Freehold Land Societies: Their History, Present Position, and Claims

“The laws of this country recognise nothing more sacred than the Forty-shilling Freehold Franchise; and a vote for the county obtained by these means is both constitutional and laudable.”

“What he had heard from hon. members told him nothing more than this, that the working population could easily, under the old system, acquire the right of voting; and that every man who owned forty shillings a-year could entitle himself to vote. Were they to be told that the people of England were so degraded, so besotted, so dead to all sense of their true interests, that they could make no efforts to possess themselves of the franchise?”

ADVERTISEMENT

The following pages are reprinted from the “Weekly News and Chronicle” – the only Paper that aims to be the organ of the Freehold Land Movement. They are now published in the hope that they may win for that movement a wider support and a heartier sympathy than it has already secured. It is a child – it will be a giant ere long.

3, Clifford’s Inn.

April 1853.

FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETIES: THEIR HISTORY, PRESENT POSITION, AND CLAIMS

The Freehold Land Movement is the great fact of the age. We propose to consider it in its origin, its present position as a means of investment for the middle and working-classes, and in its political and social and moral bearings. We propose to tell what it has done, and what it seeks to do. Born of a working-man, it especially aims at the elevation of working-men. It comes to them, and offers them independence, wealth, and political power. Conceived in a provincial town, its ramifications now extend through the land. It demands no mean place in the consideration of the influences now at work for realising a future brighter and better than the past. The philosopher, the political economist, and the philanthropist must alike, then, deem it worthy of serious regard. On the part of a people, the absence of recklessness and waste is a great good; but the formation of industrial and economical habits is a still greater good. From such plain, unpoetical traits of national character are born the arts and the graces, and all that is civilised and refined in life. A rich people is not less virtuous, and is certainly far happier, than a poor one. Therefore we say, let the Freehold Movement have wide support, for it is a schoolmaster, teaching the path leading the people of this country to wealth, and to the power and independence which wealth alone can give. Thus much by way of introduction. That our readers may fully understand the subject, we shall begin at the beginning, and explain.

Some time back the Times asked scornfully, as Pilate of old did concerning truth, what was a Freehold Land Society. We reply, viewed in a business light, it is simply a society for the purchase of land. It involves two commercial principles well understood – that purchasers should buy in the cheapest market, and that societies can do what individuals cannot. Till the movement originated, the purchaser of a small plot of ground had to pay in lawyer’s expenses connected with the purchase frequently as much as he paid for the plot itself. A society buys a large piece of ground. They make roads through it; they drain it; they turn it into valuable building-land; they thus raise its value; and they divide it amongst their members, not at the price at which each allotment is worth, but at the price which each allotment has cost. Being also registered under the Friendly Societies Act, the conveyance costs the purchaser generally from 25s. to 30s.; and thus a plot worth £50 is often put into the fortunate allottee’s hands for half that sum. Of course, different societies have different rules, but they all aim at the same end, and effect that end in pretty nearly a similar manner. Thus a member generally, if he subscribes for a share of £30, pays a shilling a-week, and a trifling sum a-quarter for expenses. With the money thus raised an estate is purchased. It is then cut up into allotments, and balloted for. If the subscriber has paid up, he, of course, takes the land, and there is an end of the matter. If he has not, the society gives him his allotment, but saddled with a mortgage. In some societies the members are served by rotation, and “first come” are “first served.” The more generally-adopted plan, however, is division by ballot. There has been some doubt as to the legality of the ballot; the Conservative Society have taken the opinion of eminent counsel upon this matter, and their opinion is, that the ballot is perfectly legal. The rotation societies offer no inducements to new members to join them; so division by ballot has come to be almost the universal rule. In the National, for instance, there was a ballot daily for all subscribers of three months’ standing. This has recently been altered. A ballot takes place every day, to which all are eligible whose subscriptions are paid up. If you join the National, you may go to the ballot immediately.

As the National is the largest of the existing Freehold Land Societies – last year its receipts being £190,070 – we will briefly allude to its prospectus as a still further illustration of what a Freehold Land Society is. The especial objects of this Society are described as “to facilitate the acquisition of freehold land, and the erection of houses thereon; to enable such of its members as are eligible to obtain the county franchise, and to afford to all of them a secure and profitable investment for money.” In the National, all the expenses are defrayed out of a common fund; consequently, there are no extra charges, and the net profits, after payment of interest on subscriptions in advance and on completed shares, are annually divided amongst the holders of uncompleted shares. In this way last year the National divided £3,161. 19s. 3d., and the directors credited each unadvanced share with profit at the rate of £10. 16s. 8d. per cent. per annum. We only add, as a still further explanation of the societies in general, that they are all conducted on the most perfectly democratic principles. Vote by ballot and universal suffrage are the rule with them. The members elect their own officers. In all the societies, also, provision is made for casualties, such as sickness or death. In case of death, the subscriber’s widow or heirs take his place. If he be unable, from sickness or poverty, to continue his subscription, he is not fined, but is allowed to wait for better times. If he wishes his money back, he can have it returned, with a slight reduction for the working expenses of the Society. Juniors may be members. Actually these societies so far practically admit woman’s rights as to offer to the ladies the same desirable investments they offer to the sterner sex. In short, the Freehold Land Movement appeals to all ranks and conditions of the community. It may be said of a Freehold Land Society what has often been said of the London Tavern, that it is open to all – who can pay.

Primarily the movement was political, and was established for the purpose of giving the people of this country the political power which they at present lack. Originally the forty-shilling freehold was established to put down universal suffrage. As a part and parcel of the British constitution it has been religiously preserved to the present time, and threatens to be an excellent substitute for what it was originally intended to destroy. During the Anti-Corn-Law agitation Mr. Cobden had put the free-traders up to the idea of purchasing forty-shilling freeholds, but it was reserved to Mr. James Taylor, of Birmingham, to give to the idea of Mr. Cobden a universality of which the latter never dreamed; Mr. Taylor had been a purchaser of land more than once, and with the purchase he got an abstract, a legal document, which when he came to understand it, showed him that he had paid to the vendor much more than it cost him. The idea then struck him that as the wholesale price of land was much greater than the retail, if the working men could be got to subscribe together a large sum for the purchase of land, they could thus have, at a wholesale price, a stake in the country and a vote, and when the general election came and excitement was created, Mr. Taylor felt that the time for action was arrived. Accordingly, when he went to tender his vote, he said to a friend who accompanied him, “here’s a lot of fellows, and all that they can do is to grin and yawn when I go in to poll; I have a strong notion that I can get them into the booth.” This friend said, “How?” The answer was, “Meet me to night in the Temperance Hotel.” That same evening Mr. Taylor and his friend drew up an advertisement, stating that “it is expedient that a Freehold Land Society be formed for the purpose of obtaining freehold property at a most reasonable cost to, and to get country votes for, the working men.” Simultaneously with the advertisement in the local paper appeared a leader from the editor, recognising the immense importance of the movement thus commenced. Thus pledged to go on, Mr. Taylor threw his heart and soul into the cause. Within a week a committee was formed, and the support of the principal men in the town secured. December, 1849 is the legal date of the Freehold Land Movement, although the Birmingham Society had been in existence nearly two years previous. In that month the rules of the society were certified, and the glorious idea of Mr. Taylor had a legal habitation and a name. At the end of the first year the Birmingham society reported that it had established six independent societies, in which more than two thousand members had subscribed for three thousand shares; that in Birmingham alone the subscriptions amounted to £500 per month, and that it had already given allotments to nearly two hundred of its members. Before the termination of the second year a great conference was held in Birmingham in order to organise a plan of general union and co-operation amongst the various societies. Delegates from all parts of the country were present. In Birmingham it appeared £13,000 had been subscribed and four estates purchased, two thousand five hundred shares being taken up by one thousand eight hundred subscribers. Wolverhampton, Leicester, Stourbridge, had all co-operated zealously in the movement. Nor was the metropolis behind. The National had started with seven hundred and fifty members subscribing for one thousand five hundred shares, and already had £1,900 paid up. In Marylebone eight hundred shares had been taken since the previous July. This conference was attended by Messrs. Cobden, Bright, G. Thompson, Scholefield, Bass, and Sir Joshua Walmsley. This conference, of course, attracted the notice of the press. The coldly, critical Spectator termed it a “middle-class movement.” Tait so far forgot himself as to characterise it as “political swindling.” The Times said the working-classes were being deluded by it. For once the Standard agreed with the Times and said ditto. However the conference did its work, and started the Freeholder, which appeared on the 1st of January, 1850. A second conference was held at Birmingham in November, 1850. The report, as usual, was encouraging. Eighty societies, many of them with branches, were reported as existing. The number of members was thirty thousand subscribing for forty thousand shares. The amount of paid-up contributions was £170,000. A third conference was held in London in November, 1851. The report then stated there were one hundred societies with forty-five thousand members subscribing for sixty-five thousand shares. One hundred and fifty estates had been purchased, twelve thousand allotments made, £400,000 had actually been received, and two millions of pounds sterling was actually being subscribed for. At the fourth conference, held in 1852, it appeared still greater progress had been made. One hundred and thirty societies, with eighty-five thousand members subscribing for a hundred and twenty thousand shares, were in existence, three hundred and ten estates had been purchased, nineteen thousand five hundred allotments had been made, and £790,000 had been received. Estimating the shares at the average of £30 per share, the total amount subscribed for was three millions six hundred thousand pounds. Such, then, is the movement at the present time. It has been obscured by no cloud. Its progress has been unchecked. No disappointment has retarded its onward way. Forward to victory has been its march. All classes and sects have railed round it. For churchmen there exists a Church of England Society. The Conservatives have formed a large and flourishing society for the manufacture of Conservative votes. The movement sneered at, derided, misrepresented, declared unconstitutional, a swindle like a celebrated land scheme popular with the Chartists, has now come to be admitted by all as the greatest fact of the age: to aid it, grave and reverend churchmen, statesmen of all shades of political options, combine; even coronetted lords now rejoice to lend it their sanction, and the weight of their illustrious names. Truly the mustard seed has branched out into a giant oak. A little leaven has leavened the whole lump.

We must tell our readers something of the founder of this movement. James Taylor, junior, of Birmingham, deserves a passing notice at our hands. He was born in that town in 1814, and is consequently now in the prime of his life, rather young considering the greatness he has already achieved. His father is a tradesman of the same town, where he has acquired a limited competency by his honest industry, and where he still carries on business for the benefit of the younger branches of his family. Like all other Birmingham boys James was put to work at an early age, and became an apprentice in one of the fancy trades for which Birmingham is so well known. There his industrious habits soon acquired for him the approbation of his master, who gave up Taylor his indentures in consequence of his retiring from business before the latter was of age. About this time Taylor, earning good wages, and not having the fear of Malthus before his eyes, got married, and lived happily till troubles came and the demon of strong drink cast its fatal spell upon his domestic hearth. After years of utter misery and degradation Taylor, in a happy hour for himself and society, signed the Temperance pledge, and became a new man, and to the pledge, fortunately, he remained faithful, in spite of ridicule and reproach from the boon companions with whom he had thoughtlessly squandered so much of happiness, and health, and money, and time. No temptation ever led him back. Nor was he satisfied with his own reform alone. He was anxious that others should be rescued from degradation as he had already been. For this purpose he identified himself with the Temperance cause, and was Honorary Secretary to the Birmingham Temperance Society till he became the Apostle of the Freehold Land Movement. Since then his life and labours have become public. No man has worked harder than Mr. Taylor. Our readers would be astonished if they knew the number of miles Mr. Taylor travels, and of public meetings he attends in the course of the year connected with the movement; sometimes the exertion has been too great, and his health has given way for a time. Those who have heard him once will never forget him. Those who have not heard him, if such there be, have indeed a treat in store. With but few or no adventitious aids – without even “little Latin and less Greek” – an unassuming plain working man, in spite of all this, so fascinating is his unadorned eloquence that no one can listen to him without admiring his earnestness and moral worth – without feeling that England has no worthier son than the originator of the Freehold Land Movement – without feeling that time alone can tell what he has done for the political, and social, and moral emancipation of her toiling race. We may also add here that Mr. Taylor has been at times a contributor to the press as well as a platform orator – that he has been twice married – that he resides at Temperance Cottage, Birmingham, in the enjoyment of a domestic felicity which we trust will attend him to a green old age. It may be said of Taylor what has been said of many infinitely less useful men, that —

This feeling has become common wherever Mr. Taylor has been known. From far and near have reached him testimonials of respect and esteem. At an early stage of its existence the Wolverhampton Society acknowledged its sense of Mr. Taylor’s services by presenting him with a valuable gold watch; and at the last Annual Conference of the friends of the Movement, held in December, 1852, it was unanimously resolved that “as it appeared that various sums of money have been from time to time subscribed with a view of offering some suitable recognition of the valuable and disinterested services of Mr. James Taylor, it is desirable that a committee be appointed to suggest the most suitable testimonial to that gentleman, and to take such steps as may seem to them most desirable in furtherance of the object.” In pursuance of this resolution a committee was formed to receive subscriptions, of which Mr. Scholefield, M.P. for Birmingham, is Treasurer. This committee consists of most of the gentlemen connected with the London societies, and it is to be hoped that they are giving the subject the importance it really deserves. A prophet should be honoured in his own age and country. In their lifetime the world’s benefactors should reap their reward.

Having thus explained the nature of Freehold Land Societies, and detailed their rise and progress and present position, we propose to consider their effects. For this purpose we shall examine the Movement as offering

This, of course, is the principal point of view. By their merits as investments alone must Freehold Land Societies stand or fall. If they pay, they will flourish; if they do not, they cannot exist, whatever may be the social, and moral, and political arguments advanced in their favour. Now, let us just see what means of investment are within the reach of the Working man. There is the savings bank – not always safe, as recent examples have shown, and offering so small a rate of interest as to be but little inducement to the classes to whom it appeals, to save. Then there are the benefit societies, which hold out such fine promises, which thus have won a support to which they have no claim, and have excited hopes which they can never realise. Of two thousand of these societies, the accounts of which were submitted to one gentleman in Liverpool a few years ago, all were insolvent. Much of the money belonging to them is wasted in drink, in foolish show and mummery; but the societies are based upon wrong principles, and can never become right. Two radical defects taint them all – the contributions have been much too small in proportion to the proposed benefits, and an almost indiscriminate regard to diversities in age has caused persons differing as widely as from eighteen to thirty-five, forty, forty-five, and even fifty years of age, to be admitted upon equal, or nearly equal, terms. One of the chief of these friendly societies is that known as the Manchester Unity. In 1848 there was an inquiry into the subject before the House of Lords, when it was stated by Mr. Neison, the eminent actuary, “that it would take three millions of money to bring the Manchester Unity of Odd Fellows out of their present difficulties; and if they went on at their present rates of contribution, no less than ten millions would be required to fulfil all their engagements.” So much for friendly societies, which are, indeed, a delusion and a snare, and have always failed when the hour of trial has come. What the savings banks are we have already seen; yet, actually, till the Freehold Land Movement originated, these were the only investments within the reach of the working man. A Select Committee of the House of Commons has twice reported “that the great change in the social position of multitudes, arising from the growth of large towns and crowded districts, renders it more necessary that corresponding changes in the law should take place, both to improve their condition and contentment, and to give additional facilities to investments of the capital which their industry and enterprise are constantly creating and augmenting;” and “that they doubt not ultimate benefit will ensue from any measures which the Legislature may be enabled to devise for simplifying the operation of the law and unfettering the energies of trade.” But at present nothing has been done, and the Laws of Partnership fetter the working man who would usefully employ what little capital he has. Clearly, then, the Freehold Land Movement offers him an eligible means of investment. Land cannot run away. So long as England exists, it will always be worth its price. Nay, it will become more valuable every year, for by no effort of human ingenuity can it be increased.

At Birmingham several of the allotments have realised premiums as high as £20 or £30. On the East Moulsey estate of the Westminster Society allotments, costing £23, have been let at a chief rent of £3 and £3. 10s. per annum. The Ross Society, in one of its annual reports, stated that, out of thirty allotments made by the Society during the past year, ten exchanged hands at premiums varying from £3. 10s. to £5., and ten working men each received £10 premium. At Ledbury several allotments, costing £25 each had realised premiums of £15 each. On the Stoke Newington estate, belonging to the National, premiums of £30 and even of £40 have been realised. At the Gospel Oak estate, belonging to the St. Pancras Society, allotments which cost £20 each have been let off on building leases of 50s. per annum each. Greater sums have been made – but we would rather understate than overstate our case.

We have inspected returns from one hundred and twenty societies, and in every case the allotments have realised a handsome premium. Yet, in the face of all this, articles have recently appeared in Chambers’s Journal and the Edinburgh Review, deprecating these societies as investments. The Edinburgh Reviewer says: – “Notwithstanding this rapid popularity however; notwithstanding, also, the high authorities which have pronounced in their behalf, we cannot look upon these associations with unmixed favour; and we shall be surprised if any long time elapses without well-grounded disappointment and discontent arising among their members. However it may be desirable for a peasant or an artisan to be possessor of the garden which he cultivates, and of the house he dwells in – however clear and great the gain to him in this case – it is by no means equally certain that he can derive any adequate pecuniary advantages from the possession of a plot of ground which is too far from his daily work for him either to erect a dwelling on it, or to cultivate it as an allotment, and which, from its diminutive size, he will find it very difficult for him to let for any sufficient remuneration. In many cases a barren site will be his only reward for £50 of savings; and however he may value this in times of excitement, it will, in three elections out of four, be of little real interest or moment to him.” Of course we do not affirm that a badly-conducted society will pay in spite of mismanagement. We believe it will do nothing of the kind, and that discontent will arise; but facts show that the reviewer is wrong; that the allotments cost less than he supposes; that thus they offer a better return for his money than the allottee can get in any other way. Numerous as these societies are, multitudinous as are their members, extensive as have been their dealings – no one yet has found fault with them as a means of investment. Indeed, every day they have come to be more and more regarded in this light alone. Where, we ask, can a man make more by his shilling a-week than by putting it in a Freehold Land Society? This is the question which every man should ask himself; and if he does this, we can await with satisfaction the result. It is easy to imagine difficulties, but we turn to the testimony of facts. That is unanimously in its favour. The present time is void of all political interest. There are no great struggles, and no great hopes and aims. England seems satisfied with coalitions. Yet this precisely is the time when the Freehold Land Movement finds most favour with the public. The reason is obvious. The times are good. The public has money to invest, and the public finds no such desirable investments as those offered by the Movement; hence it is the societies flourish; hence it is they gain the hearty support of all who can only spare a little, but who would put a little by against a rainy day.