PRICE THRE EPE N CE .

THE RE FORM

OF THE

1lg ish Land System .

mm

1

1

BY THE

HON . G EORG E C . B ROD RICK ,

Wa rd en of

A % THOR OF%EN G L ISH L A N D A N D EN G L ISH L A N D L ORD S .

EL L, PETT ER , G A L PIN C o .

L ON D ON , PA RIS ( i : N E W YORK .

THE REFORM

OF THE

ENGLISH LAND SYSTEM.

BY THE

HON . G EORG E C . BROD RICK ,

Wa rd en ofMerton

A % THOR OF% ENG LISH LAND A N D EN G LISH LANDLORDS . ’

CA S S E L L , PETT ER , G A L PIN Co .

L ON D ON, PA RIS

‘

N E W YORK .

P R E F A C E

THE following Es sa y is, in the main , a popular abridgment

of those chapters in my own treatise,entitled % English

Land and English Landlords,which deal with the reforms

to be effected in the English system of Land Tenure and

Land Tenancy. One of these reforms has been partially

carried out by Lord Cairns’ Settled Estates Act,but

reasons are here given for regarding that Act,however

beneficial,as no more than a tentative ad j ustment of a

question which must need s be ultimately settled on broader

principles . In the discussion of Tenant Right,l iberal

quotati ons have been made from an article contributed by

me to Fra ser’s Maga z i n e of February, 1 882 .

G EORG E C . BROD RICK .

THE REFORMOF THE ENGLISH

L AND SYSTEM.

‘

IN discussin g the Reform of the English Land System, wehave to consider how far it may be expedient to modifythat System

,either in the special interest of agriculture, or

in the general interest of social and political well-being.

But we cannot hope to form a just conception of theEnglish Land System as it ought to be

,without having a

practical knowledge of the English La nd System as it i sthat is

,of those distinctive and typical features which

characterise it among the Land Systems of the world . Sucha study is especially interesting at the present moment

,

when the Irish Land S ystem has j ust been subj ected toradical changes

,and when the English Land System itself

has been placed on its trial,not only by the progres s of

democratic ideas,but also by the inevitable effect of

agricultural depress ion , the severest and the most prolongedwhich has occurred within living memory.

The Land System of England has a common origin withthat of Ireland and of other European countries. Modernresearches have shown that in most parts of Europe

,if not of

Asia, the earliest form of agrarian constitution was a tribalsettlement or village community, representing a clan or groupof kindred families . I t is needless here to dwell upon thepeculiar and minute rule s which governed the division andcultivation of land in this simple model of primitive society.

What is important to note is that it left no room for thatthree-fold division of burdens and profi ts between landlords ,tenant-farmers

,and farm labourers

,which is the special mark

4 THE REFORM OF

of the English rural economy. Every freeman was , in theory,his own landlord

,his own farmer

,and his own labourer and ,

except serfs or slaves,there were very few persons who did

not form members of the landed democracy,as it might be

properly called. But the landowners of that day were not

peasant proprietors ; for though each was entitled to a lotof his own

,he could not be sure of holding the same piece

of ground two years together ; and there were few,if any

,

separate enclosures for cattle . By slow degrees,however,

the principle of individual ownersh ip asserted itself. Thechief or strongest member of a clan would obtain largerallotments than others

,and would at last get them severed

from the common fields at the same time,he would claim

the l ion’s share of th e waste, and at last come to treat i t ashis own property

,only subj ect to rights of pasturage and

turf-cutting. Meanwhile,other causes were at work to

undermine the landed democracy, and transform it into alanded aristocracy

,under which the village community

became the manor, the greater freeholders became tenants ,and the lesser freeholders sunk into the class of villeins ormere labourers . We must not stop to investigate the stepsby which this remarkable transition was effected. Suffice itto say that it seems to have been almost completely effectedin most parts of England before the N orm a nfion que s t .

D uring the Middle Ages , the Land System of Englandwas profoundly modified by the introduction of feudaltenures . Not that feudal tenures

,with all their well-known

incidents,were substituted all at once for the old national

customs by a single act of the sovereign power. More th ana century elapsed before feudalism was fully establ ished, andeven then it was subj ect to important exceptions in K entand elsewhere. Still

,the feudal system is the real basis of

th e English Land Laws, as they exist at this m oment. Thatsystem

,it is true

,ceased to govern the whole structure of

society after the Reformation , but it continued to regu latethe land tenures of most European countries until after theFrench Revolution . In England it was otherwise % Feudaltenures

,in the strict legal sense, were abolished here in the

reign of Charles I I . , but, perhaps for that very reason, the

THE ENG LISH L A N D SYSTEM. 5

pri nciples and rules of feud al law escaped revision here,

when they were swept away elsewhere,and have left an

indelible stamp on the d i s tinctive features of the EnglishLand System .

I . These features are five in number The law andcustom ofPrimogeniture, governing the descent and ownership of land . (2 ) The peculiar nature of family settlements,which convert the nominal owner of land into a ten ant forlife

,with very limited power over the es tate . (3 ) The con

sequent distribution of landed property among a comparat ive ly small and constantly decreasing number of families .

(4) The direction of cultivation by a class of tenant-farmers ,usually holding from year to year without the security of alease ; and (5 ) The dependent condition of the agriculturallabourers

,who are mostly hired by the day or the week

,and

have seldom any interest in the soil . I t i s the combinationof these features which makes the rural economy ofEnglandso entirely unique

,unlike that of any other European

country,and still more unlike that of the United States or

our own colonies . They are often represented as the spont a n e ous growth of our national character and history,coupled with the peculiarit ies of our soil and climate . Buthistory itself shows that such is not the fact—that

,in reality

,

they are mainly the result of artificial causes,and that

it is quite within the province and the power of law toremodel -ofcourse gradually—the present Land System ofEngland.

1 . Let us first glance at the instituti on of Primogeniture .

The right of the eldest son to inherit all the land in case ofintestacy was not recognised by Roman Law

,or by any of

the primitive codes known to us,such as those of the ancient

H indoos,the ancient Germans

,the Irish, or the Anglo

Saxons . The Saxon rule of descent,as is well known , was

that of Gavelkind or equal divis ion,and it was only super

s e d e d by the Norman rule of Primogeniture about the yearI z o o . Moreover

,i t was only for military reasons that William

the Conqueror’s successors adopted the strict and absolutelaw of Primogeniture

,which has now been firmly established

in England for nearly seven centuries. A careful study of

6 THE REFORM OF

the subj ect leads to the conclusion that i t i s this law ofPrimogeniture which has produced a n d kept al ive thecustom

,and that it i s n o t the custom which has perpetuated

the law. Before the law was introduced in England , there isn o reason to believe that any general custom of Primogeniture existed in English families. After the law wasswept away in America, an equal partition of land becamethe almost universal custom

,although American testators

enj oy almost the same liberty of making wills that is allowedin England. Moreover, in the case of personal property,where the law is different in England

,the custom is also

different,and hardly anyone thinks of accumulating all his

personalty on one son. Nor must we suppose that becausethe law seldom operates directly

,it has not a very wide and

powerful operation indirectly. When a man makes a will orsettlement

,he knows very well

,or ( if he does not) his solicitor

tells him,that all his land would naturally go by law to his

eldest son,and this knowled ge, transmitted from one genera

tion to another for seven hundred years,creates a sentiment

or prej udice in favour of Primogeniture which nothing buta reversal of the law will effectually counteract . N o doubt

,

there is much to be said for,as well as against

,Prim og e n i

ture but for our present purpose the important fact isthat Primogeniture

,founded on law

,and consecrated by

custom,i s the chief corner-stone of the English Land

System.

2 . But the custom of Primogeniture. is far more stringentthan the law. When lan d descends to an eldest son

,on

intestacy, i t belongs to him absolutely, a n d he is free to dealwith it as he pleases. On the other hand

,when it comes to

him under a will or settlement,it usually comes to him for

life only ; and until Lord Cairn s’ Settled Estates Act was

passed last year, i t must afterwa rd s have gone to his eldestson, whether he pleased or not. This was the consequenceof certa in lega l refinements d evised in the seventeenth century,whereby it became possible for a grandfather to ordainbeforehand that his eldest grandson

,as yet un bbm

,and who

might turn out the most worthless or the most exemplary ofmankind, should inheri t a particular estate, making his son

THE ENG LISH L A N D SYSTEM'

. 7

only a l ife tenant or % l imited owner. Under the olderentails of the Middle Ages this was impossible, and thoughsimilar powers of tying up land were acquired by the landedaristocracy in the fourteenth a n d fifteenth centuries , meanswere found to defeat them ; so that, in the sixteenth andfirst half of the seventeenth ce n turi e s ,

'

th e ownership of landwas far more free than it was until last year. For the greatmass of English land is under settlements of the stricterkind

,and land tied up by settlements of this kind is land

which has not,and perhaps never may have

,a real owner.

The econ omical evils of such a system are so obvious that noone would venture to defend it

,but that i t i s supposed to

keep old family properties from being broken up . Butthen the question arises whether this is altogether anadvantage . The character of the English gentry andaristocracy was formed before limited ownership wasknown

,and when estates descended from father to son

either in fee s imple or under the old rule of entail,which

allowed of their being instantly converted into fee simpleestates. In those days

,fami ly properties were placed under

the guardianship, not of conveyancers , but of the familiesthemselves

,and the nation was content that if they came

into the possess ion of degenerate heirs , they should be soldand purchased by worthier competitors . Even in thesedays

,such cases have occurred

,where a family property h a s

been ruined by one or two spendthrift limited owners insuccession . Experience amply shows that

,in such cases

,i t

generally changes hands for the better,notwith standing the

loss of ancestral connection. The n ew purchaser may becomparatively ignorant of country life

,but he is not e n

cumbered by rent-charges of indefinite duration,by mort

gages contracted to pay offhis father’s debts,by d ynastic

traditions of es tate-management, by the silly family pridewhich must needs emulate the state of some richer predecessor, by the passion for political dictation to which therefusal of leases is so frequently due

,or by the supposed

necessity of Satis fying the supposed expectations of theneighbourhood. He can provide for h is wid ow and youngerchild ren by selling offportions of th e property, if he pleases,

8 THE REFORM OF

instead of charging the esta te, and in the m eantime he candevelope the resources of the property, without feeling thathe is either compromising or unj us

’

tly enriching an eldestson . These advantages make themselves felt, even whenthe n ew purchaser is surrounded with great settled estatesand

'

influenced by the example of their possessors . Butthey might be expected to make themselves far more consp icuous ly felt, if a ll landowners enj oyed the same freedomof disposition .

Accordingly many attempts were made by Parliament toreconcile limited ownership with the interests of the publ ic.At last

,Earl Cairns—a Conservative in politics, but a true

law-reformer—has succeeded in carry i ng’

a measure whichis at least thorough-going from his own point of view. I tgives the life-tenant, or limited owner, most ample power ofimproving or selling the family estates

,except the m ansion

house and park,so long as the purchase-money is invested

for the benefit of the very same persons wh o , under thesettlements

,would have been entitled to inheri t the land.

Henceforth , therefore, settled estates will be almost as saleable as unsettled estates

,i n poi n t of law

,and it will no

longer be necessary,in most cases

,to obtain the consent of

other parties interested,or the Court of Chancery . How

fa r this measure will encourage Free Trade in Land,and

what influence it may have on the institution of Prim ogen i

ture,are entirely different questions

,which remain to be con

s i d ere d hereafter.

3 . The inevitable tendency of a Land System thus foundedon Primogeniture

,and hitherto effectually guarded by family

settlements,i s to prevent the dispersion of land

,and to

promote its concentration in a few hands . Settled estatesseldom come into the market

,but there i s nothing to prevent

a rich l ife-tenant from increasing the siz e of his property,

and this is constantly happening. A very large number offarmhouses in England are really ancient manor-houses

,

formerly the residences of squires and yeomen,whose little

freeholds have been gradually absorbed into the princelyterritories of the landed aristocracy

,and whose descendants

are settled in the neighbouring towns. Of course,we must

THE EN G LISH L A N D S YS TEAI. 9

not forget the opposite movement or counter-em igrauo n or

retired tradespeople into the country . But they seldomtake root there ; they d o not look upon their villas ashomes ; they count for nothing in a county, and theirchildren are usually reabsorbed into the town population .

Upo n the who le,i t may be stated with certainty that

the number of agricultural landowners i n England wasnever so small

,as the population was never so large

,as i t

now is . I t would appear from D omesday Bo ok that inthe reign of William the Conqueror the soil of Englandwas divided among about landowners

,including

more than villeins,as well as above free

holders . There is no direct mode of estimating the n um

ber of landowners between that age and our own,but

there is a vast body of indirect evidence pointing to theconclusion that 1 11 the reign of Eli z abeth

,for instance

,petty

squires,yeomen, and small freeholders occupied a much

larger space in the rural community than they do at present.Even since the compilation of the New D omesday Bookin 1 8 76, there is great difficulty in ascertaining the exactactual number of English landowners but, after making dueallowance for double entries and other sources of error

,we

may obtain an approximate result . I t seems clear that,

excluding the holders of less than one acre, there are nowabout landowners 1 11 England and Wales , whileabout persons own together nearly half the enclosedland in England and Wales . Considering that England andWales now contain a population of more thanand did not contain above in the reign ofWilliam the Conqueror

,the proportion of landowners to

popula tio n is n ow less than one-tenth of what i t then was ,and

,what is s till more striking

,nearly half of al l the land

belongs to a mere fraction—about 1 ; per cent.—0fall theex i sting landowners

,even excluding those below o n e acre .

I t would be superfluous to point out the political dangerinvolved in this distribut ion of landed property; whichcontrasts m o st strongly with that which exists in foreigncountries . For instance

,in France

,befo re the loss ofAlsace

and Lorraine,there were

,according to M . Lavergne , a bout

IO THE REFORM OF

proprietors owning about 7% acres each , on theaverage ; about proprietors owning 7 5 acres each ,on the average ; and about proprietors owning 7 50acres each , on the average. In Wurt em berg there aresome peasant owners with less than five acres each

,

a n d about proprietors of estates above five acres .No doub t, th is extreme subdivision is, to a great extent, theresult of the Code N a poleon , under which, at the death ofa proprietor

,all his land is divided equally among his chil

dren,except one child’s portion

,which is left at his own

disposal . On the other hand, the extreme aggregation ofland in England is no less the result, and the foreseen re

sult,of Primogeniture and Settlement. I t is not merely

that,under the law p fPrimogeniture, a great estate which

may have been formed out of many small estates goes toone child

,instead of being subdivided among several ; nor

is it only that settlements, in effect, prevent family estatesfrom bein g diminished

,while they do not prevent them from

being increased . I t is also that Primogeniture and familysettlements have created a landed aristocracy under thecold shadow of which a true yeomanry

,l ike the o ld English ,

cannot flourish . I t is too much to say that the old yeomenhave been crux/zed out by powerful neighbours . Many havesold their patrimonies because they were in debt

,or because

they found that by getting a fancy-price from some greatnobleman or mill ionaire they could improve their incomesand the expectations of their fam i lies. But it is still moredelusive to regard the disappearance of the old Englishyeomanry as the resul t of natural causes beyond the controlof law. When it i s said that land in this country has nowbecome the luxury of the rich, and that a poor man wouldbe very foolish to retain a few hundred acres when hecould m ake a profit by selling them

,it i s forgotten that in

Northern France,Belgium

,Holland, and elsewhere, land

fetches a higher price than in England,but that small pro

pri e tors do n ot die out ; on the contrary, they are thehighest b idders in the land market. We m ust thereforelook beyond the fancy price of land for an explanation ofthe fact that in England the body of land owners i s getting

THE ENG LISH L A N D SYSTEM. I I

smaller and smaller. The explanation is not far to seek .

The vas t preponderance of great landowners has left theyeoman class no place in county government or countysociety. As one yeoman vanishes after another, those whosurvive

,feeling themselves more and more isolated , and

missing the neighbourly fellowship of past generations,have

been drawn insensibly into country towns , until at last therural population of English counties may be said to consistof three elements

,and three only—landlord s

,t e n an t ~fa rm ers ,

and labourers .

4. This leads us to consider the fourth distinctive featureof th e English Land System—the direction of cultivationby a clas s of tenant-farmers usually holding from year toyear, without the security of a lease or statuta ble tenantright. For the great bulk of the land in these islands ,as is well known

,is cultivated

,not by the owners

,but by

this intermediate class,numbering between and

farmers in Great Britain,who hold on the average

56 acres e ach . I t i s not thus in other countries , especiallyin the most civilised . There

,o n the contrary, the great

bulk of the land is cultivated by the owners themselves ,most of whom may be clas sed with our agricultural labourersrather than with our tenant-farmers

,but form a real peas antry

of a class well-nigh extinct in England . For it was notalways thus in England itself. L ord Macaulay believesthe small freeholders , whom he estimated at to

have greatly out-numbered the tenant-farmers in the reignof Charles I I . , and there i s good reason to believe thatEnglish farms were commonly held under lease until theperiod of the French war at the e n d of last century. Thehistory of yearly tenancy is difficult to trace

,but it is certai n

that it was very much encouraged by the long continuanceof ‘fwar made land lords very unwi ll ing t o

part with the immediate control of their properties, andby their desire to maintain political influence over theirtenants . The late agricultural depression has operated inthe same direction

,inclining landlords to keep farms at their

disposal unt il rents improve,and inclining tenants to rely on

the forbearance of land lord s under yearly tenancy, rather

1 2 THE REFORM OF

than % hang a lease round their necks,as they say. On the

other hand,the want of security incident to a mere yearly

tenancy,and especially the want of security for a farmer’s

improvements,has been very much felt and discussed of

late . Unhappily,i t has not led to a revival of leases, but to

attempts t o bo lster up the unstable system of yearly tenancy.

One of these attemp ts was embodied in the AgriculturalHoldings Act of 1 8 7 5 . Such measures may be describedas tending to establish a national System of tenant-right , andthis would certainly be a great advance on mere yearlytenancy

,but i t would be a very poor substitute for leases,

and no substitute at all for ownersh ip .

5 .

-We n ow come to the fifth distinctive feature of theEnglish Land System—the dependent condition of theagricultural labourer. D uring the Middle Ages , Englishlabourers

,whether freemen or serfs, had always been essen

t ia lly peasants—that is , occupiers of land which they cult iva t e d in spare hours for their own

d

be n efit , and from whichthey could n o t be disp laced so long as they rendered cus

'

t om ary services or paid their rent . With the growth of thecommercial spirit

,the suppression of monasteries

,the

general rise of prices,and the progress of enclosure

,a new

era set in,and the Poor Law of Eli z abeth finally trans

formed the old English peasant into the modern Englishagricultural labourer

,who lives on weekly wages

,never owns

land , and seldom holds any beyond a small garden or allotment

,looking upon the workhouse as his natural refuge in

old age . Probab ly he is better housed and clothed than hismediaeval ancestor

,though it is doub tful whether he is

better fed, i f we take into account the exorbitant price ofmeat in these days . But he is certainly less independent

,

a n d, notwithstanding the spread of e d ucation , he must still

be ranked below a great part of the Co n tinenta l peasantrynot to speak of American farmers—in the scale of civilisation .

We have now passed in review,however briefly

,the

distinctive and typical features of the English Land System,

as it is . In considering what i t ought to be,let us firmly

grasp the principle, that n o reforms of it are likely to bepermanent or beneficial which are not in harmony with

THE ENG LISH L A N D TEM. 1 3

the organic and apparently indestructible elements of ournational character. The new Rural Economy of Englandmust

,above all , be essentially and thoroughly English . I t

cannot be modelled on that of France,or Germany, or

Russia,or Switz erland

,or I taly

,or Belgium , or the United

S tates . On the other hand,we must beware— once more

of imagining that all the distinctive features of the EnglishLand System must need be the spontaneous growth of thenational character and history. We know

,o n the contrary

,

that in Saxon times the agrarian constitution of Englandwas essentially democratic that in Norman times ecclesiastics rather than barons were the pioneers of agricultural improvement, and the models of t erritorial benevolence ; th atin the England of Eliz abeth

,and for two centuries after the

Reformation,the lesser gentry and yeomanry were the

bone and sinew of the landed interest that the dependentcondition of English labourers dates from the Poor Law,and that of English farm ers from a far more recent periodthat

,in fact, the English Land System is not an indigenous

product of the soil , but an art ificial creation of feudallawyers, matured by their successors in the evil days after theRestoration , largely modified by such temporary causes asthe high prices current during the Great War

,and afterwards

strengthened by a constant flow of population towards greattowns, partly consequent on the operation of the LandSystem itself.I I .— 1 . The first reform to be effected is one upon which

there has so long ceased .to be any rational controversy thatit ought to have been adopted long ago. The law of succession to land on intestacy should at once be placed on thesame footing as the law of succession to other kinds ofproperty ; so that, if a man should die without a will, hislanded estates would ultimately be divided equally amongall his children

,as they would have been in Saxon times .

Many people believe,o r profess to believe

,that such a

change in the law would make little difference in practice,

s ince landowners would then take good care not to diewithout a will, and would always make one in favour of theeldest son . There is no ground for this opinion ; on the

I4 THE REFORM OF

contrary, the presumption is that, for reasons already stated ,an abolition of the law of Primogeniture would go fardirectly, and still farther 1n d 1re ctly , to undermine the customof Primogeniture . We all know how great is the influenceof solicitors over all our legal acts

,and it is tolerably certain

that in the long run the influence of solicitors will be in conformity with the course of succession which the law maysanction . As it is

,a m an informs his solicitor that he knows

little of legal phrases,but that he wishes to leave his

property in the usual and right manner ; upon which thesolicitor draws a will

,giving all the land to his eld est son, in

accordance with the law of Primogeniture,but dividing the

personalty, if any, among his widow and children, nearly inaccordance with the Statute of D istributions . So close is thecorrespondence of the custom with the law that

,whereas in

default of sons the law vests the land ln all the d aughters, andnot in the eldest daughter only

,the same rule i s adopted ,

with very slight vari ations,in most wills and settlements of

realty. Were the law altered,however

,and especially were

it altered after a thorough d iscussion of the whole question ,the uniformity of these usages would be effectually broken.

Instead of telling his client that by the common law his eldestson is the one sole heir of all

'

his land, the solicitor wouldremind him that

,in default of a will

,the law would divide it

among his widow and children . The consequence wouldassuredly be that many testators would direct their estates tobe sold and the proceed s to be distributed in the same wayas their s tocks or shares or other personalty. Here andthere an old property would be allowed to devolve to severalchildren under the new law of intestacy

,a n d yet would be

kept 1n the family by means ofsuch fraternal arrangements asare made every day on the Continent. The change ofsentiment would operate gradually

,and perhaps it is well

that it should operate gradually ; but each example of equaldivis ion would help to dispel the prejudice which alone disguises the injustice and impolicy of Primogeniture.

2 . The question of restricting the power of settlement i sfar more difficult and complicated. Every one knows thatin the upper and middle classes it is the common practice to

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

1 6 THE REFORM OF

personalty, must stand or fall by the peculiar nature , claims ,and obligations

,of Real Property. Not a Session elapses in

wh ich Parliament does not affirm the principle that land isa thing s uz

’

g en erz’

r,over which the State may and ought to

assume a control far more stringent than i t would be

p ol1 t ic to assume , but not than it might rightfully assume,over other kinds of property. Whe ther it be for the construction of railways

,canals

,and waterworks, for the require

ments of public health,or for any other legitimate purpose

of local improvement, the Legislature freely confisca t e s land,though it usually gives its owners an exorb itant compensation . The familiar arguments in support of this interferenceare derived from the fact that land is strictly limited inquality- a t least within the borders of each kingdom—andthat its resources in a virgin state are not the productio nof human industry. These arguments are so far valid asto rebut what does not need to be rebutted —the pre sum ption of any binding analogy between land and m oney. I fan additional argument were needed

,i t might be found in

the consideration that landed property is a specific andconcrete thing

,carrying with it manifold privileges and

duties,whereas personalty

,for the most part

,consists in an

abstract right to receive dividends,which may belong to

one man as well as to another. I t may be an evil,in itself,

that a perfectly worthless person should have a large fortunesettled upon him by an ancestor quite ignorant of his futurecharacter but this evil is far less

,both in kind and degree,

if the fortune consists of money,than if it consists of land.

In short,the one decisive ju stification for treating land as

an entirely exceptional subj ect of property is to be foundi n the entirely exceptional power which the possession ofit confers . If we contemplate the supreme influence wieldedby landowners collectively over the condition

,and especially

over the dwellings,of the people if we remember that upon

their estate-management depend the productiveness of thesoil and the intern al food supplies of the country ; if werealise that not only IS the land in physical sense % the leafwe feed on ,

” but in a political sense the substratum of ourwhole administrat ive m achinery ; we shall not fail to per

THE ENG LISH LA ND SYSTEM. I 7

ce ive the full absurdity of postulating that it should be exa ctly assimilated to stock in plasticity for the purposes ofsettlement—but not, forsooth , in facility of transfer, in thecourse of devolution on intestacy

,or in liability to probate

and succession duties .The abolition of life estates in land i s , therefore, per

fect ly consistent w ith the maintenance or toleration of li feinterests in personalty

,i f public opinion is not yet ripe for

a radical alteration in the form of ordinary marriage settlements . I t is also perfectly consistent with the practice ofvesting a family property

,whole and undivided , in the

eldest son , and charging for the benefi t of a widow oryounger children . I t would even be consistent with thepractice of directing a family property to be sold , and settling the proceeds as personalty

,yet allowing the sale to

be postponed , so long as all the parties interested shouldbe willing to accept interest out of the undivided property

,

in lieu of capital sums out of the proceeds .Nothing short of prohibiting % l imited ownership

,in

the sense of life-tenancy followed by estates-tail , willfully effect the obj ect of establishing Free Trade in Land .

The more thoroughly we appreciate the almost insuperabledifficulty of partially reforming an institu tion so deeply rootedand widely ram ifie d as the custom of entail and settlement

,

the more i rresistible will appear the conclusion that it isbe tter to reform it altogether, by abolishing limited ownership and all kinds of ownership i n ' regard to land

,except

ownership in fee simple . If this were done,i t would be

possible to give land , or to sell it, or to leave i t by will,but not to settle i t— that is

,to give A . B . and C . successive

l ife interests in it,each taking i t for life on the death of

his predecessor, reserving the complete ownership of it forD . E . or F .

, who m a y not be in existence now,who m a y

never be in existence,and wh o , if born at all, may be

utterly unfi t to inherit . landed property. The practicaleffe ct

‘

of this reform would be to make fathers,instead of

grandfathers, law-givers in their own families and trusteesof the family estates . Each head of a family

,in each

generation, would decide whether the estates should be

1 8 THE REFORM OF

divide d or left entire to one son . Probably for manyyears to come most heads of families would continue tomake an eldest son

,

” as it is called,but they would

probab ly not think it just to give him a fortune twenty orthirty times as large as that of his brothers or s isters . I twould therefore constantly happen that either the whole

,

or some outlying parts,of the estates would be sold OR

%

toraise portions

,and . s o Free

”

Trade in Land and socialequality would be promoted at the same time . So, as tomarriage settlements . A father could not then settleland upon his unborn grandson

,makin g his son life-tenant

only ; but he might either give it out and out to his son,or charge it with an annuity, or direct i t to be sold, andsettle the proceeds

,as he pleased , within the l imits of the

present law applicable to personalty.

Let us n ow assume that,due provision being made for

vested interests,all the in genious network of % particular

estates ,” as they are technically called

,were swept away by

law, and that every acre of English soil belonged absolutelyto one assignable owner. Let us

,further

,picture t o

ourselves a case in which the operation of the chan gewould be most severely tested—the case of an heir succeeding to a family property strictly entailed by its originalpurchaser, and held together for centuries by settlements inthe eldest m a le lin e

,but finding himselfat perfect liberty to sell

i t or devise i t as he pleases. This is a case,be it remarked,

which , but for the practice of re-settlement, would occurd aily under the present system

,and does occur sometimes ,

when the eldest son obstinately refuses to commute h i s

estate-tail for a life-estate. I t will hardly be disputed that alandowner so circumstanced has a

'

more enviable lot, withgreater inducements and greater power to do his estate andall connected with it full justice

,than if he were the mere

creature of a settlement,but it may be imagined that his

gain is more than counterbalanced by some loss elsewh ere .Where, then , i s this loss % and who is it that suffers by thesubstitution of ownership for life-tenancy in the casesupposed % Not

,surely

,his ancestors

,who, having brought

nothing into the world,could n o t carry anything out, and

THE ENG L ISH L A ND SYSTEM . 1 9

whose memory it would be superstitious to personify. Not hiswife

,or younger children, whom he is now enabled to endow

according to his own convictions of j ustice, instead ofaccording to a standard determined by the paramount claimsof Primogeniture

,before his marriage , if not before his b irth .

Not his eldest son,who by the hypothesis must have come

into the world,or at least emerged from childhood, after the

alteration of the law, and would have been educated in thefull knowled ge that his b irth-right, if any, was at the disposalof his father. Not any more distant relatives

,whose interest

in family estates,unless vested

,i s usually most shadowy and

delusive. Not unborn descendants , who might possiblyinherit if the entail were perpetually renewed

,under the

present law,but who are equally with the dead beyond the

reach of appreciable inj ury . In short, we strive in vain todiscover any specific individual , either in a re or in p osse, whocould be aggrieved by the legal ext inction of life-estates andestates-tail

,under proper conditions of time.

I t may be said that under Lord Cairns’Act settlementshave already ceased to cripple limited owners

,s ince they are

enabled to improve , or even to sell, estates thus settledalmost as freely as if there were no settlement at all. I replythat limited owners are still crippled , though artificial l imbshave been provided to aid them in moving . The dead handstill controls the acts of the living in the interest of the unborn

,though it is no longer allowed to injure the whole

community by keeping land forcibly out of the market. Thelimited owner—that is

,the living head of the family—may

n ow sell the family estate, with the exception of the mansionhouse and park

,and it is to be feared that he will often do

so, for the selfish purpose of increasing his own income, andof relieving himself at the same time of all the familycla im s a n d

territorial responsib ilities which are supposed to devolve onthe head of a territorial family. But he w ill seldom have amore legitimate motive for doing so, inasmuch as the proce e d s will be tied up as before for the benefit of his eldestson , and he will have no power to make an equitable partitionof them among his other children . In other words

,the old

exclusive principle of Entails is perpetuated,while the only

20 THE REFOR I‘

II OF

tolerable excuse for Entails—the preservation of family prop ert i e s

— is finally cut away.

For these and other reasons,Lord Cairns’ Settled Land

Act cannot be accepted as more than a most valuableinstalment of the reform need ed in this part of the EnglishLand System . When the English people see heads of territ ori a l families letting their family places at a handsome rent

,

selling the rest of their family estates for tens or hundreds ofthousands of pounds, and spending the interest in Londonor at foreign watering places

,regardless of every duty

attaching to landed property, they will begin to ask themselves whether i t is worth while to keep up the fiction ofmaintaining settlements of land

,which mean nothing more

than settlements of what the land will fetch in the marketfor the pecuniary advantage of the eldest son alone. Thismakeshift legislation cannot be a final solution of thequestion . We must be prepared to go ultimately as far asthe prohibition of all settlements affecting land

,and for the

present to insis t on giving every life-tenant a power to dispose ofthe family estate for the benefit, not of one only, butof all the children .

But though sound policy requires us to go thus far, itdoes not require us to go farther. It does not require us toadopt the French system of compulsory partition which putsthe State in the place of the parent, and makes it impossiblefor a father to disinherit the most worthless of children .

This system may or may n o t have been necessary to breakdown the spirit of feudalism which had been carried, inFrance and elsewhere

,to extremes which modern English

men would never have tolerated. But it has never beenthought necessary in America

,and the progress of democracy

renders i t less and less necessary in England. The sent im e n t of equality is gaining strength in this country everyday

,and will surely make itself felt in wills, as soon as the

power of settling land is effectually paralysed . Again,common-sense itself forb ids us t o adopt Mr. John StuartMill’s propo sal that no one should be allowed to inheritmore than what he calls % a comfortable independence .

” Avery little reflection will satisfy us that i t would be wholly

THE ENG LISH LA ND SYSTEM . 2 1

impossible to carry out this proposal, and that, were itpossible

,society would not in the long run be the gainer. Nor

shall we be easily induced to adopt Mr. Henry George’splan for national ising land , by making the State the solelandlord , and reducing the so-called landown ers to theposition of lease-holders or tenants . The State

,after all

,is

not a Supreme or even a Superior being it is merely a conve n i e n t expression for Ministers , Parliamentary re pre

s e n t a t ive s , and officials , of like pa ssions with ourselvesquite as fallible

,more Open to motives of j obbery

,and far

less competent to manage landed . property than individualowners personally looking after their own affairs on the spot.Let it be fully admitted that land requires more State controlt han any other kind of property, because of the power whichnaturally belongs to it ; yet there is no reason to believe thatanyone would be the better if it a ll passed into the hands ofthe State. I t has never been shown that S tate-domains werem ore vigorously developed

,or more wisely managed

,than

private estates and there is more to be said for all the railways than for all the farms of Great Brita in being taken overby a Government department. I t is needles s to repudiatethe notion that landowners can be deprived of theirproperty

,without compensation

,for the benefi t of other

clas ses . This is not statesmanship much less is i t politicaleconomy or j ustice it is simply what our fathers would havedescribed in homely phrase as a plan for % robbing Peter topay Paul .”

3 . I t follows that we cannot wisely advocate any schemefor artificially increasing the number of landed proprietors .Remove the artificial restrictions which have created something like a monopoly of land

,and the number of proprie

tors will assuredly increase itself with sufficient rapidity.

Reverse the law of Primogeniture,and some properties will

b e split up every year on intestacy,while many others

will be split up by the wills of testators acting under newinfluences . Prohib it l ife—tenancy and entails

,and portions

of estates will constantly be sold offto equalise the fo rtunesof children . Simplify land transfer

,and the monstrous

expenses and delays of conveyancin g will cease to impede

2 2 THE REFORIJ OF

small purchases of land. As fragments of old estates arethus bought up by a new class of landowners largely composed of retired tradespeople and men of business

,a new

order of county society will grow up in country districts,

and a landed democracy will gradually establ ish itself sideby side with the landed aristocracy . For we must remember that each new purchaser of a small property settlingin a village or the adj oining market-t ovvn helps to increasethe attractions of the distr ict for other would-be purchasersof the same class. With a few congenial neighbours to keepcompany with them

, th e y'

n o longer feel withered by the coldshade of the great mansion

,and

%

learn that proprietorship isa lux ury for the many and not only for the few.

4. Such reforms as we have been discussi ng may enablemany prosperous farmers to become their own landlords

,but

the great mass of farmers will probably continue to betenants

,and it remains to consider whether any legitimate

reform of the English Land System can improve theirpos ition . Now

,i t must at once be conceded that the

principles of the Irish Land Act cannot,either in j ustice or

in policy, be extended to Great Britain. That Act,if i t can

be defended at all,must be defended by historical, political,

sentimental,or economical reasons which have no applica

tion to England or Scotland . The British farmer is essent i a lly the creature of contract no one compelled him to enterupon his farm

,and no one can lawfully alter the terms of

his agreement without his landlord’s consent, any more thanhis rent can lawfully be increased without his own consent.There never was a time when those who may wish to hire landcould procure it on easier terms . Indeed, so far as we can foresee

,British farmers rather than landlords are likely i n future

to be masters of the land market . If there be a class ofBritish tenants which needs legislative protection agains tthe extortion of landlords

,it is as suredly not the class of

agricultural tenants,but that of small householders and

lodgers in great towns . A few owners of house property inthe artisans’quarter of a m anufacturing centre may possessa monopoly infinitely more oppress ive than the so-calledmonopoly of agricultural landlords

,and the cottage tenants

https://www.forgottenbooks.com/join

24 7 17 5: REFORM OF

reasons for subdividing the holding or consolidating it withanother

,i n wh ich case the so—ca lled improvement m ight be

actually detrimen tal. I t is on ly in respect of agriculturaltenancies that so unreasonable a pretension would be enterta in e d for a moment. I f a house and garden were let bythe year in the suburbs of a town, no one would dream ofclaiming for the tenant a right to erect villas in the gardenat his own pleasure, an d to receive compensation if theletting value of the holdin g were increased thereby. Sucha claim is

,in fact

,incon sistent with full proprietorship

,and

full proprietorship must always be recognised as the highestideal of land tenure.On the other hand, no landlord could suffer any injury,

while a new spirit might be infused into British agriculture,

if an indefeasible right of compensation were secured toevery ten ant for outlay essential to good husbandry

,under the

conditions of modern farming. Whether or n o t the variousforms of such outlay are adequately enumerated under thethird-class improvements of the Agricultural Holdings Actdoes not affect the fundamental principle. That principleis,that wh ere it i s of paramount importance to establish a

general sense of security, and where free contract has failedto do so

,the State may legitimately effect i t by Act of

Parliament,for the benefit of all parties concerned ; since

the sense of security may actually add a new value to landwithout robb ing anyone. To this extent

,and to this extent

only,the interests of consumers, so freely invoked in the

support of tenant-right, are really concerned in its recogn i t ion . Nor would it be difficult to devise a mode of limiting indefeasible tenant-right. The simplest plan would beto frame clauses , defining ordinary acts of good husbandry,giving an out-goi ng tenant an absolute right to compensation for their unexhausted value

,and creating a machinery

whereby that right should be enforced . But a gentler, andperhaps more effective

,method of securing the same end

would be to make the compulsory enactments operativeonly where the parties should have failed to

,embody their

agreement in a lease of a certain duration. Had the wellknown principle of the leases gran ted by the Earl of

THE ENG LISH LA ND S YSTEM . 2 5

Leicester been generally adopted throughout England, i tis probable that no wide-spread demand for indefeasibletenant right would have arisen . It 1 5 equally probable thatif indefeasible tenant right were established by law

,in

default of a lease,the practice of granting leases would

again become a national custom,as i t was in the last cen

tury5 . I t IS more doubtful whether much can be d one by the

Legislat ure, at least directly, to raise the condition of theagricultural labourer, unless i t be in the direction of e ncourag ing the subdivision of parish lands into plots suitablefor labourers’ allotments . I t i s gratifying

,however

,to

realise that his condition is already being raised indirectlyby the concurrent effect of legislation and natural causes.Popular education

,mainly provided at the expense of others

,

has quickened his intelligence and his sense of in d ep en dence . Increased facilit ies of emigration

,of migration

,and

of comb ination,have enabled him to exact higher wages for

work which is not always so efficient as that of his father.Machin ery has materially lightened his daily toil ; FreeTrade and co-operation have reduced the cost of mostnecessaries ; and if the price of meat is higher than it wassome thirty years ago

,this is mainly because so man y more

labourers can now afford to buy it . No doubt,it would be

a happy day for the country if the best and most skilful ofour agricultural labourers could be converted into peasan tproprietors

,but it would not be enough to endow them with

small properties . We must also endow them with thevirtues and the hab its which can alone make such pro

pri e torsh ip successful , and these virtues and habits are thegrowth of many generations . In the meantime

,the in ev i t

able tendency of l iberal reforms in land-tenure and landtenancy would be to bring land within reach of agriculturallabourers . As properties became smaller on the average

,

farms would become smaller on the average,and as farms

became smaller on the average,the separation between the

farmer and the labourer would become less and less . I twould be still further narrowed if the agricultural labourershared th e Parliamentary franchise with his employer

,and

26 THE REFORM OF

would dwind le indefinitely i f, under a thoroughly popularsystem of local government, every householder, whetherfarmer or labourer

,had a voice in the management

,not only

of parish,but also of county affairs .

Such are the reforms of the English Land System whichrecommend themselves to us as sound

,equitable

,safe, and

practicable. They are not visionary ideals,but sober

measures for which public opinion is well-nigh ripe ; andwhen publ ic opinion is fully ripe for them

,one Session would

amply sufli ce to pass them . I t would be too much to ex

p e ct them of the existing Parliament , burdened as it is withheavy arrears of English and Scotch business

,lon g due

,but

constantly postponed to importunate Irish demand s. Butwe may safely predict that

,before many years have elapsed

,

the law of Primogeniture will have been abolished that thepower of Entail will have been largely restricted ; that bythese means, and by s impler methods of,

Land Transfer,

land will come to be divided among a larger number ofowners that

,by degrees , more landlords will farm their own

land,and more farmers will ‘ own the land which they

cultivate that leases will more and more be substituted foryearly tenancy and that labourers

,no lon gefid ivorce d from

the soil,but enabled to rise by industry into the class of

farmers,will regain the self-respect and providence which

are the special virtues of a true peasantry. 3

In conclusion,let us endeavour to group together

within the compass of a single % iew some of the effects likelyto result from such a movement

,and especially from the ex

tension ofwhat is now our territorial aristocracy.

% We may rest assured that no sudden or startling changewould be wrought by so moderate a reform of t h e LandSystem in the characteristic features of English country life.There would still be a squire occupying the great house inmost of our villages

,and this squire would generally be the

eldest son of the last squire,though he would sometimes be

a younger son of superior merit or capacity,and sometimes

a wealthy and enterprising purchaser from the manufacturingdistricts . Only here and there would a noble park be desert e d or neglected for want of means to keep it up

,and

THE ENG LISH LA ND SYSTEM . 2 7

want ofiresolution to part with it ; but it is not impossible

that d eer might often be replaced by equally picturesqueherds of cattle ; that landscape gardening and ornamentalbuilding might be carried on with less contempt for expense ;that hunting and shooting might be reduced within thelimits which satisfied our sporting forefathers ; that somecountry gentlemen would be compelled to con tract theirspeculations on the turf

,and that others would have less to

spare for yachting or for amusement at Continental wateringplaces . Indeed

,i t would not be surpri s ing if greater sim

p lici t y of manners, and less exclusive notions of their owndign ity, should come to prevail even among the higherlanded gentry, leading to a revival of that free and kindlyintercourse which m ade rural neighbourhoods what theywere in the olden times . The peculiar agricultural systemof England might remain

,with its th ree-fo ld division of

labour, between the landlord charged with the public du tiesattachin g to property

,the farmer contributing most of the

capital and all the skill,and the labourer relieved by the

assurance of continuous wages from all risks except that ofillness . But the landlords would be a larger body

,contain

ing fewer grandees and more practical agriculturists,living

at their country homes all the year round,and putting their

savings into land instead ofwasting them in the social competit ion of th e metropolis . The maj ori ty of them wouldstill be eldest sons

,many of whom , however, would have

learned to work hard till middle life for the support of theirfam ilies ; and besides these , there would be not a fewyounger sons who had retired to pas s the evening of theirdays on little properties near the place of their birth

,either

left them by will or bought out of their own acquisitions .With these would be mingled other elements in far largermeasure and greater variety than at present—wealthycapitalists eager to enter the ranks of the landed gentry ;merchants , trad ers, and professional men, content with acountry villa a n d a hundred freehold acres around it yeomenfarmers who had purchased the fee simple of their holdingsfrom embarrassed landlords and even labourers who hadworked their way upward s a n d seiz ed favourable chances of

28 THE REFORM OF THE ENG LISH LA N D SYSTEM .

investing in land. Under such conditions,it i s n o t too

much to expect that some links,now missing, between rich

and poor,gentle and simple

,might be supplied in country

districts that % plain living and high thinking ” might ag ainfind a home in some of our ancient manor-houses, once theabodes of landowners

,but now tenanted by mere occupiers

that with less of dependence and subordination to a dominantwill there would be more of true neighbourly feeling, andeven of clanship ; and that posterity, reaping the happyfruits of greater social equality

,would marvel

,and not with

out cause, how the main obs tacle to greater social equality-the Law a n d Custom of Primogeniture—escaped revisionfor more than

,

two centuries after the final abolition offeudal t e nure s .

” if

Eng lish L a n d an d Eng l i sh L an d lord s, Pa rt I% . , chap . i

Ca s s e ll, Pe t t e r, G a lp in Co . , Be lle S auva g e Wor%

-

s , L on d on ,

%niversity ofToronto

l ibrary

IK) NOT

REMO% E

CARD

FROM

POCKET

A cm e L ibrary Ca rd Poc% e t

L OWE-MARTIN CO. u MITm

WORKS P%BLISHED FORTHECOBDEN CL%BBy CA S S E L L , PE TTER,

G A L PIN dc CO.

Lo ca l G o vernm en t a n d Ta x a t io n i n t h e % n it edK i n g d om . Wi th Con tributi on s by th e Hon . G . C . BRODR ICK ,

C . T . D . A CLAND, M.P. , L ORD EDMOND F IT%MA% RICE, M.P. ,

J. F . B . F IRTH, M.P. ,

R . O’S HA% G HNESSY , M.P. , J. THACK RAY

B % N CE , W. MACDONALD , a n d J. ROLAND PH ILLIPS . Ed i ted byJ. W. PROBY N . Clo th, p rice 5 3 .

Eng lls h La n d a n d En g l is h La n d lo rd s . An Inquiryin to th e Orig in a n d Cha ra cter of th e English L a n d S ystem . Byth e Hon . G . C . BRODR I CK . Clo th, price 1 2 8 . 6 d .

S y s t em s of La n d Ten ure in % a rio us Co un t ries . AS eries ofEssays publ ished un d er th e sa n ction of the Cobd en Club .

fi

N e w Rev i sed a n d E n la rg ed , clo th, 3 8 . 6 d .

I e Refo rm of t h e En g li s h La n d S y s t em . By theHon . G EORG E C . BRODR ICK , Wa rd en of Merton , A uthor ofEn glish L a n d a n d English L a n d lord s .

” Price 3 d .

Free Tra d e v e rs u s Fa ir Tra d e . By T. H. FA RRER,S ecret a ry to the Boa rd ofTra d e. Price 1 8 .

Free Tra d e a n d Eng li s h Com m erce . By A UG USTUSMON GRED IEN . N ew a n d Revi s ed E d i t i on , 6 d .

En g la n d un d er Free Tra d e . By G .W. MED L EY . Price 3 d .

Plea s fo r Pro t ect io n Ex a m in ed . By A UG USTUS MON

G RED IEN . Price 6 61 .1

Po p ula r Fa lla cne s reg a rd ing Tra d e a n d Fo re ig nD ut i e s : Being the

%S OPH I SMES ECONOM I% % ES ” of FREDER IC

BA S TIA T, a d a p ted t o th e Presen t T im e by E . R . PEARCE. Price 6 d .

Th e Fren ch Trea t y a n d Rec i p ro ci t y . A Speechd el ivered i n th e House ofComm on s , A ugus t 1 2 , 1 88 1 , by the RightHon . JOSEPH CHAMBERLAI N , M .P.

,Presid en t of the Bo a rd of

Tra d e . Price 3 d .

Th e Recip roci t y Cra z e : A Tract for the Times . ByG EORG E W. MEDLEY .

-Price 3 d .

Th e A B C of Free Tra d e . An Address by EDWA RDN ORTH B % % TON . Price 3 d .

Im p o rt s , Ex p o rt s , a n d t h e Fren ch Trea t y . A Spe echd el ivered in the House of Com m on s, A ugust 1 2 , 1 88 1 , by %. KCRos s , M .P. Price 2 d .

Co n t ra ct s fo r t h e Hire of La n d : ESSA Y ON THE

COMMERCIAL PR I NCIPLES APPLICABLE To . By th e D % KE on

A RG Y LL, K .T . Price 1 8 .

Wes t ern Fa rm er of A m erica . By A UGUST% S MON G RE

D IEN . Price 3 d .

Our La n d Law s of t h e Pa s t . By the Right Hon. W. E.

BA% TER, M.P. Price 3 d .

T h a Tra n sfe r of La n d'

b y Re g is t ra t io n un d er t h eD up l ica t e Me t h o d o p e ra t ive i n B ri t i s h C o lo n i e s . ByS ir ROBERT TORRENS , Price 6 d .

CA S S I L L , PETTER, G A L PIN 8: Co ., BE L L E S A % % A G E WORK S , LO N D ON ,E .C .