“Besides, he would not retain the ownership very long. In every village there is a pawnbroker, on whose premises all the furniture accumulates belonging to the peasants, and who often buys their harvests before they are reaped. They are all in debt to the grocer and to the manure merchant--even the bonnets worn by the women on Sundays are all bought on credit. Three months after the land had been given to them they would have found means to mortgage it, if possible, at double its value.
“More than that, is it quite certain that they wish to become landowners as much as is pretended? It does not seem at all certain to me. As soon as the principles of the Land Act were known, a landlord, whose property I manage, wrote to me, saying that he authorised me to treat with all his tenants on that basis. He has more than eight hundred! I gave them all the opportunity of accepting the arrangement; they all refused, without a single exception.
“However, some of them told me that they were willing to treat with me, but the conditions they proposed were absolutely inadmissible. Judge for yourself.
“They desired that I should accept as a basis, not the reduced rents that had been already fixed by the Land Commissioners, who, however, had already reduced the rentals on an average from 25 to 30 per cent., but that those rents should again be reduced 25 per cent. Then instead of multiplying this figure by 20, according to the provisions of the Land Act, making the price of purchase 20 years’ rent, they wished to multiply it by 12 or 13 only. So that the owner of a property that five years ago brought in 400_l._, and was then worth about 8,000_l._ or 9,000_l._ first saw his rents reduced by 100_l._, and then by the terms of the Land Act, the price of expropriation or forced sale would have been but 6,000_l._ (300_l._ × 20); he had already therefore to submit to a loss of from 2,000_l._ to 3,000_l._ of his capital. But I was authorised to accept this valuation.
“They, however, proposed to diminish the original rental by another 25 per cent., which would thereby be reduced to 200_l._, and then by multiplying the 200_l._ by 12, the purchase-money would be 2,400_l._, twelve years’ purchase. They, therefore, would have it inferred that in five years the property had lost more than three-fourths of its value.