1st. In the first place there is a waste in unnecessary legal expenses, e.g., in ascertaining the nature of the title. It is to be observed, however, that from the nature of the case, land can never be so easily transferred as some other forms of property, e.g., consols, or other stocks and shares. "Stock," it has been well said, "possesses no boundaries, conceals no minerals, supports no game, pays no tithes, admits of no easements, is let to no tenant, and is hampered by no adjoining owners."1 The expense also, at any rate in Scotland, where a system of registration of deeds prevails, is not now so great as is generally supposed. According to the calculations of Mr. Auldjo Jamieson,2 who has had a very wide experience, the average expenses in the case of large estates is about equal to that of transferring railway stock, and the stamps required by law amount to a little more than half of the legal expenses. The expenses, however, are not proportioned to the value of the estate, being proportionately much heavier in the case of small properties. Accordingly, so far a special check is imposed on the transfer of land in small quantities. But for the reasons already given, it is doubtful if the abolition of all expenses connected with the transfer of land would, in Great Britain, lead to a system of peasant proprietors. 2d. "Simplicity and facility," as Mr. Jamieson observes, "are as valuable as cheapness," and the law's delay is often of greater consequence than the law's costs. Again, any uncertainty or difficulty in ascertaining the title renders it difficult to borrow on mortgage; and, on the other hand, encumbrances of various kinds, especially when effected with more or less secrecy, also tend to make transfer difficult. The consequence is that land does not find its way into the hands of those best able to make use of it. One of the worst abuses connected with 1 Land Law Reform in England, p. 10, by Osborne Morgan. 2 Transactions of the Chartered Accountants Students' Society of Edinburgh, Vol. I., Ch. I. 3 Ibid., p. 16. owner. land is that, in many cases, the nominal is not the real It is worth observing, that the economic functions of settlements in land are not nearly so important as they once were. The rent of land, as recent experience has shown, is by no means the most certain form of income. It is a curious popular fallacy to suppose that land is, in some way, particularly safe because it is always there; it is forgotten that land which yields no rent is of as little value as the air above it, which also technically is assumed to be part of the property. 3d. The idea of keeping land in a particular family is, under modern conditions, essentially anti-economic. It is true that the popular notion that land can be now strictly entailed in England and Scotland, for an indefinite period, is fortunately as erroneous as the idea that, by the law of primogeniture, land necessarily goes to the eldest son, just as in France it is compulsorily divided. Both entail and primogeniture, as at present practised, gain most of their force not from law but from custom, but the custom has deep roots in history and sentiment. It is worth recalling the evils that ensued when entails were comparatively strict; they have been summarised in a famous passage by Blackstone. "Children grew disobedient, farmers were ousted from their leases, for if such leases had been valid, then, under colour of long leases, the issue might have been virtually disinherited; creditors were defrauded of their just debts, for heirs might have been defrauded by mortgaging; innumerable latent entails were produced to deprive purchasers of their land, hence law-suits were encouraged, and also treason, as estates-tail were not liable to forfeiture." §3. The Advantages of Large Estates. It would, however, be a serious mistake to suppose that large family estates have no advantages. Before assenting to the 1 Some very interesting calculations on the distribution of landed property were made by Joseph Kay in his book, Free Trade in Land, Letter I., under date Dec. 15, 1877: — popular condemnation, the following points ought to be considered. Ownership on a large scale does not involve, necessarily, cultivation on a large scale. The larger the estate, the less likely is the owner to cultivate it himself, and I venture to say that, economically, this is an advantage; mere ownership does not imply technical agricultural skill any more than the ownership of railway shares implies the capacity to drive an engine. In Great Britain there are more than half a million tenant-farmers, and they are the most skilful in the world; the Scottish farmers are said to be superior to the English, and in Scotland estates are larger.1 The relations of landlord and tenant are generally better on large estates. The owner feels more responsibility; the estate is governed by general rules, and there is not so much room for caprice. A great land-owner, imbued with family traditions, is now in some respects like a constitutional monarch, just as in ancient times he was like a despot.2 There is greater security 1. England and Wales, total area, 37 millions of acres. A body of men not exceeding 4500 own more than half. Less than 280 people own one-sixth of the enclosed land. Sixty-six people own one-eighteenth part. One man owns 186,397 acres (Kay, p. 14). 2. In Scotland the figures are still more striking. Total acreage about 19 millions. One owner has 1,326,000 acres, and 32,000 in England as well. There are five owners with more than 300,000 each. Twelve owners have a quarter of Scotland. Nine-tenths of the whole of Scotland belongs to fewer than 1700 people. 3. Ireland. Total area is 20 million acres. Two hundred and ninetytwo people own one-third of estate. Seven hundred and forty-four people own one-half of estate. There are 3 people with more than 100,000 acres each. The following summary is still more startling: — Two-thirds of the whole of England and Wales owned by 10,207 persons. Two-thirds of the whole of Scotland owned by 330 persons. Two-thirds of the whole of Ireland owned by 1,942 persons. For more recent figures, see Shaw Lefevre's Agrarian Tenures, p. 14. 1 The exceptional skill of the Aberdeen farmers is, perhaps, to be attributed to the severity of the climate. 2 Compare Adam Smith's description of Cameron of Lochiel, Bk. III., Ch. IV. of tenure. In England, many farms have been held for generations in the same family as yearly tenancies. What is called a fair commercial rent, as will appear presently, depends on a complexity of causes, and is difficult to estimate. Hence, in one way, it is good that contracts for the hire of land should not be too rigidly interpreted; there should be something of the uberrima fides of partnership. Recently, for example, in Great Britain it has been found necessary to reduce rents, owing to an unprecedented fall in prices. The great land-owners have been much more ready and more liberal in their reductions. As a matter of fact, the rental of a moderate estate is a precarious source of income; and it is generally burdened with debt and dignity. The Scottish laird is neither a lord nor a yeoman, and the sooner his estates are absorbed or divided the better for the country. A small land-owner has little capital for permanent improvements, which in Great Britain are generally made by the landlord. The case of very small tenants, e.g., crofters, is, of course, peculiar, but experience has shown that as a rule they are better off under large land-owners. The people who rackrent most are the peasant owners abroad, e.g., Flanders. The principal argument for small estates is founded on political and social stability, but it is of more importance in other countries, e.g., France and Germany, than in Great Britain. This advantage is, moreover, seldom so great as might be supposed, owing to the pernicious and apparently inevitable custom of mortgaging small properties. In ancient Greece there were continual outcries against usury and appeals for seisachtheia, -a shaking off of burdens,just as in Russia and Germany we have at present intense hatred of the Jews, which is based far more on their usury than on their race. The principal argument usually advanced against large estates is also political and social; the owners are supposed to have too much influence for a democracy. But of late both the political and the social power of large ownership have been largely abated. It should be remembered also that in return for social powers there are certain social advantages. In Ireland, the greatest outery was against the new commercial proprietors, who, after the act of 1860, bought land to make as large profit as possible. Again, under the system of large estates with family settlements of various kinds, far more are interested than the merely nominal owners. The landed interest in Great Britain is, perhaps, a more reliable basis of social stability than the peasant proprietary of the Continent. § 4. Recent Modifications of the Economic Principles of Ownership of Land. It is remarkable that in the United Kingdom, before the commercial system has been fully applied to land, that is to say, before the old survivals have been got rid of, new modifications on different principles have been adopted. The natural course of development had been to differentiate ownership from tenancy, and to substitute conventional for customary tenures of various kinds. These feudal obligations and common rights had been largely abolished, and the owners of land had acquired proportionately greater freedom. A good example is furnished by the agrarian legislature of Prussia during the present century. "It is marked by the demolition of the feudal edifice and the removal of the materials of which it was built."1 Before the reforms, the peasants held the peasant-land by as good a title as the lord held the noble-land; the peasant paid no rent, in the ordinary sense, but he was forced to perform certain services. The essence of the reforms consisted in enabling the peasants to compound for their services by surrendering part of the peasant-land and holding the remainder free from feudal obligations. The popular idea that peasant proprietors were established by taking part of the land of the nobles, is exactly the reverse of the truth.2 "In every progressive society," it has been said, “the 1 Systems of Land Tenure-"Prussia," by R. B. D. Morier. 2 Morier, op. cit., p. 362, note. Richey's Irish Land Laws, p. 5, note. |