operties at once, of five, ten, or twenty thousand acres, as
the case may be. For, in the first place, let note be taken of a
most important circumstance, which is that at the present time these
cottages let on sufferance do not bring in one shilling to the
landlord. They are not the least profit to him. He does not receive
the nominal rent, and if he did, of what value would be so
insignificant a sum, the whole of which for a year would not pay a
tenth part of the losses sustained by the failure of one tenant
farmer. As a fact, then, the cottages are of no money value to the
landowner. A change, therefore, in the mode of tenure could not
affect the owner like a change in the tenure of a great farm, say at
a rental of L1,500. Not having received any profit from the previous
tenure of cottages, he suffers no loss if the tenure be varied. The
advantage the landowner is supposed to enjoy from the possession of
cottages scattered about his farms is that the tenants thereby
secure men to do their work. This advantage would be much better
secured by a resident and settled population. Take away the
conventional veil with which the truth is usually flimsily hidden,
and the fact is that the only objection to a certain degree of
fixity in cottage tenure is that it would remove from the farmer the
arbitrary power he now possesses of eviction. What loss there would
be in this way it is not easy to see, since, as explained, the men
must have wages, and can only get them from farmers, to whom
therefore they must resort. But then the man knows the power to give
such notice is there, and it does not agree with the feelings of the
nineteenth century. No loss whatever would accrue either to
landowner or tenant from a fixed population. A farmer may say, 'But
suppose the man who has my cottage will not work for me?' To this I
reply, that if the district is so short of cottages that it is
possible for a farmer to be short of hands, the sooner pressure is
applied in some way, and others built, the better for landowner,
tenant, and labourer. If there is sufficient habitation for the
number of men necessary for cultivating the land, there will be no
difficulty, because one particular labourer will not work for one
particular farmer. That labourer must then do one of two things, he
must starve or work for some other farmer, where his services would
dispossess another labourer, who would immediately take the vacant
place. The system of employing