Year: 1871

OF all our leading institutions, none are
more unsuited than the land laws to the
state of society of which the Reform act
Of 1867 is the harbinger. Originating in
an age when the landholders were masters
of the country, it is no wonder tlat they
should require alteration now, when the
country belongs, at least in principle, to the
whole Of its inhabitants. Our laws relat-
ing to land are the remains of a system
which, as history tells US, was designed to
pop up ruling class. They were made
for the purpose of keeping together the
largest possible possessions in the families
which owned the land, and by means OF
it governed the country. So long as those
families were not obliged to share power
with any other class, or with the people,
the land laws were in many respects con
siderably worse than they are now but
what is lett Of them has still the same OBJ
iect to contrive that the land of the family
shall descend unbroken to the eldest son,
and that the owner for the time being shall
not be at liberty to defeat this purpose BY
selling the land. BY these means the land
has been prevented, to large extent, from
passing out of the hands OF the idle into
those of the industrious, and its ownership
has been retained the privilege of small
and decreasing number Of families


The removal of these remains of feudqli-
ty is the object aimed at in the first three
articles Of The society's programme. They
hope to be aided in its attainment by all
real liberals, not excepting those who de-
mand changes much more drastic. An ac-
tive and influential portion Of the working
classes have adopted the opinion, that pri-
vate property in land is mistake, and that
the land ought to be resumed, and manae-
ed on account of the State, compensation
being made to the proprietors. Some Of
these reformers look with jealousy on any
relaxation Of the land monopoly, thinking
that an increase of the number Of landed
proprietors would strengthen the obstacles
10 general resumption of the land. Bot
even from their point of view, there is an
other side to the question; since, lin a
country like this, where there is not, as in
Ireland and France, an intense competition
among the laboring classes for land, raising
it far above its reasonable value) whatever
brings more land into the market tends to
lower its price, and diminshes the amount
of compensation which, if the views Of
these reformers were to prevail, the nation
would have to pay TO the landowners.
Meanwhile, 50 long as land is private
property, whatever facilitates its passing
into new hands tends to increase its produc.
tiveness, and thereby its usefulness to the
nation at large: since those among the
owners who are least provided with skill,
enterprise, and capital, are those who are
under the stronges inducement to sell Their
land. The society, therefore, venture tc
hope that even the most extreme section o
land reformers will not reject this first part
of their programme while they are assured
Of the support, to this extent, Of many
whose ideas of Land Tenure Reform 20 nc
farther.


The society, however, are not content L
stop at this point. They are of opinion tha
much more is amiss in the present system
of landed property than merely the re
straints on its alienation. Whether ID,
hitherto fundamental institution Of properr,
IN land is destined to be permanent, or e
disappear, they do not take upon themselve
to decide. On this, a. on other question
Of the future, persons Of both modes 0