This, of course, is the principal point of view. By their merits as
investments alone must Freehold Land Societies stand or fall. If they
pay, they will flourish; if they do not, they cannot exist, whatever may
be the social, and moral, and political arguments advanced in their
favour. Now, let us just see what means of investment are within the
reach of the Working man. There is the savings bank--not always safe, as
recent examples have shown, and offering so small a rate of interest as
to be but little inducement to the classes to whom it appeals, to save.
Then there are the benefit societies, which hold out such fine promises,
which thus have won a support to which they have no claim, and have
excited hopes which they can never realise. Of two thousand of these
societies, the accounts of which were submitted to one gentleman in
Liverpool a few years ago, _all_ were insolvent. Much of the money
belonging to them is wasted in drink, in foolish show and mummery; but
the societies are based upon wrong principles, and can never become
right. Two radical defects taint them all--the contributions have been
much too small in proportion to the proposed benefits, and an almost
indiscriminate regard to diversities in age has caused persons differing
as widely as from eighteen to thirty-five, forty, forty-five, and even
fifty years of age, to be admitted upon equal, or nearly equal, terms.
One of the chief of these friendly societies is that known as the
Manchester Unity. In 1848 there was an inquiry into the subject before
the House of Lords, when it was stated by Mr. Neison, the eminent
actuary, "that it would take _three millions of money_ to bring the
Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows out of their present difficulties; and if
they went on at their present rates of contribution, no less than _ten
millions_ would be required to fulfil all their engagements." So much
for friendly societies, which are, indeed, a delusion and a snare, and
have always failed when the hour of trial has come. What the savings
banks are we have already seen; yet, actually, till the Freehold Land
Movement originated, these were the only investments within the reach of
the working man. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has twice
reported "that the great change in the social position of multitudes,
arising from the growth of large towns and crowded districts, renders it
more necessary that corresponding changes in the law should take place,
both to improve their condition and contentment, and to give additional
facilities to investments of the capital which their industry and
enterprise are constantly creating and augmenting;" and "that they doubt
not ultimate benefit will ensue from any measures which the Legislature
may be enabled to devise for simplifying the operation of the law and
unfettering the energies of trade." But at present nothing has been done,
and the Laws of Partnership fetter the working man who would usefully
employ what little capital he has. Clearly, then, the Freehold Land
Movement offers him an eligible means of investment. Land cannot run
away. So long as England exists, it will always be worth its price.
Nay, it will become more valuable every year, for by no effort of human
ingenuity can it be increased.
At Birmingham several of the allotments have realised premiums as high as
20 or 30 pounds. On the East Moulsey estate of the Westminster Society
allotments, costing 23 pounds, have been let at a chief rent of 3 pounds
and 3 pounds 10s. per annum. The Ross Society, in one of its annual
reports, stated that, out of thirty allotments made by the Society during
the past year, ten exchanged hands at premiums varying from 3 pounds 10s.
to 5 pounds, and ten working men each received 10 pounds premium. At
Ledbury several allotments, costing 25 pounds each had realised premiums
of 15 pounds each. On the Stoke Newington estate, belonging to the
National, premiums of 30 pounds and even of 40 pounds have been realised.
At the Gospel Oak estate, belonging to the St. Pancras Society,
allotments which cost 20 pounds each have been let off on building leases
of 50s. per annum each. Greater sums have been made--but we would rather
understate than overstate our case.
We have inspected returns from one hundred and twenty societies, and in
every case the allotments have realised a handsome premium. Yet, in the
face of all this, articles have recently appeared in _Chambers's Journal_
and the _Edinburgh Review_, deprecating these societies as investments.
The Edinburgh Reviewer says:--"Notwithstanding this rapid popularity
however; notwithstanding, also, the high authorities which have
pronounced in their behalf, we cannot look upon these associations with
unmixed favour; and we shall be surprised if any long time elapses
without well-grounded disappointment and discontent arising among their
members. However it may be desirable for a peasant or an artisan to be
possessor of the garden which he cultivates, and of the house he dwells
in--however clear and great the gain to him in this case--it is by no
means equally certain that he can derive any adequate pecuniary
advantages from the possession of a plot of ground which is too far from
his daily work for him either to erect a dwelling on it, or to cultivate
it as an allotment, and which, from its diminutive size, he will find it
very difficult for him to let for any sufficient remuneration. In many
cases a barren site will be his only reward for 50 pounds of savings; and
however he may value this in times of excitement, it will, in three
elections out of four, be of little real interest or moment to him." Of
course we do not affirm that a badly-conducted society will pay in spite
of mismanagement. We believe it will do nothing of the kind, and that
discontent will arise; but facts show that the reviewer is wrong; that
the allotments cost less than he supposes; that thus they offer a better
return for his money than the allottee can get in any other way.
Numerous as these societies are, multitudinous as are their members,
extensive as have been their dealings--no one yet has found fault with
them as a means of investment. Indeed, every day they have come to be
more and more regarded in this light alone. Where, we ask, can a man
make more by his shilling a-week than by putting it in a Freehold Land
Society? This is the question which every man should ask himself; and if
he does this, we can await with satisfaction the result. It is easy to
imagine difficulties, but we turn to the testimony of facts. That is
unanimously in its favour. The present time is void of all political
interest. There are no great struggles, and no great hopes and aims.
England seems satisfied with coalitions. Yet this precisely is the time
when the Freehold Land Movement finds most favour with the public. The
reason is obvious. The times are good. The public has money to invest,
and the public finds no such desirable investments as those offered by
the Movement; hence it is the societies flourish; hence it is they gain
the hearty support of all who can only spare a little, but who would put
a little by against a rainy day.