NATIONALISATION OF THE LAND.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3714, 11 June 1883, Page 4

NATIONALISATION OF THE LAND.

In the review of Mr Henry Georges " Progress and Poverty," which is issued by the Liberty Defence League, Lordßram-AA-ell FltS., analyses and combats Mr George's theories respecting the nationalisation °of the land, hi the course of the review, his Lordship says:—"A deal ot mischievous and dishonest nonsense has been talked about landlordism. Rent exists in tho nature of thina-s, and Avould exist in Hubstaneo if avo had an agrarian law tomorrow. If ono aero of land will produce four quarters of Avhcat with the same expenditure of labor and capital as will outproduce tAvo quarters on another acre, and it is worth while to cultivate the poorer acre (railloss, perhaps), tho first acre will bear and pay a rent of two quarters ; and if on the agrarian division it fell to the lot of A.8., he would receive from it two quarters as a return for his labor and capital and two quarters in the nature of rent, it is true, in a sense not always, as Mr George says, but, sometimes that the increase of land values, is at the expense of tho value of labor, but it is for the reason that no legislation can preventviz the pressuro of population on Pubsistencc." Lord Bramwell submits that the question to be considered is "whether privateer separate property in land is for tho good of the community aud he adds " Certainly there is rather a strong prima facie caso that it is, since it exists throughout the world. < Oh ! says MiGeorge, 'tyranny, violence, and usurpation." Ili-s Lords-hip quote-, M- <le Lavoleyo. "In all primitive societies tho soil was the joint property of the tribes, and was subject to periodical distribution among all the families, so that each might live by | their labor as nature has ordained. And why is it not so now ? Because avc are not in a primitive state, because avc arc wiser and older, and know better, as M. do Lavcloye ought to do. Periodical distribution ! Is it not absolutely certain that a man will do better with a piece of land, will get more out of it each vcar if he has it for two years instead of one" for ten years instead of two and for all his time instead of ten ? If the profit of his care and labor will be his some time, will ho not bestow them when otherwise he would not ? It cannot bo doubted. Tax him if you like, tax his rent, tax him ad valorem, but leave him to improve enough to tempt him to improve. It is too plain ; separate property in land as in sheep and oxen is for the good of the community. Andf if so, thoquanlity thatonetnan may own can be no more limited than can the' quantity of sheep or oxen that he may possess, nor the use he shall make of it. Have an agrarian law ; give each man his share. In ten years the careful, skilful, and provident allottees would be the owners of the share of the careless, unskilful, and improvident, As it is for the general good it should bo so." Continuing, Ihe reviewer says: — "No doubt, to confiscate land and raise the public out of it would bo a fine thing for tho community save the landholders. But so would cunfis.-ating chattels bo a fine thing for all but tho chattel owners, and Iho confiscation of labor would be a splendid ihing for all but the laborers. It may be there is much to be said for tho taxation of the land, and that a community Avould do well it' it resolved at the outset to raise its tr-xali m from land. There is much to be said for it, especially if the taxation is not su exce.-..-.i»-t; as to deprive the landowners of all interest in improvement; but, Avhen the law for a_es has allowed private property in lurid, to take that property from one man and leave property in oxen and horses in another because the land is stolen goods and its owner ought to Icuoav that—that, I say, is 'robbery,' and repugnant to all notions of fairness. Mr George does not indeed propose to take all the rent. He would leave enough to make it Avorth tho while of landOAvners to become tax collectors. Mr George says: 'In every civilized country tho value of land, taken has a Avhole, is sufficient to bear the entire expense of the Government,' AYe flatter ourselves England is a civilized country. If it is so, _ this statement is untrue. The Avhole agricultural rout without abatement for collecting it Avould not defray those expenses. If tho expenses Avere so borne, personal property would be untaxed, and Mr George, this friend of the poor and wailing infant, Avould let the Rothschilds and Asters go untaxed, while ho filched tho puteh of land got by the savings of hard Avork which gave bare subsistence to tho Avidow and orphan." In coucluskm Lord BraniAvcll says:—" Mr

George seems to have a sort of sympathy for Nihilists and Communists, and shows some contempt for the Irish that they only 'occasionally' murder a landlord. Does Mr George doubt that those landlords honestly believe in their right, to the land, and are" murdered for that belief and for acting on it ? AVhat Avould he think of an occasional murder of an author for preaching robbery, of preaching which offence Mr George, in tho landlord's judgment, is as much'gnilty as they, in his judgment, are guilty of tho practice ?"