" THE LAND AND THE UNIONISTS."
[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—In your issue of September 13th you stated that it was desirable in the interest of stability that the land of England should be held by more persons than at present. Owing to tht breaking up of so many great estates, in a large measure due to the present very heavy Death Duties, about 25 per cent. of the land is owned by owner-occupiers, and this percentage will be increased yearly no doubt from the same cause. But I cannot agree that your proposals for further creation of owner- occupiers is fair or just to the present owners. The price you suggest would, be only about seventeen years' purchase of the actual value and your annuity system is unfair to descend- ants of present owners. Why should a man or the son of a man who, only ten years ago, was a yearly tenant, have this gift made to him. Under the present law the tenant is fully protected for all tenants' comforts and cannot be turned out of his holding or have his rent raised against his wishes except the landlord pays him a year's rent and full com- pensation for tenant right. Any tenant can, if he thinks his rent too high, have it settled by arbitration unless his landlord refuses, and then he can give notice and claim for disturbance and get compensation not exceeding two years! rent. I cannot see why, if a greater distribution of land is desirable, the State should not advance the purchase-money, or at least three-fourths, to the present occupiers to enable them to buy their holdings at the market value from owners willing to sell. Your proposals would, no doubt, be more acceptable to the Labour Party than these, but I venture to think that mine are what the Liberal Party would approve of and would be accepted in the country.—I am, Sir, &c., A LIBERAL PEER.
[" A Liberal Peer " is quite mistaken if he thinks our or -indeed any, proposal for increasing the number of landowners, and especially, small--holders, could: ever be liked by the
Labour Party. They dread, to the point of horror, any proposal for enlarged ownership of land. And rightly, from their point of view. It has been the peasant, big and small, who in France •has turned aside and broken the Socialist spear. It is the peasant in Russia who will ultimately destroy the Communist tyranny. We want a lightning conductor to Marxism. We have it—if only we will use it—in small ownership.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
