agriculture. Although we propose to follow Mr. Arnold cate-

" kind," the true, because the cheapest, way of takingtaxes gorically, we shall endeavour to keep our remarks on hie.

statements on farming matters as distinct as possible.

Fro Land. By Arthur Arnold. London : C. Regan Paul and Co.

The object of the author is " to make the ownership of land accord with the free operation of economic laws." In answer to the question, "Who has the laud ?" Mr. Arnold examines the New Domesday Books, and, after due allowance for their errors, he concludes that no less than four-fifths of the agricultural soil of the United King- dom, or 52,000,000 acres, are in the hands of about 7,000 persons ; whilst of Scotland, fifty-three owners hold two- fifths of the laud. The House of Lords, containing some five hundred hereditary Peers, and owning a quarter of the acreage of Great Britain and Ireland, is strictly repre- sentative of this body of land-holders ; and Mr. Arnold is "profoundly convinced that in the United Kingdom, as it is, there is no basis for a Second Chamber possessing any- thing comparable to the representative power and ability of the great landowners." Yet a few pages on, we find Mr.

Mill's saying that " great landowners have rarely studied any- thing " quoted with approval, and throughout the book there are _numerous passages which it is difficult to reconcile with the profound conviction of its author. It is well to remember that the laws relating to land have been made by the land- lords, and it is to primogeniture, entail, and settlement that we owe the existence of hereditary legislators, from whom the full force of opposition to reform is to be expected. That the blight resting upon land must be removed, is becoming every day more apparent. Large landed possessions in them- selves give a man high position and great influence, political and social ; and surely the energies of our nobles would be, as a rule, far better employed in the management of estates of which they were actual owners, than in opposing the course of neces- sary legislation at Westminster.

Probably eighty per cent. of the land of this country, we are .told, is settled and entailed, or in other words, it is in an owner- less condition, for all practical purposes. There are a few limited landowners who are energetic improvers, but the majority are embarrassed, and, as a consequence, we find on every side land .undrained, and buildings and cottages ruinous. Were the land free, the owners could sell part and improve the rest ; but under existing conditions every penny laid out in improvements goes to increase the eldest son's portion. Lord Carington's speech, 4delivered last year, quoted by Mr. Arnold, shows how unenvi- able the position of life-owners is. " What the tenant-farmers do with the land" is the question that next engages our atten- tion, and here Mr. Arnold draws an absurd comparison between the intelligence of the farmer and the manufacturer, greatly to the farmer's disparagement. It is true that the heavy burdens under which the soil has laboured have driven many very able men to seek less hampered engagements ; but it is quite ,overlooked that the intelligence of the farmer must of necessity _differ in kind from the smartness of the manufacturer. In farming, more than in any other industry, it holds good that,—

" Nature is made better by no mean, But Nature makes that mean."

No man can hurry the seasons, alter the climate, or enjoy two harvests in one year. The farmer can but work at Nature's pace, whilst the manufacturer can defy both weather and season.

We are certain that in general " all-roundedness," if we may use the term, the farmer and his labourers are equal to the manufacturer and his operatives. But, as farmers are well aware, almost every townsman thinks himself equal to giving ex- cellent advice on country matters and their general rectification. 'Leaving this subject, we now come to some admirable chapters on 'the law of primogeniture, and the law and custom of entail and settlement. Primogeniture dates back from a time when the eldest son held the castle or stronghold in the interests of the family -against all corners, and it is quite opposed to the ideas of natural justice which the State now supports. It pauperises the younger male and all female children, and, as has been said, it "never works but to work an injustice." As few persons possessing real property die intestate, it does not often operate, but Mr. Arnold gives some actual cases of the extreme hardship it may inflict. It is entail and settlement, added to the practice of primogeniture, that have acted like a curse upon the land :-

" The nominal owners of several of the finest properties in England are now adjudicated bankrupts; their lands are racked and im- poverished, but those broad acres cannot be made free without the co-operation of the tenant.for.life with the next tenant.in-tail, who in some cases is a minor, and in others is unborn and may never be called into existence. But for every one of the landed gentry who is bankrupt, there aro scores who are hopelessly embarrassed. The embarrassment of land-owners is a matter of public importance,

because, and mainly because, their lands have, by processes of law, become inextrioably involved in their difficulties. All consideration for public interest is denied. The cottages upon many estates are fever- nests, and are few and far between; • the homesteads are insufficient, inconvenient, and in many cases they are in ruins ; the land is undrained, and there is no one with the interest of a proprietor to look to the estate."

The consequences of this state of things have been, in Mr.

Arnold's opinion, more costly than conquest would have proved, and the losses endured far greater than those the nations of the Continent have suffered from war or revolution, whilst tens of thousands have been driven unwillingly to seek homes in countries where land is free. " The law of England," said Cromwell, "is a tortuous and ungodly jumble ;" and when we approach the operation of entail and settlement on the title and transfer of land, we find that the words of the Lord Protector still remain true. Mr. Arnold examines in detail the evidence obtained and the report rendered by the Select Parlia- mentary Committee appointed, on Mr. Osborne Morgan's motion, in 1878. This part of the book is well worth reading.

Eminent officials, conveyancers, and solicitors were unanimous in agreeing that it is the practice of entail and strict settlement which offers the main obstacle to a satisfactory registration of title. Any system of registration, it was admitted, to be effective must be compulsory ; but at present, investigation of title is so important and remunerative a part of solicitors' work, that it is hopeless to expect them to advocate such a system. Lord. Cairns's Act of 1875 has proved a failure, only forty-eight titles having been registered under it in two years. People are deterred from availing themselves of registration, by a not unreasonable fear that application for absolute title may discover some flaw in their title. But it is pro-

bable that nearly all forty years' titles might be registered as absolute, and, with a limit of twenty years, the bugbear of bad title would vanish. The practical result of the Committee's labours was nil. In answer to the inquiry as to what Parlia- ment has done to increase agricultural production, Mr. Arnold

shows that its work has been a gigantic piece of class-legisla- tion. Observing the deficiencies of agriculture, but unwilling to free the land, because they considered themselves and their position the products of its bondage, the landlords in Parliament came to their own assistance with some £2,000,000 of the public money. The way in which this money was spent is a notorious scandal, and Mr. Caird's evidence on this point is worth consider- ing. Powers were also given to the Court of Chancery to sanction leases extending beyond the probable lifetime of the tenant for life, and to authorise the sale of settled property, either to pay off existing charges or to reinvest the proceeds in land to be similarly settled. The Enclosures Commissioners were empowered to charge settled property with money laid out in improvements. Mr. Caird estimates that only one-fifth of what is needful has been done, and these attempts of Parliament to improve agri- cultural land have failed. After some interesting pages on " Property in Land," we come to the reforms which Mr. Arnold would suggest ; and here it is truly refreshing to turn from the maze and intricacy of the English law, to the simple, easy, aud rational institutions of the United States or South Australia. In the States, land is conveyed by deed, and to be valid, every

deed must be registered. Yet this system involves search and. investigation, and Mr. Arnold fears there is certainly some danger of a tendency towards complexity. The South-Aus- tralian system of registration of title, introduced by Sir R.

Torrens, and founded on that pursued with regard to the trans- fer of shipping, seems to be perfect. Sir R. Torreus tells us that after examination and approval of an abstract of title :—

" All deeds are set aside, and a certificate is drawn out stating upon the face of it all that the law is then liable for, such as jointures, mortgages, leases, and everything of that description ; and all the certificates of title are in duplicate, just as the old ships' registers used to be. One certificate is given to the owner in foe-simple, the other has its place on the register."

All future transactions with regard to the land appear in both these documents. The further details of the system given in these pages will be read with interest.

We now come to the provisions Mr. Arnold thinks it neces- sary to carry through Parliament, in order to free the land. They are as follows :-

" 1. Immediate abolition of the law of primogeniture, by directing the distribution of real property, in case of intestacy, in the same manner as the law directs in regard to personal property. 2. Aboli- tion, compulsory upon sale or transfer, and in any case, within a period of ten years, of eopyhold and customary tenures. 3. Esta, blishmont of a Landed Estates Court, for compulsory disposal of en- cumbered Settled property. 4. Completion of the Ordnance Survey. 5 Abolition of entail and settlement of land, with excep- tion, in the case of trusts, for the widow or infant children (until they attain majority) of the testator. 6. Establishment of a system of registration of freehold and indefeasible titles, compulsory upon the sale or transfer of property, together with voluntary register of possessory titles, and a reduction of the period for investigation of title to twenty years. All lesser interests in,the property registered to be recorded."

We are convinced that the results that would follow such measures as these would be surprising, and that they would be found equally beneficent to the landlords and the public. Land would pass into fresh hands, and new capital and energy would be put into it. A love of the soil is inherent in most men, and there are numbers engaged in trade who, desiring to be

brought into actual contact with the land, would be glad to invest capital in it, i.e., lend money to farmers, were they only sure of

moderate returns, whilst there are many farmers with know- ledge and ability who could command any amount of credit were the laud free. A couple of good chapters on " Rural Government" and "Taxation of Land" follow, which want of space prevents us to more than mention.

Up to this point, save in the particulars we have already alluded to, we have accompanied Mr. Arnold with great pleasure and satisfaction. His style is lucid and clear, his pages are full of interesting information. But when, in order to support his advocacy of peasant-proprietorship, he brings forward statements on practical agriculture that are entirely incorrect, we can only regret that he did not consult some of the farmers whose intelligence he despises. A practical man,

for example, would have shown him that it is a great mistake to quote Mr. Mechi as an infallible authority, for although Mr. Mechi did good in persistently drawing the attention of land- lords to the necessity of deep draining and the removal of hedge- rows, dm, as an agriculturist he was a failure, and his published balance-sheets were very questionably correct, in the opinion of those who ought to know best, Mr. Arnold compares Jersey, where peasant-proprietors flourish, with the Isle of Wight, where there are none, utterly ignoring geological and climatic differences. Jersey is inhabited by a race of thrifty market-gardeners, who, profiting by its early climate and fair average soil, produce, with the aid of glass, large quantities of vegetables and fruit; and these, being very early in the market., command exceptionally high prices. For this, only a very small region of the Isle of Wight is adapted, the greater part being very poor ; and we should not have been astonished if Mr. Arnold had told us the value of land in Jersey was four times the value of that in the Isle of Wight, instead of being only double. Peasant-proprietors are essentially market-gardeners, and where, as in the neighbour- hood of large towns, manure is easily obtainable and the market for produce close at hand, they may succeed in this country. The cost of producing meat, milk, or butter varies inversely to the number of sheep or stock kept; and the same thing holds good of corn, which, wheat especially, is not likely to be largely grown in this country in future, except as part of system, not as an end, but as means to an end. When Mr. Arnold says the use of steam threshing- machines is more universal in Jersey, where the farms average eleven acres, than in the Isle of Wight, where the farms are mostly large, and happening to know what the practice is in the Isle of Wight, we cannot credit his statement. An ordinary steam- thresher would in one day more than thresh out the produce of an average Jersey farm, were it entirely wheat. Mr. Arnold shows complete ignorance of the commonest details of steam ploughing and traction-engines, and his statements about horse labour are ridiculous. He actually says, among other things, that a horse can only work five hoursa dray' at plough ! Nine hours is a day's work for a farm-horse. Our space is filled, or we could point out numbers of mistakes ; and it is a pity Mr. Arnold has admitted such errors into a book whose object is so excellent that it goes far towards their palliation, In the last chapter, on "Ireland," occurs the following passage, in

hearty agreement with which we conclude our already too lengthy remarks :-

" I am thankful beyond my powers of expression to see that our land-laws have become an intolerable burden to Englishmen, as well .as to Irishmen, and that both are beginning to comprehend that we 'cannot possibly prosper in competitive trade while four-fifths of the land of the United Kingdom are bound in the unfertile bonds of strict settlement. I long for the emancipation of the soil of this country, and not less for the freedom of the land of Ireland from those fetters which so cruelly gall the agriculture of both islands."