium landowners is, therefore, less than one-seventh of the total.[74]Orcouldhave sold it, until the iniquitous Land Bill was passed. For my own part, I would not, under any consideration, risk money in the investment of land under British rule, which has proved itself capable of legalizing plunder and breach of contract.[75]Macleod’s Economics, pp. 138–39.
[73]Total national income£1,247,000,000Total rent for land58,000,000(Mulhall, p. 7.)Percentage of rent to total income, 4⅔ per cent.No.Acres.Average acres per landowner.Large Landowners346,211,000183,000Medium ditto8413,156,0003,760Small ditto179,64960,912,000330———————–———Total180,52470,279,000390(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 266.)The acreage of large and medium landowners is, therefore, less than one-seventh of the total.
[73]
Total national income£1,247,000,000Total rent for land58,000,000(Mulhall, p. 7.)Percentage of rent to total income, 4⅔ per cent.
No.Acres.Average acres per landowner.Large Landowners346,211,000183,000Medium ditto8413,156,0003,760Small ditto179,64960,912,000330———————–———Total180,52470,279,000390(Mulhall’s Statistics, p. 266.)
The acreage of large and medium landowners is, therefore, less than one-seventh of the total.
[74]Orcouldhave sold it, until the iniquitous Land Bill was passed. For my own part, I would not, under any consideration, risk money in the investment of land under British rule, which has proved itself capable of legalizing plunder and breach of contract.
[74]Orcouldhave sold it, until the iniquitous Land Bill was passed. For my own part, I would not, under any consideration, risk money in the investment of land under British rule, which has proved itself capable of legalizing plunder and breach of contract.
[75]Macleod’s Economics, pp. 138–39.
[75]Macleod’s Economics, pp. 138–39.
One conclusion at which the Commission of 1882 arrived was, that the agricultural labourers were “never in a better position.” When, however, we analyze the evidence on which that conclusion was based, the case wears a very different aspect. The evidence of landlords, agents, and factors,—of those who have to pay the wages out of their struggle to make both ends meet,—is to the effect that the labourer is well enough off; but the evidence of the labourer himself—the recipient—gives rather a different version of the case. It is true that wages are higher than they were formerly: this naturally must follow the increase of wages in manufacturing districts; but the evidence of the labourer shows that these wages are insufficient to keep a family, or provide for bodily wants, to say nothing of sickness or loss of work; perquisites are being gradually taken away, and no compensation given; families are suffering severely; physique degenerating for want of sufficient food; articles of diet, such as cheese, bacon, eggs are much more expensive than before; the supply of milk, and especially of skimmed milk, formerly so plentiful and obtainable at nominal prices, is now at prohibitory rates. Water, with a little bread, sweetened with sugar, forms the general substitute for wholesome milk in rearing children.
The recent census shows that although the population of England has increased 14½ per cent., there has been, in the purely agricultural districts, a decrease in the population,—a sure sign of want of prosperity. In all parts farms are badly cultivated, in a foul condition, or out of cultivation altogether; neither the landlord nor the tenant, have sufficientcapital to make improvements.[76]A clergyman writes from a rural parish:—
“I fear nothing will lessen the evil, the land of England will gradually go out of cultivation, and our villages will become impoverished and empty till the country is all urban, and the population effeminate and demoralized. Then may follow a great war, and disaster will ensue.”
“I fear nothing will lessen the evil, the land of England will gradually go out of cultivation, and our villages will become impoverished and empty till the country is all urban, and the population effeminate and demoralized. Then may follow a great war, and disaster will ensue.”
Emerson warned England of the fact that her—
“Robust rural Saxon population had degenerated, in the mills, to the Leicester stockinger, and to the imbecile Manchester spinner far on the way to be spiders and needles.”[77]
“Robust rural Saxon population had degenerated, in the mills, to the Leicester stockinger, and to the imbecile Manchester spinner far on the way to be spiders and needles.”[77]
Why did a handful of undisciplined Boers beat our soldiers in the Transvaal? Simply because they are physically a finer set of men than our 5 ft. 3 in. army, rapidly degenerating for want of a healthy agricultural population for recruiting purposes.
FOOTNOTES:[76]SeeFortnightly Review, November, 1883.[77]Emerson—Traits, Chap. X.
[76]SeeFortnightly Review, November, 1883.
[76]SeeFortnightly Review, November, 1883.
[77]Emerson—Traits, Chap. X.
[77]Emerson—Traits, Chap. X.
I repeat the assertion that Ireland has beenruined by Free Trade.
Let us take a brief retrospect of Ireland before the introduction of Free Trade.
At the earlier part of this century Ireland showed great capabilities for improvement and national prosperity, and (in spite of the somewhat selfish policy of England, which did not sufficiently protect from herself the industries of Ireland) she gave undoubted signs of a steady but rapidadvance in prosperity. Between the years 1825 and 1835, her exports and imports were more than doubled.
Her population between 1821 and 1841 increased from 6,802,000 to 8,196,000. That this population was not too great for the land, is proved by the fact that the whole resources of land were not utilized; moreover, her population was far smaller per square mile than the population of Holland or Belgium[78]—countries that enjoy a high state of prosperity. In the years of 1826 and 1835, the ratio of exports was as follows:—
1826.1835.Oxen1·0to1·7Pigs1·0”5·1Sheep1·0”2·0Butter1·0”1·7Wheat, oats, &c.1·0”1·9
The county cess rose between 1825 and 1838 in the ratio of 1·0 to 1·5.
The transfers of invested funds from England to Ireland between the years 1832 and 1841 exceeded those from Ireland, to England by £1,840,000.
Deposits in savings banks, in 1831 and 1841, were relatively in the proportion of 1·00 to 2·24. Crime and offences were diminishing.
The Weavers Commission in 1840 reported as follows:—
“The comparative prosperity enjoyed by that part of Ireland where tranquillity ordinarily prevails.—such as the Counties Down, Antrim, and Derry,—testify thecapabilities of Ireland to work out her own regeneration, when freed of the disturbing causes which have so long impeded her progress in civilization and improvement.“We find there a population hardy, healthy, andemployed; capital fast flowing into this district; new sources of employmentdaily developing themselves; and people well disposed alike to Government and to the institutions of the country, and not distrustful and jealous of their superiors.”
“The comparative prosperity enjoyed by that part of Ireland where tranquillity ordinarily prevails.—such as the Counties Down, Antrim, and Derry,—testify thecapabilities of Ireland to work out her own regeneration, when freed of the disturbing causes which have so long impeded her progress in civilization and improvement.
“We find there a population hardy, healthy, andemployed; capital fast flowing into this district; new sources of employmentdaily developing themselves; and people well disposed alike to Government and to the institutions of the country, and not distrustful and jealous of their superiors.”
In another place the Commission reports that the manufacturing industries of Ireland were doing well, and that—
“The woollen trade in Ireland is in a more sound and healthy condition than it has ever been, and its yearly advance may be confidently expected.”
“The woollen trade in Ireland is in a more sound and healthy condition than it has ever been, and its yearly advance may be confidently expected.”
There was an abundant supply of land for the increasing population—1,200,000 acres of land being capable of cultivation, besides upwards of 1,000,000 acres of bog land capable of reclamation at a cost of little more than £1 per acre.
With such capabilities for advancement, nothing short of the most extraordinary prosperity ought to have followed the general advance of wealth in the civilised world, caused by the improvements in arts, sciences, machinery, steam, and electricity. But what do we find after thirty-six years of the curse of Free Trade? Land out of cultivation; farms abandoned; manufacturing industries extinct; population decreasing by more than three millions[79]in forty years. Anarchy, murder, assassination rampant. No doubt the Famine of 1847 and the subsequent emigration caused a large decrease in the population of Ireland, but disciples of the Malthusian theory would have told you that this was an element of prosperity. I do not hold this view, but any protectionist country would have rapidly recovered the blow, whilst Free Trade Ireland has since steadily decreased inpopulation, and is sinking lower and lower into the Slough of Despond.
You argue that “rack-renting is the cause.” Nonsense! The average rent of land in Ireland is only one-third of that which is paid in prosperous protectionist countries;[80]any rent at all will soon be a rack-rent. There is plenty of land in Ireland to be had at nominal rents, land that has gone out of cultivation; but Free Trade has taken away the possibility of its cultivation at a profit, even if it were rent-free. You urge absenteeism as the cause; it is theeffect, not the cause. Moreover, only about one-sixth of the land is owned by absentees.
Ireland is like a child crying out in the pangs of starvation, and you give it opiates in the shape of mischievous enactments (such as the Encumbered Estates Act and the Land Act) which only augment the evil. To use the words of a writer of the day: “Your Statesmanship knows no policy but that of coercion to-day, concession to-morrow.” Ireland cries in the pangs of hunger, you alternately beat and coax it.
You propose wholesale emigration, which may be compared to bleeding the patient to death in order to cure it of starvation.
Fools!!Can’t you see it is dying of hunger? All it wants is food, work, and employment of its labour,—development of its resources.
Take away your iniquitous policy of Free Trade,—abolish your unjust enactments, your legalised instruments of confiscation and plunder,—abandon your insane encouragement of internecine war between capital and labour,—desist fromyour suicidal encouragement to agitation and class antagonism,—encourage capitalists,—protect industries,—employ labour,—and you will soon find Ireland prosperous, contented, and loyal.
The cry for Home Rule is a protest against your misrule.
If you persist in your insane policy, Ireland must inevitably be depopulated either by starvation or by wholesale emigration.[81]