DECENTRALIZATION AND LAND REFORM
"If law be centralized, it always lingers far behind men's needs." This
_obiter dictum_ of Francis Newman's, spoken nearly sixty years ago,
strikes one as more true to-day even than when he originally gave voice to
it. For if there is one thing truer than another, it is that half the
wrongs to which we are heir to-day, are due to centralization. This may be
due in part, no doubt, to the enormous increase of population; but
certainly one overwhelming reason is that class with class has lost in
very great measure all sense of cooperation, all sense of sympathy, all
sense of their real intimate connection and relationship with each other.
Instead of provincial legislature, we have our one parliamentary centre,
instead of treating our own local matters ourselves, we hale them up
before a central bureaucracy--a bureaucracy already so overcrowded with
business that it is absolutely and practically unable to deal with all the
questions which come up for settlement. So that instead of imperative
local matters being dealt with first hand, private bill after private bill
swarms through the doors of Parliament, and it becomes a veritable
impossibility to go into detail with respect to the pros and cons which
they bear upon their pages, much less grasp the whole drift of the
question with justice in its entirety.
Far wiser was the old system of provincial legislature, in which the
people were really represented, a system in which personality counted for
much and men were brought into familiar and friendly relations with each
other, not kept apart by the rubicon of red-tapeism, and liable to have
the door of the Closure slammed in their faces at some critical juncture
of discussion, and the subject shelved. It is true that since Francis
Newman's day we may have made some effort after local councils, but it is
also true that these local councils do not really bring class and class
together. Each class is by no means adequately represented in them, nor is
it the council's object that this should be the case. To compare the
England of to-day--the agricultural England, at any rate--with the England
of the past, brings all true thinkers to the same conclusion, that class
demarcations are as insistent, as absolute as ever they were, even in the
culminating early Victorian days. [Footnote: "We must mainly refer our
practical evils to the _demoralization_ of the State which the restoration
of the Stuarts caused.... Then began the estrangement of the Commonalty
from the Church of the aristocracy."--Francis Newman.] One has but to go
abroad to be convinced how "classy" we are as a nation, for class
prejudices and insularity are produced by provincial England, and
indigenous to the soil, and alas! this crop never fails. There are,
unfortunately, no lean years. There are, it is true, plenty of
organizations in which the more fortunate class tries to ameliorate the
lot of the less fortunate one, plenty of organizations in which the more
cultured class tries--often devotes its whole life to this trying--to make
better conditions for the less cultured one, and all honour and praise is
due to self-denying work of the kind, but it is not enough. The truest,
purest Christian socialism [Footnote: I use the word in its truest ancient
sense.] requires that helper and helped meet on absolutely equal ground;
that there is banished that indescribable stalking figure which follows
close in the wake of most meetings between rich and poor in England, the
Gentleman-hood (or Lady-hood, for I have seen that often quite as
insistently in evidence) of the class which, so to speak, "_stoops_ to
conquer," the limitations of the less fortunate classes, in its work for
the people.
I remember coming across the word "gentleman" interpreted in a far
different sense in an old fifteenth-century book. Many words change their
meaning with time, but this word has changed from its fifteenth-century
interpretation more than any. The sentence ran thus: "Jesus Christ was the
first Gentleman." Anything further from the original conception of its
meaning as set forward in this sentence than our English idea of what is
meant to-day by "gentleman" it would be difficult to find. For He went
among the people as one of themselves, was born among them, and was
educated as they were. There was no hint of patronage, no suggestion of
any social demarcation. He Who was the world's Redeemer was yet a
Socialist [Footnote: I cannot but add here that, in my opinion, the much-
abused word "Socialist" has changed in character in the same way as the
word "gentleman," and the modern interpretation is very far from being the
true, admirable, original thing signified.] in the highest and best sense
of the term.
We have come far since those days, but we have not come beyond the need to
deprive birth and riches of some of that arbitrary power by which they
have assumed more authority than is their due in the matter of
legislation, influence, disposal of land, and economic local conditions in
the provinces.
As regards decentralized government and the "immense importance of local
liberties," I cannot do better than quote first from the preface written
by Francis Newman to his lectures on _Political Economy_, when he issued
them in a printed form in 1851:--
"Of the immense importance of local liberties, and their actual
deficiencies among us, I became fully convinced during six years'
residence in Manchester; but it is only from Mr. Toulmin Smith's works
(the most important political work, as to me appears, which the nineteenth
century has produced in England) that I have learnt the immense resources
of the Common Law of England, and that nothing but the arbitrary
encroachments of Parliament at this moment hinders a vigorous local
legislation and local government under the fullest local freedom which can
be desired."
The lectures themselves, notably the twelfth, are in my opinion a counsel
of perfection which we should do well to follow to-day in very many
respects. For instance, he urges very strongly that "every town in
England, and every county, ought to have the feelings of a little State,
_as in fact it once had_" [the italics are my own]. "Our own history for
many centuries shows that this is quite consistent with the existence of a
central power--a Crown Parliament--_for all purposes truly national_; and
if the action of the central power were strictly limited to such things,
the provinces would, now more than ever, have abundant room for high
ambition." He shows how all organization has been lost in large provincial
towns, even though meetings are held from time to time, and men _seem_ to
come together for counsel and combination of ideas; the only really fixed
"moral union" being that narrow tie of family life which does but make a
number of separate entities in the big whole of citizenship. There is no
corporate union which makes each citizen the charge, to all intents and
purposes, of his neighbour. Each family holds together. It rises and falls
by itself. It holds to its heart no innate real sense of responsibility of
a wider citizenship. That is lost--undeniably lost.
[Illustration: TOULMIN SMITH
ENLARGEMENT FROM A PHOTO. BY KIND PERMISSION OF MISS TOULMIN SMITH]
The question arises naturally: When was this splendid link of "Each for
All" broken and mislaid? For nothing is more imperatively necessary among
the ranks of workers to-day.
Mr. Toulmin Smith tells us: "The link which has been broken and mislaid was
the "English Guild" (or "gild," as seems the more correct spelling). He
tells us--and it is generally conceded that he is our great authority on
this subject--that as a system of practical and universal institutions, a
English Guilds are older than any kings of England." [Footnote: "They were
associations of those living in the same neighbourhood, who remembered
that they had, as neighbours, common obligations."] And as another
authority on medieval life--Dom Gasquet--says: "The oldest of our ancient
laws--those, for example, of Alfred, of Athelstan, and Ina--assume the
existence of guilds to some one of which, as a matter of course, everyone
was supposed to belong."
There were of course trade (or handicraft) associations and social guilds.
Dom Gasquet describes thus their object: "Broadly speaking, they were the
benefit societies and the provident associations of the Middle Ages. They
undertook towards their members the duties now frequently performed by
burial clubs, by hospitals, by almshouses, and by guardians of the poor."
[Footnote: "Poor laws had no existence in medieval England, yet the
peasants did not fear and die of starvation in old age. The Romans had no
poor laws ... until the destruction of small freehold."--Francis Newman.]
"Not infrequently they are found acting for the public good of the
community in the mending of roads and in the repair of bridges.... The
very reason of their existence was to afford mutual aid." [Footnote:
Parish Life of Medieval England.] They were in very deed, as Mr. Toulmin
Smith describes them, institutions of "local self-help." And everyone who
knows anything of the subject is aware that they "obviated pauperism,
assisted in steadying the price of labour, and formed a permanent centre."
Also it has been proved that they acted as the lever which effectually
made citizenship more together as a whole, bound together by common need
and common responsibilities.
This sense of oneness of interest of "Each for All," then, we have
unfortunately as a nation lost. And with the loss have gone many of the
people's rights and privileges both with regard to local self-government,
local liberties, and co-operation.
Now the question arises how are we to recover what was so necessary to the
public well-being? And Francis Newman is ready with an answer.
"To recognize little states in our towns and countries would be the first
step of organization; I believe it would be an easy one.... If each town
had full power to tax itself for public purposes, a thousand civilizing
ameliorations would be introduced.... If local institutions had been kept
up in energy, the unhealthy buildings which now exist could never have
arisen; there is at present an Augean stable to cleanse.... Look at the
sellers in the street, look at the cab-drivers and their horses on a rainy
day; what can be more barbarous than their exposure?... Nothing surely is
more obvious than that in a city where thirty or forty thousand persons
live all day under the sky, having no power to shelter themselves, there
ought to be numerous covered piazzas, market-places, and sheds for
cabriolets. By such means, to save the poor from rheumatism and
inflammations, would be cheaper than to raise their wages, if that were
possible, and would confer far more direct benefit on them than the
removing of taxes."
Here is indeed the mind of a modern Hercules in its strong, rational
suggestions as to how this particular "stable" must be swept out. It is a
striking illustration of how far we have come since the days of the
medieval guilds, this lack of grasp on our part of the particular needs of
particular sections of the community. For were our local self-government
in working order and thoroughly representative, it is not to be thought of
for a moment that such a lack of shelters and proper appliances for the
labouring man and woman would be in such evidence amongst us as now is the
case. For look at England as she is, in respect of unsettled, rainy and
stormy weather: her spells of wintry weather, her spring changes: one day
warm, and the next, constant spells of snow, sleet, and bitter driving
gusts of wind. Where do the loafers of our streets go? Where do the
unemployed, hanging about at the street corner in search of a job, go
during some pelting shower which drenches whoever remains to face it in
less than three minutes? The centre of the street, and the streaming
pavements clear almost at once, but where does the "man in the street"--
the woman--the child go? Certainly they do not go into a shelter put up by
Government for their protection, as a rule. There are, in provincial
towns, no shelters sufficiently large to accommodate them.
I have often talked to the inspectors--to take a case in point--of
provincial trams. These men have to wait, to stand about at corners of
streets or cross roads great part of the day. Many of them suffer in no
small degree from this constant standing about in all weathers.
Then again, there is no provision made for the drivers of the trams. It
would be quite possible to provide seats for them, as is often done in
motor buses, but the same reason holds good for this not having been
thought of, as is in evidence with regard to the lack of street shelters.
There is not sufficient co-operation in the local government. When the
guilds died out, no local arrangements took their place. In other words,
the local government, of whatever nature it is, is not sufficiently
representative. The men who work upon the road, day in day out, have not
sufficient opportunity of saying, in open meeting of their fellow
citizens, where their particular trade shoe pinches. It is, as old Sir
Thomas More said very truly, the matter of the rich legislating for the
poor, which is at fault.
Here, then, is the remedy suggested by Francis Newman: "The stated meeting
of a number of people in a _Ward-mote_ would make their faces familiar to
one another, and give to the richer orders a distinct acquaintance with a
definite portion of the vast community. Out of this ... meeting for
discussion of practical business in a _Ward-mote_ ... would rise numerous
other relations."
Here men would meet--men drawn from every class--and could voice their
complaints, their difficulties, their desire for improved conditions of
work. Only in this way could local government become really a help to its
neighbourhood. Only in this way could men consult on the best way of
improving economic conditions, frame their own amelioration of existing
laws, and send them up to the Imperial Parliament for consent or veto.
Then it would probably follow that some measure of land reform would be
the natural result of such local government. Perhaps it is over the land
that the Plough of Reform needs most urgently to be driven. More than
eight centuries ago the first idea of parks began in this country. Then it
was that in the selfish desire for private property the dwellings of the
people were swept away to make room for those of game for royal sport.
Later this method was adopted by Henry VIII's baronial retainers, who
ejected the tenants from their estates for the sake of trade profit--
profit to be gained by exporting wool from the large sheep farms into
which they made their private estates.
But the system of large tracts of land in a small country, such as our
own, being bought up for private property, and made into parks or game
preserves, is of course at the root of very many economic evils which have
largely helped to cause pauperism and unhealthy conditions of life for the
agricultural labourer. If rich men may add, without the law stepping in to
limit amount, land to land as their pocket makes it possible, it follows,
as a matter of course, that more of the rustic population must move into
the towns: and that more and more crowding and over-competition are the
result later on.
Newman--the man who was always boldest where there was a cause that needed
fighting for, or fellow citizens who were powerless to right their own
wrongs, and who required someone to voice them--spoke out his views on
this subject, unhesitatingly. "That a man should be able to buy up large
tracts of land, and make himself the owner of them--to keep them in or out
of culture as he pleases--to close or open roads, and dictate where houses
should be built ... this is no natural right, but is an artificial
creation of arbitrary law; law made by legislation for personal
convenience ... certainly not for the benefit of the nation.... I find it
stated that in 1845 the Royal Commission estimated that, since 1710, above
seven millions of acres had been appropriated by Private Acts of
Parliament." (This was because of the enormous extension of claims made by
lords of the manors.) "It is certain that wild land was not imagined to be
a property in old days. The moors and bogs, and hillsides and seacoast
imposed on the baron the duty of maintaining the King's peace against
marauders, but yielded to him no revenue.... Supplies open to all ought
never to have been made private property.... Vast private estates are
pernicious in every country which permits them. It was notorious to the
Romans under the early emperors how ruinous they had been to Italy....
There they wrought out, among other evils, emptiness of population, and
extinction of agriculture." He represents that it was really due to the
break-up of the feudal system in the Tudor times which was responsible for
the "chronic pauperism" and multitude of "sturdy beggars" of later
centuries. And the reason is a very patent one. If more and more land is
swamped in private enterprise, private revenue, it is a _sine quâ non_
that peasant proprietorship must get less and less. There is not, in
effect, enough land to go round. Newman points out that, as regards land
cultivation, we are behind France, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Hungary;
that a hundred years ago there were far more small freeholds in England
than is now the case; that England is a "marked exception in Europe in the
land tenure." "We know not whither beside England to look for a nation of
peasants living by wages, and divorced from all rights in the crops which
they raise."
As Henry Fawcett said long ago, these wages of English labourers will not
allow of the least provision to be made either for the sickness or the
feebleness of old age. They have, at the close of a life of hard toil,
nothing but the workhouse to live in, the road to beg in or sell in that
out-at-elbow, trade, the modern "chapman's."
Look at the average labourer of our own day. He has, as Newman clearly
points out, "more than enough to do in rearing a family, and has no better
prospect in his declining years than rheumatism and the poorhouse, perhaps
with separation from his wife, or at least a miserable dole of out-door
relief." [Footnote: We have gone some way since these words were written
in our Old Age Pensions.] Here he puts his finger on the very spot where
one thoughtless cruelty of bureaucratic legislation is most shown. For
many faithful servants of the State come in their last extremity to this
destiny. This irony of legislation shone out lately in its true colours
when it was discovered that, of over a thousand survivors of the Indian
Mutiny, a large proportion, who were invited to the demi-centenary
celebration dinner, came out of workhouses where they, who had served
their country so well in the days of their youth, had been forced to spend
their old age.
There is no doubt that Francis Newman's remedy for the economic evils of
the people is the right one. To develop rural industry, to come back to
the land, is the hope for England's future. "It is essential to the public
welfare to multiply to the utmost the proportion of actual cultivators or
farmers who have a firm tenure of the soil by paying a quit-rent to the
State.... The soil of England ought to be the very best investment for
rich and poor, pouring out wealth to incessant industry, and securing to
every labourer the fruit of his own toils."
And in this way, he urges, can this suggestion be carried to its definite
conclusion. The revival of small freeholds, the re-institution of peasant
proprietorships, are the ways out of the block at the end of the way where
there is at present a deadlock in regard to the peasants' individual
advancement. It is well known how admirably this system has worked in
France, where millions of peasants have profited by the law in favour of
small freeholds, and its regulation that such land shall always be divided
equally among the children of the landholder. It is well known how largely
Indian revenue was drawn from the rent paid by small cultivators in the
Dekkan. It may be taken as an invariable consequence that the measure
which really profits the citizen profits the State too.
I remember seeing among some old papers dating back to the early quarter
of the nineteenth century, an account showing that tobacco planting was
really started somewhere in the Midlands by two or three Englishmen, and
it was found that the soil was thoroughly adapted to the culture of
tobacco. Indeed, the venture proved a complete success. Then the
Government of that day, fearing later consequences to the import trade,
promptly intervened and put a stop to the home cultivation. But the fact
remains that it had been proved, by a definite experience, that there
_was_ an opening for this industry in England.
It was suggested to me only the other day how many more cider-growing
districts, for instance, might be with advantage started in the provinces.
For the truth of the matter, when we look at it fairly and squarely, is
that the home country can give rural work to many more of her inhabitants
than she is allowed to do at present; that, as Newman was always
suggesting in his lectures, the labourer should be given an interest in
the land; that he should be encouraged in trying to make a crop as good as
possible by adopting some modification of the Métayer Culture; that he
should have _rights_ in the land; be associated in the profit accruing to
his overlord; that if the wages of a farm labourer were small, yet that he
should be given, perhaps, one-twentieth of the produce; and that he should
be encouraged to invest what saving might be possible to him in the farm
or trade. Newman was not in favour of the Savings Bank, as we understand
it in this country. He thought that associated profit and investment of
savings in the employer's land or trade would work far better in the long
run, and lead to keener fellowship between labourer and master.
To-day his plan, as it seems to many, stands very good chance of success,
if given a fair trial among the right sort of Englishmen. I am aware that
these last four words sound vague, but I have a very clear idea of what
they mean myself! Newman thought that if a co-operative society began by
buying a moderate-sized farm, and divided it into "portions of six to ten
acres, they might find either among their own members or among other
tradesmen known and trusted among them, persons rich enough to provide
seed and stock, and thus to live through the first year on such holdings,
and willing (later) to occupy them for themselves or for their sons. The
beginning is the great difficulty.... The first thing of all is to show,
on however small a scale, that such a cultivation can succeed.... If once
peasants see peasant proprietors they will have new motive for saving."