ODIMUS QUOS LÆSIMUS.
Your friend, John Bright, with his usual disregard for accuracy,
describes the large landlord as the “squanderer and absorber of
national wealth,” but seeing that the total rent of land in Great
Britain and Ireland is less than 5 per cent. of the whole national
income,[73] and that of this less than one-seventh is in the hands
of large landowners, it would require a more able statesman than
Mr. Bright to show how he can squander that, of which such a very
small proportion passes through his lands.
No? friend Bright. You and your fellow free-traders are the real
squanderers of national wealth, and you seek to shift the blame
from your own shoulders, by dishonestly laying it on those of the
landowner. I command to your perusal the graphic description of a
large landowner--the Duke of Argyle--who states that, in Trylee, by
feeding the tenantry in bad times, by assisting some to emigrate,
by introducing new methods of cultivation, by expenditure of
capital in improvements, by consolidating small holdings when too
narrow for subsistence, he has raised a community, from the lowest
state of poverty and degradation, to one of lucrative industry and
prosperity.
The prosperity these tenants enjoy is due to the beneficial and
regulative power of the landlord as a capitalist. The greater
the wealth of the landlord, the greater is his beneficial and
regulative power. There were thousands of landowners who acted up
to the limits of their power in this way, until you, friend Bright,
ruined them and deprived them of the power of helping their tenants.
No, doubt, there are bad landlords, as there are bad men in all
classes, but the interests of the landowner and those of the tenant
are inseparably bound together; and the landlord is shrewd enough
to see that it is to his own interest to improve the property if he
can afford to do so.
The old classic, with his insight into human nature, in _odimus
quos læsimus_, shows that human nature has not altered, and it does
not surprise me that you should hold up to execration the class you
have so cruelly injured.
You, my Free-trading Fanatic, have (thanks to Mill’s unfortunate
sophisms and your leaders’ persistent misrepresentations) such a
very hazy view about landowner’s rights and duties, that I think a
few words on the subject may clear the atmosphere.
(1.) Landed property is the capital of the landlord.
(2.) Interest on capital is fair, reasonable, and consistent with
general good.
(3.) Rent is interest on the capital of the landlord.
(4.) The landlord may sell[74] his land, invest the proceeds in
any other way, and thus get interest on his capital.
(5.) The tenant can get rid of rent, either:--
(a) by borrowing money to buy land, in which case he has to pay
interest on the loan;
(b) by saving sufficient money to purchase land, in which case
he might, instead of purchasing, invest the money, so that its
interest would pay the rent.
(6.) In any case the whole question of rent resolves itself into
a question of capital, and interest thereon.
(7.) Law, from time immemorial, has recognised the right of
property in land.
(8.) In most cases the owner has paid hard cash both for the land
and for the improvements of it.
(9.) Land is therefore actual capital just as much as money,
coal, iron, cattle, or any other disposable commodity.
It is absurd, therefore, to say, that a man possessing capital in
land may not act in the same way as the owner of any other form of
capital. (Of course he has his moral obligations, but those are
applicable to the possession of any other form of capital.) If
the tenant desires capital, he must work for it, or obtain it in
some legal manner. If he get it in any other way, it is theft; and
any legislation that transfers the capital of the landlord to the
tenant without due compensation, is legalized theft.
As regards absentee landlords, I admit it is desirable, on many
grounds--on the ground of his own personal interest--to put it on
the lowest ground, that he should not be absent; but if the life
of the landlord and his family be at stake, is he to be blamed if
he declines to take the risk of being boycotted or shot? You argue
that _he does nothing for his money which he draws, and spends away
from the place in which it has been produced_, thus impoverishing
the district.
Is he different in this respect from the capitalist who invests
money in colonial or foreign funds, who does nothing for his money,
and spends it away from the country in which it is produced? Is
he different in this respect from the London banker, who lends
money to the manufacturer in the provinces, or abroad? He does
nothing for his money, but spends it away from the locality in
which it has been produced. Would you argue on this ground, that
the railway shareholder, the foreign bondholder, the London banker
ought, in equity, to receive no interest on their money, and
should be held up to public execration? If you place any value on
the laws of political economy, which you are so fond of quoting,
my Fanatical Friend, drop your absurd arguments about landlords.
Land is a commodity to be bought, sold, improved by the capital
of the landlord, and if you treat it otherwise, you violate every
principle of sound political economy.
Admitting that land is capital, and the landlord is the capitalist,
what does Political Economy say?--
“If a man has not wealth himself, but only his labour to sell,
what is most to his advantage? Why, of course, that there should
be as many rich men as possible to compete for his labour....
Nothing can be more fatal than the _cry against capital_ so often
unthinkingly uttered.... It would be impossible to conceive
a _greater benefactor to his country_ than the one who would
permanently reconcile the interests of masters and workmen, and
_put an end to the internecine wars of capital and labour_.”[75]
Verily! Friend Bright, the cry against the landlord is a “_cry
against capital unthinkingly uttered_.” Verily thou encouragest the
“_internecine wars of capital and labour_.” Verily thou art the
reverse of a benefactor to thy country.
The verdict of Political Economy condemns thee!!
FOOTNOTES:
[73]
Total national income £1,247,000,000
Total rent for land 58,000,000 (Mulhall, p. 7.)
Percentage of rent to total income, 4⅔ per cent.
No. Acres. Average acres per
landowner.
Large Landowners 34 6,211,000 183,000
Medium ditto 841 3,156,000 3,760
Small ditto 179,649 60,912,000 330
------- ---------- -------
Total 180,524 70,279,000 390 (Mulhall’s Statistics,
p. 266.)
The acreage of large and medium landowners is, therefore, less than
one-seventh of the total.
[74] Or _could_ have sold it, until the iniquitous Land Bill was
passed. For my own part, I would not, under any consideration,
risk money in the investment of land under British rule, which has
proved itself capable of legalizing plunder and breach of contract.
[75] Macleod’s Economics, pp. 138-39.