Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 9.djvu/798

 762 F R E F R E point out the manner in which industry may be most pro ductive, he is assailing the ownership of that kind of pro perty on which all industry is exercised, the criticism is invidious and unfair. It needs no proof that the success of industry and the material progress of society cannot be expected, except under the guarantee of private property in land, as well as in its products. And furthermore, there is no reason for objecting on economical grounds to the process by which the distribution of land in England is restrained, unless it can be shown that the existing system is a check to industry, or a hindrance to supply, or an im pediment to the effective development of agricultural skill. It cannot be denied that, if the claim to free trade in land is intended to imply that, under existing circum stances, a very small portion of that which would be dis tributed by sale is brought into the market, the fact cor responds with the statement. The custom of primogeni ture directly tends towards the restraint of distribution, and the power of settlement acts more energetically in the same direction. Nor can any one doubt that there are circumstances under which the custom and the power operate disadvantageously. When the owner of land is virtually bankrupt, it would clearly be far better if the estate which he cannot improve were in the hands of those who can improve it, for the misuse of a necessary industrial instrument has worse effects on the economy of society than the ill use of the products of industry. The one is the same as inducing artificial barrenness on a portion of that which is limited in amount and is of supreme utility, and the other is the waste of that which is practically unlimited, and which can be supplemented from other sources. Again, the ill use of land is a total loss ; but the prodigality of one who squanders the produce of labour is only a partial waste, for much of the wealth which seems to be expended on the pleasures and follies of indi viduals is really transferred to those who are capable of making a better use of it than its original possessor does. Hence, when land is in the hands of bankrupt proprietors to such an extent as seriously to hinder its adequate occupancy, it has not been thought a violation of the rights of property to dispossess the bankrupt owner by a compulsory sale, and to put a new and more competent proprietor in his place. Such a step was taken, and with very satisfactory results, in Ireland, and there is reason to believe that similar powers might on many occasions be exercised with advantage in England. In a minor degree charges on land are a hindrance to its adequate improve ment, for the means of the proprietor of a burdened estate are diminished, while if the land were in other hands its resources would be developed. Analogous to these incon veniences are the costs of conveyance, and the demand of superfluous guarantees of title. But the phrase &quot; free trade in land&quot; has been obscured by its connexion with another aspect of the relations between the owner of land and its adequate cultivation, the inter pretation, namely, which divers disputants give to tho freedom which accompanies contracts for the occupancy of land. In England, as is well known, the owner and the occupant of land are, unlike the case in most other countries, almost universally different persons. Such a difference began very early in English society, that is, to wards the latter end of the 1 4th century, and has no doubt become more marked by the peculiar customs which affect the ownership of land in England. Now it is alleged that under existing circumstances no true freedom of contract exists on the part of the occupant, that the power which custom has given to the owner, and which law has strengthened, is so great that the occupier is virtually help less ; that the legitimate progress of agriculture is checked ; and that a supply which skill could make almost indefinite, and which might be made to satisfy the wants of the pop. ulation, is wholly inadequate for the purpose, the deficiency being wastefully supplemented from foreign importations. For it is asserted that one of the contracting parties has it in his power, by the extent of his resources, to reduce the other party to the most disadvantageous terms of a precarious occupancy, and that, though the occupant may be blamed for submitting to such terms, or at least be held responsible for tho bargain which he has voluntarily made, the public is interested to a very serious extent in a better and freer relation between owner and occupier. And it is further urged that freedom of contract is not to be limited to the moment in which the bargain is struck, but must in continuous relations be so continuously present that neither of the contracting parties should be able to inflict a permanent loss on the other, or, in other words, that con tracts cannot be called free unless they are constantly liable to an equitable revision. The controversy has been carried on in England and Scotland in the form of an attack in the latter kingdom on the local law of hypothec, in the for mer, and to a less extent in the latter, under the claim of compensation for unexhausted improvements. As yet no legislation of a practical character has been the result of a controversy in which some intelligent tenant farmers on the one hand, and principally on the other the duke of Argyll, have been the disputants. It is probable that on the whole successful agriculture, that is, the production of the largest quantity in value from the soil at the least cost, has made more progress in the United Kingdom than in any other country. This has been especially the case with stock breeding, the pre eminence of the United Kingdom being marked and ad mitted in this department of agriculture. But this fact itself, as the occupier is less within the power of the owner as a stock-breeder than he is as a mere cultivator, seems to suggest that the relations of the two parties need a better understanding than they have yet received, or that their con tracts will at some time or the other require the interpre tation of law. The difficulties, however, of any question as to the limits and control of freedom in the contracts entered into between the subjects or citizens of the same Government are great and nice. There is but little difficulty in showing that the best interests of the whole human race are consulted when the fullest freedom is given to the exchange of products, however much the process is hindered by passion or self-interest, and however great may ba the practical hindrances in the way of a principle which few men have the hardihood to deny in the abstract. But there are serious difficulties in interpreting the relations in which capitalist and labourer, owner and occupier, stand to each other, and in deciding how the just rights of property may be harmonized with the just claims of industry, and the paramount consideration of the public good. (j. E. T. R.) FREEWILL BAPTISTS, a denomination of Baptists in the United States and Canada, holding similar doctrines to those of the General Baptists of England. Founded in 1780 by Benjamin Randall, a Baptist preacher, who had been censured for teaching anti-Calvinistic doctrines, it soon made considerable progress, and in 1827 a general conference, meeting every three years, was instituted. Besides erecting numerous schools of different grades, the Freewill Baptists have established three colleges, one at Lewiston, Me., one at Ridgeville, Md., and a third at Hilsdale, Mich., to which both sexes, and coloured people as well as whites, are admitted. A fourth college is being erected at Rio Grande, Ohio. In 1877 the denomination had 14G4 churches in the United States, with 1295 preachers, and 74,651 communicants. In Nova Scotia and New Brunswick there is a separate conference, the membership connected with which is upwards of 9000.