MR. LLOYD GEORGE ' AND NABOTH'S VINEYARD.
ENDER the heading " The People's Budget " Mr. Lloyd George has published his Budget speeches in book form (Hodder and Stoughton, Is. net). For this work he has written a preface, the last paragraph of which is destined to prove of very great importance in the coming controversy. It is Mr. Lloyd George's own account— and no man can profess to know better in this matter than the Chancellor of the Exchequer—of the policy which inspires the land. - clauses of the Budget :— " Those provisions must have the effect eventually of destroying the selfish and stupid monopoly which now so egregiously mis- manages the land. Only the business community in this country, and those who have been associated with it all their lives, can fully appreciate the extent to which the present ownership of land hampers and embarrasses trade and industry. Ask any man with a growing business in town or village in this country, and he will tell you more than all the theorists and agitators in Europe about the mischief done by the unintelligent greed of some of the land- owning classes. It is not merely that extravagant prices are demanded and impossible conditions imposed; but what a business man minds even more is that an atmosphere of uncertainty is created by the powers of incessant interference and inquisition reserved for the landlord and his agents. The Budget strikes the first real blow at this mechanism of extortion and petty persecution. No class of the community will have greater reason to feel joy at the triumph of the Budget than the men engaged in putting their best quality of mind and morale into the building up of the commercial greatness of our nation."
Certain things are clear from this passage. It is the intention of the Budget to destroy " the selfish and stupid. monopoly which now so egregiously mismanages the land." The present system, we are told, "hampers and embarrasses trade and industry." Finally, we are informed that the Budget " strikes the first real blow at this mechanism of extortion and petty persecution." Surely this passage is a complete justification of those who hold, as we have always held, that the land clauses of the Budget strike directly at the principle of private property in land, and are the first step towards the policy of nationalisation. Mr.Lloyd George, it will be noted, does not talk about the necessity of being able to acquire land easily and cheaply when it is required by the public—a proposition to which all reasonable men will assent. What he does is to arraign the present owners of land. in this country as being guilty not only of a "selfish and stupid. monopoly," but of egregious bad management. The landowners of England—there is the enemy. There are the men who are throttling the trade and commerce of the country, and on whom the swift and just vengeance of the community must fall. We are glad. that the issue has been put so clearly and so plainly, for we can now discuss it unhampered by the genial sophistries with which Mr. Asquith, and those who have been termed" the serious members of the Cabinet," have dealt with this question. They have assured us, it may be remembered, that confiscation, vindictiveness, or anything in the nature of an attack on private property or in favour of land nationalisation is absolutely and entirely foreign to the ideas of the Government.
The first, point which we desire to make in regard to the attack on the institution of private property in land is that there is nothing new about it. That attack is one of the oldest things in the world. From time immemorial there has been a desire on the part of a section in most com- munities to seize the landed property of individuals on various pleas. Curiously enough also, from time immemorial a predatory policy of this sort has almost always been in- direct in its nature. Mankind at large instinctively realise the immense importance to human civilisation and human freedom of the institution of private property in land as well as in other things. Therefore a frontal attack has seldom been made upon the institution. When people have wanted. to take other people's land they have seldom said outright that there should be no private ownership of land. Instead they have denounced the existing holders as bad men, who might on that ground. very properly be deprived of their property. This, as the passage from Mr. Lloyd George's preface shows, is the policy which is going to be put forward on behalf of the Government and the Liberal Party at the coming elections. Curiously enough, it follota almost exactly the analogy of what happened in the famous case of Naboth's vineyard. As our readers know, we have often had occasion to point out in these columns .examples of the practical and political wisdom. of the Bible. A particularly good example is to be found in the aforesaid story. The parallel between the action of the Socialists who inspire the policy of the present Government and the incident recounted in the twenty-first chapter of the First Book of Kings is curiously close.
Ahab the King, who represented the sovereignty of the Israelitish nation and constituted its Government, desired to get possession of land owned by a landlord named Naboth. But Naboth wished to keep his own possessions. Ahab, after the custom universal in such transactions, began by talking about his entire willingness to deal justly and generously and to pay the full money-value of the land required. But Naboth replied : " The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee." Note here that there was no allega- tion, as some Socialistically minded commentators may have declared, that the ground was required for an urgent public purpose. Ahab wanted the field, and that was enough. He did not profess to give any other reason. Like the persons who now happen to be in power, he was full of anger and disgust at the refusal of Naboth to part with his land. " And he laid him down upon his bed, and turned away his face, and would eat no bread." Then came to Ahab the cunning and ingenious counseller who inspired his policy. Jezebel asked him why his spirit was sad, and when she beard the reason, she acted after the manner of so many counsellors of rulers, whether sovereign democracies or sovereign Monarchs. She at once invoked the implacable and irresistible powers of sovereignty, and used the words which are sounded so often in the ears of tyrant mobs and tyrant Princes. " Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel ? arise, and eat bread, and let thine heart be merry : I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite." What was her next action ? The analogy with the policy of Mr. Lloyd George is really so close as to be almost comic. This astute electioneerer was far too wise to seize the land at once by sending a body of soldiers to take possession. Instead— "She wrote letters in Ahab's name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, and that dwelt with Naboth. And she wrote in the letters, saying, Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people : and set two men, sons of Belial, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying, Thou didst curse God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he die. And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them. They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth on high among the people. And the two men, sons of Belial, came in and sat before him: and the men of Belial bare witness against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying, Naboth did curse God and the king. Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died. Then they sent to Jezebel, ' saying, Naboth is stoned, and is dead. And it came to pass, when Jezebel heard that Naboth was stoned, and was dead, that Jezebel said to Ahab, Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give thee for money : for Naboth is not alive, but dead. And it came to pass, when Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, that Ahab rose up to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it."
Note how close is the analogy. When our modern Naboths resist " the first step ' in the process of taking their land from them, a campaign is organised against them exactly like that organised by Jezebel. Two ingenious orators—Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill— are let loose, not to prove that private property in land is a bad thing, or to declare that when the sovereign power desires land it ought to be able to take it, but to denounce the existing holders of the land for being " Dukes," for having opposed the will of the people, and for having spoken against the democracy,—the modern equivalent of cursing God and the King. Just as the two sons of Belial denounced Naboth for an act of treason, so we are, in effect, told by Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Lloyd George that Dukes and landlords are bad citizens, and deserve no mercy at the hands of the State. Whether the analogy will hold good remains to be seen. It is obvious, • however, that it is the intention of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill not merely to denounce the Lords and landlords as guilty of treason to the democracy, but to induce the democracy to take them out and stone them with stones till they are dead,—that is, put an end to landlords altogether; For ourselves, we believe that the analogy will not hold good ; but even if it did, and if at the fast 'which is so soon to be proclaimed—i.e., the' General. Election—the landlords of England are set on high among: - _ the people and stoned to death, the triumph of our Jezebels and Ahabs, and of those who are their instruments, will not last long, even though we may be sure that the punishment Trill not be so drastic as that described in the Bible narrative :— " And the word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Arise, go down to meet Ahab king of Israel, which dwelleth in Samaria : behold, he is in the vineyard of Naboth, whither he is gone down to take possession of it. And thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, Hest thou killed, and also taken possession ? and thou shalt speak unto him, saying, Thus saith the Lord, In the place where dogs licked the blood of Nato% shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine. And Ahab said to Elijah, Hest thou found me, 0 mine enemy? And he answered, I have found thee : because thou hast sold thyself to do that which is evil in the sight of the Lord."
But though that was the final outcome in Israel of the policy corresponding to that now preached by Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Winston Churchill, we have little fear of its being repeated in Britain to-day. No doubt our demar gogues will continue to bring their accusations against those who own land in Britain, but they will, we believe, preach to deaf ears, for the people of this country are not only not predatory by nature, but they instinctively realise how much the things which they value—liberty, security, and an economic system which by stimulating production makes provision for human wants—are based upon the prin. ciple of private property, including private property in land.
Previous page
