LAND 265
United Kingdom, is sufficient to account for the fact that the large estates have continually augmented, in size and number, by the corresponding absorption of the small properties of yeomen. These small properties are seldom subjected to strict settlement, The owners occasionally fall into difficulties, and then their land is sold to pay their debts. They are frequently moved by natural affection either to divide their estates among children, or to subject them to charges for children other than the heir, and this also tends to bring them into the market for sale. But the large adjoining properties, the owners of which have been induced by family pride to limit their right to mere life interests, are not liable to be sold for debt. The immediate possessor may be crippled during his life, but his heir will succeed to the estate free from incumbrance by any prior possessor. In the same way the powers of each successive owner to charge the estate for younger children, and the liability to sale for payment of such charges, is restricted within narrow limits. These properties therefore continue undiminished; and, when a small adjoining freehold comes into the market, it is seldom that the owner of the larger estate cannot find the money to effect its purchase. Once obtained, it is included in the next settlement of the larger estate, and thus permanently withdrawn from the operation of natural processes of disintegration. On the whole, it follows that large estates tend to grow, and in precisely the same proportion small ones tend to disappear.
It may be further observed that this tendency is materially aided by an absurdly bad and expensive conveyancing system, and by the law of mortgage. The costs of transfer of land are so enormous in England that they form a very large percentage on the price of small properties, and preclude any one from purchasing them with the motive of making a living upon them. So also the insecurity of title, which is greatest on the smaller properties, because they have been dealt with less carefully, compels any owner who needs an advance to pay usurious interest, by which his ruin is speedily effected, and the property brought to sale. On the other hand a large property changes hands at less comparative expense, and the necessity of a sale to meet temporary difficulties is at less cost obviated by mortgage, which permits the owner to hold on till some windfall of legacy or marriage once more reinstates him in easy circumstances, and enables him to take advantage of his poorer neighbour's necessities. This does not mean that he cheats the small proprietor in the bargain. On the contrary, the desire of the rich to augment their estates induces them to give more than the real worth for the smaller properties. But this concurrence of circumstances tends steadily in the direction of increasing large estates and diminishing from age to age those that are small. The practical result is easily shown by a few figures. The cultivated land of the United Kingdom (including parks and permanent pastures, but not mountain or waste) amounted in 1880 to 47,515,747 acres. The total acreage is 77,635,301 acres. By the Domesday Book of 1875 it appeared that one-fourth of the total acreage (excluding plots under 1 acre) is held by 1200 owners, at an average for each of 16,200 acres; another fourth by 6200 persons, at an average of 3150 acres; another fourth is held by 50,770 persons, averaging 380 acres each; and the remaining fourth by 201,830 persons, averaging 70 acres each (Caird). Peers, in number about six hundred, hold rather more than one-fifth of all the land in the kingdom. Thus one-half of the whole territory is in the hands of only 7400 individuals; the other half is divided among 312,500 individuals. The total population of the United Kingdom (not including Channel Islands and Isle of Man) in 1881 was 35,100,000, so that barely one in a hundred owns more than an acre of soil.
Of tenant farmers there are in Great Britain 561,000, in Ireland 600,000. About 400,000 of those in Great Britain, but above 500,000 of those in Ireland, occupy less than 15 acres of cultivated soil, the average size of the remaining holdings being in Great Britain about 160 acres, in Ireland 75 acres.
British colonies.
United States.
In the countries which have been colonized from England the system of small properties rather than large has been generally adopted. The first settlers in New England carried with them the idea of the village community. They decreed that grants of land should be made to each house holder to the extent of 20 acres, but the rest of the land apportioned to each village was to be held in common. This system has been now expanded into the homestead law (see HOMESTEAD), prevailing over the whole United States, in virtue of which a citizen of the States is entitled to a free grant of 160 acres (¼ square mile) on condition of bringing it into cultivation within five years. The influence of slavery in the Southern States tended, as in Rome, to create large estates, but its abolition has arrested this course. On the whole, with exception of a very few gigantic farms in the extreme west, it may be said that both the United States and Canada are countries of small farms, seldom exceeding 150 to 300 acres, and almost universally cultivated by the owner. The pastoral lands of Australia and New Zealand are still held in "runs" of immense extent, but whenever cultivation makes way there is a growing movement in the direction of opening them up to purchase in small farms.
Leading principles affecting land tenure.
The above sketch, imperfect as the limits of space have compelled it to be, of the history of land tenure throughout the world shows that it has pursued one unvarying course. Commencing in community of tribal possession, land has everywhere by degrees been appropriated to the villagers, to the family, and at last to the individual. But in every stage the conditions of its enjoyment and use have been absolutely regulated by the community in reference to the general welfare. A history so uniform would seem to rest on principles of human nature, and to be incapable of reversal. Nevertheless in the present age two opposite parties have impugned its lessons. The one would revert to the almost prehistoric times when community of property, of labour, and of wealth formed the rule of existence. The other speaks of individual property, especially in land, as a sacred and indefeasible principle, and denounces every restraint or modification introduced by the state as spoliation. Between these extremes an infinite variety of ideas for more or less making land or its produce public property, or more or less restricting the right of the personal owner, have been put forward, and are, with some confusion, strenuously advocated. A brief attempt will now be made to discriminate between what in these ideas is sound and what is impracticable.
Communistic principle.
The principles of communism have unquestionably struck deep root in the minds of large classes of the public, chiefly in Germany, but to no inconsiderable extent in other countries and even in England. Nor can they be dismissed as merely criminal and worthy of no answer but repression. The answer must rather be that they are based on hopes and beliefs in the capability of human nature for self-sacrifice, which we have no warrant in yet accepting as our practical guide. A golden age may yet return, in which all shall be for the country and no one for himself, and we may even imagine that each successive age shows its nearer approach. But at least it has as yet not come. In every community there are found a large number of individuals who would not work honestly except under the compulsion of self-interest or of close superintendence. No socialistic scheme has yet been devised which copes with this tendency.
