The Moral Case for Family Farms
But we have not to weigh the various moral influences produced by the ownership of different kinds of properties. The question really is between owning land or possessing nothing; for in proclaiming that the whole class of agricultural labourers must for ever abandon the hope or ambition of becoming land-owners, they are virtually told that they can never emerge from the condition of weekly labourers; for the tillers of the earth can, as a class, rise to wealth only by sharing in the possession of the soil.
But upon the moral aspect of the question there cannot be two opinions, and therefore it does not admit of controversy. On the Continent the verdict on this view of the question is unanimously in favour of small landed properties; and, unless we in England are insincere in the arguments we address to the working classes to induce them to become depositors in savings banks, or to enter the ranks of distributors and producers by means of ‘co-operation,’* we shall also admit that to become a small freeholder would elevate the labouring man in the scale of society.
Abridged.
From a letter to the ‘Morning Chronicle’ published in January 22nd, 1864, and subsequently re-published in various places. Collected in ‘Pamphlets’ Vol. 1 (1904) by the Cobden Club. The volume includes a Life of Cobden by Frances E. Cooke.
* Cobden was an early advocate of the co-operative movement, which began in Rochdale, his Parliamentary constituency: see The Rochdale Pioneers. In this letter, he went on to suggest that family farms should enter a co-operative of their own, for example by sharing machinery, though bulk purchasing and sharing the tax burden could be other aspects, in order to gain the benefits of large-scale agriculture while retaining title to their lands.