University of Virginia Library

PREFACE.

This book closes the series of the Littlepage Manuscripts,
which have been given to the world, as
containing a fair account of the comparative sacrifices
of time, money and labour, made respectively by
the landlord and the tenants, on a New York estate;
together with the manner in which usages and opinions
are changing among us; as well as certain of
the reasons of these changes. The discriminating
reader will probably be able to trace in these narratives
the progress of those innovations on the great
laws of morals which are becoming so very manifest
in connection with this interest, setting at naught
the plainest principles that God has transmitted to
man for the government of his conduct, and all under
the extraordinary pretence of favouring liberty! In
this downward course, our picture embraces some
of the proofs of that looseness of views on the subject
of certain species of property which is, in a degree
perhaps, inseparable from the semi-barbarous condition
of a new settlement; the gradation of the squatter,
from him who merely makes his pitch to crop a
few fields in passing, to him who carries on the business
by wholesale; and last, though not least in this
catalogue of marauders, the anti-renter.

It would be idle to deny that the great principle
which lies at the bottom of anti-rentism, if principle

it can be called, is the assumption of a claim that the
interests and wishes of numbers are to be respected,
though done at a sacrifice of the clearest rights of the
few. That this is not liberty, but tyranny in its worst
form, every right-thinking and right-feeling man must
be fully aware. Every one who knows much of the
history of the past, and of the influence of classes,
must understand, that whenever the educated, the
affluent and the practised, choose to unite their means
of combination and money to control the political
destiny of a country, they become irresistible; making
the most subservient tools of those very masses who
vainly imagine they are the true guardians of their
own liberties. The well-known election of 1840 is a
memorable instance of the power of such a combination;
though that was a combination formed mostly
for the mere purposes of faction, sustained perhaps
by the desperate designs of the insolvents of the
country. Such a combination was necessarily wanting
in union among the affluent; it had not the high
support of principles to give it sanctity, and it affords
little more than the proof of the power of money and
leisure, when applied in a very doubtful cause, in
wielding the masses of a great nation, to be the instruments
of their own subjection. No well-intentioned
American legislator, consequently, ought ever
to lose sight of the fact, that each invasion of the
right which he sanctions is a blow struck against
liberty itself, which, in a country like this, has no
auxiliary so certain or so powerful as justice.

The State of New York contains about 43,000
square miles of land; or something like 27,000,000
of acres. In 1783, its population must have been

about 200,000 souls. With such a proportion between
people and surface it is unnecessary to prove
that the husbandman was not quite as dependent on
the landholder, as the landholder was dependent on
the husbandman. This would have been true, had
the State been an island; but we all know it was
surrounded by many other communities similarly
situated, and that nothing else was so abundant as
land. All notions of exactions and monopolies, therefore,
must be untrue, as applied to those two interests
at that day.

In 1786-7, the State of New York, then in possession
of all powers on the subject, abolished entails,
and otherwise brought its law of real estate in harmony
with the institutions. At that time, hundreds,
perhaps thousands, of the leases which have since
become so obnoxious, were in existence. With the
attention of the State drawn directly to the main
subject, no one saw anything incompatible with the
institutions in them. It was felt that the landlords
had bought the tenants to occupy their lands by the
liberality of their concessions, and that the latter were
the obliged parties. Had the landlords of that day
endeavoured to lease for one year, or for ten years,
no tenants could have been found for wild lands; but
it became a different thing, when the owner of the
soil agreed to part with it for ever, in consideration
of a very low rent, granting six or eight years free
from any charge whatever, and consenting to receive
the product of the soil itself in lieu of money. Then,
indeed, men were not only willing to come into the
terms, but eager; the best evidence of which is the
fact, that the same tenants might have bought land,

out and out, in every direction around them, had
they not preferred the easier terms of the leases.
Now, that these same men, or their successors, have
become rich enough to care more to be rid of the
encumbrance of the rent than to keep their money,
the rights of the parties certainly are not altered.

In 1789, the Constitution of the United States went
into operation; New York being a party to its creation
and conditions. By that Constitution, the State deliberately
deprived itself of the power to touch the
covenants of these leases, without conceding the
power to any other government; unless it might be
through a change of the Constitution itself. As a
necessary consequence, these leases, in a legal sense,
belong to the institutions of New York, instead of
being opposed to them. Not only is the spirit of the
institutions in harmony with these leases, but so is
the letter also. Men must draw a distinction between
the “spirit of the institutions” and their own “spirits;”
the latter being often nothing more than a
stomach that is not easily satisfied. It would be just
as true to affirm that domestic slavery is opposed to
the institutions of the United States, as to say the
same of these leases. It would be just as rational to
maintain, because A. does not choose to make an associate
of B., that he is acting in opposition to the
“spirit of the institutions,” inasmuch as the Declaration
of Independence advances the dogmas that men
are born equal, as it is to say it is opposed to the
same spirit, for B. to pay rent to A. according to his
covenant.

It is pretended that the durable leases are feudal
in their nature. We do not conceive this to be true;

but, admitting it to be so, it would only prove that
feudality, to this extent, is a part of the institutions
of the State. What is more, it would become a part
over which the State itself has conceded all power
of control, beyond that which it may remotely possess
as one, out of twenty-eight communities. As
respects this feudal feature, it is not easy to say
where it must be looked for. It is not to be found in
the simple fact of paying rent, for that is so general
as to render the whole country feudal, could it be
true; it cannot be in the circumstance that the rent
is to be paid “in kind,” as it is called, and in labour,
for that is an advantage to the tenant, by affording
him the option, since the penalty of a failure leaves
the alternative of paying in money. It must be, therefore,
that these leases are feudal because they run for
ever! Now the length of the lease is clearly a concession
to the tenant, and was so regarded when received;
and there is not probably a single tenant,
under lives, who would not gladly exchange his term
of possession for that of one of these detestable durable
leases!

Among the absurdities that have been circulated
on this subject of feudality, it has been pretended
that the well-known English statute of “quia emptores”
has prohibited fines for alienation; or that the
quarter-sales, fifth-sales, sixth-sales, &c. of our own
leases were contrary to the law of the realm, when
made. Under the common law, in certain cases of
feudal tenures, the fines for alienation were an incident
of the tenure. The statute of quia emptores
abolished that general principle, but it in no manner
forbade parties to enter into covenants of the nature

of quarter-sales, did they see fit. The common law
gives all the real estate to the eldest son. Our statute
divides the real estate among the nearest of kin, without
regard even to sex. It might just as well be
pretended that the father cannot devise all his lands
to his eldest son, under our statute, as to say that
the law of Edward I. prevents parties from bargaining
for quarter-sales. Altering a provision of the
common law does not preclude parties from making
covenants similar to its ancient provisions.

Feudal tenures were originally divided into two
great classes; those which were called the military
tenures, or knight's service, and soccage. The first
tenure was that which became oppressive in the progress
of society. Soccage was of two kinds; free and
villian. The first has an affinity to our own system,
as connected with these leases; the last never existed
among us at all. When the knight's service, or military
tenures of England were converted into free
soccage, in the reign of Charles II., the concession
was considered of a character so favourable to liberty
as to be classed among the great measures of the
time; one of which was the habeas corpus act!

The only feature of our own leases, in the least
approaching “villian soccage,” is that of the “day's
works.” But every one acquainted with the habits
of American life, will understand that husbandmen,
in general, throughout the northern States, would
regard it as an advantage to be able to pay their
debts in this way; and the law gives them an option,
since a failure to pay “in kind,” or in “work,” merely
incurs the forfeiture of paying what the particular
thing is worth, in money. In point of fact, money

has always been received for these “day's works,”
and at a stipulated price.

But, it is pretended, whatever may be the equity
of these leasehold contracts, they are offensive to the
tenants, and ought to be abrogated, for the peace of
the State. The State is bound to make all classes of
men respect its laws, and in nothing more so than in
the fulfilment of their legal contracts. The greater
the number of the offenders, the higher the obligation
to act with decision and efficiency. To say that these
disorganizers ought not to be put down, is to say that
crime is to obtain impunity by its own extent; and
to say that they cannot be put down “under our form
of government,” is a direct admission that the government
is unequal to the discharge of one of the plainest
and commonest obligations of all civilized society.
If this be really so, the sooner we get rid of the present
form of government the better. The notion of
remedying such an evil by concession, is as puerile
as it is dishonest. The larger the concessions become,
the greater will be the exactions of a cormorant
cupidity. As soon as quiet is obtained by these
means, in reference to the leasehold tenures, it will
be demanded by some fresh combination to attain
some other end.

When Lee told Washington, at Monmouth, “Sir,
your troops will not stand against British grenadiers,”
Washington is said to have answered, “Sir,
you have never tried them.” The same reply might
be given to those miserable traducers of this republic,
who, in order to obtain votes, affect to think there is
not sufficient energy in its government to put down
so bare-faced an attempt as this of the anti-renters

to alter the conditions of their own leases to suit their
own convenience. The county of Delaware has, of
itself, nobly given the lie to the assertion, the honest
portion of its inhabitants scattering the knaves to the
four winds, the moment there was a fair occasion made
for them to act. A single, energetic proclamation
from Albany, calling a “spade a spade,” and not
affecting to gloss over the disguised robbery of these
anti-renters, and laying just principles fairly before
the public mind, would of itself have crushed the
evil in its germ. The people of New York, in their
general capacity, are not the knaves their servants
evidently suppose.

The assembly of New York, in its memorable session
of 1846, has taxed the rents on long leases; thus,
not only taxing the same property twice, but imposing
the worst sort of income-tax, or one aimed at a few
individuals. It has “thimble-rigged” in its legislation,
as Mr. Hugh Littlepage not unaptly terms it;
endeavouring to do that indirectly, which the Constitution
will not permit it to do directly. In other
words, as it can pass no direct law “impairing the
obligation of contracts,” while it can regulate descents,
it has enacted, so far as one body of the legislature
has power to enact anything, that on the death
of a landlord the tenant may convert his lease into a
mortgage, on discharging which he shall hold his
land in fee!

We deem the first of these measures far more
tyrannical than the attempt of Great Britain to tax
her colonies, which brought about the revolution. It
is of the same general character, that of unjust taxation;
while it is attended by circumstances of aggravation

that were altogether wanting in the policy of
the mother country. This is not a tax for revenue,
which is not needed; but a tax to “choke off” the
landlords, to use a common American phrase. It is
clearly taxing nothing, or it is taxing the same property
twice. It is done to conciliate three or four
thousand voters, who are now in the market, at the
expense of three or four hundred who, it is known,
are not to be bought. It is unjust in its motives, its
means and its end. The measure is discreditable to
civilization, and an outrage on liberty.

But, the other law mentioned is an atrocity so
grave, as to alarm every man of common principle
in the State, were it not so feeble in its devices to
cheat the Constitution, as to excite contempt. This
extraordinary power is exercised because the legislature
can control the law of descents, though it
cannot “impair the obligation of contracts!” Had
the law said at once that on the death of a landlord
each of his tenants should own his farm in fee, the
ensemble of the fraud would have been preserved,
since the “law of descents” would have been so far
regulated as to substitute one heir for another; but
changing the nature of a contract, with a party who
has nothing to do with the succession at all, is not so
very clearly altering, or amending, the law of descents!
It is scarcely necessary to say that every
reputable court in the country, whether State or
Federal, would brand such a law with the disgrace
it merits.

But the worst feature of this law, or attempted
law, remains to be noticed. It would have been a
premium on murder. Murder has already been

committed by these anti-renters, and that obviously
to effect their ends; and they were to be told that
whenever you shoot a landlord, as some have already
often shot at them, you can convert your leasehold
tenures into tenures in fee! The mode of valuation
is so obvious, too, as to deserve a remark. A master
was to settle the valuation on testimony. The witnesses
of course would be “the neighbours,” and a
whole patent could swear for each other!

As democrats we protest most solemnly against
such bare-faced frauds, such palpable cupidity and
covetousness being termed anything but what they
are. If they come of any party at all, it is the party
of the devil. Democracy is a lofty and noble sentiment.
It does not rob the poor to make the rich
richer, nor the rich to favour the poor. It is just, and
treats all men alike. It does not “impair the obligations
of contracts.” It is not the friend of a canting
legislation, but, meaning right, dare act directly.
There is no greater delusion than to suppose that
true democracy has anything in common with injustice
or roguery.

Nor is it an apology for anti-rentism, in any of
its aspects, to say that leasehold tenures are inexpedient.
The most expedient thing in existence is to
do right. Were there no other objection to this anti-rent
movement than its corrupting influence, that
alone should set every wise man in the community
firmly against it. We have seen too much of this
earth, to be so easily convinced that there is any
disadvantage, nay that there is not a positive advantage
in the existence of large leasehold estates, when
they carry with them no political power, as is the

fact here. The common-place argument against them,
that they defeat the civilization of a country, is not
sustained by fact. The most civilized countries on
earth are under this system; and this system, too,
not entirely free from grave objections which do not
exist among ourselves. That a poorer class of citizens
have originally leased than have purchased lands in
New York, is probably true; and it is equally probable
that the effects of this poverty, and even of the
tenure in the infancy of a country, are to be traced
on the estates. But this is taking a very one-sided
view of the matter. The men who became tenants
in moderate but comfortable circumstances, would
have been mostly labourers on the farms of others,
but for these leasehold tenures. That is the benefit
of the system in a new country, and the ultra friend
of humanity, who decries the condition of a tenant,
should remember that if he had not been in this very
condition, he might have been in a worse. It is, indeed,
one of the proofs of the insincerity of those who
are decrying leases, on account of their aristocratic
tendencies, that their destruction will necessarily
condemn a numerous class of agriculturists, either
to fall back into the ranks of the peasant or day-labourer,
or to migrate, as is the case with so many
of the same class in New England. In point of fact,
the relation of landlord and tenant is one entirely
natural and salutary, in a wealthy community, and
one that is so much in accordance with the necessities
of men, that no legislation can long prevent it.
A state of things which will not encourage the rich
to hold real estate would not be desirable, since it
would be diverting their money, knowledge, liberality,
feelings and leisure, from the improvement of
the soil, to objects neither so useful nor so praise-worthy.

The notion that every husbandman is to be a free-holder,
is as Utopian in practice, as it would be to
expect that all men were to be on the same level in
fortune, condition, education and habits. As such a
state of things as the last never yet did exist, it was
probably never designed by divine wisdom that it
should exist. The whole structure of society must
be changed, even in this country, ere it could exist
among ourselves, and the change would not have
been made a month before the utter impracticability
of such a social fusion would make itself felt by all.

We have elsewhere imputed much of the anti-rent
feeling to provincial education and habits. This term
has given the deepest offence to those who were most
obnoxious to the charge. Nevertheless, our opinion
is unchanged. We know that the distance between
the cataract of Niagara and the Massachusetts line
is a large hundred leagues, and that it is as great
between Sandy Hook and the 45th parallel of latitude.
Many excellent things, moral and physical,
are to be found within these limits, beyond a question;
but we happen to know by an experience that
has extended to other quarters of the world, for a
term now exceeding forty years, that more are to be
found beyond them. If “honourable gentlemen” at
Albany fancy the reverse, they must still permit us
to believe they are too much under the influence of
provincial notions.