Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1096

Extended, typed quotation from Encyclopedia Britannica, Ninth Edition, Vol. XIV p 265, article on “Land.”

The above sketch, imperfect as the limits of space have compelled it to be, of the history of land tenure throughout the world shows that it has pursued one unvarying course. Commencing in community of tribal possession, and has every­where by degrees been appropriated to the villagers, to the family, and at last to the individual. But in every stage the conditions of its enjoyment and use have been absolutely regulated by the community in reference to the general wel­fare. A history so uniform would seem to rest on principles of human nature, and to be incapable of reversal. Neverthe­less in the present age two opposite parties have impugned its lessons. The one would revert to the almost prehistoric times when community of property, of labour, and of wealth formed the rule of existence. The other speaks of individual property, especially in land, as a sacred and indefeasible principle, and denounces every restraint or modification introduced by the state as spoliation. Between these extremes an infinite variety of ideas for more or less making land or its produce public property, and more or less restricting the right of the personal owner, have been put forward, and are, with some confusion, strenuously advocated. A brief attempt will now be made to discriminate between what in these ideas is sound and what is impracticable.

The principles of communism have unquestionably struck deep root in the minds of large classes of the public, chiefly in Germany, but to no inconsiderable extent in other countries and even in England. Nor can they be dismissed as merely criminal and worthy of no answer but repression. The answer must rather be that they are based on hopes and beliefs in the capability of human nature for self sacrifice, which we have no warrant in yet accepting as our practical guide. A golden age may yet return, in which all shall be for the country and no one for himself, and we may even imagine that each successive age shows its nearer approach. But at least it has as yet not come. In every community there are found a large number of individuals who would not work honestly except under the compul­sion of self-interest or of close superintendence. No social­istic scheme has yet been devised which copes with this ten­dency. In all of them a vast hierarchy of official inspector­ship would be demanded, which, even if adequate would eat up the profits. In all of them red-tapism of regulation would forbid the progress derived from freedom to experiment. For the case of the culture of land, an art involving such variety of method applied to such variety of circumstance, it seems, as yet, impossible to conceive arrangements by which joint possession could result in beneficial production. We know it even among families to be at present a hindrance and source of loss. Nor has any definite scheme been yet proposed by socialists to show how it could be worked by the state. Till its advocates at least do this, and permit us to judge as men of business of the practical effect of their system in a given area and with given machinery, it were waste of time to discuss their aspirations and their imaginary results.

The general object of supporting private property in land is to increase its produce, by inducing the owner, through motives of self-interest and affection for his family, to
bestow on it the greatest amount of labour …