tied up beyond existing lives? Could not this be done at once? Cannot some patriotic statesman cut the Gordian knot of legal red-tapeism?

Whilst the thorough reform of the laws of primogeniture, entail, settlement, title, and transfer would facilitate the acquisition of small freehold farms by farmers, separately, it would also bring about the combination of agricultural labourers for the formation of co-operative companies, to work very large freehold farms, and thus apply the principle of co-operation (which has proved so successful at Rochdale and elsewhere) to the purposes of agriculture. The essence of the success of such a scheme as that of co-operative agriculture would necessitate the direct participation of the labourers in the freehold ownership of the land.

Inasmuch as landlordism is alien to the hereditary instinct of the English race, who form by far the largest part of the nation, might not that old instinct, which originally led their ancestors to make “FREE LAND-HOLDING" the basis of their society, be now used to awaken in them the love of law and order through patriotic loyalty for their fatherland. Germany, the country from which the English race sprung, has at this moment no less than 2,293,200 separate owners of land, who hold between one and

twenty-five acres each, and 2,282,103 who hold less than two and a half acres each (see M. Tisserand's report on page 80).

The enjoyment of small freeholds depends on the facility of transfer without the need of professional assistance. If this advantage can be enjoyed entirely through the law in Prussia and other countries, as before mentioned, why should it not be enjoyed in Great Britain and Ireland? Until the transfer of land and buildings is done simply by registration, the multiplication of small freeholders will greatly increase the aggregate cost of examining and conveying titles, and this cost, by impoverishing the widows and orphans when their property comes to be sold, will constantly create fresh cases of ruin and distress. Such cases must in course of time add to the number of the poor to an appalling extent, unless schemes for the multiplication of landowners be accompanied by a law to facilitate transfer.

TYING UP PROPERTY.

With reference to the legal instruments by which estates are tied up, Mr. Kay, Q.C., says

"2. But let us look at another consequence of these deeds and wills.

"The son constantly knows that, do what his father will, he (the son) is sure, under one of these deeds or wills, to succeed to the estate. The son is, therefore, to a very great extent rendered independent of his father. The parental control and authority are lessened just in those very cases in which they are most needed, and in which they ought to be increased rather than diminished.

"As soon as the young man is twenty-one he finds himself surrounded by money-lenders, who make it their special business to devote themselves to the wants of such heirs, and who are always on the lookout for them. The father has no power to save the son from these harpies. He is deprived of a great check upon his son. If the father threatens to cut off the son's allowance, unless his misconduct is discontinued, the son can, and often does in such a case, laugh in his father's face. The money-lenders are only too happy to relieve present wants, and to lead on to further loans. And in this way the heir often comes into the possession of his estate with such a weight of debts and liabilities around his neck, that during the remainder of his life there is no owner who has either capital or virtue enough to

manage the estate decently. In such a case, would it not be an unalloyed good to all concerned if he could sell the land? Who is there who, among his acquaintances or neighbours, cannot recall many instances of this kind? If it were not for these deeds and wills, in all these cases a part or the whole of such an estate would come into the market."

Under no circumstances should the law allow property of any kind to be legally tied up, either by entail, settlement, or otherwise, BEYOND EXISTING LIVES. Every generation should be free to leave their property as they like to the succeeding generation. If property is left, settled on a parent for life, to pass to the child afterwards, and the parent cannot dispossess the child of the property, the child may be less likely to be obedient and dutiful (under all circumstances) than if it was entirely dependent on the parent. This practice of settling property is as imprudent as it is unnatural; for it is impossible to foresee what changes may occur in the future. Such settlement may defeat its own object, and prevent the application and use of the property in such way as might be for the benefit of its owner as originally intended. At the beginning of this

century, no one had any idea that before its close the country would be covered by a network of railroads. Many estates were so settled that nothing short of an Act of Parliament could bring it about that a railroad should pass through them. The absurd fear of allowing railroads to pass through estates situated near some old towns, in which the owners of the land could prevent them, is illustrated in a book entitled, "The Engineers of England," by Dr. Smiles. Through the railroads being thus obliged to avoid those towns, the trade of some of them is now entirely ruined; for instance, the woollen trade of Lutterworth. It is against public policy to tie up any property beyond existing lives, except charitable trust property. An instance occurred in the case of Thellusson, the merchant, who tied up his property to accumulate for three generations; the consequence was that an Act of Parliament had to be specially passed to prevent a recurrence of this, such an immense amount of litigation having been created between contesting claimants. As we cannot see into the future, nor can we know the circumstances of unborn persons, would it not be better to leave them perfectly free to deal with their own property?