Freehold Land Societies: Their History, Present Position, and Claims
TextV. – MOVEMENT CONSIDERED POLITICALLY
But we may be told, politically the movement has been a failure. Our answer is, it has been nothing of the kind. It is true, and we state the fact more in sorrow than in anger, that Messrs. Newdegate and Spooner still represent North Warwickshire; but it is also clear that whilst at the election previous to the last Mr. Spooner had, in the Birmingham district, a majority of 196, at the last election, in consequence of the operation of the Freehold Land Societies of that district, he was actually in a minority of 395. But let us look nearer home. At the recent election for Middlesex, Bernal Osborne was returned, after a severe struggle, by a majority of 195. Now, when we recollect that the National alone has purchased 152 acres in Middlesex, and that each acre is capable, on an average, on subdivision, of making five votes – when we also remember that the remaining London societies have purchased between them another hundred acres in the same county – it is impossible not to feel, even supposing all the allotments have not been taken up, that out of the 250 acres thus cut up into allotments came the majority which returned Bernal Osborne as the champion of Liberalism and Free Trade. We repeat, it is impossible not to feel that if it had not been for the Freehold Land Societies, to the disgrace and shame of the county, Lord Maidstone would have misrepresented Middlesex. Then we remember that Mr. Locke King was but 400 ahead of Mr. Antrobus at the Surrey election last summer – we must also feel that that gentleman has some reason for thankfulness to Freehold Land Societies. If we pass to Herts, we shall feel that it sadly failed in its duty by returning three pledged Protectionists; but when we recollect that the National has purchased 300 acres in that county, we cannot but be persuaded that there is “a good time coming” for our friend Mr. Lattimore and the Herts Reformers. At the last election, the lowest of the Protectionist candidates – the quondam Reformer, Sir Bulwer Lytton – had 2,190 votes: the highest of the Liberals had 2,043. It is thus as clear as anything can be that a very little effort will make Hertfordshire for ever safe. It is in the power of any two hundred persons desirous of a good investment to do so at once. Essex, the home of Sir J. Tyrrel and the delight of W. B., we regret to write, is not so easily liberalised. North Essex at present is impregnable. Its squires, as Barry Cornwall ironically writes,
“With brains made clear
By the irresistible strength of beer,”
are beyond salvation: there is no hope for this generation of them. But South Essex is not so hopelessly lost to the people’s cause. It is true that last summer it did unseat Sir E. N. Buxton, and return Sir W. B. Smijth by a majority of 600; but the National has purchased 242 acres in that county, and out of that number can create 1,210 electors. Evidently, then, there is hope for Essex yet. But we need not continue this scrutiny. The people have placed within their hands the very privilege they so much desire. They need not wait for Government to emancipate them; they can emancipate themselves. For instance, the National will put any person desirous of the same in possession of a county qualification for North or South Essex, East or West Kent, Hertfordshire, West Sussex, North Hants, North Lancashire, or Middlesex. If, as some of the knowing ones maintain, we shall soon have a general election, of course the sooner one is put on the register the better. If not, the purchaser can take no harm: he will have his quid pro quo; he will have placed his money in that best of all banks, the land, and will have become one of that important class appealed to on certain occasions as the “Electors of the United Kingdom.” Heaven helps those who help themselves. Instead of the people waiting for Government to extend the franchise, they can boldly help themselves. No man deserves the electoral privilege who cannot purchase it by his own industry and self-denial. At the present time, when provisions are cheap, when work is abundant, when wages are high and labour scarce, there is not a man in our streets who may not win the franchise if he has the will. Half the men who brawled in low pot-houses, while their wives and children were starving, over their beer, for the Charter, and nothing but the Charter, if they had stopped at home, and worked and saved their money, might, by this time, have realised the manhood suffrage of which they so idly dreamed; and if, at the next election, the men of progress are beaten, and the friends of class legislation and injustice prevail, it will be because the people were not true to themselves – because they had not enough of self-denial, enough of earnestness and independence, to avail themselves of the advantages offered by the Freehold Land Movement, and thus to have a representation that shall be real, and not a sham. By means of the Freehold Land Movement, every county in England may be won. To the very natural suggestion that that is a game that two can play at, the answer is very obvious. In such a contest numbers will tell. A qualification that may be had for £30 will fall into very different hands to what it would were its price £1,000. For one aristocratic voter thus made, the people will have ten. An appeal to the masses can have but one result. Human nature must be changed before it can be otherwise. Be this as it may, the political result is undoubtedly good – the emancipation of all who have the wit, and will, and worth to win the franchise for themselves.
VI. THE MORAL AND SOCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE MOVEMENT
Anything offering a man inducement to save must be attended with beneficial results. As society is constituted, a spendthrift is a nuisance and a curse; the charge hitherto against the working classes of this country has been, that they have been reckless and improvident – that they are beggars one day and spendthrifts the next – that the money gained with such difficulty is squandered away with a wicked wastefulness, such as can be paralleled in no other part of the world. The English lower orders have always been thus improvident. During the late war the sailors, when on shore, would resort to every absurdity to get rid of their money. Colonel Landman tells us of one who had just received prize money to the amount of £500, and, being allowed only one week in which to get rid of it, had, to do so more effectually, hired a carriage and four for himself, another for his hat, and another for his cudgel, in which style he travelled to London. A common sight at Plymouth was that of sailors sitting on the ground breaking watches to pieces for a glass of grog, for which they had previously paid £5 each; one hard-hearted captain having refused leave to a sailor to go on shore, the man, in the bitterness of his disappointment, filled a pint pot with guineas and threw them overboard, as he could not immediately derive enjoyment from their use. It is true a great change has been effected in this respect, and society has reaped the benefit. A man who saves money is not a drain upon his friend; is not a dissipated man; costs society less, and does more for it than another man. The self-imposed taxation of the working classes has been set down by Mr. Porter at fifty millions a-year. In reality it is much more: there is loss of time – there is sickness induced by intemperance – there are the gaols, and police-stations, and police, which would be much less expensive were the intemperance of the country less. Thus, if you change a nation of spendthrifts into a nation of economical men, you bring about a great and glorious result. Such a nation never can be poor. It will always have capital, and capital is the fund out of which labour is maintained, out of which the arts that humanise and bless mankind spring – out of which the soft humanities of life arise. Thus, then, the Freehold Land Movement is attended with great moral and social good. Viewed politically, also, it must be considered to have had the same result. It is something to have made a man an independent voter – to have made him feel that he has won his political rights for himself – that he has no need to cringe and beg – to have taught him that —
“Man who man would be
Must rule the empire of himself.”
Such a man will infuse fresh blood into the constituency. He will not give a vote like a browbeaten tradesman or a dependent tenant-farmer. His landlord will not be able to drive him to the polling-booth like a sheep. On the contrary, he will go there erect and free – a man, and not a slave. In every point of view, indeed, the benefits of the movement are immense. In the neighbourhood of all our large towns estates are being built on, where the members of the different societies living on their own freeholds enjoy the blessings of pure air, and light, and water, of which otherwise they would have been deprived. In Birmingham the mortality amongst children has been already lessened 2½ per cent. in consequence of this very fact. If it be true that we cannot get the healthy mind without the healthy body, this is something gained; but when we further remember that the money thus profitably invested would most of it have been squandered in reckless enjoyment – in body and soul destroying drink – it is clear nothing more need be said. It was calculated that out of £25,000 received by the Birmingham Society, £20,000 have been saved from those sinks of poison, the dram-shop and the beer-house. Mr. James Taylor tells us, “Our working men are beginning to ponder the often-quoted saying that every time they swallow a glass of ale they swallow a portion of land. From calculations which have been made, it appears that the average price of land is 5½d. per yard, and therefore every time a man drinks a quart of ale he engulphs at the same time a yard of solid earth.” Nor is Mr. Taylor alone in his testimony. A correspondent of the Freeholder at Leominster stated, that instead of money being spent in drink it was devoted to the society there. In a late report of the Committee of the Coventry Society we read that “one of the most pleasing results of the society’s operations is the improved moral habits of many of its members.” The North and East Riding Society also reported “The society’s operations produce the best effects on the habits of its poorer members by encouraging them to save money from the public house.” Similar testimony was also borne by the Newcastle Committee, and at Darlington we learn that the society has been the means of converting many of its members into steady members of society, and instead of finding them at the ale-bench, wrote a correspondent, a few months since, “you may now see them at our Mechanics’ Institution, gaining all the information they can.” Thus, then, the Freehold Movement is creating everywhere a great moral revolution. It teaches the drunkard to be sober and the spendthrift to save. It comes to man in his degradation and strikes away the chain and sets him free. To the cause of Temperance it has been a most invaluable ally. For the money saved from the public-house it has been the most suitable investment. No wonder, then, that most of the leading men connected with the movement are also connected with the Temperance societies, or that it originated with them. It was born in a Temperance Hotel. Its founder was the Secretary of a Temperance society. Did the Temperance societies effect no other good, for this one fact alone would they deserve lasting honour in the land.