Pagina-afbeeldingen
PDF
ePub

duction thereof passed the House of Assembly towards the end of the month of July. It was, indeed, rejected by a majority of three in the Legislative Council, but rather upon the question of time than upon the merits of the Bill, the adoption of which cannot long be delayed.

Simultaneously with this discussion, the old Federation question has been revived, and a commission appointed by Sir H. Barkly to report upon the subject so far as relates to British possessions in South Africa, and at the same time the temper of the Cape Parliament has been evinced by the adoption on the 19th of July, of the following resolution upon the subject of annexation, proposed by the Colonial Secretary:

'That, in the opinion of this Committee, it is desirable and needful, as well for the interests of this colony as with a view to the maintenance of peace and order on our borders, that such a part of the territory commonly designated "the Diamond Fields," as belongs to the Griquas of West Griqualand, under the government of Captain Nicholas Waterboer, or to the native chiefs and people living in the vicinity of the said Griquas, should, in accordance with the desire expressed by the large number of British subjects now located there, and with the sanction of Her Majesty the Queen, and the consent of the said Griquas and other natives, be annexed to the colony. And this Committee is further of opinion that, if measures, having for their object the annexation of the territories aforesaid and the good government of the people resident therein, are introduced into the House of Assembly by his Excellency the Governor, it is expedient that the House should give its most favourable attention thereto, and should do what in it lies to make proper provision for the government and defence of the said territory, and for meeting the expenditure that may be occasioned thereby.'

It may be that when the Free State and Trans Vaal Boers are convinced of the approval of annexation on the part of the Cape Colonists, as well as of the firmness and determination of the British Government, they may be induced to reconsider the course of action which they have heretofore indicated. If they call to mind, moreover, the long years of difficulty and trouble which have followed their separation from British sovereignty, they may even yet come to the conclusion that their own future, as well as the future of the Cape Colony and of Natal, will stand out all the brighter if separation and division can once for all be exchanged for friendly unity. Welded together under one strong government, a Federation of loyal and well-managed provinces in South Africa might, indeed, look forward to a great, happy, and prosperous future.

This question of the diamond fields is but one phase of colonial history. Its final solution may, indeed, be looked for

VOL. CXXXIV. NO. CCLXXIV.

G G

with some anxiety, but the ability and discretion of Sir Henry Barkly, supported by the firm and statesmanlike policy of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, may be relied upon with confidence by those who await that solution. Let us trust that no recurrence by feebler men to the vacillation of 1851-4 may fetter that discretion or interfere with that policy. In the region of South Africa we have the finest climate in the world, a geographical situation important beyond measure when considered with reference to the other possessions of Great Britain, and a country possessing enormous capabilities of development. That development is already in progress: to guide and stimulate it by a judicious policy is in the power of Great Britain, and to that power is attached no little responsibility. A thrifty, cold, timorous, unfriendly policy may check the progress of the Cape and disgust the colonists. But we may hope for better things under our present régime at the Colonial Office. A hearty, generous tone of encouragement towards those who are about to help themselves, expressing the interest which Great Britain, as a mother country, takes in her distant children; and, whilst inculcating the lessons of self-reliance, at the same time assuring the colonists of the constant and watchful sympathy of the Government at home, will be amply justified by its beneficial results.

Nor can there be any valid excuse for a different line of conduct. Even economical considerations tell in favour of such a policy. The resources of South Africa have been shown to be more than sufficient to make her self-supporting: her products, and the increasing trade which will follow her gradual but certain development under an united and stable form of government, will not only relieve Great Britain from any apprehension of future expenditure to be incurred on her behalf, but will ere long more than repay the exertions and expenses of the past. Great as these have been, England will be amply rewarded if these efforts should result in the final pacification of a country for and in which so much of her blood and treasure have been expended, and in the permanent establishment of a system of government which will promote the welfare and happiness of the inhabitants of that country, and at the same time inscribe upon the page of history one more record of the contributions of English colonists to the cause of the civilisation and social progress of the world.

ART. VI.-1. Systems of Land Tenure in various Countries. A series of Essays published under the sanction of the Cobden Club.

1870.

2. Reports respecting the Tenure of Land in Europe. Foreign Office. 1869.

3. Programme of the Land Tenure Reform Association: with an Explanatory Statement. By JOHN STUART MILL.

1871.

4. Landlordism. By DAVID SYME.

1871.

5. NASSE on the Agricultural Community of the Middle Ages. Translated by Colonel OUVRY. 1871.

IT

T is often matter of curious observation to note how long controversies will survive the importance, nay, the very existence, of the subject-matter out of which they arise. The two champions in Orlando Furioso went on fighting for the fair Angelica, inflicting grievous wounds and performing wonderful feats of fence, long after the lady in question had slipped out of their presence, aided by magic sleight. It was only on pausing to take breath that they discovered they had nothing left to contend for. And so, in philosophical discussions respecting matters connected with the progress of our race, it will every now and then happen that this progress outstrips the discussion itself; and while the partisans of the two sides are still engaged in argument respecting accuracy of facts or questions of terminology, society has opened a new chapter of existence, and the rival reasoners go on for a while with a contest of which they do not recognise the futility. Something like this has not unfrequently occurred in the wranglings of political economy. The arguments do not finally die out until some time after the practical problem has been solved by inevitable action. A similar state of things is now evincing itself in regard to another very favourite field for the exercise of philosophical ingenuity-the small and great 'culture' question, or rather questions. For it is of course one thing to maintain, as some do, that small farms, within a certain limit, can raise a greater net produce than large ones; another thing to contend for the moral and social advantages of small as against large proprietorships. In a scientific sense, the two questions are entirely distinct, and a good deal of confusion arises from allowing the one to slide into the other. But in respect of their bearing on practical life, they are of course closely connected. Large farm cultivation, together with sub

division of landed property, may not be impracticable, but has not as yet been realised. And, taking the whole subject as one, few have excited of late years greater interest or been debated with greater vehemence. Mr. Mill and his school possess, at all events, the merit of having endeavoured to lead public opinion into a new mould, and met the generalisations of Arthur Young and his sectaries by generalisations quite as bold, and resting on proofs quite as plausible. That the contest still rages is evinced by the contents of the essays contained in the Cobden Club volume before us, which has met with very many readers, suggested much discussion, and provoked some answers. In two at least of the essays (On Land Tenure in France, by Mr. Cliffe Leslie; in Belgium, by M. de Laveleye), the issue between peasant properties and large properties is the leading subject, and is treated with strong inclination towards the former alternative.

But none of the champions appears sufficiently alive to the fact that the debate on which they are engaged is rapidly and surely deciding itself, through causes with which their ingenious speculations have nothing to do. As between small and large cultivation, every improvement in machinery, communication, intelligence, every new railway which is made or telegraph line which is constructed, has its tendency to favour the latter and depress the former. Economy of labour, economy of material, economy of force, in short, in every way in which it can be applied or understood, is in favour of the large farmer and against the small one. The qualities of the latter, hard industry, scrupulous saving, thrift, and even skill in the subordinate sense, lose day by day their comparative importance. The qualities of the former, intelligence on the broader scale, combination, speculative audacity, readiness for the adoption of novel means for ancient ends; these, in the progressive contest of life, are acquiring more and more the mastery. This may be a hard saying; our sentimental preference may be all for the virtues of the peasant cultivators, rather than of the capitalist cultivators; but we cannot help it. Neither tender feelings nor abstract scientific principles avail aught against the march of events. Like Churchill's youth,' which

Impetuous presses on to manhood's reign,
Impetuous presses on, yet with a cast

Of fond regret looks back on childhood past,'

Why a club instituted in honour of the apostle of Free Trade should have become an exponent of 'anti-landlord' opinions and restrictive agrarianism, we are unaware, nor does the preface really explain. Mr. Cobden himself gave no countenance to such views.

we may pause in our career to regret the better features of a state of things which has passed and is passing away; but we cannot recall them. And we must remember in addition a law which is too apt to escape our memory; that any impulse given to social progress in one direction, until some cause of arrest arises, increases in intensity and rapidity. Not only is the world on which we look constantly moving on, but the rate of motion is always (as a rule) in course of acceleration. If capital is accumulated in fewer hands now than it was twenty years ago, the probable calculation is, not only that it will be concentrated in still fewer hands twenty years hence, but that the rate or percentage of accumulation will be greater for the next twenty years than it has been for the last. We have spoken hitherto of the increasing prevalence of large over small farmers, but the same truth is equally manifest (and for reasons similar, though not exactly the same) as to the increase and consolidation of estates in the hands of large proprietors. There are of course certain limits to this rate of progress in both cases; but unless those limits are assignable-unless we can bring evidence of a commencing tendency to approach themsound philosophy bids us rely on the continuance of the movement now proceeding.

It is essential to observe that the tendency of which we speak, and which we venture to term, in economics, the ruling tendency of modern society, is in no degree confined to what concerns the appropriation and cultivation of land. In all industries alike, the turn' is in favour of large capitals against small; of engrossers against small retailers; of the wealthy few against the many traders on a competence. Mr. Norman, one of the ablest of our old-fashioned scholars of Smith and Ricardo who survive, though by no means 'sensational' enough for the requirements of this generation, has expressed this truth in language better than any which we could substitute for it:

In

'The writer,' he says, speaking of the Irish land difficulty, 'would even venture to hint that peasant proprietors are an institution which can hardly continue to exist in any country where property is thoroughly secure, and where an advanced state of industry in all its branches creates a demand for a numerous class of highly-paid labourers. such a state of things the small landowner will infallibly sell his land, for which he will probably obtain from thirty to forty years' purchase, and employ his money more profitably. Peasant properties, cultivated by their owners, differ but little in principle from domestic manufactures; and as these, unless in special cases, have yielded to the factory system, so will peasant proprietors gradually become either farmers or well-paid labourers, owning perhaps a house and garden, and placing

« VorigeDoorgaan »