would be no law expenses, no prolonged fights, no juries, no
arbitrations.

Wastes, downs, heaths, bogs, would be rated very low. It would be in
the power of Government to take up largely and at small cost large
areas of Surrey heaths, etc., to provide air and recreation ground
for an evergrowing metropolis. In this manner, too, public commons
and quasi-public commons might be secured to the public all over
England: a public-spirited town-council or a local Kyrle Society
would have a wide field and an immense stimulus for action.

I have not stopped to rebut the common (but mistaken) idea that
burdens on the land (being in gross not more than the rackrent)
affect the cultivation. Partners have long drunk at market dinners
"Confusion to the black slug that devours the English farmer." How is
it that these farmers did not (do not) see that there are tithe-free
farms (and some tithe-free parishes) in England, and that the tenants
of such farms get no advantage by being tithe-free?

As I explain elsewhere, a tenant with several years of his lease to
run is (economically considered) a part landowner: if the tithe were
suddenly abolished, tenants with leases would get relief as well as
their landlords. So if a new tax or rate is laid on land (and made
payable by the tenant), all tenants with leases will have to pay such
tax or rate out of their own pocket so long as their lease lasts;
afterwards it will fall wholly on the landlords.

It is repeated now, in nearly every country newspaper, that the
English farmer cannot compete with the American grower because of the
burdens on the land of England. I will not write out (I cannot