- ºf
*w-
A Hºog
ONE PENNY.
A SHORTER CATECHISM
OF THE
LAND QUESTION.
BY
JOHN D. SPEN CE.
Published at the Central Offices of
THE LIBERTY AND PROPERTY DEFENCE LEAGUE,
7, VICTORIA STREET, LoNDoN, S.W.
1894.




**
A Shorter Catechism of the Land
Question.
OES not the Land in Justice belong to the People 2 The
phrase, “ The land belongs to the People,” has
something taking about it : but, a little investigation will
show, that it has, by no means, that scientific foundation,
that some would like to see. The phrase contains two
terms—the “land,” and the “people.” Now, let us see,
what the first term amounts to. By “the land,” must, evidently,
be meant, all the land in the country—the good land, the bad
land, the indifferent land, the sterile sea-coast land, and the
richest land in Devonshire—all the land, “between the four seas,”
in short. The first term, then, can be said to be quite intelli-
gible. And now, about the second term—“the people.” Who
are “the people,” it may be asked 2–all the people in the
country 2 A batch of exile, Russian Jews, landed in England,
yesterday, let us say. Have they, a title to the land 2 They
came—by the way—from a country, where Communism in land
prevails, very largely, and yet, where they were horribly badly off.
Yesterday, let us say, a number of Englishmen left Liverpool, to
take up their homes abroad. They cease to belong to “the
people.” Did they, thereby, forfeit their title to land 2 “The
people’’ means, “all the people in the country,” does it 2–at
what moment, pray ? When the reader began to peruse this
tract 2—but, some one has been born, since then The popu-
lation is continually increasing. “The people’’ are always
changing—changing in numbers, and changing in personnel.
Some are going away, while others are taking their place.
“The land belongs to the People,” is one of those phrases
that are said to be eternally true. If it is true now, it will be
true next week. But, next week, there will be a different set of
claimants for the land. You can't give, and take away—that is,
you cannot, really, bestow a thing, if you are continually taking
it away again. Who are “the people,” at any moment 2 A
census could only determine that. But, while a census was
being taken—the number of people, in the country, would be
changed. To tell the truth, “the people”—Reaning thereby,
“all the people in the country”—is, really, an indeterminate
expression—it is vague, and meaningless. To give it any real
meaning, some discrimination must be used with regard to it.
And, who is the discrimination to be in favour of 2 Is it to be in

4
favour of the industrious? There are lazy folks, in the country—
and those who are worthless, and improvident. Are they en-
titled to any land 2. As far as the industrious people are con-
cerned, they have a fair chance—if they want to—to acquire
land, under the private-proprietorship system, through Building
Societies, and other means. The industrious class are, in truth,
the salt of the earth. Land, and all other things, fall to their
possession, in the natural course of things.
Perhaps, those who maintain that “the land belongs to the
people,” mean, by “the people,” those who pay tawes. The num-
ber of the latter can be ascertained, in a, more or less, definite
sense. It is well known, that every one in the country pays
taxes. An exile Russian Jew begins to pay taxes, the moment he
purchases anything in a shop : and an Englishman, who goes
abroad, ceases to contribute to the revenue. There are some
simple-minded folks who imagine, that only the middle, and
upper classes pay taxes. It is impossible though, to purchase a
collar, a pair of boots, a coat, or a vest—or, anything else, in
short—in any shop, without paying one's quota of all the taxes,
that are levied on that shop, on the warehouse where the goods
were stored, and on the factory where they were made. And,
equally impossible is it, to live in lodgings, or in a tenement,
without paying—indirectly—one's share of the taxes levied on
the landlord's property. As to the matter of tobacco, drink, and
a number of other things, it is well known that one cannot make
a purchase, without contributing enormously to the revenue.
If by “the people” is to be meant, all who pay taxes, there can
be said to be some show of fairness in the thing. But—but !—
under a system of “Nationalisation" of the land, it is under-
stood that—the landlords are to pay all the tawes. Are the land-
lords, then, to own the land?—they do so, at present
Possibly, by “the people,” is to be understood, those who
have votes. That would be a, more or less, fair discrimination,
one might say. At any rate, it would have the advantage of .
being intelligible. Those who have votes, can be ascertained ;
though, it is true, that, from time to time, people, by moving
their habitations, forfeit, for a time their right to be “on the
register.”
Perhaps, by “the people’’ is, really, to be understood the
State. “The land belongs to the State ’’ –that sounds like a
very understandable version of the thing. But, what is the
State 2. At law, and in ordinary language, the State is the
Crown. Is the land to belong to Queen Victoria 2–it does so,
at present, in a certain, shadowy sort of way. Probably, by the
State, is to be understood the Government. But, the Govern-
ment is—the people ! The people, then, are to own the land:
and, by the people, one is to understand—the people. Rare
logic, indeed! Government, if it means anything definite at
all, really means, the ministry of the Party in power. The
Tories are oftener in power though, than out of it. Is the land
to belong to the Tory party 2

5
If the Government is to hold the land, is it to hold it on the
principle, that there is to be a scramble, and that every one who
is strong enough to seize on a piece of land, is to retain it 2 In
that case we would have anarchy—and the poor, who are
generally the weak, would come off landless. Or, if the Govern-
ment is to hold the land, is it to hold it on the principle of letting
it out to those who are able to pay—to pay rent—for it 2 If so,
those who occupy it now, will retain it, and where will be the
change from the present state of things 2
If the term, “the people,” could be defined, ever so accurately,
the phrase, “The land belongs to the people” would still be vain,
and illusory. For, a common dictum among the advocates of
“Nationalisation '' is to the effect, that “No one made the land.”
Well, if no one made the land, then “the people” did not make
it, and therefore—whoever they may be—they have no right to it !
Cam any more reason be given for “Nationalising ” the land,
than for “Nationalising '' any other kind of property 2 Land can
be made—as much as you can make anything, says the
Anti-Socialist—and belongs, in justice, to those who have
made it ! In some cases, it has been literally made.
The Bedford Level, for example, was reclaimed from the
Sea, and every inch of it, is due to capital and labour.
In every instance though, where land has been brought to the
state of producing anything, it has been “made.” You go to a
piece of land. You hedge it; you ditch it ; you drain it; you
plough it; you harrow it; you put seed on it; and—if it be old–
you manure it—that is, to “make ’’ it, in farmer's language;
and then you go away. You go away, for a long time. On your
return, you find a harvest of golden wheat, spread before your eyes.
Do you tell me, you made that wheat 2 No, no Labour could
never make an ear of corn, though it strove, for a million of
years, to do so. Nature produced that wheat. All you did, was
to hand in certain raw-material (seed) a thing you, certainly, did
not “make l’’-at the door of Nature's laboratory. Nature took
it from your hand and shut the door in your face. On your
return, at the lapse of a certain period, Nature opened the door
to you again, and showed you the harvest, she had produced. It
is in the nature of seed, where it is placed in a soil, containing
moisture, and certain chemical ingredients, to expand, and grow,
and increase, without Labour having anything to do in the matter.
“The one operation, of putting things into fit places for being
acted upon by their own internal forces, and those residing in
other natural objects, is all that man does, or can do,” says a
certain eminent authority.
Let us, now, contrast land, with some other kinds of property.
And, let us begin with that kind of property we have just been
speaking of, namely, wheat. The wheat-supply, at present in the
world, is limited in quantity—no one will dispute that ; no man
made it; and, to deny anyone access to it, is to deny him the right of
eaistence. One can live without any land—that is, without own-
-

6
ing, or cultivating any; but, life would be impossible, without one
owned, every year, a certain quantity of bread. The stock of
wheat in the world, at any time, is the property of private
owners, and these private owners are apt to be very limited in
number. It is sometimes said that all the land in England is in
the hands of 30,000 landowners. All the wheat—or, nearly all
the wheat—in the world, though, is sometimes in the hands of
one, or two Chicago operators. There is nothing to be alarmed at,
though, in that. Self interest causes these operators to offer the
corn for sale, rather than keep it. If the State owned it, we could
not be more sure of its being distributed. Indeed, we could not
be so sure—of its being distributed, at a low price, at any rate.
For the State, destroying all competition, would fix its own price;
and, those who could not afford to pay for the article, would either
have to do without it, or, get up a Parliamentary agitation, to
remove the Ministry from power, and get another in its place,
that would do better.
Perhaps, it will be said, that although the supply of wheat in
the world, to-day, is limited in quantity, yet, the wheat the earth
is capable of producing is unlimited ; and, therefore, there is no
analogy between wheat, and the land, qua “Nationalisation.” It
is not true, though, that the earth can produce an unlimited
supply of wheat. It is inconceivable, that a given piece of land
could yield an unlimited supply of anything. You could, by
high cultivation, bring it up to a point of high fertility. But,
there would be a maximum, in that respect, that could only be
attained to. In course of time, the fertility of the piece of land
would decline, and, finally, would disappear. The land would,
in short, be eahausted, and would need to be “made '' again.
That is, the phosphate of lime, organic nitrogen, and other
things, that had been abstracted from it, would need to be put
back.
Take, now, the case of the supply of meat in the world's
market. It is, strictly, limited in quantity; no man made it—if
anyone knows how to “make ’’ beef, or mutton, he had better
patent the process, without delay—and, to deny anyone access to it
is to deny him the right of easistence. One could live without own-
ing, or cultivating, any land. But, without becoming the owner,
every year, of a cetain quantity of butcher-meat, no life—or
healthy, vigorous life, at any rate—could be maintained—unless
one is to hold by the doctrines of the Vegetarians.
And, what applies to such articles as food, applies to such
articles as, say, gold and silver. These are, strictly, limited in
quantity, and—in the form of money, they are absolutely essential
to life—to economic life, at any rate.
And what applies to gold, and silver, applies to iron, and all
the other metals. This is the age of iron, and, to deny what, so
far as use goes, can be called the “king of metals,” to anyone,
would be to deny him, very largely, the rights of existence.
Some years ago, there was a “pig-iron ring” formed, and nearly

7
all the raw-iron in the country, belonged to a few holders. Yet,
no one took alarm, or would anyone have taken alarm, though
it had come to belong to one single person. Self-interest would
have led that one holder to sell; just as self-interest leads a land-
owner to let out his land, to be made use of, by those who, in the
division of labour, that characterises civilised life, choose to con-
cern themselves, with the production of food.
And, what applies to food and to the metals, applies to horses,
and cattle, let us say. If Labour knows how to “make” a horse or
a cow—one would like to hear the details of the process, without
delay. Horses, and cattle cannot, perhaps, be said to be neces-
saries of life. But, to deny one access to them would, no doubt,
be a serious curtailment of one rights, and liberties.
And, what applies to horses and cattle, applies to, say, salt,
sulphur, and a thousand and one other drugs, or re-agents, that are
distributed through nature. The salt of the sea could be said to
be unlimited in quantity. But, it is not an available source of
supply. It is too expensive to evaporate it. The available
supply, is that known as rock-salt, and mined for in Cheshire and
other parts. It is limited in quantity; no man made it ; and, to
deny anyone access to it, would be to deny him healthful evist-
ence—for no one can live healthily, unless a certain amount of
salt is consumed, with the food.
And, what applies to these various things, applies also to wool,
say. As in every other case, nature produces it. If anyone
could claim a particular ownership of it, it would be the sheep,
one would think. While Labour and Capital, were struggling
over the proprietorship of it, the sheep might very well go off
with the product, saying “This is my property I made it !”
One could very well imagine someone stepping forth, though, in
such a case, and crying “Stop, sheep how about that grass I
supplied you with ; and the turnips I sustained you with, when
hay was dear: and the chemical-Wash I put on your back to keep
the maggots away; and the man I paid, to Watch over you, in the
lambing-season 2 You may have made the Wool, but I supplied
the capital ''
And, what applies to all the above kinds of property, applies
to cotton, timber, limestone, building-stone, clay—and, in short,
to every thing else that could be mentioned.
Finally, if a claim can be made for “Nationalising '' the
land, an equal claim could be made for “Nationalising ” all
the labourers. The land could produce nothing, without the
labourers, to work it. If land should belong to the State, because
it is an “instrument of production,” so should Labour, for the
very same reason. But, if a labourer is not to belong to himself,
but to the State, he will be, by definition—a Slave; and, all the
work of ages, in emancipating men from serfdom, will have
ended in naught.
In passing, it may be said, that the common statement, that
the great landlords obtained their estates by plunder must be

8
abandoned, if the rights of private-property be denied: for, the
great landlords could not have acquired their estates by immoral
means if the original owners had no right to their possessions.
Furthermore, all the usual denunciations of the land aggressions
committed by the Normans must be re-called, if the land
“Nationalisers” are right; as, after all, the worst that can be
said of William the Conqueror, is that he was a “Nationaliser.”
He seized all the land; centered it in the State—himself—and,
distributed it among those he considered would be the likliest
tenants. -
Are the countries not the happiest, where the people have
free access to the soil? If it were true, that the “Nationalisation”
of the land would “furnish the key to the solution of all social
difficulties,” America would be a paradise. There is land, and
to spare, for every one there. One can get it for nothing,
almost. In Canada, there are, even inducements held out to
people, to take up land, with a view to farming it. And yet,
there are as many social difficulties in the New World, as there
are in the Old—if not more. There are the rich, and the poor ;
the industrious, and the idle; the happy, and the miserable; the
prudent, and the temperate ; and the lazy, and the drunken.
Would not the “Nationalisation * of the land, redound to “the
happiness of all?” Those who are identified with the project fo
“Nationalising” the land, claim a monopoly of benevolence, and
are given to maintaining, that “the happiness of not only the
many, but of all,” is bound up with the carrying out of their
peculiar nostrum. But, in the first place, they fail to show, how
we could have fewer social grievances in this country, than they
have in America, say, if people could get on to the land here, as
they can there; and in the second place, they fail to see, that it
would be a pernicious, non-benevolent system, really, that would
set out, to make “all” happy. There are many people, who do
not deserve happiness. To make the drunken, the profligate,
and the vicious, happy; would be only to remove from them,
the only possible stimulus they can have, to mend their ways,
and try and do well.
Would “Nationalisation” of the land, not abolish landlordism 2
Those who advocate the “Nationalisation * of the land, are
never tired of denouncing the landlord, and describing him, as
one “who simply stands between his fellow man, and the raw
material of the globe, and levies a toll on those who use it.”
But, under a system of “Nationalisation,” a tenant would still
have a landlord, and rent, to contend with. The landlord would
be the State—and, a pretty hard, rack-renting, landlord, it
would be, one can rely . If owns land here and there already,
and is known for the strictness with which it ejects those, sum-
marily, who do not pay their rent with punctuality. It is found,
like all corporations, to be cold, and soulless; and, to plead with
it, for a little time of grace, would be, like praying to one of the
Egyptian pyramids.

9
What is rent? Suppose, the average profit, in trade, is ten per
cent. ; and, suppose, there is a piece of land which can just be made
to yield ten per cent., after all expenses are paid. The owner of
such a piece of land, would have to work it himself. At any rate,
he could not get any one to hire it from him; as, any amount that
was paid to rent, would reduce the ten per cent. yield, without
which, no one would go into business. Suppose now, there
were another piece of land, which yielded twenty per cent., for the
working—that is, every £100 expended on it, would yield £20,
at the end of the year. The owner of such a piece of land,
would, where he worked it, be ten per cent., or £10 to the good
every year; that is, after its yielding him the ordinary trade-
profit, he would have £10 over. Now, that £10 would represent
rent. He could, either keep it; or, if he put the piece of land,
on the market, some one would be found, to pay him, £10 per
annum for it. For, there is always a competition, to get the
best land, which takes the form of a competition, to pay the
most for it. That competition, naturally ceases, when so much
has been offered, that any further advance, would mean forfeiting
the average return for capital, below which, there would be no
inducement, to go into any business. In a word, Rent is deter-
mined by the ea cess of fertility of any piece of land, over the worst
land, under cultivation, that pays no rent; and, therefore, any
attempt to abolish rent, is an attempt to reduce all land to an
equality ºf fertility, with that of the worst land under cultivation.
The object of the land “Nationaliser” as it happens has nothing
to do with abolishing rent, but, only with substituting the State,
for the ordinary landlord. But, what would it signify, to a poor
tenant, that the Government, instead of the Squire, collected the
rent from him ; so long as it was collected with regularity every
quarter-day ? And, above all, how would the poor man, who
was to be got upon the land, but had no money to pay rent
with, be benefited, by the substitution of the State 2 as
Would not the “Nationalisation " of the land be the nearest
approach, possible, to an ideal land-system 2 An ideal land system
would be that, whereby everybody could be got on to the land—
that is, every body who wanted to go a farming; some people
have no taste that way –and, was put in the possession of
a seizable farm ; and, have capital enough to work it ; and be
secured, in some way, from foreign competition, so that he could,
always, be sure of big prices for his produce. But, how is such
a system to be attained? There is nothing in “Nationalisation "
that would bring it about. One fatal objection to carrying it
out, under any scheme, would be that there is not land enough in
the country for every one. We live in a “tight little island,” and if
the infertile lands of the north of Scotland, from which no cereals
but oats can be produced, were excluded, and an abatement made,
for the moor-lands of England, and the bog-lands and sea-coast
lands of Ireland, the amount of land that could be divided up,
under a system of Communism, would be found to be very limited
indeed.

10
The carrying out of the “Nationalisation" of the land would not
involve any eatraordinary financial difficulties, would it 2 Suppose
the supply, say, of boots and shoes in the country, were “nationa-
lised.” That, according to some people's ideas, would make
boots and shoes cheaper. According to others these would be as
dear as ever—if not a great deal dearer But how, in any case,
could the stock of boots and shoes be acquired by the Govern-
ment 2 Clearly, there would be only two ways open. The boots
and shoes would, either, have to be bought up; or, a method would
have to be resorted to, that will not bear naming—that of
plunder. As to the method of purchase, it must be remembered,
that Government has no money of its own. Where it bestows
any “gift” upon the people, it has first to go and raise the
money therefor through the taxes. “Ah, but only the rich
people pay taxes ' " say some gleefully. No, no! only very
ignorant people talk in that way ! The poor man has to pay his
share of the taxes—though sometimes he is so simple as not to
see how the process works. The taxes fall on all ! That can be
taken for granted. Where a shopkeeper is taxed, he makes his
customers pay—he is obliged to do so, or be driven into bank-
ruptcy. His profits, which, through competition, are scanty,
can only be declared, after all eaſpenses in business are paid. Where
a manufacturer is taxed, he recoups himself, from the price of the
goods, he makes. As to the cost of buying up all the boots and
shoes in the country, it is difficult to estimate what that would
be. As to the cost of buying up all the land in the United King-
dom, though, that has been estimated at £1,880,000,000. A sum
like that is difficult to realise. It can only be said that it is so
collossal that the raising of one-half of it would mean national
bankruptcy.
Are not all the landlords, eacessively rich men 2 No, many
thousands and thousands of workingmen own land, that they
have acquired, through Building Societies, and other means.
Indeed the various Building Societies, Friendly Societies,
Charitable Organizations, and Banks throughout the country,
are landlords, in a very large way. There are landowners
who are very rich, it is true; but it must be remembered
that the vast majority of the land in the kingdom has, since the
Conquest, been bought and sold many times over; and the
representatives of the last purchasers would, in common honesty,
be required to be compensated, for their vested interests.
Is not the use of the land “a condition of human easistence 2''
It is possible to exist, perfectly well, without owning land, or
having anything to do with farming, if that is what is meant.
The writer of this tract has lived a number of years in the world,
and although his success has never been what it should have—
according to his own estimate of his merits!—still, he has got
along fairly well; and he never owned an inch of land, in his life.
If the use of the land can be called a condition of human exist-
ence, then the question is, whether it cannot be procured better

11
under the Individualistic system than under the “Nationalistic.”
Would not the productiveness of the land be enormously increased,
if the people could be got on to the soil 2 It can always be affirmed
that a rich man, or a public company, carrying on production, on
the large scale, with plenty of capital, will invariably conduct
things, more profitably than a poor man, with limited capital.
Farming, is no exception to this rule. The husbandman in the
small way can never compete with the rich tiller of the soil, who
can afford to purchase, or hire, the best of machinery and appliances
of every kind. In kitchen-gardening, it may be, that the small
producer, who takes great pains with the patch of ground under
his care, may get a very great deal out of his lands. But, in the
growing of cereals it is different. There the condition of things
is similar to what it is in every great industry. In any of the
great staple trades, it is well known that the small man has no
chance in competing against the big. And, in the growing of
wheat, the competition that has to be met is that of the colossal
wheat producers of the West of America, and Canada. The
nature of that competition is such, that if one got land for nothing
in this country, one would still be unable to compete with America,
in wheat-growing in any but extraordinary seasons. It is an
axiom, among British farmers, that the growing of wheat in the
face of American competition means bankruptcy, if persisted in.
One great fact is continually overlooked by would-be land
reformers; and, that is, that the soil of this country is eachausted,
and has to be “made” afresh every year, with fertilising-material
before it is on a parity with the soil of the new countries.
Is it not true, that many of the great landlords keep a large part
of their land idle, for shooting and other purposes, that could be
made productive of food & The great landlords are not such fools
as to let any of their land lie idle, that could be brought under
cultivation, and so be made to yield rent. As a fact, the most of
the “shootings” are in the north of Scotland, in Northumber-
land, Derbyshire, and elsewhere, where the land is so barren,
that capital, and labour would be wasted where applied to food
production.
If something in the way of the “Nationalisation” of the land is
not attempted, will not the great landlord system go on for ever ?
If natural, economic laws are allowed to run their course, the
continued fall in the price of agricultural produce will make it
that the “prestige" attached to the owning of land will
diminish ; and one estate after another will come into the
market. That process has already begun, and year after year,
more and more land is advertised for public sale.
Is not England behind Russia, and some other countries, in the
way the people are kept off the soil 3 Russia is a very unfortunate
country for a “Nationalist " to quote, as Communism in land
prevails extensively there, and yet the peasantry are in a most
miserable, distressful, condition. Although “the people” are
“on the soil,” the harvest in Russia is frequently so poor that

12
famines occur ; and, normally, the exports of grain from the
Baltic and the Black Sea only take place because the people at
home are too poor to use white-wheat themselves, but are glad to
turn it into money, in the English, and other markets.
Would not the undue political power possessed, at present by the
landed-party be curtailed, where the land were “Nationalised " ?
No ; it would not On the contrary, it would be extended very
enormously. It has always been the rule, so far, that represen-
tation went with taxation ; and if the landlords were to pay all
the taxes, they would be entitled, in equity, to an exclusive
control of the national affairs. Under the present anti-Socialistic
system, a landlord has one vote—and a labourer on his estate
has one vote. Where the landowner paid all the taxes, he
would be entitled to a vote; but the labourer would be dis-
franchised.
Would not the working man be able to acquire a “stake in the
country’’ where the “Nationalisation" of the land were adopted?
The likelihood is that, where “Nationalisation " were adopted,
on the basis of the landowners being bought out, a good deal of
land would be thrown on to the market. Where rents were
escheated though, and a policy of robbery carried out, such a
shock would be given to the credit and honesty of the British
Government that “stocks would fall ” and industry be
seriously crippled. Where much land came on to the market,
it is very unlikely that the working man would be able to buy it.
With the heavy taxes that would be imposed, to raise the amount
of the compensation fund, wages would be disastrously reduced;
and, those who would likely succeed to the land, would be the
comfortable portion of the middle class, that has always some-
thing laid by, for special occasions. The working man would,
probably, be “fooled,” in any case, under “Nationalisation.”
If compensation were paid for the land seized, he would be taxed
to death, for generations to come ; and, if the land were seized,
without any compensation being given, the feeling of insecurity
that would be engendered, would paralyse that British commercial
enterprise, which is the foundation of all wages.
Everyone should read:—
Socialism Tested by Facts. Being an account of certain Experi-
mental Attempts to carry out Socialistic Principles, and containing a
criticism of ‘Looking Backward’ and the ‘Fabian Essays. By M.
D. O’BRIEN. Price 1s.
“Deals with ‘Fabian Essays,’ ‘Looking backward,' and other writings of that
kind . . . . at considerable length, with excellent directness.”—Saturday
Review. “A well-reasoned destructive criticism. . . . . It is so thoughtfully
written as to deserve the attention of all who are interested in its subject.”—
;" “A vigorous, amusing, and often shrewd criticism.” Western Daily
ress.
LIBERTY AND PROPERTY DEFENCE LEAGUE,
7, VICTORIA STREET, WESTMINSTER,