The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1873-01-11 00:00:00

PEASANT PROPRIETORS.

The Right Hon. John Bright, M.P., rends to the
Daily News a letter written by Mr. Culxlen nine
years ago, but not published with his name, in advocacy
id peasant landlords, Mr. Bright says :—" I think it
cannot fail to do good, written on so great a question,
and coming from an authority so entitled to respect.
I wish it could be published in every newspaper in the
kingdom favourable to a thorough examination and
reform of our land laws."

In Mr. Cobden's letter, which fills about two and
a half columns of the Dady Newt, the subject in dis-
cussed almost exclusively with reference to the work-
ing of the system of small properties in France.
The writer says that on the moral aspect of the
question there cannot be two opinione. On the Con-
tinent the verdict is unanimous!), in favour of small
landed properties; and unless we in England are insin-
cere in the arguments, we address the working classes
to induce them to become depositors in saving banks,
or to enter the ranks of distributors and producers by
means of " co-operatton," we shall also admit that to
become a small freeholder would elevate the labouring
man in the scale of society. This has been proved by
exporience on the largest scale in France, where five
millions of landed proprietors, every one a voter, con-
stitute the foundation of the social and political edifice,
and of whom rulers and orators delight to speak as the
pride and safeguard of the State. But it is asked,
can what is called high farming be carried on success-
fully where the land is cultivated by peasant
proprietors' Mr. Cobden thought it might be
almost a sufficient answer to say that the highest
standard of agriculture is horticulture, which is
always condocted on a diminutive scale. This,
however, he admitted, would be to evade the
major part of the question, whether, on small pro-
perties, farming an be pursued with the same economy
as on large—whether the nett proceeds, after deduct-
ing the cost of production, can be as great Cu the one
case as the other. On this; point the ii fluential public
opinion of England has been resolutely on the side of
great farms. The experience of France, however, seemed
to show that we were mistaken. "The result of a general
study of all the best authorities is to show that there is
a unanimity of opinion in favour of the French eye-
stem, on moral grounds, as tending to elevate the ohs,
racier, promote the intelligence, and stimulate the in-
dustry of the peasantry."

The Times of Tuesday, in a leader upon the subject,
among other observations, says : . .

Mr. Bright has rent to • contemporary a long letter on the
Land Question, which Mr. Cobden published anonymously
nine years ago. It was prompted by some remarks of the
present Mr. Cowper-Temple on "the disadvantages and prA
stations to which the Agricultural Labourers exposed," and
Mr. Bright deems it deserving of reconsideration at a
moment when the condition and prospects of the Labourer
are occupying the public attention. He thinks it can-
not fall to do g iod, written on no great a question, and
coming from an authority so entitled to respect." These
two claims to attention will be readily conceded; but it Is
of more importance to consider the intrftede merits of the
letter, and these are open to much question. Mr. Cowper.
Temple had asserted that the fact of the tillers of the soil
being without a share in the ownership of the land was an
imaginary grievance, and that such a complaint rested upon
• fallacy and a delusion. Mr. Cobden maintains, on the
contrary, the moral and economical advantages produced
by the division of the land of • country among its whole
people." Ile seems sensible, however, of the vagueness of
this statement, and devotes the rest of hls letter to •
vindication of the system of small proprietorships in
Franee, Since he commences by saying that "no one
has proposed that we should adopt In England the French
law of succession," it might well be asked, what is the prac-
tical bearing on our own position of a discussion of the
results of that law? In fact, when we have read the letter,
we are quite eta loss to understand what Mr Cobden wishes
to be done. If we are not to have the French law, by
what means are small proprietorships to be created in
England? There WS/ supposed in those day. to be some-
thing revolutionary in attacks en the laws of primogeni-
ture anti entail, and possibly some indistinct notion of
the effect which might be produced by modifying them
was floating in Mr. Cobden's mind. But now that there
is some talk of the Government dealing moderately
with these subjects, it has been discovered, even by the ad-
vocates of change, that very little effect would be produced
on the general distribution of property in Land. There
would still be nothing to prevent rich men becoming large
landowners, or to hinder them leaving their estates by will
to one of their sons. Except by a wholreale confiscation,
there is no way for poor men to become owners of land ex-
cept by purchasing it. There is plenty to be sold, as
we showed jesterday, but only at very high prices, and
PrObably not •Iways in situations or In paraels which
would be convenient to peasant proprietors. In any
case, it is • question of money; and how is the
poor man to obtain the money, or to live oa an
investment which would only yield him two or three per
cent, When a man suggests too a large class of uneducated
men that the solution ot all their miseries is to be found in
proprietorship, it is not too much to expect that he would
be a little more explicit respecting the means by which
the happy result is to be obtained. For the present,
whether desirable in the abstract or not, peasant monde
, kasblp Is In Inglind • mere dream. Labourers do some-

times come Into possession of an sore or two of land and
• Cottage; and the nearly uniform result in no long time is
that they 00111 e to the neighbouring landowner to mak him
to buy them out, alike from their land and from their mort-
gage. "No one, in Mr. Cobden's words, will seriously pro-
pose that the mere tenancy of a cottage should,,.. In the
cue clan Irith farm, confer some conditional right of proprie-
torship. A cottage is built and a garden assigned for the use
of those who are employed by the landlord or farmer. They
are part of his stncl•ln.trade, and that he phonld be com-
pelled to surrender them is Inconceivable.

The merits of the French system are really, therefore, be-
side the mark in the immediate controversy ; but if Mr. Cob.
den could have shown that it was an inherently better
syAtem than our own, the time might come when some one
would propose that which, in his time, no one had pro-
- _

. . . .
There is • fallacy running through the whole of Mr. Cob-
den's argument which is suggested by the motto at the head
of his letter :—" All ancient Legislators, especially Moses,
grounded the success of their ordinances concerning virtue,
justice, and morality upon securing hereditary estates, or at
least landed property, to the greatest possible number of
citizens." Land reformers who adopt this motto ought
to be prepared to adopt its eulogy of " here-
dltary Settles" no less than 1:• other recommendations
11104 es, however, would be a very inconvenient
legis-
lator to follow in the present day. But the reason
why old legislators Insisted on the diffualon of landed pro-
perty Is sultoiently evident. There was practically no other
Property. That it conduces greatly to the virtue, Justice,
and morality of the people for all to possess eome share of
property is unquestionable. But in these days, why should
this advantage be supposed to belong only to the possession
oAgricultural Labourer. the f property in land? Mr. Cgoabecistin.r
iy.sbts,vateefnorotwhnet:lgl/lef
and possessing nothing. Why? If • man is to own land he
must buy it; and if he has got money for this purpose he
could certainly put out the same money to far greater admix-
base in other investments. The occupiers of houses are not
uniformly leas happy than the owners. If &Labourer can live
in a healthy cottage with a good garden, and has a little In-
vestment which augments his receipts, why should be not
be as happy es a peasant proprietor on • strip of land all his
own? However, there is room enough, even under our
present laws, for the experiment to be tried. If with their
present advanced wages the labourer. can save money, •
considerable number of them, at all events, would be able
to try the pleasures of peasant proprietorship. What
Mr Cobden can mean by saying that there nee on the
Labourers a '• ban of perpetual exclusion from the glue of
landed proprietors" we know not. There is no such ban on
any clam in England debarring them from any occupation
for which they have the mean, and the taste. But we are
much mistaken if a brief experience would not teach the
Lsb flrer that the land Is the worst p enable investment for
his money. By all 1310•1111 let saving be encouraged In the
agrlcultuml class. But if this Is the Labourer's great want,
is he In the least peculiar In this day and country?