296

SOCIALISM  IM  ENGLAND.

George,  who,  starting  from  the  premiss  that  landlords  are
robbers,  does  not  see  why  they  should  be  compensated  for
being  deprived  of  their  powers  to  rob.  The  only  sound
principle,  however,  is  that  acknowledged  by  J.  S.  Mill,  who,
when  advocating  a  radical  change  in  the  Irish  Land  Laws,
said  :  “  Existing  pecuniary  interests  which  have  the  sanction  of
law  ought  to  be  respected.  An  equivalent  ought  to  be  given
for  the  bare  pecuniary  value  of  all  mischievous  rights  which
landlords  or  any  others  are  required  to  part  with.”  Mr.
Wallace,  indeed,  labours  hard  to  prove  that,  with  the  compensation ­
  he  proposes,  his  scheme  would  do  no  injury  to  existing
landlords.  But  no  amount  of  ingenuity  can  make  out  that  the
ownership  of  an  annuity  of  ^100  for  one,  two,  or  three  lives  is
of  the  same  pecuniary  value  as  the  ownership  in  fee  of  land
producing  a  net  annual  income  of  £\oo.  The  practical
difference  would  be  that  the  owner  of  the  annuity,  if  he  were  a
prudent  man,  would  capitalize  a  portion  of  it,  and  in  this  way
his  net  available  income  would  be  diminished.
Mr.  Wallace  does  not  propose  that  any  limit  should  be
placed  to  the  amount  of  land  which  an  individual  may  hold,
thinking  that  the  prohibition  of  sub-letting  would  render  all
other  legislative  restriction  unnecessary.  One  of  his  most
distinguished  disciples.  Professor  F.  W.  Newman,  however,
would  render  it  illegal  for  any  one  person  to  hold  more  than
five  hundred  acres.  This  modern  Gracchus  is  somewhat  less
tender  than  Mr.  Wallace  with  regard  to  vested  interests.  He
compares  Mr.  Wallace’s  proposal  to  the  Sibyl’s  offer  to  King
Tarquin.  If  not  listened  to,  less  favourable  terms  will  be
offered  next  time.
The  most  original  and  characteristic  part  of  Mr.  Wallace’s
scheme  is  that  by  which  he  proposes  to  remedy  the  overpopulation ­
  of  towns,  and  draw  back  the  people  to  the  country,  by
offering  to  every  one  a  free  choice  of  cheap  land.  “  Every
Englishman,  ’  he  says,  “should  be  allowed  once  in  his  life  to
select  a  plot  of  land  for  his  personal  occupation.  His  right  of
choice  will,  of  course,  be  limited  to  agricultural  or  waste  land  ;
it  will  also  be  limited  to  land  bordered  by  public  roads
affording  access  to  it  ;  it  will  further  be  limited  to  a  quantity  of