I know a maiden fair to see. Take care!Trust her not, she is fooling thee. Beware!!
I know a maiden fair to see. Take care!Trust her not, she is fooling thee. Beware!!
I know a maiden fair to see. Take care!
Trust her not, she is fooling thee. Beware!!
Fair Trade! Reciprocity! Retaliation! Such are the cries that have been raised by those who have felt the evils of Free Trade, without fully realising the mischievous principle involved in it.
England,with its dependencies, if properly governed, mightbe independent of foreign nations for its trade, commerce, markets and productions.
“Retaliation” is an action at once undignified, inexpedient and unjust.
Are we to injure ourselves by the imposition of protective tariffs, which are mischievous when unnecessary, and to attempt to injure our neighbour, because he declines to imitate our folly in ruining ourselves for an economic “ignis fatuus?”
The only true and statesmanlike policy of a great nation like England is to pursue the even tenor of her way, governing the empire with its dependenciesas one vast country, the interests of any one portion of which should be considered inseparable from those of the whole;—protecting jealously every industry; seeking every possible means of employing the labour and developing the resources ofall;—fostering every industry when it needs fostering, and releasing the fostering care as soon as such care is seen to be unnecessary; protecting only to the extent that may be needed to prevent the decay of an existing industry, or to enable a new industry to spring up; the primary aim being to utilise the labour and produce ofthe whole, and to ensure a market for the produce in our own great United Empire.
With our enormous territory, two-half times as great as that of America,—with our enormous capabilities and varied productions, we ought, if governed rightly, to be able to secure this; and holding such an immense area of territory we should have no want of healthy competition withoutcallingin foreign nations to compete with us.
We have within our grasp an imperial policy which would enable us to outstrip America in a far greater degree than she is now outstripping us.
By animperialpolicy I do not mean that narrow insularpolicy which takes all it can from its dependencies, and gives nothing in return;—I do not mean that selfish policy which drove America to separate from us, and which is now disgusting our Colonies, and forcing them to federation—the first step towards separation.
I mean a generous enlightened policy, which considers the welfare andprosperity of eachand every dependency identical with its own.
We want the federation ofunion with England, not the federation ofseparation from her. But where are we to look for such a policy, surely not to the littleness described by M. Merimée, which “commits all possible faults to keep a few doubtful votes—the policy thatdisquiets itself about the present, and thinks nothing of the future,”—not to the politicians who put party before nation,—not to the petty caucuses of those economic charlatans who have impoverished the empire. We want an extension of franchise, but notmob franchisesuch as Chamberlain and his crew propose. We want extension of franchise to India and the Colonies. We want, in the House of Commons, representatives of the interests of England’s dependencies. We want practical, far-seeing, intelligent men—those who have seen the world in its different aspects, and know, by experience, its wants; not mere “globe-trotters” and travelling M.P.s, who return to their country more ignorant and puffed up with their partial knowledge than when they started; but representative men who have lived out of England long enough to have shaken off the idea that their “Little Pedlington,”—be it London or Liverpool, or Manchester or Birmingham,—is the pivot on which the world revolves. We want in fact an Imperial Parliament, not a wretched caucus of narrow-minded party politicians, whose view is limited to the horizon of the coming election, and whose whole business in life is to stump the country, making flatulent speeches, with exuberantverbosity, to gaping admirers, and pandering to the fleeting popularity of the mob.[104]
FOOTNOTE:[104]The old colonial system is gone. But in place of it no clear and reasoned system has been adopted. The wrong theory is given up, but what is the right theory?—There is only one alternative. If the colonies are not in the old phrase, possessions of England, then they must be a part of England; and we must adopt this view in earnest.We must cease altogether to say that England is an island off the north western coast of Europe, that it has an area of 120,000 square miles and a population of thirty odd millions.We must cease to think that emigrants when they go to the colonies, leave England or are lost to England. We must cease to think that the history of England is the history of the Parliament that sits at Westminster,and that the affairs that are not discussed there cannot belong to English history.When we have accustomed ourselves to contemplate the whole Empire together, and call it all England, we shall see that here too is a United States.Here too is a great, homogeneous people, one in blood, language, religion and laws, but disposed over a boundless space. We shall see that though it is held together by strong moral ties, it has little that can be called a constitution; no system that seems capable of resisting any severe shock. But if we are disposed to doubt whether any system can be devised capable of holding together communities so distant from each other, then is the time to recollect the history of the United States of America. For they have such a system. They have solved this problem. They have shown that in the present age of the world political unions may exist on a vaster scale than was possible in former times.No doubt our problem has difficulties of its own, immense difficulties. But thegreatest of these difficulties is one which we make ourselves.It is the false preconception which we bring to the question, that the problem is insoluble, that no such thing ever was done or ever will be done; it is our misinterpretation of the American Revolution. (Expansion of England, by J. R. Seely, M.A., p. 158.)
[104]The old colonial system is gone. But in place of it no clear and reasoned system has been adopted. The wrong theory is given up, but what is the right theory?—There is only one alternative. If the colonies are not in the old phrase, possessions of England, then they must be a part of England; and we must adopt this view in earnest.We must cease altogether to say that England is an island off the north western coast of Europe, that it has an area of 120,000 square miles and a population of thirty odd millions.We must cease to think that emigrants when they go to the colonies, leave England or are lost to England. We must cease to think that the history of England is the history of the Parliament that sits at Westminster,and that the affairs that are not discussed there cannot belong to English history.When we have accustomed ourselves to contemplate the whole Empire together, and call it all England, we shall see that here too is a United States.Here too is a great, homogeneous people, one in blood, language, religion and laws, but disposed over a boundless space. We shall see that though it is held together by strong moral ties, it has little that can be called a constitution; no system that seems capable of resisting any severe shock. But if we are disposed to doubt whether any system can be devised capable of holding together communities so distant from each other, then is the time to recollect the history of the United States of America. For they have such a system. They have solved this problem. They have shown that in the present age of the world political unions may exist on a vaster scale than was possible in former times.No doubt our problem has difficulties of its own, immense difficulties. But thegreatest of these difficulties is one which we make ourselves.It is the false preconception which we bring to the question, that the problem is insoluble, that no such thing ever was done or ever will be done; it is our misinterpretation of the American Revolution. (Expansion of England, by J. R. Seely, M.A., p. 158.)
[104]The old colonial system is gone. But in place of it no clear and reasoned system has been adopted. The wrong theory is given up, but what is the right theory?—There is only one alternative. If the colonies are not in the old phrase, possessions of England, then they must be a part of England; and we must adopt this view in earnest.
We must cease altogether to say that England is an island off the north western coast of Europe, that it has an area of 120,000 square miles and a population of thirty odd millions.
We must cease to think that emigrants when they go to the colonies, leave England or are lost to England. We must cease to think that the history of England is the history of the Parliament that sits at Westminster,and that the affairs that are not discussed there cannot belong to English history.
When we have accustomed ourselves to contemplate the whole Empire together, and call it all England, we shall see that here too is a United States.
Here too is a great, homogeneous people, one in blood, language, religion and laws, but disposed over a boundless space. We shall see that though it is held together by strong moral ties, it has little that can be called a constitution; no system that seems capable of resisting any severe shock. But if we are disposed to doubt whether any system can be devised capable of holding together communities so distant from each other, then is the time to recollect the history of the United States of America. For they have such a system. They have solved this problem. They have shown that in the present age of the world political unions may exist on a vaster scale than was possible in former times.
No doubt our problem has difficulties of its own, immense difficulties. But thegreatest of these difficulties is one which we make ourselves.
It is the false preconception which we bring to the question, that the problem is insoluble, that no such thing ever was done or ever will be done; it is our misinterpretation of the American Revolution. (Expansion of England, by J. R. Seely, M.A., p. 158.)
FREE TRADEvs.FAIR TRADE.
Mr. Blood’s Letter to Mr. Bright.
32, Charlotte Street, Birmingham.
Dear Sir,—The Birmingham newspapers have recently published a letter written to you by Mr. W. G. Lord, of Bradford, on the subject of Free Trade. The letter is somewhat brief, and it struck me that, though you might not feel called upon to enter into correspondence on such subjects with persons who are not your constituents, possibly you might feel more disposed to discuss the question with an Elector of Birmingham.
You say, to imagine that the bad trade from which Bradford is suffering is due to hostile tariffs, is absurd; and then, as though in your opinion it was an unanswerable objection to those who contend that hostile tariffs have a great deal to do with it, you add, “because you have had great prosperity with the same tariffs.” Now, I venture to submit that this is no argument at all,—that it is merely a statement based upon false conclusions. You are, or at least you ought to be, aware, that the circumstances under which the trade of this country is carried on have entirely changed during recent years. At the period when, as you say, we “enjoyed great prosperity with the same tariffs,” the foreign nations, which now exclude our manufactures from their markets, were not sufficiently advanced to do without our assistance. Whether they liked it or not, they were compelled to buy of us largely, and, therefore, comparatively speaking, their tariffs were harmless. Now they can notonly dispense with the bulk of our manufactured goods, but, in many branches of industry, can also compete with our manufacturers in our own markets. Hence, hostile tariffs, which were once of little moment, have become serious, and if you look at the question from this point of view, you will probably see that absurdity is not with those who cry out against the hardships of foreign tariffs, but with those who, like yourself, shut their eyes to the changes going on around them, and blindly adhere to an old system after it has become obsolete and absolutely mischievous. You cannot be unaware that, since the great Exhibition of 1851, the commercial relations of this country with other nations of the world have undergone an entire change for the worse. Then it did seem as though England was to become the “workshop of the world,” as the apostles of Free Trade predicted she would be. But at that Exhibition the manufacturers of Europe and America were invited to inspect our machinery, were shown all the intricacies of its mechanism, and made familiar with the secrets of our manufactures. Among our visitors at that period were experts, whose eyes were open wherever they went, and who have since made good use of the information obtained. With equal good nature—or shall I call it folly—we have sent our machinery abroad, and skilled workmen to work it, without any regard to consequences, and hence foreigners, who but for the open-hearted candid nature of John Bull, would still have been in the background, are now fully ahead of us in a great many branches of manufacturing and commercial enterprise. Unprejudiced persons cannot fail to see that arguments based on a state of things which existed thirty or forty years ago, have no force, now that state of things has passed away; and your contention that hostile tariffs have nothing to do with our commercial depression, because under the same tariffs we enjoyed prosperity years ago, falls to the ground. On the contrary, unless our prosperity is to still further decline, it becomes a matter of vital necessity that in those manufactures in which England can still keep the lead, she shall have thesame privileges as she ungrudgingly gives to others; or that we should be protected in our markets from those who refuse us admission to theirs.
You go on to say “to suppose your case will be improved by refusing to buy what you want from foreigners, to punish them for not buying freely from you, is an idea and scheme only worthy of the inmates of a lunatic asylum.” But, if you seriously believe this statement, you must believe also that the astute, far-seeing citizen of the United States,—the plodding, theorizing German,—the thrifty and ingenious Frenchman,—and the hard-headed, practical Russian,—the intelligent Italian,—and even the hard-working Swede and Norwegian, are all lunatics. Are you prepared, seriously, to assert this as your belief? The fact is, you adopt an ingenious way of misstating a principle. No one thinks of refusing to buy from the foreigner when it is to our interest to do so. In our commercial relations one with another, it is usual for every man to buy from one who will probably become a return purchaser, or to put it in plainer language, each man supports the person who will be most likely to support him in return. But in buying from the foreigner, we are buying from the man who will never buy from us if he can possibly help it, and leaving those who would be our customers in return to starve.
Again, you say, that “to return to Protection under the name of Reciprocity, is to confess to the Protectionists abroad that we have been wrong, and that they are right.” But the fact is, no such confession is necessary. The Protectionist abroad knowstoo wellthat he is right, without any confession on our part. The vast progress of the United States, the immense strides they have made in commerce, manufactures, and wealth—strides so vast that our own progress, even at its greatest, is insignificant—will convince every intelligent American that the principle of protection to native industry is, under many circumstances, wholesome and necessary. The same may be said of France, which has made even greater progress in some particularsthan ourselves; and of Russia, which, under protection, seems likely to come to the fore.
Again, you ask, “Who dares to propose anothersliding scale or fixed duty on the import of foreign corn?” Are you not aware that even amongst your own constituents there is a large party who have the courage to do this? You take it for granted that good seasons would enable agriculturists to carry on their avocation with profit. But many persons who have the best practical acquaintance with the subject think differently. If, in the result, they should prove to be right, are you prepared to see the bulk of the land of the country go out of cultivation rather than impose a duty on the import of foreign corn? With agriculture ruined, and its capital absolutely gone, what would become of our home trade? But the fact is, we don’t want any foreign corn at all. Our Colonists, who could be induced to trade with us on reciprocal terms, could supply us with all the corn we want, even though not one single quarter of foreign grain found a place in our markets. The result might be a very trivial rise in the price of bread-stuffs for a few years, but I venture to submit that the disadvantage of this rise would be more than counterbalanced by larger revenues from imports, which would result in reduced direct taxation, not only to the farmer, but to all classes, and by the increased occupationfor the artisanand labourer, which would result from the extension of our Colonial markets, and from keeping our home trade to ourselves.
As this is a question which, at the present time, is agitating the public mind, and every one is looking for some practical solution of existing difficulties, I shall be glad to have your opinion on the views expressed in this letter. Your previous communication has been widely circulated through the Press, and, therefore, I purpose in due course, to publish this letter also, together with any reply with which you may favour me.
Yours faithfully,FREDERICK BLOOD.
Mr. Bright’s Reply.
Duchy of Lancaster Office, London, W.C.
Sir,—Mr. Bright desires me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant.
In reply, Mr. Bright directs me to say that he has neither time nor inclination to enter into a correspondence with a gentleman who believes that we need no supplies of corn from foreign countries, and who would impose duties on its importation. He fears that no facts and no arguments can be placed before such a person with any advantage.
I am, sir, Your obedient servant,BARRINGTON SIMEON.
Frederick Blood, Esq.,32, Charlotte Street,Birmingham.
Mr. Blood’s Reply to Mr. Bright.
32, Charlotte Street, Birmingham.
Sir,—I am in receipt of your reply to my previous communication on the Subject of Free Imports. You decline to discuss the question, and in adopting this course, possibly you act wisely. There is so very little to be said from your point of view in favour of our existing system, that I can understand your reluctance to state your case fully. Whether dignified silence would not have been preferable to the uncourteous and dogmatic assertions in which you take refuge, is another matter. You seem surprised that any one should believe in the possibility of our doing without “Foreign” wheat, but is your surprise real or feigned? Do you wish to mislead the public by inducing it to attach a wrong meaning to the word “foreign?” You know the meaning I attach to it, and you know further that my statement was absolutely true, and that it has oftenbeen made in public by persons who have a greater claim to a hearing on this subject than yourself.
I stated, that our Colonies and Dependencies could supply us with all the wheat we require, and that we could do without any foreign supply. Do you doubt this statement? If so, the doubt is scarcely creditable to your intelligence, or to your industry in making yourself acquainted with the facts. You may fix yourself on the horns of which ever dilemma you please, but the public will hold you guilty of a want of information, which is unpardonable, or else of a desire to mislead. Happily, our Colonies are not foreign powers, however much the policy of the government of which you are a member has recently tended to drive them to become such. Hence my statement holds good. I can only imagine that you presumed upon the scanty information of many of your constituents as to the difference in the meaning of the two words “Foreign” and “Colonial,” and trusted to throw dust in their eyes by this means. If your opinions require to be supported in this dishonourable manner, I can only say that they are manifestly unsound, and the sooner they are renounced the better for your political reputation. The position you hold in Her Majesty’s Government, although a lucrative one, is generally regarded as a sinecure, and, therefore, I fail to see how you can plead want of time as an excuse for writing a discourteous and contemptuous letter to one of your constituents, who wrote you in perfect good faith. But I shall leave it to public opinion to judge as to whether such conduct is worthy of the prefix of “Right Honourable” which is now generally attached to your name.
It is scarcely necessary to add that no one proposes to tax the imports of Colonial wheat to the same extent as that of foreign growth, and for this reason; the Colonists are willing to adopt a differential duty,—that is, to trade with us on something like reciprocal terms. The foreigner will take no steps towards meeting us fairly; hence the difference between the two cases is apparent at once. Supposing a duty of 20 per cent. were imposed on Foreign, and 10 per cent. on Colonial, wheat, it iswell known that this would not increase the price of the four-pound loaf more than a half-penny. To an average working man’s family this would not enhance the cost of living more than fourpence a week, and as it can easily be shown that increased employment for labour would follow on the judicious adoption of import duties, the working classes would be large gainers, especially as the revenue derived from these duties would enable us to reduce our other taxation.
In a former letter to me you stated that the price of the loaf would be doubled if we had not Free Trade in corn. It would be interesting to know how you arrived at this conclusion. I fear your usual method of assertion, without any endeavour to arrive at the truth, was at the bottom of it. The statement was altogether without foundation, although, no doubt, many people who have no time to think out the matter for themselves were influenced by it. You are now legislating for the people of Ireland, but has it never struck you that the immense flood of importations from America, which has been poured upon Ireland, has been the cause of much of the suffering which that country has endured? It has rendered agriculture unprofitable both in Ireland and in England, and therefore labourers have been thrown out of work, while farmers, especially the smaller ones, have been steadily impoverished. The natural result of poverty is sedition. The agricultural classes having no money to spend, all classes have suffered. Just now there is a cry for fostering manufactures in Ireland, but how many manufactures can you foster in which foreign competitors cannot undersell you in the streets of Dublin? If matters go on, they may perhaps eventually end in an attempted revolution, and if not put down with the strong arm of force, there will be a separation. How long in that case would Ireland, under the rule of her own people, allow America to drain away her wealth and prosperity? The foreign competition, against which agriculturists have to contend, will shortly be intensified by increased importations of beef and mutton from Queensland and other parts of Australia, and the struggle in England will become keener,while Ireland will find it impossible to continue any of the small exports of cattle and food she now sends us, except at still more unprofitable prices.
This letter is somewhat lengthy, but the abrupt and discourteous nature of your communication has led me to write more fully than I should otherwise have done.
Yours faithfully,FREDERICK BLOOD.
P. S.—As this is solely a public matter, I shall send my letter to the Press, and shall be glad to take the same course with any reply you may favour me.
The three F’s: Fixity of Tenure, Fair Rent, Freedom of Sale.
Contemporary Review, February, 1881.
The grounds on which the principle of the three F’s were opposed in 1880:—
The Act of 1870 was to be final, and it is a breach of faith to reopen the land question.
1. The Land Act of 1870 was an encroachment on the rights of landlords, but was allowed to pass on the understanding that it would be final.2. To reopen the question withfurtherconfiscation is a gross breach of faith.3. More especially it is a breach of faith with those landowners who have, on the invitation of Government, purchased land in the “Encumbered Estates Court.” The indefeasible title granted to them by the Court (and for which they paid large sums) would be turned into a mere claim to a precarious rent charge.The three F’s are an infringement of the rights of the landlord. He must be compensated for the material, moral, and sentimental wrong which he will suffer.4. “Tenant right” is landlord wrong.5. Land is the absolute undoubted property of the landlord, and he has a right to do that which he wills with his own. Any curtailment of his power is an injustice, and affects the very principle of property.6. If the State interferes with his freedom of action, and causes him any material, moral, or sentimental injury, it must properly compensate him.7. To take away the enjoyment, control, and management of his land is a very tangible infringement of rights, and one for which compensation must be given.8. To fix a rent is to deprive the landlord of the advantages of competition, and affects him financially.9. It would reduce him to the position of a mere mortgagee, but without the security and certainty of payment.10. To deprive him of his power of eviction, is to take away a privilege, a necessity.11. The tenant’s claim to a “right” in the soil is not founded on any tangible or real historical basis.
1. The Land Act of 1870 was an encroachment on the rights of landlords, but was allowed to pass on the understanding that it would be final.
2. To reopen the question withfurtherconfiscation is a gross breach of faith.
3. More especially it is a breach of faith with those landowners who have, on the invitation of Government, purchased land in the “Encumbered Estates Court.” The indefeasible title granted to them by the Court (and for which they paid large sums) would be turned into a mere claim to a precarious rent charge.
The three F’s are an infringement of the rights of the landlord. He must be compensated for the material, moral, and sentimental wrong which he will suffer.
4. “Tenant right” is landlord wrong.
5. Land is the absolute undoubted property of the landlord, and he has a right to do that which he wills with his own. Any curtailment of his power is an injustice, and affects the very principle of property.
6. If the State interferes with his freedom of action, and causes him any material, moral, or sentimental injury, it must properly compensate him.
7. To take away the enjoyment, control, and management of his land is a very tangible infringement of rights, and one for which compensation must be given.
8. To fix a rent is to deprive the landlord of the advantages of competition, and affects him financially.
9. It would reduce him to the position of a mere mortgagee, but without the security and certainty of payment.
10. To deprive him of his power of eviction, is to take away a privilege, a necessity.
11. The tenant’s claim to a “right” in the soil is not founded on any tangible or real historical basis.
The abuse of eviction or raisings of rent is rare; the use is necessary and justifiable.
12. There is little or no abuse of the power of arbitrary eviction; and even when rent is not paid, the landlords, as a class, are lenient. It is occasionally necessary for the good of the estate to evict (compensation for “disturbance” being paid) in order to consolidate holdings.13. Eviction is seldom enforced, except in the case of bad and wasteful tenants; good and improving tenants are never evicted. Therefore, any diminution in the power of eviction would be disastrous to the prosperity of the country by retaining on the land worthless tenants.14. Most landlords do properly compensate their tenants for any improvements effected by them.15. They are justified in raising the rents when the land produces greater increase.16. Even if a few bad landlords injure their tenants, it is unfair to visit on the heads of the majority the sins of the few by bringing them all under the same confiscating law.17. The existing law provides ample safeguards against arbitrary and unjust eviction; the landlord’s power is sufficiently curtailed.
12. There is little or no abuse of the power of arbitrary eviction; and even when rent is not paid, the landlords, as a class, are lenient. It is occasionally necessary for the good of the estate to evict (compensation for “disturbance” being paid) in order to consolidate holdings.
13. Eviction is seldom enforced, except in the case of bad and wasteful tenants; good and improving tenants are never evicted. Therefore, any diminution in the power of eviction would be disastrous to the prosperity of the country by retaining on the land worthless tenants.
14. Most landlords do properly compensate their tenants for any improvements effected by them.
15. They are justified in raising the rents when the land produces greater increase.
16. Even if a few bad landlords injure their tenants, it is unfair to visit on the heads of the majority the sins of the few by bringing them all under the same confiscating law.
17. The existing law provides ample safeguards against arbitrary and unjust eviction; the landlord’s power is sufficiently curtailed.
The relations of landlord and tenant are those of contract; the State must not interfere in freedom of contract.
18. Any State interference in contract between man and man is very inexpedient and demoralizing, more especially in interference in the matter of price and value.19. The relations between landlord and tenant are merely those of contract.20. The movement of progressive societies is from status to contract, and not the reverse.21. It is illogical and unfair of the tenant to demand freedom of contract in the sale of tenant-right, and ask for curtailment of contract in his dealings with the landlord.
18. Any State interference in contract between man and man is very inexpedient and demoralizing, more especially in interference in the matter of price and value.
19. The relations between landlord and tenant are merely those of contract.
20. The movement of progressive societies is from status to contract, and not the reverse.
21. It is illogical and unfair of the tenant to demand freedom of contract in the sale of tenant-right, and ask for curtailment of contract in his dealings with the landlord.
The objections to a fixed rent; and the difficulties in the way of fixing a fair rent.
22. It would be impossible to fix a rent which would content both parties.23. As tenants vary in ability, character, and energy, it would be impossible to legislate so that the rent the tenant had to pay would be that which he is able to pay.24. A fixed rent, even if fair at first, would soon weigh heavily on one or other of the parties.25. All future enhancements of rent, based on whatever ground, would be strenuously resisted.26. While the landlord would be bound to accept the valuation, the tenant could refuse to pay it and quit his holding.27. If the Government, by valuation or arbitration, were to fix the rent, the landlord would consider that he had been guaranteed his rent by the State; while the tenant (in bad seasons) would look to the State to assist him to pay it.28. If fixity of tenure were conceded, the next demand would be for the abolition of the rent charge, more especially on the ground of increased absenteeism, which would itself have been encouraged by the change.29. At all events, in bad seasons, a demand would be made for abatement of rent, on the ground that otherwise the value of the tenant-right would be injuriously affected.30. The power conceded to the landlord of selling the “tenant-right” on breach of contract, would be rendered nugatory by the combination of tenants to prevent a purchase; and so the landlord would be deprived of all means of obtaining his rent, or of preventing subletting or subdivision.31. It is illogical and unjust that, in the matter of rent, the landlord should be deprived of the benefits of competition, while in the sale of tenant-right competition should be allowed.32. The landlords, bound by a hard-and-fast rule, would expect to receive their full fixed rents, and would not be willing or able, as they are now, to allow indulgences in time or remission in bad seasons.33. The pressure of violence would be brought to bear on the valuators to induce them to undervalue the rents.The right of free sale of “tenant-right” would amount to confiscation of part of the landlord’s property. It would benefit only existing tenants, and would cripple all future tenants.34. As the existing tenants would, on the day of the passing of the law, be able to sell their tenant-right for a largesum,having done nothingto earn it, the amount at which it can be valued, is so much subtracted from the rightful gains of the landlord.35. As tenants had not this scheme in view when they bargained for their farms, its adoption would be conceding them a valuable privilege entirely at the expense of the landlords.36. Only the existing tenants would benefit pecuniarily from the change; all future in-coming tenants would be burdened by the amount they would have to pay for the “tenant-right,” and the interest on this payment in addition to the “fair” rent, would constitute a sum exceeding any rack-rent.37. The unhealthy “earth-hunger,” which exists in Ireland, would force up the price of tenant-right far above the real value, and thus entrench on the security of the landlord for his rent, whilst reckless tenants would outbid the prudent.38. The payment for tenant-right would cripple the in-coming tenant just at the moment when he most required capital to cultivate the land—to the injury of production, while it would leave him no margin to fall back upon in bad times.39. The tenants who would benefit most would be those who have had indulgent landlords. When rents are low “tenant-right” would be more valuable than when they are high.40. The tenants can obtain security of tenure by demanding and accepting leases; many landlords are willing to grant long leases at fixed rents on fair terms.41. Therefore, at the most the law should force the landlords to grant “security leases,” and leave them to obtain (by means of a fine) any extra value which security will fetch.42. Any further privileges obtained by the tenant would only be used as additional facilities for borrowing money at ruinous rates.43. The Ulster tenants have obtained their tenant-right by purchase, or by aquid pro quo; the concession of free sale would gratuitously endow existing tenants with a valuable property, which they have neither earned, bought, nor inherited.44. Many landlords have bought up the tenant-right on their farms; it is manifestly unfair to reimpose it without compensation.The landlords have largely invested capital in the soil; the three F’s would prevent them in future from making improvements; and the tenants’ power to do so would also be diminished.45. The landlords, as a class, have invested capital very largely in the improvement of the soil; the improvements have been by no means entirely effected by the tenant.46. It would no longer be to the interest of the landlord to invest his capital in the soil; an effectual obstacle would have been placed in the way of his doing so.47. Therefore, those improvements,—drainage, straightening fields and boundaries, &c., which affect many holdings, and can only be done by the landlord, would no longer be executed.48. As he will have to pay for the “tenant-right,” the in-coming tenant will have less capital to invest in the soil than at present, while the sum he has paid will be taken out of the land for ever; thus, on both hands, the capital available for these purposes would be diminished, and production would suffer.
22. It would be impossible to fix a rent which would content both parties.
23. As tenants vary in ability, character, and energy, it would be impossible to legislate so that the rent the tenant had to pay would be that which he is able to pay.
24. A fixed rent, even if fair at first, would soon weigh heavily on one or other of the parties.
25. All future enhancements of rent, based on whatever ground, would be strenuously resisted.
26. While the landlord would be bound to accept the valuation, the tenant could refuse to pay it and quit his holding.
27. If the Government, by valuation or arbitration, were to fix the rent, the landlord would consider that he had been guaranteed his rent by the State; while the tenant (in bad seasons) would look to the State to assist him to pay it.
28. If fixity of tenure were conceded, the next demand would be for the abolition of the rent charge, more especially on the ground of increased absenteeism, which would itself have been encouraged by the change.
29. At all events, in bad seasons, a demand would be made for abatement of rent, on the ground that otherwise the value of the tenant-right would be injuriously affected.
30. The power conceded to the landlord of selling the “tenant-right” on breach of contract, would be rendered nugatory by the combination of tenants to prevent a purchase; and so the landlord would be deprived of all means of obtaining his rent, or of preventing subletting or subdivision.
31. It is illogical and unjust that, in the matter of rent, the landlord should be deprived of the benefits of competition, while in the sale of tenant-right competition should be allowed.
32. The landlords, bound by a hard-and-fast rule, would expect to receive their full fixed rents, and would not be willing or able, as they are now, to allow indulgences in time or remission in bad seasons.
33. The pressure of violence would be brought to bear on the valuators to induce them to undervalue the rents.
The right of free sale of “tenant-right” would amount to confiscation of part of the landlord’s property. It would benefit only existing tenants, and would cripple all future tenants.
34. As the existing tenants would, on the day of the passing of the law, be able to sell their tenant-right for a largesum,having done nothingto earn it, the amount at which it can be valued, is so much subtracted from the rightful gains of the landlord.
35. As tenants had not this scheme in view when they bargained for their farms, its adoption would be conceding them a valuable privilege entirely at the expense of the landlords.
36. Only the existing tenants would benefit pecuniarily from the change; all future in-coming tenants would be burdened by the amount they would have to pay for the “tenant-right,” and the interest on this payment in addition to the “fair” rent, would constitute a sum exceeding any rack-rent.
37. The unhealthy “earth-hunger,” which exists in Ireland, would force up the price of tenant-right far above the real value, and thus entrench on the security of the landlord for his rent, whilst reckless tenants would outbid the prudent.
38. The payment for tenant-right would cripple the in-coming tenant just at the moment when he most required capital to cultivate the land—to the injury of production, while it would leave him no margin to fall back upon in bad times.
39. The tenants who would benefit most would be those who have had indulgent landlords. When rents are low “tenant-right” would be more valuable than when they are high.
40. The tenants can obtain security of tenure by demanding and accepting leases; many landlords are willing to grant long leases at fixed rents on fair terms.
41. Therefore, at the most the law should force the landlords to grant “security leases,” and leave them to obtain (by means of a fine) any extra value which security will fetch.
42. Any further privileges obtained by the tenant would only be used as additional facilities for borrowing money at ruinous rates.
43. The Ulster tenants have obtained their tenant-right by purchase, or by aquid pro quo; the concession of free sale would gratuitously endow existing tenants with a valuable property, which they have neither earned, bought, nor inherited.
44. Many landlords have bought up the tenant-right on their farms; it is manifestly unfair to reimpose it without compensation.
The landlords have largely invested capital in the soil; the three F’s would prevent them in future from making improvements; and the tenants’ power to do so would also be diminished.
45. The landlords, as a class, have invested capital very largely in the improvement of the soil; the improvements have been by no means entirely effected by the tenant.
46. It would no longer be to the interest of the landlord to invest his capital in the soil; an effectual obstacle would have been placed in the way of his doing so.
47. Therefore, those improvements,—drainage, straightening fields and boundaries, &c., which affect many holdings, and can only be done by the landlord, would no longer be executed.
48. As he will have to pay for the “tenant-right,” the in-coming tenant will have less capital to invest in the soil than at present, while the sum he has paid will be taken out of the land for ever; thus, on both hands, the capital available for these purposes would be diminished, and production would suffer.
Further evils which would result from the adoption of the three F’s.
49. By making the landlord merely a rent-charger, and depriving him of all power or interest in his land, absenteeism and non-residence, with their attendant evils, would be enormously increased.50. The proposed scheme would perpetuate the present system of landlord and tenant, while the desirable aim should be to increase the number of proprietors.51. The tenant, possessing security of tenure, would be less desirous of purchasing land, while sale, except to the tenant, would be greatly hindered.52. It would perpetuate the absurd distribution of land at present existing in many parts of Ireland.53. While it would confirm not only good and bad tenants in their tenure of land and affect equally good and bad landlords,54. It would increase the antagonism between the landlord and the tenant;55. It would be practically impossible to prevent subdivision and subletting with their manifold attendant evils.56. The Irish people are so miserably lazy, thriftless, and short-sighted, that no reform of the land-law would benefit them.57.Nothing short of separation from England will satisfy the Irish; land-reforms are useless.58. Under small proprietors or semi-proprietors, the lot of labourers would be harder than ever.59. The various parts of Ireland differ so much in every way that it would be inexpedient and impossible to apply one scheme to the whole; if it answered in one part it would necessarily fail in others.60. If the principle of the three F’s were once conceded, it would form a precedent for land-legislation in England; and then for legislation directed against all forms of property.61. It is the first step towards democratic and socialistic legislation.62. The concession is the more dangerous, inasmuch as it is only conceded to clamour and lawlessness.
49. By making the landlord merely a rent-charger, and depriving him of all power or interest in his land, absenteeism and non-residence, with their attendant evils, would be enormously increased.
50. The proposed scheme would perpetuate the present system of landlord and tenant, while the desirable aim should be to increase the number of proprietors.
51. The tenant, possessing security of tenure, would be less desirous of purchasing land, while sale, except to the tenant, would be greatly hindered.
52. It would perpetuate the absurd distribution of land at present existing in many parts of Ireland.
53. While it would confirm not only good and bad tenants in their tenure of land and affect equally good and bad landlords,
54. It would increase the antagonism between the landlord and the tenant;
55. It would be practically impossible to prevent subdivision and subletting with their manifold attendant evils.
56. The Irish people are so miserably lazy, thriftless, and short-sighted, that no reform of the land-law would benefit them.
57.Nothing short of separation from England will satisfy the Irish; land-reforms are useless.
58. Under small proprietors or semi-proprietors, the lot of labourers would be harder than ever.
59. The various parts of Ireland differ so much in every way that it would be inexpedient and impossible to apply one scheme to the whole; if it answered in one part it would necessarily fail in others.
60. If the principle of the three F’s were once conceded, it would form a precedent for land-legislation in England; and then for legislation directed against all forms of property.
61. It is the first step towards democratic and socialistic legislation.
62. The concession is the more dangerous, inasmuch as it is only conceded to clamour and lawlessness.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTEObvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example, livestock, live stock; highroad, high road; Free Trader, Free-Trader; descanting; squib; cess; uncourteous.Pg 26,‘Liberal politicans’ replaced by ‘Liberal politicians’.Pg 41,‘nearly 3,000,000’ replaced by ‘nearly 300,000’.Pg 47,‘M. DeLavergne’ replaced by ‘M. De Lavergne’.Pg 58,‘without his cousent’ replaced by ‘without his consent’.Pg 74,‘cause the landord’ replaced by ‘cause the landlord’.Pg 84,‘thoughout Bengal’ replaced by ‘throughout Bengal’.Pg 87,‘posperity of each’ replaced by ‘prosperity of each’.Pg 92,‘for the artizan’ replaced by ‘for the artisan’.
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within the text and consultation of external sources.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings in the text, and inconsistent or archaic usage, have been retained. For example, livestock, live stock; highroad, high road; Free Trader, Free-Trader; descanting; squib; cess; uncourteous.
Pg 26,‘Liberal politicans’ replaced by ‘Liberal politicians’.Pg 41,‘nearly 3,000,000’ replaced by ‘nearly 300,000’.Pg 47,‘M. DeLavergne’ replaced by ‘M. De Lavergne’.Pg 58,‘without his cousent’ replaced by ‘without his consent’.Pg 74,‘cause the landord’ replaced by ‘cause the landlord’.Pg 84,‘thoughout Bengal’ replaced by ‘throughout Bengal’.Pg 87,‘posperity of each’ replaced by ‘prosperity of each’.Pg 92,‘for the artizan’ replaced by ‘for the artisan’.