Before analyzing specific tenure systems, it is essential to define the core tenets upon which a just and efficient system of property must be built. Any policy not grounded in clear first principles is destined for failure. The principles articulated by Mill establish the standard against which existing laws must be judged and provide the intellectual foundation for the reforms that follow.

2.1. The Principle of Just Reward: The True Basis of Private Property

The institution of private property finds its primary justification in its capacity to secure to individuals the rewards of their own efforts. Mill argues that its legitimacy rests entirely on its ability to guarantee “to individuals the fruits of their own labour and abstinence.” [II, i, 3] This principle is the moral and economic bedrock of ownership, positing that the right to property is a functional institution designed to incentivize industry by ensuring that exertion is met with a proportionate benefit.

When property laws deviate from this core principle, their legitimacy is fundamentally compromised. If a system allows the fruits of one person’s labor to be systematically appropriated by another who has contributed nothing, it ceases to be defensible. Mill critically observes that the social arrangements of Europe originated not in a careful application of justice but in “conquest and violence.” [II, i, 3] This historical reality is a powerful reminder that existing laws are not sacrosanct; they are the product of human design and must be judged against the standard of just reward.

2.2. The Economic Necessity of Security

Among the causes that determine the productiveness of a nation’s economy, Mill identifies “Security” as the most important. [I, vii, 6] Without it, the “active energies of producers” are paralyzed. This security is dual in nature: it consists of protection by the government from private depredation and, more critically, protection against arbitrary action from the government or other powerful entities, such as landlords.

Mill illustrates this with the stark example of “rapacious” governments in Asia, where possessing wealth invites its violent confiscation. [I, vii, 6] This principle, however, applies with equal force to any system where insecurity stems from arbitrary eviction, exploitative contracts, or unpredictable rent increases that appropriate the value created by a tenant. In any such environment, there is no incentive to produce more than is necessary for immediate subsistence. From this, a core economic maxim can be derived: “the efficiency of industry may be expected to be great, in proportion as the fruits of industry are insured to the person exerting it.” [I, vii, 6] Security is the institutional framework that makes productive effort a rational choice.

2.3. The Subordination of Land Rights to the Public Good

Mill makes a crucial distinction between property in the products of labor and property in land. While an individual has a strong claim to that which they create, land is “not the produce of labour” but the “common inheritance” of all humanity. [II, ii, 5, 6] Therefore, exclusive ownership is not an absolute right but a privilege granted by society, justified only by its utility in promoting the general good.

This leads to an essential conclusion: “The claim of the landowners to the land is altogether subordinate to the general policy of the State.” [II, ii, 6] The state is the ultimate arbiter of the terms under which this common inheritance is held. When the arrangements of landed property cease to serve the public good—when they reward indolence, discourage improvement, and create poverty—it is the duty of the state to intervene. Mill is unequivocal that reform becomes a state obligation when existing arrangements fail the test of public utility:

“When landed property has placed itself upon this footing, it ceases to be defensible, and the time has come for making some new arrangement of the matter.” [II, ii, 6]

With these principles established as our metric, we can now assess how historical tenure systems succeed or fail, providing an unassailable evidentiary basis for reform.