SACRED RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.
I have already stated that Mill, when he allows that which Herbert
Spencer terms “political bias,”--and Luigi Cossa terms his “_narrow
philosophic utilitarianism_,” to warp his better judgment,--is
guilty of absurdities and inconsistencies that would disgrace a
schoolboy. This is notably apparent when he attempts to draw a
fundamental distinction between land and any other property, as
regards its “sacred rights.”
Mr. Mill greatly admired the prosperity of the peasant proprietors
in France and Belgium, unfortunately forgetting that a system,
suited to the sober thrifty peasantry of the Continent, might
possibly not be equally suitable to the improvident lower classes
of Ireland and England,[56] neglectful also of the sensible view
taken by M. De Lavergne that “_cultivation spontaneously finds out
the organization that suits it best_.”[57] He wished therefore to
establish an Utopia of peasant proprietors in England and Ireland
as a panacea for the evils which Free Trade in the first place,
and mischievous legislation in the second place, had brought upon
agriculture. Without presuming to offer an opinion on the debated
subjects of “Grande” and “Petite Culture,” or peasant and landlord
proprietorship, I may say that cultivation appears to have found
out spontaneously the organization best suited to it, and that,
in England and Ireland, landlordism seems best suited to the
improvident character of the lower classes, in providing capital to
help the tenants over bad times, and enabling improvements to be
made in prosperous times.
Be this as it may, peasant proprietorship has proved to be a
failure in Ireland, and is rapidly becoming extinct.[58] Writers
on the subject state that, under that system, labour was so
ill-directed, that it required six men to provide food for ten;
and consolidation of holdings is recommended. Mr. Mill, however,
thought otherwise, and biased by this political conviction, he has
propounded the following extraordinary arguments to prove that the
sacred rights of property are not applicable in the case of landed
property[59]:--
(1) “No man made the land.”
(2) It is the original inheritance of the whole species.[60]
(3) Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency.
(4) When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust.
(5) It is no hardship to any one to be excluded from what others
have produced.
(6) But it is a hardship to be born into the world and to find
all nature’s gifts previously engrossed.
(7) Whoever owns land, keeps others out of the enjoyment of it.
Now let us apply Mr. Mill’s arguments to any other kind of property.
Suppose I say to you:--“My friend! you have two coats; hand one of
them over to me! Sacred rights of property don’t apply to it; you
did not make it; and Mill says--‘_it is no hardship to be excluded
from what others have produced_;’ but it is some hardship to be
born into the world, and to find all nature’s gifts engrossed. Your
argument that you paid for it in hard cash is worthless. _No man
made_ silver and gold, ‘it is the original inheritance of the whole
species, the receiver is as bad as the thief, and you have connived
in the robbery of those metals from the earth, leaving posterity
yet unborn to be under the hardship of finding all nature’s gifts
engrossed.’
“The manufacture of your coat is based on robbery and injustice,
and you have connived at it; the iron and coal used in its
production were _made by no man_, they are the _common inheritance
of the species_, those who have obtained them have robbed
posterity. You have bribed them to do so by silver and gold, also
robbed from posterity.
“The very wool of which your coat is formed was _made by no man_,
it was robbed from a defenceless sheep. Your argument that the
sheep was the property of the shearer is useless. No man made the
sheep, it is the common inheritance of all, &c. Your argument that
his owner reared the sheep, is equally worthless. Monster! if you
find a child, have you a right to rob him and make a slave of him?
such an argument would justify slavery[61] or worse.
“When _private property is not expedient it is unjust_, and from
my ground of view, it is not expedient that this private property
should be yours; public only differs from private expediency in
degree. ‘He who owns property keeps others out of the enjoyment of
it,’ the sacred rights of property don’t apply to this coat; so
hand it over without any more of your absurd arguments. Nay! if
you don’t, and as I see some one is approaching who may interfere,
its appropriation is one of expediency,--individual expediency
must follow the same law as general expediency,--it is expedient
that I should draw my knife across your throat, otherwise I shall
lose that which is my inheritance in common with the rest of the
species.” And so I might argue _ad infinitum_.
Mr. Mill’s sophisms however are, what Cossa terms, “concessions
more apparent than real to socialism,” for further on, in his
Political Economy, he completely stultifies his argument by stating
that the principle of property gives to the landowners:--
“a right to compensation for whatever portion of their interest
in the land it may be the policy of the State to deprive them of.
To that _their claim is indefeasible_. It is due to landowners,
and to owners of any property whatever recognised as such by
the State, that they should not be dispossessed of it without
receiving its pecuniary value.... This is due on the _general
principles on which property rests_. If the land was bought with
the produce of the labour and abstinence of themselves or their
ancestors, compensation is due to them on that ground; _even if
otherwise_, it is still due on the ground of prescription.”
“Nor,” he adds, “can it ever be necessary for accomplishing
an object by which the community altogether will gain, that a
particular portion of the community should be immolated.”[62]
Unfortunately, however, his mischievous denial of the sacred
rights of property in land is eagerly read, while his subsequent
qualification of it is neglected by those who, like Mr. Bright,
aim at the destruction of a political opponent; or, like Mr.
Gladstone, are bent on a particular policy, reckless of the results
in carrying it out; or, like Mr. Parnell and his followers, whose
hands itch for plunder; and it has produced a general haziness
of ideas amongst that well-meaning class of people who are
good-naturedly liberal with the property of other people.
Yet, clothe it with what sophism you will, any attempt, whether
legalized or otherwise, to deprive the landowner of his property
and to violate his rights, is as unjustifiable as the depredations
of the burglar or the pickpocket. Nay more so; because the
statesman or political economist cannot plead poverty or want of
education as his excuse.
FOOTNOTES:
[56] If we were to partition out England into a Mill’s Utopia of
peasant proprietors to-morrow, it would not last a week; half of
the proprietors would convert their holdings into drink, and be in
a state of intoxication until it was expended.
[57] ‘Grande and Petite Culture. Rural Economy of France.’ De
Lavergne.
[58] The yeomen and small tenant-farmers, men of little capital,
have almost disappeared, and the process of improving them off the
face of the agricultural world is still progressing to its bitter
end; homestead after homestead has been deserted, and farm has
been added to farm--a very unpleasing result of the inexorable
principle--the survival of the fittest--by means of which even the
cultivators of the soil are selected;--but a result which, not the
laws of nature, but the bungling arrangements of human legislators,
have rendered inevitable. (Bear., _Fortnightly Review_, September,
1873.)
[59] ‘Mill’s Political Economy,’ Bk. II. Chap. II.
[60] The original inheritors have, through their lawfully
constituted rulers, parted with their property, having, in most
cases, received an equivalent for it in the shape, either of
eminent services rendered to the State, or else of actual payments
in hard cash; and these transactions have been deliberately
ratified and acknowledged by the laws of the country from time
immemorial. It is therefore simply childish to argue that the land
thus disposed of still belongs to the original inheritors, after
they have enjoyed for past years the proceeds for which they have
bartered the land that once belonged to them.
[61] I beg your pardon, my dear Fanatic, I see I have unconsciously
made a slight mistake. Mill says, that appropriation is wholly a
matter of general expediency, and on that ground you _may_ justify
slavery.
[62] Mill’s Political Economy, Bk. II. Chap. II.