140 PEASANT PKOPEIETORS 



On general grounds the proposition can hardly be dis- 

 puted that an increase in the number of those who enjoy 

 proprietary interests in the land is socially and politically, 

 if not economically, advantageous. But the increase must 

 be obtained by evolution, not revolution. For immediate 

 relief of agricultural distress it is folly to look to peasant 

 proprietorship. None of its advantages can be secured 

 unless its growth is spontaneous. Habits of thrift, in- 

 dustry, and sobriety are formed by centuries of custom and 

 training — they will not spring up like mushrooms in a 

 single night. State legislation opposed to natural laws is 

 as effective as the Pope's bull against a comet. The dis- 

 appearance of the class in England and its prevalence 

 abroad result from gradual, well-ascertained causes. No 

 argument for its artificial creation can be drawn from 

 agrarian legislation on the Continent, while in every Euro- 

 pean country it only exists side by side with landlordism. 

 If it can be shown that the difficulty and expense of the 

 transfer of land obstruct the natural growth of peasant 

 proprietors, let the obstruction be removed. Its removal 

 is on other grounds desirable. But the destruction of large 

 estates and the creation of a class of small owners is a 

 more than doubtful experiment of the legislature. Pea- 

 sant proprietorship cannot be revived without a return to 

 an extinct social system. Reduce population by one-half, 

 revive domestic industries, return commons and wastes to 

 their former barrenness, make the farmer independent of 

 manufacture — in a word, restore the conditions of self- 

 suflScing agriculture, and the peasant proprietor may still 

 thrive. Under the present conditions of production, when 

 crops must be sold as commodities for money, it is only 

 under exceptional circumstances that the peasant owner 

 maintains his ground. 



