WHY THE STATE SHOULD OWN THE LAND.

Lake County Press, Issue 2697, 30 August 1917, Page 5

WHY THE STATE SHOULD OWN THE LAND.

BY THE COUNTESS OF WARWICK

Ab I write England rings with suggestions for the betterment of the conditions under whioh tbe soil of Britain is cultivated, but, as I see them, the suggestions are in no instauce drastic enough. The only cure for present evils seems to me to be State ownership, the abolition of all private property in the earth that was given to all of us in common. There are two classes of large landowners, the aristocracy and the plutocracy. Aa a class the aristocracy have been good landlords within limits ; but the limits are very marked, hecauso they have always been a narrow-minded body. Tbe average chatelaine who plays the part of Lady Bountiful is to me an abomination, because her philanthropy is so closely associated with dogmatic religion, personal pride, and party

politics. Let me give a few instances. I have known estates where the tenants are expected to belong to the Church of England, and Nonconformity is barred or persecuted. It is associated with Radicalism, and therefore suspect. Some farmers and very many labourers and small village tradesmen havo been ruined or exiled from the place of their birth because their opinions are contrary to those of the landlord. A suspicion of voting for the wrong candidate—i.e., for the man who is neither Conservative nor Unionist—is fatal, and leads at least to boycott. Men and women on such estates must rule their lives to order, think as they are told to think, do as they are told. If our aristocracy possessed the sweetness, the light, and the overwhelming wisdom necessary to justify lh< ■'- as supreme dictators all would be wuii, but I cannot reokon in their ranks more than half-a-dozen whose claims would bear even a momentary consideration The landed plutocrats have not the old feudal tradition of the aristocracy. All their lives they have been accustomed to make business ventures pay; and, while they value the prestige that a great estate confers, they demand 5 or 6 per cent, and employ an agent to see that they get it. My enquiries, extending over a number of years, confirm the common evidence that the landlord of this class is a bad landlord. . . . . I have felt for a number of years that for the betterment of social conditions in England a supreme sacrifice is required; war has deepened and strengthened the conviction. It seems to me no more than an act of justice that the remains of the valiant men who offered their lives for Britain should have the freedom of Britain for their reward. There i 3 no one member of ray own class who would claim to have done more, for his country than any of the rank and file, and it can be no justice that calls men to fight for the land and leaves it in the hands of a fraction of those who fought. To me it is impossible that in future His Grace or My Lord shall own square miles of Mother-Earth for which Tom died and Dick was sore wounded and Harry fought unscathed. Use and wont are hardened sinners, but surely even they must turn from such a prospect. The country has great needs, and if it is to remain solvent the united work of .one and all following the latest developments with the most complete equipment will be inevitable. The old feudal landlord will be an anachronism, the new money-spun landlord an abomination ; only the State can own the land in trust for those who can make it productive.