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.