208 LAND TENURE 



as to " good estate management ; " but if one dare venture 

 to express a hope it is that beyond this clearing up there should 

 be no more legislation ; no further interference between land- 

 lord and tenant ; no further advance towards fixity of tenure 

 or dual ownership. It is certain that any group of politicians 

 attempting further legislation of this kind will find hearty 

 support from those who favour nationalisation of the land, 

 for if fixity of tenure be carried to its ultimate conclusion 

 nothing short of nationalisation can result. Perhaps it maj^ 

 not be altogether out of place to put on record a few remarks 

 from men, some of whom have been looked upon as infallible, 

 and all of whom were of acknowledged ability : 



Mr. Gladstone opposed a Land Bill brought in by Mr. Butt 

 " because," he said, " ... perpetuity of tenure on the 

 part of the occupier is virtually expropriation of the landlord, 

 and as a mere readjustment of rent according to prices can 

 by no means dispose of all the contingencies the future may 

 produce in his favour, compensation would have to be paid to 

 the landlord for the rights of which he would be deprived. 

 .... The effect of such provision will be that the land- 

 lord will become a pensioner and a rentcharger on what had 

 been his own estate. The Legislature has, no doubt, the 

 perfect right to reduce him to that condition, giving him proper 

 compensation for any loss he may sustain in money." (Han- 

 sard, vol. cxcix., 320.) 



Another quotation of Mr. Gladstone's which, though 

 perhaps not exactly germane, still bears on what would be 

 the result if fixity of tenure were carried to its logical con- 

 clusion, will not be out of place. Speaking at Hawarden in 

 1889, he said : " I think nationalisation of the land, if it 

 means the simple plunder of the proprietors and sending them 

 to the workhouse, that, I consider, is robbery. I think 

 nationalisation of the land with compensation, as far as I can 

 understand it, would be folly, because the State is not qualified 

 to exercise the functions of a landlord . . . and the 

 State could not become the landlord. It would overburden 

 and break down the State." 



Somewhere about the early 'sixties Lord Palmerston 



