PLANS OF FARM COTTAGES.

.91

with every principle of health or convenience? What right has any man tocrowd human beings, poor though they be, into a space utterly incompatiblewith wholesome, not to say comfortable, existence ? Upon what ground doesany one presume to coniine this less fortunate portion of his species withinlimits infinitely too small, and obviously insufficient for the maintenance of thehealthy functions of vitality ? What avail public generosity and private benevo-lence, our hospitals and dispensaries, if their funds are to be expended andtheir wards are to be peopled with the inmates of those dens and hovels ofinfection! It is sacrificing the charity of the many to the cupidity and reck-lessness of the few; it is catering for the victims of a sordid and unprincipledspeculation. If prevention be better than cure, precautionary means wiser thanremedial arrangements, the counteraction of existing and immediate mischiefmore judicious than its subsequent and tardy correction, then it is the duty, aswe doubt not it will be the wisdom, of the legislature to enact laws, and rec-tify, so far as may be, the abuses of the past.”

3G9. An objection commonly made by those who profess to have an interestin the social movement whose claims to the notice of the landlord we have beenadvocating is, that cottages with improved arrangements do not pay. On thispoint we are half inclined to say, that those who enter into the matter, carefulordy as to the paying consideration, had better not enter into it at all. We donot say that the “ pcr-centage ” obtained for outlay is not to be considered ; onthe contrary, it is a fair and legitimate hope, on the part of any capitalist whobuilds superior houses, that he shall bo in fair measure repaid for the outlay.But this matter of repayment is not, we hold, the only point to be considered.What these are cannot be better placed before the reader than in the words ofa letter addressed by the Duke of Bedford—a nobleman who has always evinceda high degree of interest in the welfare of his peasantry—to the Earl of Chi-chester. “ Cottage buildings,” says his Grace, “ except to a cottage speculator,who exacts immoderate rents for scanty and defective habitations, is, we allknow 7 , a bad investment of money; but this is not the light in which such asubject should be viewed by landlords, from whom it surely is not too muchto expect that, while they are building and improving farmhouses, homesteads,and cattle-sheds, they will also build and improve dwellings for their labourers,in sufficient number to meet the improved and improving cultivation of theland. To improve the dwellings of the labouring class, and afford them themeans of greater cleanliness, health, and comfort in their own homes—to extendeducation, and thus raise the social and moral habits of those most valuablemembers of the community—are among the first duties, and ought to be amongstthe truest pleasures, of every landlord. While he thus cares for those whomProvidence has committed to his charge, he will teach them that reliance onthe exertion of the faculties w 7 itli which they are endowed is the surest way totheir ow r n independence and the well-being of their families. I shall not dwell,as I might, on the undeniable advantages of making the rural population con-tented with their condition, and of promoting that mutual goodwill between thelanded proprietor and the tenants and labourers on his estate which sound policyand the higher motives of humanity alike recommend.”

370. As far as the farm is concerned, the question of the cost of erecting cot-tages to be occupied by farm-servants is quite irrelevant. A farm can no morebe conveniently tenanted wdthout servants’ houses than without a farmhouseor a farm-steading. No landlord ever dreams of asking a rent for the farmhouseor the steading separate from that of the farm, and why should any difference