MR. CHAMBERLAIN'S LAND POLICY.
TT' Mr. Chamberlain were still in the fighting rank, his letter to Mr. Jesse Collings on agricultural reform might be the beginning of a very important new political movement. In this letter he says :—" While I still think that Tariff Reform will be the salvation of the inhabitants of the towns, agricultural reform, leading to the creation of a peasant proprietorship in the rural districts, is necessary for the agricultural labourer, and. is indeed the only plan by which the problems affecting him chiefly can be properly dealt with." This is a very emphatic declara- tion, like most of Mr. Chamberlain's declarations of policy, and if literally interpreted might even involve the applica- tion to England and Scotland of recent Irish land. legisla- tion. That prospect alone is sufficient to give one pause, for Ireland has already absorbed, or shortly will absorb, some £200,000,000 of British capital, and on a similar basis probably .R2,000,000,000 would be required to create a peasant proprietary in England and Scotland. We do not say that this consideration is conclusive, but it is certainly serious, and it is well that Unionists, whether Tariff Reformers or Free-traders, before giving adherence to the new proposal for peasant proprietorship, should plainly ask themselves what it involves, and what the advantages and disadvantages are.
The advantages stand out on the surface for all men to see. In the first place—and this is a consideration in Mr. Jesse Collings's mind, if not in Mr. Chamberlain's—the creation of a peasant proprietorship would be to some extent a barrier against Socialism. Socialists themselves, and their Radical allies, have fully realised this fact, and. recent Liberal legislation with regard to the land has all been in the direction of encouraging tenancy rather than owner- ship. Indeed, the Liberal Small Holdings Act marks a considerable step in the direction of land nationalisation, for the County Councils are empowered to acquire land, not for the purpose of selling, but for the purpose of leasing to small holders ; and if this principle were extended, we might have a vast system of tenant culti- vators holding land from the State as represented by the County Councils. There is no reason whatever to believe that the County Councils, or that any Government Depart- ment, would on the average make better landlords than, or even as good landlords as, the existing private owners. Their terms would be harsher, their conditions more rigid ; and if this were the only means of establishing small holdings, it would be better to go on as we are. Even now there are an enormous number of small holdings in the country which have been created by private landlords, and it is probable that many landowners will create more such holdings, in their own self-interest or from a sense of public duty, wherever such holdings are economically possible.
The peculiar advantage of a small freehold as contrasted with a small tenancy is that it creates a sense of proprietor- ship. A man who owns land becomes a defender of the institution of private property, not because that institution is in reality more valuable to him than it is to his fellow- citizens, but because he can more clearly see its value. For this reason a country where a large portion of the population consists of peasant proprietors will never accept Socialistic theories. This is a sound argument, but from the point of view of practical politics its importance must not be exaggerated. Even if the whole of the agricultural land of England were divided into small freeholds, the number of peasant proprietors would still be insignificant in comparison with the number of urban voters, and therefore as a practical barrier against Socialism peasant proprietorship can never be of very great value in this country. It is better, therefore, to look at the problem, not from the point of view of politics, but from the point of view of the social and economic advantages and disadvantages involved. The social advantage of small freeholds is very great. They constitute a refuge from the possible tyranny of the large landowner. We do not think that many large landowners in England either strain their powers or neglect their duties ; but there are some who do so, either deliberately or through carelessness, and where a whole district is in the hands of one great landowner there is at any rate the risk that the population may be subjected to what is, in effect, a tyranny. Such a tyranny cannot be exercised where there are a considerable number of small freeholders in the district. Freehold, in a, word, is a very sure basis for freedom, and freedom must always be the goal of human ambition. From the economical point of view also there is much to be said in favour of small free- holds, for there are many men who will not do their best by the land unless it is their own.
For these reasons all those who have thought seriously upon the problem would be glad to see an increase in the number of small freeholds in England, and we strongly urge that private landowners should, wherever possible, take steps to create freeholds where a favourable oppor- tunity arises. There are still too many large landowners in the kingdom who are reluctant to sell any portion of the estates they have inherited.
It is a very different matter, however, to propose that the State should itself undertake on a gigantic scale the creation of small freeholds. Even if the advantages of small freeholds which we have already enumerated more than counterbalanced the disadvantages, it would still be most dangerous to entrust to the State the large powers which a scheme for the wholesale creation of new freeholds must involve. As a matter of fact, however, there are very serious economic disadvantages in small freeholds which must be taken into account. In the first place, the land costs more to the cultivator. Land commands to-day, and probably always will command, a price somewhat above its mere commercial value because of the amenities which are attached to it. That means in practice that a landowner will be content to accept, say, 3 per cent. on an investment in land where he might command 5 per cent. on an invest- ment in a commercial undertaking Consequently a small farmer who wishes to become a freeholder must begin by paying a price for the land above its purely economic value. He will probably have to go to his banker to raise the money, and his banker will require at least 4 per cent. interest, whereas the landowner would have been content with 3 per cent. That is not all. The bargain between a tenant and a landlord is of a more or less loose character, with the result that when the tenant is in difficulties he can generally obtain from the landlord. a temporary remission of rent. He can also constantly apply to his landlord for assistance in making repairs and improve- ments, whereas he would in vain turn to his banker for similar assistance except at a high rate of interest. These are the disadvantages applying to a freehold qua freehold, but there are also other disadvantages which apply to small holdings, whether freeholds or tenancies. So far as can be ascertained, it is only under somewhat exceptional conditions that small tenancies are a real economic success, in this country at any rate. The land must be good, the market must be near, and the farmer himself must be a man of exceptional energy and industry. Such conditions are not easy to find, and. that is why the large farm equipped with modern machinery, worked by well-supervised labour, is a more economical instrument of production than the majority of small farms. We may indeed fairly sacrifice some economic advantages for the social advantages which small farms, and especially small freeholds, bring with them, but we must be careful that the price paid is not too heavy. It must be fairly heavy in any case, but it would be unbearable if the whole of the kingdom were converted into small freeholds by the action of the State and with the credit of the taxpayer.
Previous page
