made to pay, they will continue to exist; but to return to the primitive times and the primitive system which Mr Chamberlain so much regrets, is not only an impossibility, but, under the present conditions of life, would create a positive injury to the class in whose interests he affects to make the suggestion.
We cannot stop to inquire into the manner in which Mr Chamberlain proposes to obtain the land necessary for the restoration of the class to which he looks with such favour, but we rejoice to see that, in a recent letter as to some criticisms upon his Ipswich speech made by Mr Foljambe, M.P., he declares that his proposals "are based on a fair value being paid for any land which it may be expedient for the State or the community to acquire;" and in the speech itself he makes the remark with reference to what he calls the "absorption" of common land or of any other public rights, that "robbery is robbery, whether it is practised against the individual or against the State," – an observation which it would have been well if the speaker and his colleagues had borne in mind in their recent Irish land agitation, and which, at least, will be impressed upon their memory more strongly in the future.
With regard to the question of commons, indeed, Mr Chamberlain falls into the usual error of Radical orators, and talks of "rights" having been taken from the public, in a manner which shows gross ignorance of the question. In the case of very many enclosures, the act has been performed mainly, if not solely, for the purpose of bringing uncultivated and waste land under tillage, thus increasing the food-producing power of the country strictly in and for the public interest. In almost every instance, the common has belonged, not to the general public, but to the lord of the manor and a certain defined and separate portion of the public, called "the commoners," whose rights have been fully and fairly considered in the act of enclosure. The general public have doubtless had a "right of way" in many cases, which has always been carefully secured to them; but to have given to them anything more would have been a distinct act of confiscation of the rights of the commoners, whether many or few in number.
If it be desirable that the State should purchase land "at a fair value " for the purpose of establishing a number of "old-time freeholds," it may be pointed out that there never was a time when so much land was in the market which its proprietors would gladly sell. But is this what is conveyed – or what is intended to be conveyed – to the agricultural labourers and others of the new electorate to whom these speeches are addressed, and to whom the acquisition of land is held out as a tangible benefit to be placed within their reach if they use their votes as the speaker desires? Not at all. It would be no attraction to Sussex labourers in full pay to be transplanted into Essex. Something nearer home would be required, and therefore land must be forcibly taken, at whatever the State may please to consider "a fair value," from those who may by no means desire to sell it. But if land, why not other things? If it is robbery on my part to have a couple of thousand acres of land (for which I or my forefathers probably paid a high price), whilst my neighbour Hodge and his comrades have none, why is it not also robbery for Mr A. or
