XIX SOME OBJECTIONS ANSWERED 349 



just as freely. His rent would never be raised on account 

 of any improvement made by himself, but only on account 

 of increased value of the ground-rent, due to the growth 

 of population or other general causes, which would affect 

 all the land around as well as his. He would therefore 

 enjoy all the rights, all the privileges, and all the security 

 which a freeholder enjoys. But he would have this great 

 advantage over the freeholder, that he need not sink one 

 penny of his capital in the purchase of the soil ; and thus, 

 for one man who could save money enough to acquire 

 a farm or a homestead by purchase, two or three would 

 be able to become State-tenants, with money in their 

 pockets to stock their land or build their house, and 

 to live upon till their first crops were gathered. Those 

 who maintain the superiority of freeholds, therefore, 

 speak without knowledge; the superiority is all the 

 other way. 



There is one more point to be considered, which is of 

 great importance, that under a general system of small 

 freeholders, one half of these would very soon be ruined by 

 the other half — would be obliged to sell their farms to 

 money-lenders or lawyers, and thus great estates would 

 again monopolize the land. The way this would necessarily 

 come about (as it always has come about) is as follows. 

 Suppose there are a body of peasant proprietors all over 

 the country. Their land necessarity varies in quality and 

 position, and, therefore, in value from fifteen or tAventy 

 shillings an acre up to two, three, or four pounds an acre ; 

 and, all being freeholders, none of them pay rent. But the 

 owner of the better land can afford to sell his produce of 

 all kinds at a lower rate than the owner of the inferior 

 land, because prices which will enable the former to live 

 and save money will be starvation to the latter. Hence 

 an unequal competition will arise between the two classes 

 in which the one must necessarily starve out the other. 

 The payment of rent in proportion to the inherent value of 

 the land equalises the position of all. The occupier of poor 

 land at a low rent can fairly compete with the occupier of 

 rich land at a high rent ; and thus while a system of small 

 'proprietors is sure to fail, a system of small occicpiers, 



