Amendments to clause 4 containing provisions with respect to contracting-out: (2.) The foregoing enactment shall not apply to any agreement (3.) Nor shall it apply to any such agreement made after the (i.) That it provides reasonable compensation in all cases (ii.) That the compensation is paid from a fund to which the employer contributes not less than one-third: Provided that the Board of Trade shall not certify as aforesaid in any case where in their judgment the ordinary course of business or employment is such, that by reason of the limited number of workmen employed or of frequent changes of workmen, it is not possible to ascertain the free opinion of the workmen employed: Provided also that in case the insurance fund is insufficient to provide the agreed compensation, and the employer is unwilling to make up the deficiency, the agreement shall be considered void, and the workman shall have the same remedy that he would have had if he had not entered into it: Provided also that the employer shall not make it a condition of engagement with the workman that he shall enter into such agreement. (4.) The Board of Trade may make rules for taking the votes of workmen by secret ballot in such a way as to ensure that they vote freely and without constraint; and it may from time to time, at its discretion, require such votes to be taken anew after the lapse of any period of not less than three years: but in the case of seamen and others employed afloat, the Board may make such provision for enabling them to give their votes freely and without constraint as shall in its judgment be suitable to the requirements of their employment. The only argument which this carefully planned and worded amendment left to the Government was that the ballot could not be relied on to fairly secure the opinion of the men. That is to say, the machinery which is sufficient to secure the free expression of opinion in the selection of Parliamentary and local representatives, and which is sought to be applied by trade unionists to the determination of what classes shall or shall not fall under an eight hours' law, is to fail when the workman has to elect whether he will take his remedy for injuries at common law or under a private insurance scheme. Why should it fail? The question has not been answered. Attitude of the Government. The entire absence of any reasonable ground for rejecting the contracting-out clause puts the Government in a most invidious position. They have prevented the passing of a measure which, by their own admission, confers very great benefits upon the working classes; and they have shown unreasonable and reprehensible hostility to insurance arrangements which it is a clear duty to encourage.1 These private insurance schemes affect a very large number of workmen throughout the country. One alone, that of the London and North-Western Railway Company, applies to 60,000 employees, and into its funds the company last year paid over £18,000. A deputation which lately approached Lord Salisbury on the subject represented nearly 100,000 men, who were practically unanimous in demanding exemption from the clause. If they wish exemption, if they desire freedom to make contracts for themselves, why in the name of reason should it be refused? The grounds of their demand are plain enough. Their existing schemes, by protecting them against all accidents, and ensuring speedy and certain payment of claims, are infinitely more valuable to them than any rights which the proposed legislation would confer. And what is of still greater importance, such schemes help materially to promote good feeling between employer and employee. Such good feeling, unfortunately, it is the desire of some agitators to subvert; and partly under pressure from such men, and partly with the view of picking a quarrel with the House of Lords, the Government have taken up an attitude on this question that is no less subversive of the liberty of the working classes than it is detrimental to their material interests. They may yet find that the support of a few labour leaders is but a poor recompense for conferring upon the Upper House, as the issue of this and certain other controversies seems likely to do, a popularity which it never before enjoyed. 1 The Government maintain that their Bill will not injure or destroy the existing societies. But they are on the horns of a dilemma; for they are admittedly guided by the advice of certain labour leaders, who make no secret of their hostility to these societies. CHAPTER XXI. THE LAND LAWS. A GREAT deal is said at election times about the "Land Laws," and if one were to judge by the utterances of certain agitators one might be disposed to believe that a change in the "Land Laws" would usher in a golden age of peace and plenty. It is probable, however, that many of those who wax so eloquent about the "Land Laws" would be greatly at a loss if called upon to give an account of any of those laws of which they so bitterly complain. The various proposals for a change in these laws will be briefly considered in detail, but, in the first place, a single word as to the relation of the Conservative party to the land question and to landlords, and as to the spirit in which the land question should be approached by Conservatives. The Conservative party is not a landlord party. In many districts of the country the majority of landowners are Conservatives, and the Conservative party is not ashamed of it-any more than it is ashamed of the fact that in many districts of the country the great majority of tenant farmers are Conservatives, or of the fact that for every landlord supporter in the country the party has twenty artisan supporters in the great towns. Conservatives hold no special brief for the landlord class. Landowners (in the sense of proprietors of considerable estates) are but one section of the community. The Conservative party is a great national party, and with such a party the interests of any one section of the people are not and ought not to be the paramount consideration. From the Conservative party landlords are entitled to no more and to no less than should be accorded to every other class of citizens-justice. Like other capitalists they ought to be protected in the just and reasonable enjoyment of the property which belongs to them. But if there are anomalies in the law affecting this class of property which are contrary to the public good, or which operate unjustly, it is neither the policy nor the duty of the Conservative party1 1 The Conservative party has no reason to be ashamed of its past record in the matter of land legislation. The following subjects have been successfully dealt with: Settlement (Entail), (1868 and 1875). to defend these anomalies, but on the contrary that party is found to effect such changes in the law as will redress the evils complained of. LAND TENURE AND LAND RESTORATION. The notion prevails that property in land is treated differently from other kinds of property, and has special privileges which these do not possess; and that the present system of property in this country, and all its supposed hardships, are the result of what is called Feudalism. And it is sometimes said that property in land, as we understand it, is of recent growth, and that, to put it roughly, the land has been stolen by the landlords. favourite cry, "Land Restoration," proceeds upon this theory. But the idea is sheer nonsense. The truth is, as shown below, that property in land is governed and ruled by the same principles as property in everything else. It is impossible, in a civilised country, where land is of any value, that it should not be property. You may take it from one person and give it to another without payment, which is robbery; you may take it from one person against his will and give it to another on payment of its supposed money value, which is expropriation, and is justifiable only when done to promote a great public object of unquestionable benefit; but the property remains, and somebody has what he can sell, or let, or raise money upon. Ever since civilisation began, as far back as we have records to take us, the right of private property in land has been recognised; it has been bought and sold and let out to tenants, and the owners of it have spent money upon it on the faith that it was theirsin the words of the old charters-" as long as grass groweth up and water runneth down." The Feudal System.-Even yet we hear wild talk about "feudalism," and a few years ago well-to-do farmers of hundreds of acres described themselves as "oppressed feudal vassals," and occasionally as "serfs." serfs." But the vassal and the serf were quite different people under the feudal system, and the vassal was not a farming tenant but the owner of land, who held the property of land, and had all the rights of ownership, subject to Hypothec (Scotland), (1880). Labourers' Allotments (1887 to 1890). Labourers' Allotments (Scotland), (1892). Power to Trustees to reduce rents (1887). County Government (1888, 1889). Relief of Local Taxation (1888 to 1891). certain distinct and well-defined rights in the overlord or superior who had granted it to him or his predecessors. As a legal system, feudalism was concerned only with the rights and relations of the owners, and not of the occupiers of land, as occupiers. The king was the chief overlord or superior, and he, and the other overlords or superiors under him, granted or sold, as the case might be, the right of property to their vassals, in some cases for money, in others for military or other services. But what the vassal got, whether he held direct from the king or not, was the right of property-the same thing that the purchaser of a landed estate gets to-day. The vassal's relations with his tenants were governed then as they are now, not by feudalism, but by the ordinary law of contract-which dealt with landlord and tenant, with leases, fixtures, and removings, for centuries before feudalism was ever heard of. The right of property implies the power of doing three things: (1) Using it by one's self or one's servants; (2) letting it out to hire, to those who will pay for the use, and return the thing at the time agreed upon; (3) alienating it—i.e., selling or disposing of it altogether to other people. All these rights the vassal had: he was the owner, and so long as he, or those to whom he had transferred his property, fulfilled the agreed-on obligations to the overlord, that overlord, whether he was the king or a subject, could never recall the grant he had made. So long as the vassal was willing to fulfil his obligations, no power could take his property from him. It could only be taken by legal process for debt, if he failed to fulfil his money obligations. It could only be demanded by the overlord if he failed in any duty towards him. By feudal usage, as well as by the laws of every civilised State, it could only be confiscated by the king or Government as a punishment for high treason. The feudal grants by the king were not the presents of a despotic monarch that might be demanded back at any time, but the investing of men with rights well known, clearly defined, and guaranteed by the whole power of the State. It was true both of England and Scotland, that "no Parliament hath or can have authority to divest the subjects of a title or right to the freedom of their persons, and of a property in their estates, save in cases wherein by the known and common laws they are forfeited." It was, in fact, the forfeiture of rebellious subjects for high treason that enabled our monarchs to reward those who had been loyal to king and country by grants of estates; and it is a remarkable thing that, though enormous quantities of land thus passed from one owner to another in times of trouble, the principle of property was untouched and unshaken amid all these revolutions and commotions. Be the form of the titles what it may, the real fact of the matter is, that, with the feudal relation |