EFFECT OF POLITICAL UNREST^ 395 



prosperity postponed the shock of antagonistic interests. But now, 

 \vhen disastrous seasons and foreign competition paralyse the ener- 

 gies of agriculturists, when commerce ceases to expand with sufficient 

 rapidity to employ a growing population, land questions are not 

 merely considered with curiosity, but the exclusive privileges of the 

 few are discussed with deepening eagerness. The assailants of 

 property may be noisy out of all proportion to their numbers ; their 

 confidence may rather proceed from ignorance than from the calm 

 of reasoned conviction ; they may have given no proof, tested by 

 success, that their schemes are feasible ; they may forget that the 

 first and worst sufferers by economic blunders are the poor ; but it 

 is idle to ignore the danger of an agitation which has already scared 

 away capital from the land, and renders chronic the enfeebled con- 

 dition of agriculture. . . . The cry is raised, and assiduously 

 encouraged by pohtical leaders, that landlords are a parasitical 

 growth, a remnant of feudalism, a class that reaps what others sow. 

 The misconception is industriously fostered that England is a soUtary 

 exception to the universal rule of European landholding. It is 

 maintained with increasing vehemence that God made the land for 

 the people, that land is an ager pvblicus, which the State has granted 

 to landlords to administer, but which she may at pleasure resume. 

 Men quote with approval Mirabeau's retort to the objection that he 

 could not sell the landed property of the Church — ' Not sell it ! Then 

 I will give it.'" 1 



The effect of political unrest upon the agricultural industry in 

 1888 was the same as it is at the present day. " So long as wild 

 proposals for compulsory redistribution of property received the 

 support of prominent politicians, no landlord would expend money on 

 improvements, no capitaHst, large or small, would invest in the 

 purchase of land, no tenant would accept a lease, no labourer would 

 put his heart into his work. While the intentions of the Legislature 

 remained dubious and threatening, land continued to be unsaleable 

 and half -farmed. Behind all legislative changes lurked the ominous 

 question of confiscation. Land may be treated as private property, 

 held so as not to prejudice the pubUc welfare, but not to be taken 

 from owners without fair compensation ; or it may be distinguished 

 from private property, and the principles which guard private 

 pioperty held inappUcable to land. On which line was land legisla- 

 tion to proceed ? Wild talk about State-ownership, ransom, and 

 ^ Pioneers and Progress of English Farming (1888), pp. 126-7. 



