*tate (ftoUcge of Agriculture 
 Kt (Qoruell Mnitieraitg 
 
 ^library 
 
Cornell University Library 
 HD 593.W5 
 
 The ownership, tenure and taxation of la 
 
 3 1924 013 950 849 
 
Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of tiiis book is in 
 tine Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924013950849 
 
THE OWNERSHIP, TENURE, AND 
 TAXATION OF LAND 
 
MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 LONDON • BOMBAY ■ CALCUTTA 
 
 MELBOURNE 
 
 THE MACMILLAN COMPANY 
 
 NEW YORK • BOSTON • CHICAGO 
 
 DALLAS • SAN FRANCISCO 
 
 THE MACMILLAN CO. OF CANADA, Ltd. 
 TORONTO 
 
THE 
 
 OWNERSHIP, TENURE 
 
 AND 
 
 TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 SOME 
 
 FACTS, FALLACIES AND PROPOSALS 
 
 RELATING THERETO 
 
 BY 
 THE RIGHT HONBLE. 
 
 SIR THOMAS P. WHITTAKER 
 P.C, M.P. 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., LIMITED 
 
 ST. MARTIN'S STREET, LONDON 
 
 1914 
 
COPYRIGHT 
 
 Q I6r350 
 
PREFACE 
 
 It is not pretended that this book is a work of original research. 
 It is rather a bringing together of such statistical and historical 
 information as is available, and a discussion of it, and of the economic, 
 fiscal, and ethical principles and problems which bear upon the 
 distinct and limited subjects — the ownership, tenure, and taxation 
 of land — with which the volume is concerned. 
 
 This information and the discussion of these principles are at 
 present scattered over a very wide area of books, papers, and reports. 
 They are so intermingled with, and often practically buried in, 
 masses of figures, records, and detailed information, and in disserta- 
 tions on principles ranging over a far wider field, that, except to 
 students and specialists, they are comparatively little known. 
 
 My object has been to present these facts and principles as they 
 arrange themselves in my mind, together with a statement of what 
 appear to me to be the proper conclusions to be drawn from them. 
 I have stated the position from the point of view of one who claims 
 to be an average man who has had a fairly wide experience of men 
 and things in private and public affairs and business, and who has 
 devoted a considerable amount of time to an endeavour to ascertain 
 the facts and arrive at sound conclusions with regard to the subject 
 here considered. 
 
 This has been done in the scattered intervals which have been 
 snatched from a very fully occupied life, and no one is more conscious 
 than I am of the imperfections which must result from those condi- 
 tions. The temptation to carry the investigation further and collect 
 more particulars has been great, but I have remembered Hallam's 
 remark that " an author who waits till all requisite materials are 
 
 V 
 
vi OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 accumulated to his hands is but watching the stream that will 
 run on for ever." 
 
 My aim has been not so much to propound schemes of reform by 
 suggesting remedies and formulating definite proposals (although 
 I have done both) as to clear the way and prepare the ground 
 for that necessary and desirable work by ascertaining and stating 
 the historical and existing facts with which we have to deal, and 
 enunciating the fundamental principles of economics and ethics by 
 which we ought to be, and, if success is to attend our efforts, 
 must be, guided and governed. This involves the clearing away 
 of a dense and tangled mass of error and misconception in which 
 prejudice and lack of knowledge have enveloped the whole subject. 
 Until that has been done, accurate diagnosis of the problems 
 which confront us and the formulation of useful and wise solutions 
 of them are alike impossible. 
 
 Students and specialists may say that much of the historical 
 chapters is elementary. So it is ; but the vast majority of those 
 for whom I have written — politicians and the general public — either 
 have never known it, or have forgotten it, or have acquired mis- 
 conceptions with regard to it. As, in addition to this, very inaccurate 
 and misleading statements are being strenuously promulgated in 
 order to influence the judgment of the ordinary citizen with regard 
 to proposals concerning the ownership, tenure, and taxation of 
 land, it has seemed to me to be desirable that the fundamental 
 historical facts which bear on those proposals should be summarised 
 and clearly re-stated. 
 
 The mere counter-statement by me of these facts and the con- 
 clusions to be drawn from them would carry no more weight than 
 the assertions which I dispute, if my contentions were not supported 
 by references to those who are accepted as standard authorities 
 to-day. I have, therefore, freely used and am largely indebted to 
 the work of others. I have quoted much, because, not only are the 
 facts and arguments stated more forcibly and clearly than I could 
 hope to put them, but I wish the statement of them to carry the 
 full weight of the authority which lies behind it. 
 
 I am specially indebted to the works of Professor P. W. Maitland, 
 
PREFACE 
 
 Vll 
 
 Sir F. Pollock, Professor P. VinogradofE, Professor W. J. Ashley, 
 Dr. E. A. Freeman, Bishop Stubbs, Mr. J. R. Green, Mr. Thorold 
 Rogers, Professor E. C. K. Gonner, Mr. R. H. Tawney, Mr. Justice 
 Scrutton, Professor E. R. A. Seligman, Professor Henry Sidgwick, 
 Professor E. Cannan, Mr. F. A. Walker, Professor Alfred Marshall, 
 Professor A. L. Bowley, Mr. Stephen Dowell, the late Duke of 
 Argyll, Professor T. H. Huxley, Mr. Arnold Toynbee, M. Fustel de 
 Coulanges, Mr. F. Seebohm, Sir Henry Maine, Mr. J. H. Round, 
 Professor D. G. Ritchie, and Sir Robert GiSen. 
 
 In the great majority of cases the references are given, but in 
 order to avoid burdening the pages with footnotes to an extent 
 which might appear pedantic, I have occasionally summarised 
 without special reference the statement by others of views which 
 I desired to express. I must ask them to accept this acknowledg- 
 ment of my indebtedness in those instances. 
 
 January 1914. 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Introduction. Henry George and his proposals — John Stuart Mill and 
 unearned increment — Schemes for the taxation of land values — The 
 Land Values Group in Parliament — A kaleidoscopic propaganda 
 — ^An inquiry into facta, history, and fundamental principles 
 desirable . ...... xvii-xxx 
 
 PAKT I 
 
 THE ETHICS AND ORIGIN OP THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 
 
 OF LAND 
 
 CHAP. 
 
 I. The Ethics op Private Ownership of Land. Natural Rights — No 
 agreement as to what are " Natural Rights " — At bottom " Natural 
 Right " is the right of force — Huxley and the " Natural Right " of 
 the tiger-^-Robinson Crusoe — The Social Utility theory — Uncon- 
 vincing arguments — The right to live : where ? — Rights of nations 
 and of individuals — ^Is labour the only title to ownership? — Huxley 
 on "A Man's Right to Himself" — More superficial philosophy — A 
 dilemma and an absurdity — ^Does labour alone produce anjrthing? — 
 Experience the guide— Ideas of right and wrong are a growth : slavery 
 — The only safe appeal ...... . 3-22 
 
 II. The Origin oe Private PROPBRTr in Land. Private ownership an 
 early stage of settled conditions — Private property in land does not 
 arise until agriculture begins and families evolve — ^A modern contro- 
 versy — The present view — Ownership and lordship evolve slowly 
 — The early outcome of economic and social conditions — 
 Occupation and use the basis of possession — The importance of 
 security — The antiquity of private ownership — England under the 
 Romans — No substantial evidence of communal ownership — -Early 
 English estates and commons — Early traces of private estates and 
 servile cultivators — Modern experience — ^Note on Babylonia . 23-40 
 
 PART II 
 
 ECONOMIC PROGRESS AND THE OWNERSHIP AND VALUE 
 
 OP LAND 
 
 The National Income and how it is distributed. Does material 
 progress benefit the masses of the people ? — The National Income 
 
 ix 
 
X OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 CHAP. PAOE 
 
 — How it is divided — ^Incomes exceeding £160 a year — Incomes of 
 £160 and less — Some comparisons with the past — Recent previous 
 estimates — Movements in the distribution of income during the last 
 century .......•• 43-57 
 
 II. The Tebnd or Wages. Wages of agricultural labourers — Wages in 
 some other trades- — Effect of changes in grades and occupations — 
 Mr. Wood's valuable tables — The relation of wages to prices, 1900- 
 1912 58-73 
 
 m. Other Tests op Pboqeess. Population — The death-rate — Pauperism, 
 etc. — Expenditure — Education, etc. — Savings — Crime and' drunken- 
 ness — Housing — Overcrowding — Improvement not only material . 74-85 
 
 IV. Value op the Land op the United Kingdom. Value of agricultural 
 land — "The making of the land of England" — Value of the sites 
 of houses and buildings — ^Total annual value of the land only — 
 Estimates of land taxers — Estimated capital value of the land of the 
 United Kingdom — ^The movements in the value of agricultural land — 
 The movements in the incomes from land and from other sources 
 compared — ^Increase in incomes from land much less than increase in 
 other incomes ........ 86-103 
 
 V. Poverty and the Private Ownership op Land. " The Tramp and 
 
 the Locomotive " — Poverty where land is not appropriated . 104-106 
 
 VI. Some Eoonomio Fallacies. The effect of improvements in produc- 
 tion and transit — Rent and the price of produce — The sources of 
 wealth — The importance and value of business ability — Where the 
 profits of exceptional business ability come from — Note : Speech by 
 Sir Wm. Lever 107-115 
 
 PAET III 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE OWNERSHIP, TENURE, AND 
 TAXATION OP LAND IN ENGLAND 
 
 I. Ownership, Occupation, and Status in Anglo-Saxon and Early 
 Norman Times. When the Romans left — The origin of the 
 manorial system — The constitution of the manor — Boc-Iand and 
 folk-land — The system of agriculture — The open field system — Free 
 tenants, villeins, and serfs — ^The growth of freedom— The customary 
 tenants : Copyholders ...... 119-130 
 
 II. The Origin and Basis op Feudalism. After the break-up of the 
 Roman Empire — ^Feudalism a natural and necessary stage — The 
 services of the Roman Empire to civilisation — Where Roman law 
 and feudalism did not reach ..... 131-137 
 
 III. Feudalism in England : the Mit.ttaby Side. The evolution of the 
 
 Military organisation — The old Saxon militia — Continental and 
 English feudalism — William I.'s policy and plan — Other tenures 138-144 
 
 IV. Feudalism in England : the Financial Side. The King's revenue 
 
 under the Saxons — Under the Normans — On whom the burdens fell — 
 Blackstone's view — The military difficulty — Money payment instead 
 of personal service — The commutations — Taxes on personal property 
 — The Great Charter— Disappearance of scutage and tallage — The 
 burden of the feudal charges ..... 145-155 
 
CONTENTS xi 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 V. Feudalism, a Transition Stage. Parliamentary control of finance 
 emerging — Decay of the manorial system — Disappearance of villen- 
 agl and serfdom — Feudalism, a changing and temporary phase 
 — The object and justification of feudalism — Modern methods im- 
 possible then — Professor Maitland's view . . . 156-165 
 
 VI. The Stettoglb fob Constitutional Government. The struggle for 
 ParUamentary control — The outcome of the struggle with the Stuarts 
 — Final abolition of the feudal incidents — A great boon to the nation 
 — Dowell's view — Intolerable abuses felt by rich and poor alike 166-174: 
 
 VII. The So-called " Land Taxes " of 1692, 1697, and 1798. What the 
 tax really was : first on personal property and income, then on real 
 estate — The fixed assessment — ^Personal property slipped out again 
 — View of the Inland Revenue Authorities — The truth of the matter — 
 A complete misconception — Cobden's error and land taxers' adoption 
 and circulation of it — Notes ..... 175-182 
 
 PAET IV 
 
 WHO REALLY OWNS THE LAND ? AND SOME CONSIDERATIONS 
 OF HONESTY AND HONOUR 
 
 I. Who really owns the Land ? What the Conqueror did — The kings 
 and their demesne — Norman tenures were imposed by force — -They 
 had less validity than subsequent acts of kings and parliaments — 
 If one part of the contract were restored the whole should be . 185-190 
 
 II. Some considerations op Honesty and Honour. Confiscation by 
 taxation — Repulsive but dangerous — Conditions of ownership — A 
 grave injustice — ^The small investor — The responsibility and attitude 
 of Parliament — ^A caustic exposure — ^Law sacred when it suits them ; 
 waste paper when it does not — Who were the original occupiers ? — 
 Who is the robbed and who the robber ?— Henry VIII. and the lands 
 of the monasteries — What has evolved through the centuries — The 
 hardships and reward of early settlers — ^A breach of public good 
 faith — Where the proposals were made — What the proposals involve 
 and would lead to— Repudiation of public and private debts — More 
 public pillage advocated . . . . . . 191-210 
 
 PAET V 
 
 ENCLOSURES 
 
 Commons and Common Rights. Common and rights of common — 
 Popular ideas of " common " erroneous — The ancient legal position — 
 A modem theory and the controversy about it — The origin of com- 
 mon and common rights — Sir John Sinclair's statement of the matter 
 — The various rights of common — What enclosure really was — The 
 legal position — The importance and position of copyholders — Other 
 customary tenants — What rights of common really were — The effect 
 of changing conditions ...... 213-233 
 
xii OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 II. A Social Ebvoltjtion was taking place. The change due to eco- 
 nomic causes — There was a distinct movement amongst the cultiva- 
 tors themselves — A process of growth and extension — The Bl*ck 
 Death and the Statute of Labourers — A new problem which is now 
 an old one — ^Enclosures necessary and inevitable — Enclosure often 
 desired by tenants — Wool-growing and manufacturing — The growth 
 of sheep-farming natural and general — The alleged substitution of 
 pasture for arable — Enclosure necessary and inevitable — Commons 
 uneconomical — Other influences and considerations — The troubles 
 of commons and waste — Inevitable .... 234-252 
 
 III. The Method and Effects op Enclosure. Enclosures by agreement 
 and Act of Parliament — Troublesome and costly — The position of the 
 poor — The disadvantage they were under — The results as a whole — 
 One misconception — The effect on employment and population — A 
 painstaking investigation — Enclosure of waste would increase em- 
 ployment — The aim and result of legislation — Dr. Slater — The alleged 
 depopulation — Evidence to the contrary — Professor Gonner's con- 
 clusions — Confirmation from Dr. Slater — There was disturbance and 
 distress, but it was exaggerated — Difficulties and what was done to 
 meet them 253-271 
 
 IV. Some Economic Faotoks and theie Effects. The decrease in yeo- 
 man land-owners — The advance and changes in manufacturing — 
 The improvements in agriculture — High prices and rents during the 
 French war, and the fall afterwards — From the fifteenth to the nine- 
 teenth century — Roads in the Stuart period — Nearly half the coimtry 
 waste 200 years ago — Wages and conditions in the eighteenth century 
 —Conclusion . ..... 272-281 
 
 PAKT VI 
 
 SOME DIFFICULTIES AND THEORIES IN THE EVOLUTION 
 OF TAXATION AND LOCAL RATES 
 
 I. The Policy and Difficulties of Medieval Taxation. Taxes in 
 respect of land — Taxes on personal property — Taxes levied on locali- 
 ties — Assessments became permanent — ^Attempts to introduce new 
 taxes — Another general property tax and a new assessment — The 
 new assessment became permanent — ^Another assessment and another 
 property and income tax ...... 285-291 
 
 II. Theories of Taxation in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth 
 Centuries. The economic opinions of a century and a half — The 
 incidence and efEect of excise duties — High duties and low wages 
 considered a stimulus to industry — Some theories and an objection 
 — Taxes on luxuries, including bricks — A single tax on houses 
 advocated — Theories as to taxes on land — The opposite view — A 
 bewildering medley of views — Two conclusions therefrom . 292-300 
 
 III. Local Rates. The difficulty of assessing personal property — Local a 
 rates a kind of income tax — -Roads and their repair — The support of 
 the poor — A poor rate — On whom it was to be levied — Possessions ^, 
 
 and ability to pay intended to be the basis of assessment — ^Acts of 
 Parliament, decisions in the courts, and practice in the parishes — 
 
CONTENTS xiii 
 
 CHAP. PAGE 
 
 Some features and consequences — Legal decisions and the outcome — 
 How and why land and buildings became the basis of assessment — 
 Sir Edward Hamilton's memorandum — The intention and the fact 301-314 
 
 PART VII 
 
 THE INCIDENCE OF LOCAL RATES 
 
 I. Introdttctobt . . . 317-319 
 
 II. Rates " Onerotts " and " Beneficial " : " Constant " and " Diefeb- 
 BNTiAi." Onerous and beneficial rates — A definition and explana- 
 tion attempted — Constant and differential rates — Are rates which 
 are equivalent to the benefit received burdens ? — Sometimes they 
 are — The incidence of onerous rates — The peculiar characteristics of 
 land — Houses on cheap land of only agricultural value — Houses on 
 sites which have a building value — Differential rates — Differential 
 cost of building — The incidence of differential rates and costs — 
 Summary of conclusions — An illustration . . . 320-333 
 
 III. Rates and the Price of Land. Rates which reduce the value of the 
 
 land — Rates do not come off the value of the building — ^Incidence of 
 rates when buildings are erected — The actual value is rent plus rates — 
 Rates influence rents ..... 334-340 
 
 IV. The Opinions of Poutical EcoNOiaisTS. Economic friction and 
 
 diffusion — ^Views of taxers of land values — Another view — On the 
 
 land or the owner of the land ..... 341-351 
 
 V. Special Points and Exceptional Cases. The value of buildings — 
 The principles expounded apply to average buildings — Shops in Bond 
 Street and Regent Street — ^Incidence of rates when property is sold 
 or let — Existing rates fuUy allowed for when a bargain is made — 
 Incidence of changes in rates during current tenancies — Incidence of 
 changes in rates when tenancies commence or are renewed — Improve- 
 ments and rates — The idea that land-owners get all the benefit of 
 public expenditure is an error — What happens while a lease runs and 
 when it expires — ^An iUnstration — Shifting of rates and taxes on agri- 
 cultural land — Shitting of rates and taxes on building land — Some 
 unseen effects of relieving rates on agricultural land — Capitalisation of 
 rates and taxes — Incidence of rates levied on land values — The effect 
 on the occupier — Effect of a limited rate — The effect on land-owners 352-371 
 
 PART VIII 
 
 THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM 
 
 I. The Leasehold System. Leasehold enfranchisement — What ground 
 rents really are— Often they bear little or no relation to the site value 
 — The price of leasehold property allows for giving it up at the end of 
 the term — The land-owner's position — The Gorringe case — The facts 
 — Would the Government or any one else have acted differently ? — • 
 An interesting case — The effect of specially taxing ground rents — 
 Mr. Sargant's view 375-386 
 
xiv OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 PART IX 
 
 THE TAXATION OF LAND VALUES — VARIOUS PROPOSALS: 
 WHAT IS CLAIMED FOR THEM AND WHAT THEY WOULD 
 ACCOMPLISH— SOME CONTENTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 
 EXAMINED 
 
 I. Some Pboposals for taxing Land Values. The idea of a single tax 
 not new — What the supporters of the proposal have to prove — " Land 
 different from other commodities " — " Land necessary to our exist- 
 ence " — ^The true principle of property — New and Old countries — 
 John Stuart Mill's opinion — " Rent is robbery," but it would con- 
 tinue — The foundations of society — Some other proposals — Some 
 elementary considerations ..... 389-400 
 
 II. To WHAT Extent do Land-owneks pay Rates and Taxes now ? 
 What rates and taxes they ought to pay — What rates and taxes land- 
 owners do pay — ^Feudal burdens and local rates — An anomaly — ^A 
 fallacious argument based thereon — Rates on improvements — On 
 whom the rates really fall ..... 401-412 
 
 III. The Royal Commission on Local Taxation. The Separate Report 
 
 on Rating Site Values — The outstanding features — Dividing the 
 rates between owner and occupier — An interesting opinion of 
 seventy years ago — Should existing contracts be violated ? — Some 
 weighty opinions— Sir Henry CampbeU-Bannerman, Mr. Asquith, 
 and Mr. Lloyd George — Mr. Ure and some other M.P.'s — Lax views 
 of land taxers . . .... 413-424 
 
 IV. To WHAT Extent would taxing Land Values bring Land into the 
 
 Market ? Agricultural land — A grievance and disadvantage — Some 
 practical considerations — Urban land — ^Exceptional cases — Far more 
 land offered than can be sold — The " monopoly " in building land — 
 What would the effect of the taxes be ? — On rural land — On urban 
 land — An illustration — Who would buy ? — ^An interesting experience 
 — Some illustrations and calculations — The effect would be slight — 
 View of the Surveyors' Institute — Rate of interest more important 
 than the price of land — Conclusion — The equity of the matter — 
 Slums — Slum houses are cheap because overcrowding is allowed — 
 The permission of overcrowding — Houses available — Municipal 
 dwellings — Access to land — The price of building land . . 425-451 
 
 V. Some Arguments and Illustrations examined. Do rates increase 
 the cost of houses ? — The fundamental misapprehension — Two 
 interesting cases — The offered gift of land at Edmonton — ^Mr. Hem- 
 merde, M.P., and the Hauley case — Another view — Hopeless incon- 
 sistency — Is land to be cheaper or dearer or what ? — Further con- 
 fusion and contradiction — Another instance — An ingenious but 
 specious argument — Are rural parishes to be relieved at the cost of 
 the towns ? — Taxes on land values in rural areas — Faulty economics 
 — The land taxers' dilemma— Do all taxes and rates fall on land- 
 owners now ? — Then, what is all the fuss about ? — Mr. Wedgwood's 
 explanation — An absurd suggestion — Is every one to pay, after aU ? — 
 What the electors are told — The outcome . . . 452-479 
 
CONTENTS XV 
 
 PART X 
 
 SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND SOME PROPOSALS FOR 
 REFORM IN THE TAXATION AND TENURE OF LAND 
 AND BUILDINGS CONSIDERED 
 
 CHAP. PAOE 
 
 I. SUMMABY OP CONCMTSIONS ...... 483-486 
 
 n. General Peinoiplbs of Taxation and Rating. Two somewhat 
 conflicting theories — ^A local income tax — Local expenditure and 
 local rates — The somid principle of local taxation — The weak point — 
 Some suggested methods of relief — Differential rating . . 487-497 
 
 III. The Incidence of Rates and some StroGESTED Rating Changes. 
 Local expenditure and receipts analysed — Some suggestions con- 
 sidered — Transfer of burdens — Two grievances — Some practicable 
 and desirable reforms — Charges should be classified and a national 
 fund established — A limited rate on land values — Effect of the 
 suggested changes ....... 498-508 
 
 PART XI 
 
 AGRICULTURAL WAGES AND PROBLEMS OF TENURE AND 
 HOUSING IN TOWN AND COUNTRY 
 
 I. Problems of Land Tenure in Agricultural Districts. The tying-up 
 
 of land — ^An undesirable system — The rural exodus — -The experience 
 of other countries — What is our ideal ? — Ownership v. Tenancy — 
 Fixity of tenure and fair rents — SmaE holdings — The practical side — 
 The need for experience and soimd judgment — " Back to the land " — 
 Mr. Pels' object-lesson — ^The Hollesley Bay Colony — ^The lesson — 
 Notes 511-530 
 
 II. Agricultural Wages and Rural Housing. A century's experience — 
 
 The principle of a minimum wage — Rural housing — Government 
 cottages — Sites and wages — " Physician, heal thyself " — ^The wages 
 question is fundamental — Parliamentary intervention necessary 531-543 
 
 III. Urban Problems. Slums and overcrowding — ^The real slum problem 
 
 — What Liverpool has done — ^Two other phases — ^A fantastic and 
 ruinous proposal — Leasehold business premises — Repairs and dilapi- 
 dations — What is required — Pair treatment for every one . 544-555 
 
 IV. Conclusion. Responsibility for the past must be accepted — Abuse of 
 
 land-owners unfair and impolitic — How injury may be done — Two 
 illustrations ........ 556-563 
 
 INDEX 565 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 " Land reform covers a menagerie of aims and programmes." — J. Wedgwood, M.P. 
 
 Land and Taxation are never-failing subjects of great public 
 interest in all civilised communities. The problems which are 
 connected with them come home to us all very closely in the 
 affairs of our everyday life. Land is necessary for our existence. 
 " Man is a land animal." The conditions under which access 
 can be had to land and a foothold maintained upon it are con- 
 sequently of the greatest importance and of unfailing interest. 
 Taxation is a burden which is practically universal and ever present. 
 It is almost always resented and is usually avoided whenever and 
 wherever possible. In this country for more than eight centuries, 
 as in the ancient world long centuries before that, the laws and 
 customs concerning land and taxation have been burning questions 
 of public controversy. They remain to-day amongst the most 
 pressing and difficult of the problems with which our statesmen are 
 faced and upon which the general public feel most keenly. Land 
 Law Reform and the Reform and Readjustment of Taxation, local 
 and national, are shibboleths which find a place in the programmes 
 of all political parties. The discussions of centuries and the experi- 
 ence of all civilised nations have failed to bring unanimity, or even 
 an approach to general agreement with regard to them. Few 
 subjects, theology excepted, seem to lend themselves so readily and 
 completely to honest misconception and misrepresentation. 
 
 At the present time the complicated and difficult problems 
 which centre round land and taxation, and particularly round that 
 exceptionally thorny combination of the two, the taxation of land, 
 are subjects of the keenest political controversy. For fifty years 
 the question has been pressed upon the attention of Parliament, 
 and every Government of both of the great political parties has 
 promised to grapple with it thoroughly and effectively ; but none 
 
 xvii 
 
xviii OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 of them has done so. Royal Commissions, Select Committees, 
 Departmental Committees, Private Committees, have inquired and 
 reported. Organisations of various kinds have carried on a more or 
 less vigorous propaganda, in connection with which agitators and 
 political quacks in all parties have advocated almost every method 
 of dealing with land and taxation which the ingenuity of man could 
 devise. There are few subjects about which more prejudice and 
 less accurate knowledge prevail. If the problems involved are to 
 be at aU satisfactorily dealt with, a little clear thinking on some 
 elementary phases of the history, economics, and ethics of the subject 
 is very necessary. It is well that we should from time to time 
 clear our minds and verify the principles on which our opinions are 
 based by examining the fundamental facts which do really govern 
 the condition of mankind. 
 
 Henry George and his Proposals 
 
 Some thirty years ago new life was infused into, and a new turn 
 given to the old and ineffective propaganda which had long been 
 carried on in this country in favour of the nationalisation of the 
 land, and to the later and far more reasonable and practical proposal 
 for securing for the community the future unearned increase in the 
 value of land, with which Mr. J. S. Mill was prominently identified, 
 by the publication here of Mr. Henry George's book entitled 
 Progress and Poverty. 
 
 Mr. George was a remarkable man, and he wrote an extremely 
 able book which had and still has a marked effect on public opinion. 
 The most diverse opinions were and are held about him and his book. 
 To his followers he is a hero, a prophet, a genius, a saviour of man- 
 kind, who discovered and preached a new evangel. To many of 
 his opponents he is a conceited demagogue, preaching iniquity in 
 the form of pillage and plunder which he invites the populace to 
 undertake in the name of justice and religion.^ 
 
 ' Mr. Joseph Fels regards his book as " The Bible of the World." 
 
 Lord BramweU said : " It is a foolish book, for although Mr. George is anything 
 but a foolish man, his ingenuity is so perverse that his book is filled with foohshness. 
 It is the most arrogant, self-sufficient performance ever seen." 
 
 W. H. Mallook says : " His errors, as he puts them, are diffused over so many 
 paragraphs, adorned with so much excited rhetoric, and intermixed with so much 
 excited reasoning, that their true character may escape the ordinary reader ; but 
 let them only be put into a brief and comprehensible form, and to any sane man 
 they will sound like the ravings of a lunatic." 
 
 Professor F. A. Walker speaks of Henry George's proposals as " this precious 
 piece of villainy," and as being " steeped in infamy," 
 
 In the House of Commons on February 27, 1891, Mr. Gladstone said : " There 
 
INTRODUCTION xix 
 
 Henry George's contention is that the great social evil of our 
 time is the private ownership of land, and that, so long as that con- 
 tinues, there cannot be any hope of improving the condition of the 
 masses of the people. He asserts that where there is most material 
 progress, and production and commerce are most highly developed, 
 there is the deepest poverty, the sharpest struggle for existence, 
 and the most enforced idleness. Increased production does not 
 lighten the burden of the toilers, it only Avidens the gulf between 
 rich and poor. The tramp comes with the locomotive, and alms- 
 houses and prisons are as surely the marks of material progress as 
 are costly dwellings, rich warehouses, and magnificent churches. 
 He contends that the reason is that the return to labour and capital 
 can never be more than can be obtained upon the poorest land in use, 
 and that the owner of land can always claim as rent all the produce 
 in excess of what the poorest land in use would yield. All progress 
 and increased production increases the demand for land and forces 
 down the margin of cultivation. This increases rent and lowers 
 wages and interest, with the result that the rich tend to become 
 very much richer, the poor to become more helpless, and the middle 
 class to be swept away. 
 
 This is all due to the private ownership of land. To command 
 the land is to command aU the fruits of labour save enough to enable 
 labour to exist. Nothing short of making land common property 
 can permanently check the tendency of wages to the starvation 
 point. Eeduced taxes, education, free trade, and increased efficiency 
 do not increase wages or interest ; they only raise rent. 
 
 Private property in land is contrary to the law of Nature ; 
 it is unjust and indefensible, and must always lead to the enslave- 
 ment of the labouring classes. All men have a natural right to 
 free access to and free use of the gratuitous offering of Nature. 
 The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their equal 
 right to breathe the air — it is a right proclaimed by the fact of their 
 existence. It is a natural and inalienable right ; it is one of the 
 primary conceptions of mankind. No power on earth can or even 
 could rightfully make a grant of exclusive ownership in land. If 
 
 are persons who view the proposals of Mr. George as proposals of a very enUghtened 
 character, and who very much resent the use of hard words respecting 
 him. I shall carefully eschew hard words ; but I will say that, so far as my 
 examination or knowledge of his proposals goes, I find it extremely difficult, 
 and, indeed, for myself altogether impossible, to exclude them or extricate them 
 from the category of those plans to which hard words no doubt are commonly 
 applied." 
 
XX OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 all existing men agreed to grant away their equal rights, they could 
 not grant away the rights of those who follow them. 
 
 The idea that private property in land is necessary to society 
 is artificial and baseless, a comparatively modern growth, the off- 
 spring of ignorance. Individual ownership of land has nowhere 
 been freely adopted. Historically, it is robbery. Nowhere can it 
 be traced to thoughts of justice or expediency. It has everywhere 
 had its birth in war and conquest and selfish cunning, and has only 
 prevailed as the result of a long course of usurpation, tyranny, and 
 fraud. 
 
 The idea of private property in land took many generations to 
 make its way among our ancestors, and did not reach full recogni- 
 tion here until the time of Charles II. The abohtion of the military 
 tenures at that time was simply an appropriation of public revenues 
 by feudal land-owners, who got rid of the consideration on which 
 they held the common property of the nation, and saddled it on 
 the people at large by taxation. 
 
 This is Henry George's teaching, and he says that the remedy 
 that will right the wrong is that we must make land common 
 property, not by purchasing it or confiscating it. It is only 
 necessary to confiscate rent. We should abolish all taxation save 
 upon land values, and appropriate rent by taxing land to the 
 full amount of its value. Then wages would rise, and profits and 
 the earnings of capital would increase ; wealth would augment ; 
 poverty would be banished ; crime would be lessened, and morals 
 would be elevated. 
 
 Labour would have access to land free of rent on the margin of 
 cultivation, and consequently would not be compelled to accept 
 bare subsistence wages, or starve. The surplus tmemployed would 
 betake themselves to the free land, and thus the surplus would be 
 draiaed off and the pressure relieved. The difficulty of finding 
 employment arises from the difficulty which labour has in finrling 
 employment for itself, because barriers fence it off the land. 
 
 The assumed validity of public debts and titles to land rests 
 upon the preposterous assumption that one generation may legislate 
 for and bind another generation. If a man asked me to pay a 
 bond which my ancestor had given to his ancestor, I should laugh 
 at him. It is a sound deduction from the self-evident truth that 
 the land belongs in usufruct to the living, that one generation should 
 not hold itself boimd by the laws or the defects of its predecessors. 
 Let the parchments be ever so many, or the possession ever so long. 
 
INTRODUCTION xxi 
 
 the poorest child that is born in London to-day has as much right 
 to the landed estates of the Duke of Westminister as his eldest 
 son. 
 
 The foregoing is, I believe, a fairly complete and accurate 
 summary of the argument embodied in Progress and Poverty. I 
 have given it at some length, because the assertions which Henry 
 George makes and the contentions which he founds on them are 
 practically, though not always avowedly, the same as those which 
 are at the basis of the views entertained, and the propaganda carried 
 on by the majority of those who advocate the special penal taxation 
 of land. 
 
 John Stuart Mill and Unearned Increment 
 
 Some years before Henry George and his proposals were heard 
 of in this country, the Land Tenure Eeform Association, of which 
 J. S. Mill became President in 1870, had as one of its objects : 
 
 To claim for the benefit of the State, the Interception by Taxation 
 of the Future Unearned Increase of the Rent of Land (so far as the 
 same can be ascertained), or a great part of that increase, which is 
 continually taking place, without any effort or outlay by the proprietors, 
 merely through the growth of population and wealth ; reserving to 
 owners the option of relinquishing their property to the State at the 
 market value which it may have acquired at the time when this principle 
 may be adopted by the Legislature. 
 
 J. S. Mill, in supporting this policy, said : 
 
 The Society are of opinion that in allowing the land to become 
 private property, the State ought to have reserved to itself this accession 
 of income ; and that lapse of time does not extinguish this right, what- 
 ever claims to compensation it may estabhsh in favour of the land- 
 owners. . . . 
 
 The Society do not propose to disturb land-owners in their past 
 acquisitions ; but they assert the right of the State to all such accessions 
 in the future. Whatever value the land may have acquired at the time 
 when the principle they contend for shall obtain the assent of Parlia- 
 ment, they do not propose to interfere with. If, rather than submit 
 to be specially taxed on the future increase of his rent, the land-owner 
 prefers to relinquish his land to the State, the Society are willing that 
 the State should pay for it at its selling value. . . . 
 
 A large margin (of the future increase of rents) should be allowed 
 for possible miscalculation. 
 
 By the old land nationalisers, and the new Henry Georgeites 
 these proposals were considered to be quite inadequate. They 
 desired immediate, not prospective revenue ; they also had no 
 
xxii OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 intention of confirming owners of land in the possession of what 
 they now have. They desired to annex present existing land 
 values and not merely such future increases as might accrue. Such 
 municipal bodies as the London County Council of twenty to twenty- 
 five years ago, the Corporation of Glasgow and others who followed 
 their lead, wanted an immediate revenue from some new source 
 to relieve the heavy burden of rates which they were vigorously 
 piling up. Power to levy rates upon some one other than the 
 ordinary ratepayer, supplemented by liberal subsidies from the Im- 
 perial Exchequer, was the ideal of the average municipal councillor. 
 Not being troubled with much knowledge of the history or theory 
 of local and national finance, sharing many popular hazy prejudices 
 regarding land and its owners, and always having before his eyes 
 the terror of the rising wrath of his constituents, the local rate- 
 payers, he readily turned a sympathetic ear to the plausible theories 
 propounded by Henry George, especially as they were presented 
 in the garb of rehgion and outraged justice. If he did not quite 
 see his way to the millennium which was foreshadowed, he did at 
 least think that he saw a new source of revenue and a means of 
 stemming the rising tide of rates. The result was that a crusade, 
 more or less on the hues of the teaching of Henry George, received 
 considerable impetus and support. 
 
 Schemes for the Taxation of Land Values 
 
 The United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values is a 
 body composed of representatives of a number of Leagues and 
 Branches in various parts of the United Kingdom which exist to 
 circulate the writings of, and to promote the policy advocated by, 
 Henry George and his followers. It spends £10,000 a year on this 
 propaganda, and circulates 50,000,000 leaflets a year in addition 
 to publishing a monthly paper and many pamphlets and books. 
 Its principles are that the rent of land should form a public fund, of 
 which each individual would enjoy the benefit, and its policy is to 
 make rent a public fund by the taxation of land values, and thereby 
 remove all other rates and taxes. 
 
 The Committee frankly and openly advocate the plunder of 
 
 all ownets of land. Mr. Joseph Fels, who is their chief financial 
 
 supporter,^ in a letter to the Times of February 29, 1912, referring 
 
 to the recommendation of a Committee of the House of Commons 
 
 * On July 18, 1912, he said he would himseU duplicate any sum which the 
 United Committee raised for propaganda work up to £20,000. 
 
INTRODUCTION xxiii 
 
 that the State should purchase agricultural land as opportunity 
 ofEered, and let it to tenant occupiers, said : 
 
 There is no doubt that the landlords and their friends in Parliament 
 will welcome a scheme of land purchase, but it would be an outrage 
 upon common sense and common honesty to pour millions of hard- 
 earned money into the pockets of this landlord class, when justice 
 clearly shows that the proper method of procedure is to take millions 
 from them by taxation of land values — values which the dullest in- 
 teUigence knows are the fnrits of the toil of the workers upon the land. 
 
 What we have to insist upon is that the land monopolist shall be 
 made to get ofi the backs of the toilers ; that this can be accomplished 
 by a State purchase is about as sane a proposition as suggesting that a 
 dog can be profitably fed upon his own tail. 
 
 Later in the year^ at a Land Values Conference over which 
 Mr. C. P. Treveiyan, M.P., presided, and at which Mr. Ure, M.P., 
 and others spoke, Mr. Fels said : 
 
 I am in favour of the Taxation of Land Values and the untaxing 
 of everything else. I am in favour of removing all taxation from 
 labour, every kind of industry, aU kinds of business and buildings. I 
 am not even in favour of taxing the income of Sir William H. Lever. . . . 
 I am in touch with some sixteen countries, and when I have been 
 charged with spending £30,000 or £40,000 in Great Britain to help 
 along the land taxation, let me say I am spending two and a half times 
 that much in my own country, so you see I am entirely cosmopolitan. . . . 
 
 I do not deny that I am a Single Tax man. I am a Single Tax 
 man, and I believe from the bottom of my heart in the theory and 
 economic philosophy taught by that great man Henry George as 
 announced in that bible of the world : Peogeess and Poveety. 
 
 Land Values, their official organ, said : 
 
 To confiscate means to appropriate to the public use, and it is 
 true that a\xi Leagues aim at nothing less than the complete appro- 
 priation for the public use of the land values of this country.^ 
 
 Mr. W. R. Lester, the Treasurer of the Committee, in a pamphlet 
 entitled The Taxation of Land Values, says : 
 
 The value of the bare land apart from the improvements on it is 
 a communal value, and should therefore be shared in common. In other 
 words, it should be taken in taxation. If you tax it in part, then you 
 have made a beginning with the Taxation of Land Values. If you go 
 further and tax it so as to derive your whole pubUc revenue from it, 
 and at the same time abolish all other taxes, then you have the Single 
 Tax. The Single Tax is the logical issue of the Taxation of Land 
 Values. 
 
 1 Oct. 7, 1912. * May 1908. 
 
xxiv OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 And in Freedom through Taxation of Land Values, he says : 
 
 To tax Land Values to the full means, in a word, to abolish every 
 tax save that on the value of land. . . . The reform can be taken step 
 by step. Little by little let the community ta;x rent ; little by little 
 let it abolish present taxes on industry. This is the practical policy 
 we advocate. 
 
 Mr. Ure, M.P., then Lord Advocate for Scotland, speaking at a 
 dinner given by the Land Values Group, said : 
 
 Some day, who could tell, a single tax might be established in this 
 country many years hence. But let them not be too confident by 
 talking about a single tax to-day, and so frightening those who might 
 be their friends.^ 
 
 Mr. J. Dundas White, M.P., in The A.B.C. of the Land 
 Question, says : 
 
 Fiscal Reform should begin by substituting Rating of Land Values 
 for the present system of rating : it should proceed to substitute 
 Taxation of Land Values for the present taxes on landed property ; 
 and it should then be developed further by substituting additional 
 Taxation of Land Values for the other taxes on industry and trade. 
 The further these substitutions are carried, the better shaU. we secure 
 to the community what is rightly theirs. . . .^ The Land Values move- 
 ment leads to the Single Tax — the proposal to treat the rent of the natural 
 elements as the source of public revenue, and to abolish all other rates 
 and taxes. This rests on the twin principles that all the community 
 have equal rights to the national elements, and that each individual is 
 entitled to the products of his own industry,® 
 
 Messrs. C. H. Chomley and E. L. Outhwaite, M.P., in The Essen- 
 tial Reform : Land Values Taxation in Theory and Practice, say : 
 
 Save, perhaps, in cases of possible emergency, the only tax should 
 be one upon land values, which would yield a revenue adequate for 
 all national and municipal purposes ; and we have seen that justice 
 demands the ultimate raising of this tax to a point at which it would 
 absorb private property in land. 
 
 Perfect taxation would abolish private property in land : there are 
 unanswerable reasons for condemning private property in land. . . . 
 All men have an equal right to live, and it follows of necessity that all 
 have an equal right to land. . . . Rights to life would be unequal if 
 one man were bound and another were not, to pay for land on which 
 a foothold at least is a necessity of living. And this equal right to life, 
 with its corollary an equal right to land, belongs to generations unborn 
 as well as to those living to-day. ... No sale of this right which might 
 
 1 July 18, 1912. 2 P 47. " P. 4a 
 
INTRODUCTION xxv 
 
 conceivably be alleged to have been acquiesced in by living people can 
 be urged against the child to be born to-morrow, who has had no 
 possible chance of selling his birthright.^ 
 
 After this repudiation of all purchases and bequests of land, 
 and of all laws and legal contracts authorising, compelling, or con- 
 firming the millions of transactions in land which have taken place 
 in the past, and the thousands which take place yearly now, these 
 gentlemen find no difficulty in passing on from their proposal to 
 " abolish private property in land " by confiscating " the whole 
 rental value," to elaborate a scheme for seizing a large proportion 
 of the property of railway companies, gas companies, water com- 
 panies, electric lighting and power companies, tramway companies, 
 telephone companies, and dock and wharf proprietors.^ Their 
 theory is that the value of the land which these undertakings own, 
 or over which their lines, pipes, or wires pass, is not its clear un- 
 improved site value, but is the difEerence between the value of these 
 undertakings as a whole, as going concerns, and the value of their 
 premises and plant. They express it thus : " The difEerence 
 between the value of a monopolistic business and the value of the 
 tangible property belonging to it is the measure of the land value 
 possessed by the owners of undertakings of this class." * They 
 propose to acquire the whole of this so-called land value by taxing 
 it at its full value arrived at on that basis. They explain how they 
 think this would work with regard to railways. They say that the 
 value of the shares of the railway companies is the value of the 
 land plus the value of the rolling stock, rails, stations, etc., on it. 
 They would arrive at the value of the land by deducting the value 
 of the rolling stock, rails, stations, etc., from the total value of the 
 capital of the company.* They would then levy land value taxes 
 on this so-called land value, and gradually increase them until the 
 nation had "resumed" that value. Their first step would, however, 
 be to buy out the companies at their capital value, and pay the 
 interest on that portion of it which they call land or monopoly 
 value by levying a special land tax on all the land values of the 
 country. They put the capital value of the railways at about 
 £1,200,000,000, of which, they say, probably one-half is monopoly or 
 land value. The amount to be raised by the special land tax to pay 
 interest on this sum at 4 percent would, therefore, be £24,000,000. 
 By this means they suggest that they could raise wages and lower 
 freights to the extent of £24,000,000 a year.^ 
 1 Pp. 38, 39. 2 Pp. 17, 20. 2 p. 19. ' P. 111. = P. 113. 
 
xxvi OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 In addition to this, " great national roads " for " motor traffic 
 at a high rate of speed," and " great waterways " (canals) " made 
 free to all users " are to be constructed, the interest on all these 
 undertakings being raised by taxes on land values.^ 
 
 That is to say, land values are to be confiscated, and out of the 
 proceeds of the plunder all rates and taxes are to be abolished, 
 " save perhaps in cases of possible emergency," haU the cost of 
 purchasing the railways is to be paid, and " great national roads " 
 and " great national waterways " are to be constructed and " made 
 free to all users " ! 
 
 Speaking in the House of Commons on March 13, 1913, Mr. 
 Outhwaite said that " buying out the land-owners and creating a 
 debt of thousands of millions upon which vast interest will have 
 to be paid " is " going the wrong way to deal with the land 
 monopoly." The right way was " to take the rent fund by the 
 simple process of taxation." ^ 
 
 Mr. F. Verinder is the Secretary of the English League for the 
 Taxation of Land Values which was formerly known as the Enghsh 
 Land Eestoration League. When the change in the name was 
 made in 1902, it was stated that it " involved no change of front 
 nor change of principles." What its " front " and " principles " 
 were was thus stated in a Manifesto which was issued by the 
 Enghsh Land Restoration League and signed by Mr. Verinder : 
 
 We propose to increase taxation on land until the whole annual 
 value is taken for the public benefit, and, finally, to make the English 
 people themselves the landlords of England. As a first step to this 
 end, we shall demand of our representatives in Parhament a re-imposi- 
 tion of the tax of four shillings in the pound on the current value of 
 land, irrespective of whether it is rented, used, or kept idle by the 
 holder. And we shall also demand, at the same time, a measure giving 
 all local governments the power to collect rates from an assessment 
 upon the value of land, exclusive of buildings or improvements, and 
 irrespective of use. We propose to achieve our end — ^the complete 
 restoration of English land to the English people — as rapidly as may be. 
 
 The Land Values Group in Parliament 
 
 As one of the preliminary steps towards the consummation of 
 this policy, a memorial to the Government was promoted by the 
 
 ' Pp. 114, 115. 
 
 ^ In the course of the speech the following episode occurred : 
 Mr. Outhwaite : " We take for the community what is the worker's own, 
 the value of the land, and we do not pay a penny piece for it." 
 Sir A. Markham : " Why don't you say steal ! " 
 
INTRODUCTION xxvli 
 
 Land Values Taxation Committee in May 1911. That Memorial 
 urged : 
 
 (1) Hastening the completion of the valuation of all land, apart 
 from improvements, provided for in the Budget of 1909-10. 
 
 (2) Making that valuation accessible to the public. 
 
 (3) Empowering Local Authorities to levy rates on the basis of that 
 valuation. 
 
 (4) Levying a budget tax on all Land Values, to be applied 
 
 (a) In providing a national fund to be allocated toward the 
 cost of such services as Education, Poor Relief, Main 
 Eoads, Asylums, and Police, thereby reducing the local 
 rates ; and 
 
 (&) In substitution of the duties on tea, sugar, cocoa, and 
 other articles of food. 
 
 And is stated to have been signed by 176 Liberal and Labour 
 M.P.'s. 
 
 A Memorandum submitted to the Departmental Committee 
 on Local Taxation, in 1912, by Mr. C. L. Davies and Mr. P. W. 
 Raffan, M.P., on behalf of " The Land Values Group of Members of 
 Parliament," stated the arguments which they consider justify and 
 support these proposals. For the most part that Memorandum is 
 merely a restatement of many of the difficulties, inequalities, and 
 injustices which characterise our present system of rating and 
 taxation. These have been common ground amongst all parties 
 for half a century. The practical question is, How can they best 
 be rectified and adjusted ? 
 
 The proposal of the Land Values Group is that there should 
 be a local and a national tax upon land values. " The whole of 
 local expenditure should be charged upon the owners of site values," 
 and " so much of the cost of such services as Education, Poor Relief, 
 Main Roads, Asylums, and Police, as is properly a national charge, 
 should be raised by a national tax on land values." 
 
 The arguments adduced in support of this proposal are largely 
 those propounded by Henry George. They are that land value is 
 public value, which has been created by, and therefore should 
 belong to the public : that a tax on that value cannot be shifted : 
 it would not trench on capital, or interest, or wages : by it no one 
 would be deprived of the return due to his own labour or outlay : 
 every one would contribute to the public revenue in exact proportion 
 to the natural advantages with which he was entrusted by the 
 community, that is, in proportion to the value of the land which he 
 
xxviii OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 held : each citizen would contribute to the revenue of the State in 
 proportion to the benefit he received from the State. 
 
 It is further urged that the present system rewards the land 
 withholder and penaKses the land-owner, and that land taxation 
 would stimulate and indeed compel the fullest remuneration and 
 advantageous use of land, whereby progress and development 
 would be encouraged, employment increased, and wealth created : 
 that the imposition of heavy burdens of rates as soon as land is 
 built on and the houses are occupied, delays and prevents building, 
 and thus makes houses fewer and dearer, and keeps men out of work 
 who would be employed if improvements and extensions were not 
 taxed : that taxing land values would not only promote the use of 
 land, but would also lower its price by bringing it into the market, 
 and making its owners anxious to sell or let : that, consequently, 
 houses and business premises would be cheaper, rents would be 
 lower, and the rates and many of the taxes which are now paid 
 would be abolished. Another advantage claimed is, that it would 
 redistribute the burden of rates as between different districts, as 
 regards the local tax the levies on central properties where the site 
 values are highest would be increased, and in the suburbs and on 
 the outskirts, where it is desirable to encourage building, they 
 would be diminished : as regards the national tax, it would relieve 
 agricultural and purely working class districts, and increase the 
 payments of central city and high-class residential districts. 
 
 A Kaleidoscopic Propaganda 
 
 At different times, in different places, different advocates of 
 specially taxing land accentuate and attach importance to different 
 phases of the policy, and the results which they think would follow 
 its adoption. More or less vaguely most of them skip gaily from 
 phase to phase, and enunciate the most contradictory arguments 
 with bewildering rapidity and inconsistency. 
 
 As an indication of the hallucinations which some people are 
 under, and the kind of rhapsody into which they speedily lapse, 
 we may quote from A Hundred Reasons for Taxing Land Values, by 
 Chapman Wright and Arthur Wilby, a few of the advantages which 
 it is alleged would foUow the adoption of this policy : 
 
 Accidents to workers diminished. 
 
 Antiquarian remains preserved (by taxing them so heavily that 
 
 their owners would be compelled to give them up). 
 Art encouraged. 
 
INTRODUCTION xxix 
 
 Beautiful landscape scenery preserved. 
 
 Capital no longer harmful. 
 
 Charities made genuine. 
 
 Church disestablishment if desired. 
 
 Civic responsibility aroused. 
 
 Cruelty to children diminished. 
 
 Disfiguring advertisements diminished. 
 
 Eight-hour day if desired. 
 
 Factory Acts imnecessary. 
 
 Food adulteration checked. 
 
 Gambling diminished. 
 
 Gas, Trams, etc., municipalised. 
 
 Hospitals benefited. 
 
 House of Lords abolished, if desired 
 
 Human nature unchanged. 
 
 Imperialism on sane lines. 
 
 Insanity diminished. 
 
 Interest made fair. 
 
 Inventions encouraged. 
 
 Milk-supply improved. 
 
 Millionaires impossible. 
 
 Municipal corruption checked. 
 
 Rivers for the nation. 
 
 Shop hours made reasonable. 
 
 Street noises diminished. 
 
 Trusts impossible. 
 
 Waste of labour stopped. 
 
 Worry lessened. 
 
 The only sound and sensible statement in this list is that human 
 nature would be unchanged. We can only wonder why they do 
 not tell us that freckles would be abolished, snub noses would dis- 
 appear, the weather would always be what was desired, cats would 
 cease from caterwauling, and babies would squall no more. 
 
 An Inquiry into Facts, History, and Fundamental Principles 
 
 desirable 
 
 It is clearly desirable that some effort should be made to elucidate 
 the welter of confusion in which all questions affecting the ownership 
 and taxation of land have been involved. That there are important 
 problems in connection therewith, for which a solution is urgently 
 needed, is not doubted by any one who has given attention to the 
 subject. That there are grievances, inequalities, and injustices, is 
 imiversally admitted. The difficulty hitherto has been to agree 
 upon the remedy. Proposals for what is called Reform are numerous 
 
XXX OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 enough, but some of them would do little more than accentuate 
 existing troubles or create others as bad or worse. No real progress 
 is made if we merely substituted a new injustice for an old one. 
 
 It is essential to the formation of a sound judgment on this, as 
 on all other subjects, that we should have accurate knowledge of 
 the facts and history of the matter, and clear views as to the funda- 
 mental principles by which we ought to be guided in dealing with it. 
 Our first step, therefore, should be an endeavour to separate the true 
 from the false, the wheat from the chafE, by making an effort to 
 ascertain how much of the assertions and contentions which we have 
 been considering is sound, just, and accurate, and how much is 
 fallacious, inequitable, and imtrue. This involves an inquiry into 
 the origin and history of property in land more especially in this 
 country, and also into those theories of natural right which are 
 expoimded as the foundation of the claim which is made that much 
 which has been done and allowed in the past should now be reversed 
 and ignored. Some study of the history of taxation, its origin, 
 object, character, and growth, and of the opinions which at various 
 periods have been held with regard thereto, will be necessary. 
 The origin and history of the feudal system, its rise and its fall, its 
 aim and its results, and especially its bearing upon the subjects of 
 our inquiry — the ownership and taxation of land — must be examined 
 with some care. The economic history of the country for several 
 centuries, and the industrial revolution which has characterised the 
 last two hundred years, must also be looked into, in order to ascertain 
 what has ia fact been the effect of progress, inventions, and great 
 material prosperity upon the masses of the people. It is further 
 necessary that an effort should be made to determine as precisely 
 as possible what is the real incidence and effect of rates and taxes 
 which are levied on real property. 
 
 When this has been done, we shall have cleared away some mis- 
 conceptions which prevail as to matters of fact, we shall have brought 
 forward other factors and considerations which are generally over- 
 looked, and we shall be able to consider some of the proposals which 
 are made in the light of what expediency suggests, sound economic 
 principles teach, and justice demands. 
 
PAKT I 
 
 THE ETHICS AND ORIGIN 
 OF THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND 
 
" It is not to be forgotten that what we call rational grounds for our beliefs 
 are often extremely irrational attempts to justify our instincts." — Htjslby. 
 
 " When you have no case according to the law of the land, appeal to the Law 
 of Nature." — ^Abistotle (Rhetoric). 
 
 " The doctrine of ' natural rights ' is the fulcrum upon which Henry George, 
 like a good many other political philosophers during the last 130 years, rests 
 the lever wherewith the social world is to be lifted away from its present 
 foundations and deposited upon others."— Huxley. 
 
 " What are these natural laws which nobody has made and which everybody 
 supposes at his fancy ? " — Bentham. 
 
 " We can only allow natural rights to be talked about in the sense in which 
 natural rights mean those legal or customary rights which we have come to think 
 or may come to think it most advantageous to recognise." — Prof. Ritchie. 
 
 " The distinction between Natural Law and Positive Institution is one of the 
 very deepest subjects in all philosophy, and there are many indications that Mr. 
 George has dipped into its abysmal waters with the very shortest of sounding 
 lines." — Duke of ARGYiiL. 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE ETHICS OP PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OP LAND 
 
 From the time of Rousseau to Henry George, and those who are at 
 the present time more or less imbued with the spirit of his teaching 
 and policy, there have always been representatives of a school of 
 thought which propounds the doctriae that private property ia 
 land is immoral and pernicious, a violation of natural rights and 
 contrary to the law of nature. Consciously and avowedly, or 
 tacitly and unconsciously, the ideas and attitude of mind from which 
 this teaching emanates are the foundation and starting-point of 
 much of the policy and propaganda of the present time with regard 
 to land and its taxation. As usual, Henry George states the alleged 
 principle far more frankly, clearly, and concisely than any of his 
 more or less diluted followers : 
 
 The equal right of all men to the use of land is as clear as their 
 equal right to breathe the air — ^it is a right proclaimed by the fact of 
 their existence. For we cannot suppose that some men have a right 
 to be in this world and others no right. 
 
 If we are all here by the equal permission of the Creator, we are all 
 here with an equal title to the enjoyment of His bounty — with an 
 equal right to the use of all that nature so impartially offers. This is 
 a right which is natural and inalienable ; it is a right which vests in 
 every human being as he enters the world, and which, during his con- 
 tinuance jn the world, can be Umited only by the equal rights of others. 
 There is in^ture no such thing as a fee simple in rand.' 'There is on 
 earth no power which can rightfully make a grant of exclusive ownership 
 in land. If all existing men were to unite to grant away their equal 
 rights, they could not grant away the right of those who foUow them.^ 
 
 It is desirable, therefore, at the very outset of our inquiry, that 
 we should ascertain what these " Natural Eights " really are and 
 what recognition of them involves. 
 
 1 Progress ani Poverty, p. 240. 
 3 
 
4 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 Naiwral Rights 
 
 What people really mean when they talk of "Natural Eights" is 
 often very difficult to discover. Frequently they talk very loosely, 
 and are obviously confusing natural rights with moral rights and 
 legal rights, and, in the course of any argument which they profess 
 to base on natural rights, they are found tripping gaily from natural 
 rights to moral rights, and then to legal rights, and back again to 
 natural rights, just as it seems to suit their purpose. 
 
 In his work entitled, Remarks on the Use and Abuse of some 
 Political Terms, Sir George Cornwall Lewis says : 
 
 We hear of original rights, natural rights, indefeasible rights, in- 
 alienable rights, inherent rights where there is no pretence of legislative 
 sanction ; indeed, the only object of using these names is to induce the 
 Legislature to convert these supposed rights into real rights by giving 
 them the sanction of law. . . . AU that these persons mean is that, 
 in 'their opinion, the claims which they call rights ought, in sound 
 policy, to be sanctioned by law. It is the duty of such persons to show 
 that sound policy requires what they require ; but as this would require 
 a process of reasoning, and as reasoning is often both hard to invent and 
 to understand, they prefer begging the question at issue by employing 
 some of the high-sounding phrases just mentioned.^ 
 
 " The words ' nature ' and ' natural ' are constantly bandied 
 about in controversy as if they settled quarrels, whereas they only 
 provoked them by their ambiguity. Slavery has been condemned 
 as an ' unnatural ' institution, and has been defended on the ground 
 of the ' natural ' inferiority of some races to others. The equality 
 of the sexes is asserted and denied on the ground of ' nature.' 
 The * natural ' goodness and the ' natural ' badness of mankind 
 have been maintained with like earnestness and sincerity." ^ 
 
 No Agreement as to what are " Natural Rights " 
 
 When people appeal to nature they appeal arbitrarily to what 
 they happen to like or approve. DifEerent peoples at the same time, 
 and the same peoples at different times, and various sections of the 
 same community, may and often do hold different views as to 
 particular rights and duties, and there is no law-court to which an 
 appeal can be made, from which a binding decision can be obtained. 
 The only sanction or otherwise of an alleged moral right is the 
 approval or disapproval of private individuals — that is of public 
 opinion. 
 
 1 P. 31. ^ Prof. Ritchie, Natural Bights, p. 20. 
 
cH. I ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 5 
 
 If the Law of Nature really represented the consent of the 
 human race it would determine many long-standing controversies ; 
 but it has not done so : it has rather promoted some of them. 
 The opinions which have been held amongst different peoples at all 
 ages about two such vitally important matters as slavery and 
 marriage, upon which, if on any subjects, the law of natural rights 
 would speak uniformly and with authority, illustrate the difficulties 
 which there are in interpreting the voice of nature. 
 
 If there were a " Law of Nature " to which we could appeal to 
 determine the natural rights of individuals, it would no doubt be 
 very convenient. We could then easily determine what their 
 moral rights were and deduce therefrom what their legal rights 
 should be. There is, however, no universal agreement as to what 
 natural rights are. They usually mean those rights which, in the 
 opinion of the person who is asserting or claiming them, would be 
 recognised by the public opinion of his ideal commimity, and would 
 be respected by its laws. In a word they are merely the rights 
 which he thinks ought to be recognised. Views as to natural rights 
 vary as much as views as to theology, and the most contradictory 
 assertions are made and defended with equal confidence and 
 authority. 
 
 In primitive conditions people regard as natural rights those 
 rights which they have been accustomed to have or which they, 
 rightly or wrongly, believe they once possessed. " Custom is 
 primitive law, and custom determines primitive notions of obliga- 
 tion." To the Greeks and Romans and other ancients slavery 
 was a natural institution. They knew nothing of any society, 
 civilised or other, without it. Turks, Chinese, Germans, and 
 Americans have different ideas as to the position of women. Bach 
 thinks the one to which he is accustomed is the natural, right, and 
 proper one. 
 
 Some people regard an appeal to " Natural Rights," or the 
 " Law of Nature," as an appeal from law or general custom to the 
 natural instiacts and feelings which Nature has implanted in our 
 breasts. This appeal to " the voice of God and Nature in the heart 
 of every man," which is regarded as a universal revelation of the 
 will and intention of the Deity, is really an appeal to the conscience 
 of each individual. It is an appeal to an internal as against an 
 external authority. It suggests the existence of an infallible Pope 
 in the breasts of mankind. Unfortunately, the decisions of this 
 conscience, these instinctive feelings, differ much at different times. 
 
6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 at difierent places, and in different persons. The view of the in- 
 dividual and of the multitude is certain to be very largely a re- 
 flection of the environment to which they have been accustomed. 
 Professor Bain said, " Conscience is an imitation within us of the 
 government without us." Eevolts against existing conditions 
 always show strong traces of the influence of the environment that 
 has created them. 
 
 It would help many people to clear their minds on this question 
 of " rights " if they would attempt to state clearly and concisely 
 what they reaUy mean when they speak of " natural rights." Do 
 they mean the rights which men and animals have in a state of 
 nature ? Are there any differences between the natural rights of 
 men and animals, and, if so, of what do those differences consist, 
 and how and when do they arise ? 
 
 Is natural right the unlimited right of all to everything that is 
 provided by nature ? Has natural right anything to do with 
 justice or injustice ? Do they make any serious and carefully 
 reasoned attempt to distinguish between natural rights, legal rights, 
 and moral rights ? 
 
 A legal right is any privilege or immunity conferred by law. 
 A legal right is not necessarily a moral right. A legal right is a 
 claim of an individual upon others which is recognised by the law- 
 coixrts, that is by the State m which the right is claimed. A moral 
 right is a claim of an individual upon others which is recognised by 
 society irrespective of whether it is or is not recognised by law. 
 
 At Bottom " Natural Right " is the Right of Force 
 
 Sovereignty— ultimate legislative and administrative authority 
 and power — ia any nation or community rests with those who 
 have the control and support of those who are the strongest, and 
 consequently have power to enforce their will. They are by no 
 means necessarily the majority. " Legally speaking, the State is 
 almighty," so far as its own subjects are concerned, up to the limit 
 of its power to enforce its decisions and commands. As Sic Greorge 
 Cornwall Lewis put it, " All governments subsist by force, and that 
 force is ultimately the sole check on wrongdoers." 
 
 Government is based upon the natural law that the stronger 
 rules. One of the bonds of social cohesion is the dependence of 
 the weak upon the strong, from which evolves obedience on the one 
 hand and protection on the other. 
 
CH. I ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 7 
 
 The existence and administration of a criminal law are necessary 
 to the existence of a state ; and no criminal law can be carried into 
 efEect without the means of applying physical constraint to those who 
 infringe it. Nevertheless, the knowledge that force may, if necessary, 
 be applied induces offenders to submit without resistance. . . . The 
 cases, therefore, in which force is actually applied are not many ; and 
 as the effect of the law authorising the use of force is to render its use 
 unnecessary, it has been thought that force is of little benefit in civilised 
 societies, and might be banished from the resources of government, 
 although it is, in fact, the keystone on which aU government must 
 iiltimately rest.^ 
 
 In the community of nations the first appeal is to physical force. 
 In communities of men forms of government serve to put off the 
 appeal, and often render it unnecessary. But it is still open to the 
 oppressed or the ambitious.^ 
 
 At bottom and in reality " natural right " is simply the right 
 of might and force. Man is not born with any natural rights, as 
 distinct from legal rights, any more than an animal is. He is born 
 with instincts and potential capacity and powers. The " right " 
 which nature gives to men and animals is the right to do, get, and 
 keep what they can. Man's natural liberty is " unlimited right to 
 everything he is able to obtain." It means the reign of selfishness 
 and brute force, and is iadividualism in its purest and most extreme 
 form. To base an argument or an appeal for equity and justice, 
 sympathy and brotherhood, and an effort to ameliorate the con- 
 dition of the people on " natural rights," indicates a confusion of 
 thought which is as absurd as it is hopeless. 
 
 Huxley and, the " Natural Right " of the Tiger 
 
 The theories which are often based on what are very loosely 
 and inaccurately described as " Natural Eights " have never been 
 dealt with more trenchantly than by Professor Huxley, and no one 
 has more clearly indicated the fundamental distinction which 
 separates " Natural Eights " on the one hand from Moral and Civil 
 Eights on the other than he has in two illustrations, which I will 
 here summarise largely in his own words. 
 
 He tells the story of a tigress which carried off a man to her cubs 
 and allowed them to worry and maul him, while she from time to 
 time quieted him by cuffing him with her sharp-clawed paw. The 
 tigress and her cubs were afterwards shot. 
 
 That tigress had a " natural right " to do what she did, and 
 
 1 Sir Geo. C. Lewis, Use and Abuse of some Political Terms, p. 162. 
 2 Edinburgh Review, vol. i. (50) p. 111. 
 
8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 PT. I 
 
 that she was justified by the " law of nature " is unquestionable. 
 It is their nature to, " for God hath made them so." It is the 
 " nature " of tigers to prey on other large animals, men included. 
 They are eminently adapted for the operation, and they must perish 
 if they fail to perform it. To deny the right of tigers to torment 
 and devour men would be to impeach the order of nature. If we 
 base our claim to do anything on " natural right," whence comes 
 our competence to deny the exercise of their natural rights to other 
 beings who stand upon the same foundation of natural right as 
 ourselves ? To be, and to have a natural right to be, to possess a 
 faculty, and to have the natural right to exert it, are all one. 
 
 The important point is : is a " natural right " a right which 
 ought not to be interfered with — a right which men and animals 
 ought not to be prevented from exercisiag ? The answer to that 
 question wiU do much to clear the air as to what natural rights 
 really are, and what they really involve. 
 
 It is admitted that a tiger has a natural right to eat a man ; but 
 if he may eat one man he may eat another, so that a tiger has a right 
 of property in all men, as potential tiger-meat. Men are as much 
 the " gratuitous offering " of nature to tigers for their subsistence, 
 or part subsistence, as fruits are to men. But any one tiger has no 
 more natural right of property in men than any other tiger. All 
 tigers are free to eat any man they can seize. So that we may 
 safely enunciate the conclusion that aU tigers have an equal 
 natural right to eat all men. 
 
 The use which is frequently made of the doctrine of " natural 
 right " and the interpretation which is often put upon it, would 
 really require the further admission that, as tigers have a right to 
 eat men, it is wrong of men to put obstacles in the way of their 
 having their rights by refusing to be eaten. Those who claim that 
 " natural rights " ought not to be iaterfered with make a convenient, 
 though im warrantable, jump from one sense of the word " right " 
 to another — from " natural right " to " moral right " when they 
 contend that the existence of a " natural right " creates a moral 
 obligation to permit it to be exercised. No doubt, he who hiuders 
 or refuses to admit a moral right is morally wrong — ^unjust, or, if 
 you will, wicked. But very little consideration will show that 
 hindrance or denial of " natural rights " may not only be far from 
 wrong, but is, in fact, a necessary consequence of the existence of 
 such " natural rights." Grant that the tiger kills and eats men 
 in the exercise of his natural right to preserve his own existence ; 
 
cH. I ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 9 
 
 it is no less true that men kill tigers in the exercise of their equal 
 natural right to preserve their existence. If the tiger is entitled 
 by the law of nature to use his claws and teeth and soft-footed, 
 stealthy cleverness for the purpose of his self-preservation, the man 
 may employ his hands and weapons, and use his still greater cunniag, 
 in tracking and stalking tigers to the like end. 
 
 " Thus," continues Huxley, " the natural rights of tigers and 
 the natural rights of men, though quite indisputable and alike safely 
 founded on the ' Law of Nature,' are diametrically opposed to one 
 another. It follows, therefore, that they are rights to which no 
 correlative duties correspond — rights of which the exercise may be 
 impeded or prevented without the perpetration of wrong. And 
 that is just the difference between ' natural laws and rights ' on 
 the one hand, and ' moral and civil laws and rights ' on the other. 
 Moral laws and civil laws are commands of an authority which may 
 be disobeyed ; but the sanctioning authority threatens and visits 
 with penalties those who disobey. . . . The proper object and effect 
 of moral and civU^laws are to benefit all who are subjected to 
 them by bringing about a state of peace and mutual confidence 
 — the laws restraining each individual from acts which are hurtful, 
 and encouraging those which are beneficial to the polity of which 
 he is a member. On the contrary, the ' Law of Nature ' is not a 
 command to do, or to refrain from doing anything. It contains, 
 in reality, nothing but a statement of that which a given being 
 tends to do under the circumstances of its existence ; and which, 
 in the case of a living and sensitive being, it is necessitated to do, 
 l£ it is to escape certain kinds of disability, pain, and ultimate 
 dissolution. The natural right deduced from such a law of nature 
 is simply a way of stating the fact ; and there is, in the nature of 
 things, no reason why a being possessing such and such tendencies 
 to action should not carry them into effect." 
 
 Robinson Crusoe 
 
 Huxley next takes the case of Robinson Crusoe before the 
 advent of man Friday, and, after remarking that " No one woiild 
 deny that he had a natural right to take possession of his cave ; 
 to cut down the trees that suited his purpose ; to gather fruits ; 
 to kill any of the wild goats for his subsistence ; to shoot any 
 number of the cannibal visitors, who would otherwise Mil him for 
 their subsistence," proceeds to ask what would have happened if 
 another Crusoe had been cast ashore on the opposite side of the 
 
lo OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 island, and both had stalked the same goat from opposite sides. 
 If each insisted upon exerting the whole of his natural rights, it is 
 clear that there would be nothing for it but to fight for the goat. 
 On the other hand, if the two men followed the dictates of common 
 sense, they woiild agree to unite in peaceful co-operation with each 
 other for their mutual comfort and protection. And that would 
 be possible only if each agreed to limit the exercise of his natural 
 rights. This is to say, the two men would, in reality, renounce 
 the law of nature, and put themselves under a moral and civil law, 
 replacing natural rights, which have no wrongs, for moral and civil 
 rights, each of which has its correlative wrong. 
 
 The Social Utility Theory 
 
 Henry George's proposals are based on two fundamental theories 
 — one as to the basis of private property, and the other as to the 
 basis of the taxation of the individual citizen. The first theory is 
 that individual labour alone gives a complete right and clear title 
 to property. This theory is based on the doctrine of natural rights. 
 
 Hobbes ^ says, " Nature hath given to each of us an equal right 
 to all things." " In a state of nature every man has a right to do 
 and take whatever he pleases : whence the common saying that 
 Nature has given all things to all men, and whence it follows that 
 in a state of nature utility is the rule of right." That is to say, in 
 early times the universal rule was that the use of a thing, the occupa- 
 tion of land, gave the right of possession. 
 
 The theory of property which is accepted by modern jurisprud- 
 ence and political philosophy is what has been called the social 
 utility theory. It is based upon the practically universal ex- 
 perience of civilised mankind extending through the centuries 
 until the light of history becomes dim and imcertain. Just as 
 order, justice, law, and private and social ethics are the outcome 
 of human experience and social and economic conditions, so private 
 property is justified by the simple fact that it is the last stage of the 
 outcome of a prolonged social evolution. As the result of the gradual 
 progress of economic and social forces, private property came to be 
 recognised in all civilised countries as the condition most calculated 
 to promote the well-being of the whole community. 
 
 Of course, this does not mean that further progress is unthink- 
 able, and that a change is impossible. "What it does mean is that 
 experience and universality count for much, and that when we are 
 
 1 De Give. 
 
CH.I ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP ii 
 
 asked to entirely reverse the progress of centuries, and revert to 
 primitive conditions which every nation that has become civilised 
 has discarded, a very strong case indeed is required to be made out, 
 and that theories of what are called natural rights will furnish a 
 very inadequate foundation for such arguments and proofs as will 
 be required. 
 
 At best " Progress is only from one partial and one-sided 
 expression of the whole truth which hovers before us as an ideal to 
 another expression of it which may be equally, and sometimes even 
 more, partial and one-sided, and which at the best is only less in- 
 adequate than that which replaces." Nevertheless, " durable 
 institutions and widely diffused practical beliefs must have had in 
 them some element of truth and value for the very reason that they 
 flourished." ^ 
 
 " The tendency of careful economic study," as Professor 
 Marshall ^ says, " is to base the rights of private property, not on 
 any abstract principle, but on the observation that in the past they 
 have been inseparable from sohd progress ; and that, therefore, it 
 is the part of responsible men to proceed cautiously and tentatively 
 in abrogating or modifying even such rights as may seem to be 
 inappropriate to the ideal conditions of social life." 
 
 Unconvincing Arguments 
 
 Mr. George says that the comparatively small number of people 
 who own the land of the United Kingdom might exclude all the 
 rest of the people from it. If no one is to own anything that he 
 might misuse no one ought to have a gun or a knife, because he 
 might shoot or stab some one. No one ought to own a cartload 
 of bricks, because he might throw them at some one. A man ought 
 not to be allowed to go about, because he might assault others. 
 As Mr. W. H. Mallock puts it : " The Duke of Westminster might 
 make Belgravia a desert. Mr. George when he was in England 
 might have stabbed the Duke of Westminster. But it no more 
 follows that the Duke has no right to his land, than it follows from 
 hence that Mr. George ought to have gone about London in hand- 
 cuffs." On the face of it, the suggestion that the land-owners could 
 expel all the inhabitants of these islands is preposterous, for the 
 simple reason that those inhabitants would never allow them to 
 do it. If these things were probable or even possible, the law would 
 provide against them. Land is held, as other things are owned, 
 1 Ritchie, Natwal Eights, p. 17. * Principles of Economics, p. 48. 
 
12 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 subject to laws which protect the interests of the whole commiuiity. 
 The use which men can make of what they own is strictly limited. 
 All Henry George's comparison of the exclusive ownership of 
 land with exclusive ownership of the air is unconvincing, in view 
 of the fact that vmder his scheme land would be permanently owned 
 and occupied by a very limited number of people, subject to the 
 payment of a tax. He does not propose to prevent exclusive, 
 permanent personal occupation, an occupation that would as 
 effectually exclude all others from the land occupied as the present 
 system does. If the exclusion of people from the land now is 
 blasphemous against God and Nature, it wotdd be quite as much 
 so under the system of private ownership and exclusive occupation 
 which his scheme of taxation would permit, and indeed involve and 
 necessitate. 
 
 The Right to Live — Where ? 
 
 " Every man has a right to live." Where ? In his own country 
 or only in his own part of it — where he was born ? Does his right 
 cease if he goes to another part of the country ? Has he a right 
 to live in any part and in any spot he likes ? If not, who has the 
 right to determine where he shall live ? Is the land to be divided 
 and subdivided to an unlimited extent ? Is it only that every man 
 has a right to live somewhere ? If so, who is to decide where that 
 " somewhere " is ? Have any number of people, however many 
 may be born there, the right to live on a Scotch island — say one of 
 the Hebrides — even if they become so numerous as to reduce the 
 whole population to poverty and the verge of starvation ? If they 
 go away from there, say to Glasgow, have they a right to live there ? 
 If so, what right ; they were not born there ? Have they a right 
 to live in London ? On the other hand, have, say Londoners 
 or Yorkshiremen, the right to demand to live on an over-crowded 
 Scotch island ? 
 
 Is the right limited to a man's own country ? Even so, why 
 should some people have a fertile soil and minerals and others 
 barren hills and moors ? Is not this instituting ownership, at 
 any rate of groups or communities as against other groups or 
 communities ? 
 
 If men from the Hebrides may demand the right to live in 
 Edinburgh or London as a natural, God-given right — as one of the 
 rights of man — ^have they not an equal right to live ia France, 
 Italy, or China ? Have not the Chinese a right to live in Australia 
 
ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 13 
 
 or in England ? What right have the people of England to its coal 
 as against the German, the Russian, the Chinaman, or the Esqui- 
 maux ? The boundaries of nations are artificial and temporary. 
 Is it not the simple fact, that by the immutable laws of our 
 existence the rights of men with regard to the surface of the earth 
 are and always have been and always must be distributed unequally 
 and arbitrarily ? What then comes of the doctrine of " equal 
 rights," and how could it be enforced and given effect to ? As Mr. 
 MaUock truly says : 
 
 Unless it were recognised, with regard to the surface of the earth, 
 that the rights of men to it are distributed, not equally, but unequally : 
 that some men without any personal merit of their own, have an ex- 
 clusive right to its richest and most delightful parts, whilst others have 
 a right only to the parts that are most barren and miserable : that for 
 some is the healthy hill-side, for others the pestilential plain ; for some 
 the harbours and the navigable rivers, for others the iron-bound coast 
 and the rock-strewn mountain torrent ; for some the perennial spring, 
 for others the perennial winter ; for some the fields of corn, for others 
 the fields of ice : unless this were recognised as the order and rule of 
 Nature no progressive civilisation of any kind would be possible ; and 
 mankind would consist of nothing but a multitude of warring and 
 wandering tribes, perpetually either plundering or being plundered. 
 
 Rights of Nations and of Individuals 
 
 If the right to live in a particular country may properly and 
 justly be limited to and vested in one group or nation, or in one 
 section of a race of people, and not in mankind as a whole, on what 
 principle of natural right, natural law, or natural justice can it be 
 contended that a section of that special group, nation, or section of 
 a race may not equally, properly, and justly possess special rights 
 as owners of the land in that country — ^rights which in principle and 
 character are not more exclusive as regards the other inhabitants of 
 that country than are the rights claimed for those inhabitants as 
 against the rest of humanity ? If a nation may appropriate a country 
 and claim it as their exclusive property why may not an individual 
 appropriate a part of it ? Or, if an individual may not own a portion 
 of a country, on what principle and by what law of natural right 
 may a group, or tribe, or race claim and own a portion of the earth's 
 surface to the exclusion of others and their equal right of ownership ? 
 
 Australians refuse to Chinamen even free admission to their 
 country. By what right do they do it ? What greater right have 
 they to assert that prerogative of ownership, which is sounder 
 
14 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 or greater than the right of the settler or purchaser there, to his 
 particular portion of the land of Australia ? 
 
 By what right did Henry George's own countrymen in the 
 United States, when they were a mere handful of people, claim and 
 assert their ownership of and their right to exercise absolute 
 authority over a very large portion of the earth's surface — an 
 authority which extends to claiming power to exclude from it the 
 whole human race except on the conditions which those who are 
 already there determine ? Does Henry George denounce this claim 
 to exclusive ownership ? Not a bit of it. Quite the opposite. He 
 condemns his government and his countrymen because they ever 
 consented to part with it. 
 
 Who or what gave this exclusive ownership and authority to 
 this group of people at the time when they claimed and asserted 
 it — a group so small that it was impossible for them to effectively 
 occupy more than the merest fraction of the vast territory they had 
 seized ? Was it conquest, or occupation, or mere assertion of 
 possession ? If so, may not it and other land be acquired with 
 equal justice by any one else who is strong enough to seize it and 
 hold it ? Ownership has always been obtained and established in 
 this way, and when so obtained and established has been dealt 
 with as those establishing it have deemed best and most convenient. 
 
 Is Labour the only Title to Ownership ? 
 
 The contention which is built up by Henry George is that land 
 and all that it contains is the creation of God, and is not the result of 
 any man's labom: ; that it was intended for the use and benefit of 
 the whole of mankind ia all ages, and therefore no one has a right 
 to own it ; and that its value is entirely due to the growth, ex- 
 penditure, and efforts of the community, and therefore every one 
 has a natural right to that value. It is further contended that 
 " Nature acknowledges no ownership or control in man, save as 
 the result of exertion " ; and that " as Nature gives only to labour, 
 the exertion of labour in production is the only title to exclusive 
 possession." From this it is alleged that " if production give to 
 the producer the right to exclusive possession and enjoyment, there 
 can rightfully be no exclusive possession and enjoyment of anything 
 not the production of labour, and the recognition of private property 
 in land is wrong." ^ 
 
 Henry George's contention that labour is the only title to the 
 ' Progress and Poverty, pp. 237-238. 
 
CH. I ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 15 
 
 exclusive possession of anything is based on his assertion of the 
 right of a man to himself and to the enjoyment of the fruits of his 
 own exertions. " As a man belongs to himself, so his labour when 
 put in concrete form belongs to him." ^ " What other right exists 
 from which the right to the exclusive possession of anything can 
 be derived, save the right of a man to himself ? " ^ 
 
 This may seem very clear, and sound, and quite incontrovertible 
 to those who do not look below the surface of high-sounding phrases ; 
 but if the argument involved therein be subjected to critical examina- 
 tion, and carried to its logical conclusion, it will be seen that it is 
 merely superficial logic-chopping based on assertions which ignore 
 or contradict the plainest and best known facts of hfe. 
 
 Huxley on " A Man's Right to Himself" 
 
 As Huxley very forcibly puts it : 
 
 If labour is the only title to exclusive possession how in the world 
 does a man come by the " right to himself " ? I have paid a good deal 
 of attention to those branches of natural history which treat more 
 especially of man, but never yet have I come across even the smallest 
 grounds for beheving that a man has ever been known to make himself, 
 or to endow himself by his own labour with the powers he exerts. 
 
 No doubt it may be said, with justice, that a man who learns 
 dihgently and strives hard to do right, bestows labour on himself, 
 and does so far fulfil the necessary conditions of self-ownership laid 
 down in Progress and Poverty. But, on the other hand, might not his 
 teachers, on the very same ground, claim possession of the friiits of 
 their labours in him ? Might not the mother, who not only bore him, 
 but bore with him, day and night, for half-a-dozen years, fed him, 
 clothed him, nursed him in sickness, taught him the rudiments of 
 civilisation — might not she rightfully appeal to this wonderful labour- 
 test of ownership ? 
 
 It is only a very small part of a man which can in any sense be 
 said to be the product of his own labour. His physical and mental 
 tendencies and capacities, dependent to a very large extent on heredity, 
 are certainly the " gratuitous ofiering of Nature " ; if they belong to 
 anybody, therefore, they must belong to the whole of mankind. 
 
 Further, the very existence of society depends on the fact that 
 every member of it tacitly admits that he is not the exclusive possessor 
 of himself, and that he admits the claim of the pohty of which he forms 
 a part, to act, to some extent, as his master. 
 
 More Superficial Philosophy 
 The fact is that when Henry George propounds as two funda- 
 1 Progress and Poverty, p. 236. * Ibid. p. 237. 
 
1 6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 mental, indisputable, and self-evident propositions : first, that labour 
 is the " only " title to exclusive possession ; and the second, that the 
 foundation of this title lies in the right of a man to himself — that is 
 to say, to the exclusive possession of himself ; and. attempts to base 
 each upon the other, he puts forward two inconsistent and mutually 
 destructive theories, the unsoimdness of which is only partially 
 obscured by the ingenious logic-chopping with which he supports 
 them, and the high-sounding platitudes in which he envelopes 
 them. 
 
 His contention is that the real and natural distinction between 
 things which are rightfully property, and the subject of exclusive 
 ownership by individuals, and things which are the common posses- 
 sion of the whole of the human race, is the distinction " between 
 things which are the produce of labour and things which are the 
 gratuitous offerings of Nature. . . . These two things are in 
 essence and relations widely different. . . . The essential character 
 of the one class of things is that they embody labour, are brought 
 into being by human exertion, their increase or diminution depend- 
 ing on man. The essential character of the other class of things is 
 that they do not embody labour, and exist irrespective of human 
 exertion and irrespective of man." ^ 
 
 To the superficial reader this again may appear to be very 
 precise and accurate, but, as a matter of fact, it is loose and slip- 
 shod ; and when the statement is to be made the basis on which an 
 argument is to be constructed, the adoption of which would involve 
 vitally important and fundamental consequences, a careful examina- 
 tion of it will show that it is really fallacious and absurd. 
 
 A Dilemma and an Absu/rdity 
 
 In strict accuracy it cannot be said of anything that it can be 
 " brought into being by human exertion." The original material 
 of which anything is made, be it a brick, a hatchet, a window, a pair 
 of boots, a chair, a pen or a watch-spring, is " a gratuitous offering of 
 nature." Some articles embody more human labour than others, 
 but that is not a question of principle : it is only a difference of 
 degree. The raw material of nature is always there, and without 
 it all the labour expended would have produced nothing. 
 
 If the expenditure of labour on turning clay into bricks, trees 
 into doors and chairs, iron into knives and hatchets, and copper, 
 zinc, and iron into clocks and watches, rightfully makes those articles 
 
 » Pp. 238-9. 
 
CH.. ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 17 
 
 the property of those who expended or paid for the expenditure of 
 the labour upon them, by what process of justice of logic is not a 
 piece of land which has been reclaimed from the waste, and by 
 expenditure of labour and capital been transformed into a field of 
 valuable pasture and arable land, also the rightful property of those 
 who have made it what it is ? 
 
 " In the state of nature," says Huxley, " I doubt if ten square 
 miles of the surface of the chalk downs of Sussex would yield pickings 
 enough to keep one savage for a year. But, thanks to the human 
 labour bestowed upon it, the same area actually yields, one way or 
 another, to the agriculturist the means of supporting many men. 
 If labour is the foundation of the claim to several ownership, on 
 what pretext can the land, in this case also, be put upon a different 
 footing from the steel pen ? " 
 
 Clay, wood, iron or copper, and zinc are " the gratuitous offerings 
 of nature " : " they exist irrespective of human exertion and 
 irrespective of man." Yet labour applied to them makes them 
 rightfully the exclusive property of individuals : but labour applied 
 to land creates no right of property in the soil. To make the 
 absurdity complete, Henry George says : 
 
 But it will be said : There are improvements wMch in time become 
 indistinguisiiable from the land itself ! Very well ; then the title to 
 the improvements becomes blended with the title to the land ; the 
 indiAddual right is lost in the common right. It is the greater that 
 swallows up the less, not the less that swallows up the greater.^ 
 
 Make a swamp into a farm and in course of time the improve- 
 ments will be " indistinguishable from the land itself," and the 
 individual will lose his right to them in the common right of the 
 whole people to the land : but turn the land into bricks, tools, 
 ships or houses, and while it is true again that the " improvements " 
 become " indistinguishable from the land " of which they are made, 
 in this case the indiATidual does not lose his right to the improve- 
 ments. The human race loses its right to the land which the 
 improver took away in the form of clay, iron ore, trees, etc. ! 
 
 Does Labour alone jproduce Anything ? 
 The truth is, all articles of human production are parts of the 
 material universe. None of the original raw material out of which 
 either the rude weapon or tool of the savage or the delicate chrono- 
 meter, machine, or mathematical instrument produced by the most 
 
 ' Progress and Poverty, p. 243. 
 
 
 
1 8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.i 
 
 highly-skilled labour can be made by man. His most consummate 
 art is but a moving into certain places of the parts of the material 
 universe with which Nature supplies him at least as gratuitously as 
 she supplies land.^ 
 
 The fallacy of Henry George's argument is similar, if we test it 
 from the point of view of his contention that the value of land is 
 entirely due to the existence, effort, and expenditure of the com- 
 munity, and that therefore it is the common property of all, and 
 every one has a natural and indefeasible right to it. The value of 
 everything, and indeed the power of individuals to do and produce 
 anything, is largely due to the existence of the community and the 
 work it does for each member of the community as part of the whole. 
 Professor Seligman puts this point thus : 
 
 Mr. George bases his defence of private property in commodities 
 other than land, on the labour theory. Yet individual labour, it may 
 be said, has never by itself produced anything in civilised society. 
 Take, for example, the workman fashioning a chair. The wood has 
 not been produced by him. It is the gift of Nature. The tools that 
 he uses are the results of the contributions of others. The house in 
 which he works, the clothes he wears, the food he eats (all of which are 
 necessary in civilised society to the making of a chair) are the result 
 of the contributions of the community. His safety from robbery and 
 pillage — nay, his very existence — ^is dependent on the ceaseless co- 
 operation of the society about him. How can it be said, in the face of 
 aU this, that his own individual labour wholly creates anything ? If it 
 be maintained that he pays for his tools, his clothing, and his protection, 
 it may be answered that the land-owner also pays for the land. Nothing 
 is wholly the result of unaided individual labour. No one has a right 
 to say : This belongs absolutely and completely to me, because I alone 
 have produced it. Society from this point of view holds a mortgage 
 on everything that is produced.^ 
 
 As has already been observed, it is not the labour theory, but 
 the social utility theory, which is the real justification of private 
 property as it is of governments and laws. If the basis of Henry 
 George's argument were sound, the conclusions to be based upon 
 it would go much farther than he carries them. The difference 
 between property in land and property in other things, from the 
 standpoint of the fundamental original material of all of them 
 
 ^ " Men do not create material things. They do not ' produce ' them. They 
 produce utilities. They change the form or arrangement of matter to adapt it 
 to the better satisfaction of wants. They readjust matter as when they make a 
 log of wood into a table, or they put it into the way of being made more useful by 
 nature, as when they sow seed." — Marshall's Principles of Economics, p. 63. 
 
 ^ Ksaays on Taxation, p 69. 
 
ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 19 
 
 being " gratuitous offerings of Nature," and of individual as dis- 
 tinguished from social effort, is clearly purely one of degree and not 
 of kind. 
 
 Experience the Guide 
 
 Is not the truth of the whole of this question of so-called 
 " Natural Rights " this — that we must determine right and wrong 
 by reference to experience, and not by any so-called inner light 
 which any and every man may claim to possess and be guided by 
 in arriving at most inconsistent and contradictory conclusions ? 
 " Natural Rights," as generally expounded, are really what some 
 individuals or group of individuals happen at the moment to claim 
 as harmonising with their private notions of what they ought to 
 have. 
 
 " In the chaos of conflicting individual impulses, instincts, 
 desires and interests, we can find no stable criterion. We must go 
 beyond them to the essential nature of things. But what part of 
 the nature of things is here relevant ? Is it not simply — ^human 
 Society ? If there are certain mutual claims which cannot be 
 ignored without detriment to the well-being, and in the last resort 
 to the very being, of a Community, these claims may in an in- 
 telligible sense be called fundamental or natural rights. They 
 represent the minimum of security and advantage which a com- 
 munity must guarantee to its members at the risk of going to 
 pieces, if it does not with some degree of efficiency maintain them." ^ 
 
 Theologians avoid the difficulty of ascertaining what the law 
 of nature is by falling back on the authority of revelation. The 
 revelation to which they appeal — and different teachers in different 
 coimtries and at different times appeal to different revelations — 
 may or may not be a final authority, but clearly it is another and an 
 external authority, and does not help those who discard or ignore the 
 authority to decide what is the law of nature and what are so-called 
 natural rights. When a man appeals to what he terms the law of 
 nature and natural rights, he is appealing to something other than, 
 and different from, the teaching of the particular religious belief 
 that he holds. 
 
 Ideas of Right and Wrong are a Growth— Slavery 
 
 We shall obtain a much sounder and also a much more hopeful 
 outlook if we approach the study of past and present conditions 
 ^ Ritchie, Natural Eights, p, 87. 
 
20 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 and institutions with the conception of development and advance — 
 evolution — in our minds than if we attempt to apply to every people 
 in every age the same imvar3dng code of right and wrong under the 
 impression that there are iron-bound " natural rights " which are 
 applicable at all times and under all conditions. Professor D. G. 
 Eitchie, one of Scotland's ablest thinkers, considered that — 
 
 To the scientific student of human history it seems almost certain 
 that slavery was a necessary step in the progress of humanity. It 
 mitigated the horrors of primitive warfare,^ and thus gave some scope 
 for the growth, however feeble, of kindlier sentiments tbwards the 
 alien and the weak. It gave to the free population sufficient leisure 
 for the pursuit of science and art, and, above all, for the development 
 of political liberty ; and in this way slavery may be said to have pro- 
 duced the idea of self-government. By contrast with the slave the 
 freeman discovered the worth of freedom. Thus slavery made possible 
 the growth of the very ideas which in course of time came to make 
 slavery appear wrong. Slavery seems to us horrible : it is contrary 
 to nature, it violates the feeUngs that God and Nature have implanted 
 in our breasts, and so on. It used not to seem horrible or contrary to 
 nature, even to many people who talked loudly about the inalienable 
 right of liberty. There are probably many things existing now which 
 will seem " horrible " some day, but which now seem quite " natural " 
 to most persons. Science must have no prejudices, and, therefore, 
 we must admit that there was a stage in human development when 
 slavery, being useful to the progress of mankind, was not contrary to 
 what could then have been considered " Natural Eights," although, 
 when slavery is no longer an institution of progressive societies, it 
 becomes contrary to what people now consider " Natural Rights." ^ 
 
 Bondage in some form or other was universal in the whole of 
 the ancient world of which we have historical knowledge.^ It was 
 the alternative for slaughter in the case of prisoners of war. It 
 prevailed amongst the Jews, and Christianity found it existing 
 everywhere and never expressly condemned it. Aristotle said that 
 slavery was written " in the constitution of the Universe." 
 
 As has abeady been observed, what are called " natural law " 
 and " natural rights " by those who propound this doctrine are 
 really not natural rights at all, but simply and solely what certain 
 
 1 Not only did the Introduction of the practice of making slaves of captives 
 diminish the ferocity of war, but, as Sir H. Maine points out, " one consequence 
 of the decay and abolition of slavery was an increase of bloodshed." — International 
 Law, p. 134. ' Ritchie, Natural Rights^ p. 104. 
 
 ' Among the Romans, under the BepubUo, and at the beginning of the Empire, 
 manual labour was almost exclusively slave labour. During the Empire it was 
 mainly slave labour, and the labourers who were not slaves were largely freedmen, 
 men who had been slaves. 
 
CH.I ETHICS OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 21 
 
 people at a particular time think law and rights ought to be. This 
 misnamed doctrine of natural rights may be said to represent the 
 ideal of the philosophers of the period. As to what is really desirable 
 and expedient, opinions will vary, and that will be especially so at 
 different stages of the world's history. The propounders of the 
 natural rights' theory attempt to exalt their ideals (which are often 
 wrong) at particular times iato eternal and immutable laws of right 
 and wrong. 
 
 The Only Safe Appeal 
 
 If the phrase " Natural Rights " has any intelligible meaning at 
 all, it means those rights which ought to be recognised ; and what 
 those rights are can only be determined from the point of view of 
 society. It is true that society has no existence except as a body 
 of individuals. It is also true that individuals, as human beings 
 with rights and duties, can only be understood in reference to a 
 society. They are the product of a society, and " the rights of the 
 individual must, therefore, be judged from the poiat of view of a 
 society as a whole, and not the society from the point of view of the 
 individual." ^ Questions of right and wrong cannot properly be 
 considered without regard to the past that produced them and the 
 future that is even now amongst us. As Professor Ritchie well 
 puts it, " the adults of a community are only the trustees inheriting 
 every moment from the old who are dying and obliged to take into 
 account the interests of those who are being born." 
 
 The only safe appeal is an appeal to what is socially good and 
 useful, account being taken not only of immediate convenience 
 to the then members of a particular community, but of the future 
 welfare of the commimity, not overlooking its relation to humanity 
 as a whole. An appeal to social utility is an appeal to something 
 that can be tested not only by individual instincts, desires, and 
 feelings, but by experience. " History is the laboratory of politics. 
 Past experience is indeed a poor substitute for crucial experiments, 
 but we are neglecting our only guide if we do not use it." ^ It 
 means trying to discover from what followed under past conditions 
 what is likely to result from similar or different conditions now. 
 
 " The only ' law of nature ' to which we can listen must be such 
 as will commend itself to our reason as a statement of the principles 
 of a coherent and orderly society which will not throw away the 
 hard- won achievements of man in his struggle with nature and with 
 
 1 Ritchie, Natural Bights, p. 101. ' Ibid. p. 103. 
 
22 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 barbarism, and wMcli will at the same time be progressive, in the 
 sense of being capable of correcting its own faults. Any ' natural 
 rights ' which are incompatible with such a society are only another 
 name for anarchy. ' Nonsense upon stilts ' Bentham called 
 them." 1 
 
 * Natural Bights, p. 106. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THE OEIGIN OP PRIVATE PROPERTY EST LAND 
 
 The precise nature of the processes by, and the exact conditions 
 under, which private and corporate ownership of land was originally 
 brought about in various part of the world are not known. " Every 
 one of the foundation stones of civilised society had been laid long 
 before history was born, and nothing recorded by history, and 
 nothing observed within our time, enables us with any certainty 
 to clear up the mystery which surrounds the first beginnings of our 
 race." ^ The truth is that, as Mr. Leacock puts it, the institution 
 of the State is not to be referred back to any single point of time. 
 Nor is it the outcome of any single idea, example, movement, or 
 plan. The State is not an invention ; it is a growth, an evolution,'^ 
 the result of a gradual process running through aU the known history ( 
 of man. " The proposition that the State is a product of history 
 means," says Professor Burgess, " that it is a gradual and continuous > 
 development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning j 
 through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a / 
 perfect and universal reorganisation of mankind." 
 
 Private Ownership an Early Stage of Settled Conditions 
 
 So far as we have knowledge, it seems clear that almost every- 
 where, as soon as anything like settled conditions were reached 
 and wandering tribes attached themselves to definite spots, and 
 specified areas became worth owning, land was held as personal or 
 family property, and not as the property of a nation or even of the 
 whole community, still less of the whole human race. 
 
 Whether there ever was a time or a country with a settled people 
 
 who could in any real sense be said to own the land they occupied or 
 
 claimed jurisdiction over, of whom it could be said that they owned it 
 
 1 Duke of Argyll, The Unseen Foundations of Society, p. 101. 
 
 23 
 
24 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 in common, it is impossible to say. Common occupation and common 
 use for hunting and pastoral purposes there undoubtedly was, but 
 common ownership in anything approaching what we understand 
 by proprietorship has, I think, not yet been historically proved. 
 
 An idea has from time to time taken possession of the imagina- 
 tion of men like Eousseau, Henry George, and a certain class of 
 minds, that property in land is contrary to nature, and that com- 
 munal ownership is natural. In support of their view they have 
 built up an imposing structure out of a series of historical errors and 
 misconceptions largely originated and elaborated out of their own 
 preconceived theories. Common ownership by the family has 
 been assumed to be national communism, tenure in common has 
 been confused with ownership in common, and village commons 
 have been magnified into agrarian communism. 
 
 Minds which are imder the influence of this idea will never allow 
 that property may be a primordial fact, contemporaneous with the 
 earliest cultivation of the soU, natural to man, produced by an instinctive 
 recognition of his interests, and closely bound up with the primitive 
 constitution of the family. They will always prefer to assume that 
 there must first have been a period of Communism. This will be with 
 them an article of faith which nothing can shake ; and they wiU always 
 be able to find authorities which can be made to support it.^ 
 
 Private Property in Land does not arise until Agriculture begins 
 
 The evolution of the modern State caimot be ascribed to the 
 operation of any one force. States probably usually developed 
 from savage " packs " — Shaving no more permanent family life 
 than animals have — to families— households, — exemplifjmig it by 
 the control of fathers over their children, then to the control of 
 a patriarch over his descendants. From this grew tribes of kindred 
 descent, then nations. Force, conquest, rapacity played their 
 part all along, and strengthened and extended the power and 
 domination of the strongest. In the early stages of family life which 
 developed from the " packs," where the usual relations of husband 
 and wife did not exist, various forms evolved at different times, 
 among different peoples, in different places — the polygamic, the 
 polyandric, the exogamic, the endoganoic, and the monogamic. The 
 last has tended to become the dominant form, although others still 
 prevail among the least advanced peoples. 
 
 Land does not become property until it is worth possessing, 
 
 ' [;; '- '■ Coulanges, Origin of Property in Land, p. 150. . •' . 
 
CH.II ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 25 
 
 and practically particular defined portions of land are not worth 
 possessing, that is to say they are not worth any more than any other 
 piece of land (and in savage conditions there is abundance of land 
 available) until cultivation begins. In the infancy of the human 
 race, agriculture, in our sense of the term, did not exist. The 
 people lived by hunting and fishing, and afterwards by pastoral 
 pursuits. Civihsation has never begun until agriculture commenced^ 
 and private ownership or individual occupancy arose and gaveJ 
 security that those who cultivated the soil would reap the crop. " 
 Nor does the idea of property in land develop imtU the family 
 evolves. In the most complete forms of savagery the horde or clan 
 is everything, and the savage is so identified with it that his individu- 
 aHty does not manifest itself either in the family or in property. 
 In many of these hordes or tribes there existed no family, not even 
 the matriarchal one. The children belonged to the whole tribe. 
 
 In those conditions the idea of individual possession, at any rate, 
 of such a thing as land does not exist. Indeed, the savage then has 
 no conception of individuality as distinct from the horde or tribe 
 of which he is a part. The horde has no idea of property in land. 
 It occupies a portion of the earth's surface. It not infrequently 
 moves from place to place and has no idea of " owning " anything 
 but the spot on which it is for the time being. The thought of 
 " property " in land in anything like its modern sense does not exist. 
 When the tribe ceases to lead a nomadic existence and erects 
 permanent separate dwelling-houses and the family system develops, 
 the idea of private property becomes clearer and expands as agri- 
 culture is introduced. Paul Lafargue in The Evolution of Property 
 (p. 49) says : 
 
 The family, wherever or however constituted, invariably breaks 
 up the communism of the clan or tribe. At first the clan was the 
 common family of aU its members : afterwards there came to exist 
 private families, having interests distinct from those of the clan con- 
 sidered as an aggregate of a number of families : the communal territory 
 of the tribe was then parcelled out so as to form the collective property 
 of each family. 
 
 In those days the family was a larger group than the father, 
 mother, and children which are usually meant by the modern use 
 of the word. It consisted of the father, the recognised head of the 
 family, of his wife or wives and his concubines ; of his children, 
 his younger sons, with their wives and children, and his unmarried 
 or unallotted sisters, altogether a considerable number. 
 
26 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 When Csesar landed in Kent he found that the Britons had 
 much the same customs as the Gauls. They did not till the land : 
 they lived on milk and flesh, and were clad in skins. They painted 
 themselves blue, and had wives in common in groups of ten or twelve, 
 including brothers, fathers, and sons.^ 
 
 AU our sources of iaformation as to Celtic antiquities show us 
 the people liviag chiefly on the produce of their herds. Every house- 
 hold, even that of the low-standing Welsh taeog, is supposed to possess 
 cows. Sheep, pigs, and goats are also constantly mentioned. . . . By 
 the side of this chief calliag appear pursuits connected with the forest 
 and the stream — hunting, fishing, tending of bees. It would be im- 
 possible to say when the cidtivation of the soil arose, and to what extent 
 it was carried. ... It played everywhere a more or less subsidiary 
 part in contrast with the prevailing grazing husbandry.^ 
 
 Duriag the occupation of England by the Eomans great progress 
 was made in material culture. Comparing the time of Constantine 
 with that of Caesar, Dr. ViaogradofE says : " Instead of being the 
 dweUing-place of pastoral and hunting tribes, with a small fringe 
 of agricultural occupation on the south-eastern border, it is extolled 
 as an area of prosperous farming." ^ 
 
 As social hfe advanced and civilisation in a rude form began to 
 dawn, the family, as we now know it, evolved, and individual 
 property took the place of family property. When the men, on 
 marrying, left the collective dwelling for a home of their own, 
 landed property began to be divided amongst the various branches 
 of the family and was held in severalty. 
 
 A Modern Controversy 
 
 One of the controversies of the last thirty years amongst scholars 
 has been the dispute as to whether in the early years of English 
 history, after the Romans left and invading tribes from the Continent 
 largely took possession of the country, the population consisted of 
 free men holding land in common as the property of the community 
 as a whole, or it consisted of serfs and tenants of large individual 
 land-owners who were chiefs or lords. 
 
 According to those whose teaching was generally accepted from 
 thirty to sixty years ago, all land in the beginning was common land 
 and belonged to all : it was held and cultivated in common before 
 it became the private property of a family or an individual : private 
 
 1 De Bella Oallico V., Sec. 14. 
 2 Vinogradoff, The Cfrowth of the Manor, p. 16. ^ ji,i^ p_ 44_ 
 
cH.ii ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 27 
 
 property grew up afterwards out of this ancient common ownership. 
 It was further held that the people who came over here were mostly 
 free men of varying ranks, with a few slaves who came from parts of 
 Europe where free communities held land in common. It was 
 held that they continued the same system here, and that manors 
 and the manorial system of Anglo-Saxon times was the result of the 
 subsequent gradual and forcible subjugation of the free communities 
 by powerful neighbours who seized the communal lands and reduced 
 the people to a condition of serfdom and servile dependence. 
 
 That theory and the supposed facts upon which it was based 
 were, however, severely shaken some thirty years or more ago by 
 the researches of M. Fustel de Coulanges of Paris and Mr. Seebohm 
 in this country. Their views have been strongly confirmed by 
 subsequent research and discussion, and now what is known as the 
 " mark " theory is largely, if not entirely, discredited as an ex- 
 planation of the condition of things generally prevailing throughout 
 Northern and Western Europe and England before the growth of 
 the manorial and feudal systems. 
 
 It has come to be pretty generally admitted that there is no docu- 
 mentary evidence of the existence of free village communities in 
 early England, and such allusions and reference in later records, 
 and such traces of customs and laws as were supposed to support 
 arguments in favour of the belief in the existence at one time of 
 such communities, are found to be practically worthless, and to be 
 capable of other interpretations when they are carefuUy examined 
 in the light of the further information which more complete research 
 and study have brought to light. 
 
 The Present View 
 
 In his Presidential address to the Economic History Section of 
 the International Congress of Historical Studies held in London in 
 April 1913, Professor W. J. Ashley commented on the change which 
 has taken place in the views of scholars as to the early history of the 
 ownership and tenure of land in England since Kemble, Stubbs, 
 and Green wrote. The work of Eustel de Coulanges, Seebohm, 
 Maitland, and Vinogradoff has shown how theories generally held as 
 firmly established forty years ago are now untenable. From Pro- 
 fessor Ashley's summary of what he thinks may be taken as the con- 
 clusions which have now been arrived at, we extract the following : 
 
 From the earhest historical times, in Gaul and Germany, very much 
 
28 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 land was owned individually, and wealth on the one side and slavery 
 on the other were always very important factors in the situation. 
 
 Even in Germany, communal ownership of land was never a funda- 
 mental or generally pervasive social institution ; there was something 
 very much like large private estates, worked by dependents and slaves, 
 from the very earliest days of Teutonic Settlement. 
 
 As to England, it is highly probable that we shall not find anything 
 that can fairly be called a general communal system of land-owning, 
 combined with a substantial equality among the majority of the people, 
 under conditions of settled agriculture. To find it in any sense we 
 shall have to go back to an earlier and " tribal " condition, if, indeed, 
 we shall find it there. 
 
 Professor Ashley points out that the idea that English freemen 
 had sunk into serfdom, and land-owning communities had fallen 
 into subjection to manorial lords, and that the problem which the 
 historian had to solve was how these things had come about, was 
 an importation from Germany. " Nothing of all this had suggested 
 itself to English historians so long as they confined themselves to 
 English evidence : no trace of it is to be found, for instance, in the 
 pages of Hallam." 
 
 ?Thus during recent years those theories as to the original 
 ownership of land, upon which many politicians who are not also 
 students are stiU basing arguments in support of their policy, have 
 been exploded and discredited. In an interesting article Professor 
 J. H. Morgan referred to the discussions of the authorities on this 
 subject : 
 
 For a generation the obsession of race and its prerogatives had 
 brooded over historical studies. Eound the theory of the mark there 
 raged a controversy as bitter as it was assiduous ; the Germanists saw 
 modern corporations of freemen in early Teutonic village communities, 
 Parliaments in folk-moots, juries in Saxon doomsmen, and good in 
 everything provided it was Teutonic. The racial controversy found its 
 echo in this country ; Stubbs and Freeman boasted our German 
 pedigree, traced all our civihsation to its source, and refused to admit 
 the Celtic bar sinister upon our escutcheon. Then came a reaction : 
 Fustel de Coulanges took a terrible revenge, and in a series of brilliant 
 monographs smote the Germanists hip and thigh, going far to prove 
 that the early Teutons, no less than the Celts, had succumbed to the 
 yoke of Roman institutions, and that nine-tenths of our modern viUages 
 descended in a direct line from the great Eoman estates. Seebohm 
 followed suit over here, and in a memorable monograph suggested to 
 our ruthless Teutons that " more things went to the making of England 
 than were imported in the keels of the EngUsh invaders." ^ 
 
 ^ Westminster Gazette, April 4, 1913. 
 
CH. II ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 29 
 
 Ownership and Lordship evolve slowly 
 
 As has already been remarked, the question of property in land 
 does not usually really arise, and certainly does not become a matter 
 of any practical importance, in a country until its people become 
 sufficiently settled and civilised to lead them to systematically 
 cultivate the soil. Until they become more or less an agricultural 
 people they are usually hunters or fishermen or both, and possibly 
 also to a limited extent keepers of sheep and cattle. Population is 
 then sparse and unoccupied territory is plentiful, and questions of 
 the ownership of particular tracts of land do not concern them. 
 What does concern them is their ability to defend themselves and 
 such possessions as they have from attack, and incidentally their 
 power to pillage and plunder others. It is only when they take 
 definitely and extensively to agriculture and they become perman- 
 ently attached to precise areas, which they have cleared and culti- 
 vated at the cost of much labour and time, that the idea of property 
 in land, as we imderstand it, takes shape and develops. Even then 
 it develops very slowly, because so long as unoccupied and unused 
 land is plentiful, that which is used has little or no value. Value is 
 an essential condition of property, and nobody troubles to claim 
 rights of property, as we understand them, in anything which is so 
 plentiful that everybody can have all he wants of it. 
 
 There is no doubt that the source of individual ownership of 
 land was some definite personal effort with regard to it, such as 
 cultivation or occupation, or some original pre-eminence in the battle 
 of life — it may be centuries ago — which was recognised and admitted 
 by society, and has ever siace been acknowledged as legitimate. 
 It has been handed down by inheritance or transferred by purchase 
 through generations often reaching back through many centuries, 
 until its history becomes dim. 
 
 Primitive custom recognises certain rights in and over land : the 
 right of the &st clearer to regard the land as Ms own family holding ; 
 the right of a chief or freeman to a share in the territory which he helps 
 to defend against outsiders ; the right of a chief to levy tribute of those 
 who hold land under his protection. 
 
 When the state comes into existence the family loses some of its 
 importance ; the individual chief or house father is not merely the 
 administrator of the common inheritance : he is owner of his land : it 
 is a thing he can sell or mortgage or dispose of by will : absolute owner- 
 ship is the basis of the Eoman law of ownership and possession.^ 
 
 1 Article " Land " in Palgrave's Dictionary of Political Economy. 
 
30 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND rr. i 
 
 Earle in Land Charters says : 
 
 Of all principles of military requirement there is none as necessary 
 or so elementary as tMs, that all men must be under a captain, and 
 such a captain as is able to command prompt and willing obedience. 
 Upon this military principle I conceive the English settlements were 
 originally founded, that each several settlement was under a military 
 leader, and that this military leader was the ancestor of the lord of the 
 manor .^ 
 
 In the Saxon and Danish period as in the Norman, the chief 
 or thane or lord was not merely the military leader. He was the 
 local representative of authority and government ; he was the local 
 ruler and lord, the civil as well as the military head and chief of the 
 people and of the district ; and as the principle of " no land without 
 a lord " became more and more clearly and firmly established and 
 enforced in order that it all might be made to contribute its quota 
 of men and means for national defence and general national purposes, 
 the local lordship and sovereignty of the man ia each district who 
 was held responsible for the contribution of men and means from 
 the area under his control, and for the maintenance of order and 
 the administration of local justice therein, became more and more 
 identified with ownership, and all land not definitely belonging to 
 some one else was regarded as his, in the same way as all land 
 over which there was no such lord and owner was regarded as the 
 property of the king. The view was that the lord was the original 
 owner of the whole territory occupied by the manor, and portions 
 which did not belong to any one in particxilar were taken to belong 
 primarily to him.^ 
 
 From the very first 'stages of the English occupation of the island 
 we have to reckon not merely with small landowners joining ia town- 
 ships on the shareholding system, but also with great landowners 
 possessed of larger tracts of land and utilising them according to their 
 wishes and notions. ^ 
 
 The Early Outcome of Economic and Social Conditions 
 
 M. de Laveleye, in Primitive Property, shows how personal and 
 family property and private holdings would gradually grow up in 
 the abundant waste land amongst which the widely scattered 
 nomadic communities ultimately settled. Any enclosed land 
 round their permanent dwellings, and any land outside the settle- 
 ment which was cleared, reclaimed, and cultivated, or occupied with 
 1 P. 55. " VinogradofE, The Growth of the Manor, p. 311. » Ibid. p. 221. 
 
CH.II ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 31 
 
 cattle by individuals or families, was recognised as their personal 
 property. Only those who were industrious, enterprising, and 
 courageous enough would clear, occupy, retain, cultivate, and defend 
 waste land. They would become personal owners of cattle, and 
 would gradually acquire wealth which would enable them to employ 
 others and still further improve their position. As their power 
 increased, and as population grew, the bravest, wealthiest, and most 
 capable fighting men amongst them would become chiefs or a species 
 of nobles, and the force of circumstances, often no doubt aided by 
 force and fraud, would eventually make them the land-owners of the 
 greater part of the district, with the more or less willing acquiescence 
 and consent of the community amongst whom they lived and to 
 whom they extended their protection. 
 
 In this way the no doubt communal ownership, so far as it ever 
 existed anywhere, gradually broke down and went to pieces, and 
 was superseded by individual ownership, especially as agriculture 
 developed. Private property was the inevitable outcome of 
 economic and social conditions, and the differing facidties and 
 force of character possessed by the leading men who, from time to 
 time, came to the front and founded territorial families. 
 
 Durgan, " one of the acutest of explorers," tells us that owner- 
 ship of land by individuals is to be found at a much lower grade 
 in the scale of civilisation than that at which communal ownership 
 makes its first appearance. Maitland says : " There is a sense ia 
 which English law may be said to have known a full ownership of 
 land long ages before it knew a full ownership of chattels." ^ 
 
 Occupation and Use the Basis of Possession 
 
 The right of property is usually in its origin based on occupation 
 or on labour. The theory which bases property on the occupation 
 of what was previously unoccupied represents the actual conditions 
 of the most primitive states of human society so far as we have 
 knowledge of them. (Possession is nine points of the law, with I 
 animals as with men. So long as other food, other articles, other 
 locations are to be had by making an effort, it is simpler for men \ 
 and animals to find what is wanted for themselves than to undertake 
 the risk and trouble of fighting one who has got it for possession of it. 
 When numbers increase and settled communities are formed the 
 rights of each are settled by society, and until they are so settled 
 there are no rights except the right of force — the power to keep 
 1 Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 347. 
 
32 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 what has been taken possession of, — that is to say, rights do not 
 exist until something of the nature of organised society does. 
 
 In many of the relations of every-day life, in connection with 
 matters in which the fundamental rights of all are equal, we recog- 
 nise the right of the first occupier. 
 
 " AU persons who ride in street-cars," says Mr. Arthur Kitson, 
 " have an equal right to a seat. But they have not all an equal right 
 to one particula/r seat. The popular sense of justice recognises that the 
 first man or woman who enters the car has the right to occupy the best 
 seat. And the last comers accept the condLtion of having to stand, 
 or of taking the least desirable seats, as right and proper. A man who 
 would try to enforce Ms claim to a seat by ejecting another would be 
 regarded as a violator of justice, and would be universally condemned.^ 
 In all ordinary afiairs regarding the rights of men, public sentiment 
 recognises the prior claims of first occupancy and use as just." 
 
 The right of the first occupier has been recognised as a basis 
 for the vaUd holding of the property, because communities have 
 realised that it was socially convenient and beneficial that they 
 should do so. Nations recognise the wisdom of this in their re- 
 lations to each other. International law recognises the right of the 
 first effective civilised occupier of territory which has not heretofore 
 been occupied by another civilised power. The primitive law of 
 nature is the law of force, and that law is modified as communities 
 and society as a whole realise what is more beneficial and con- 
 ducive to the general well-being. K 
 
 The theory which bases the right of property on labour really 
 depends in the ultimate resort on the right of possession and the 
 fact that it is socially expedient, and is therefore upheld by the laws 
 of society. Grotius, discussing this in the old Eoman days, pointed 
 out that since nothing can be made except out of pre-existing matter, 
 acquisition by means of labour depends, ultimately, on possession 
 by means of occupation. 
 
 The Importcmce of Security 
 Professor L. T. Hobhouse in Liberalism says : 
 
 The basis of property is social. ... It is the organised force of 
 society that maintains the rights of owners by protecting them against 
 thieves and depredators. . . . Many people forget that without the 
 organised force of society their rights are not worth a week's purchase. 
 
 ' If there be no seat available they may have to walk and do without a ride 
 altogether. They do not think they ought to be able to take the place of persons 
 who were already in the car if they offered to pay an extra penny for the seat. 
 
cH.ii ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 33 
 
 They do not ask themselves where they would be without the judge 
 and the policeman and the settled order which society maintains.^ 
 
 This is true of the middle and poorer classes, but as regards the 
 well-to-do and powerful is not the truth quite as much, if not more, 
 the other way ? Without " the organised force of society " the 
 wealthy could and would organise to defend themselves, but the 
 poor could not do so. Conditions analogous to those of the middle 
 ages would prevail, and great barons would dominate the country. 
 The poorest and weakest are the least able to protect themselves, 
 and consequently benefit the most from the maintenance of law 
 and order. In this connection it is important to remember that 
 " the rightfulness of possession, on the one hand, and the sacredness 
 of contract between individual possessers on the other, are among 
 the very first of those foundation-stones on which society reposes." * 
 A Celtic proverb ran : " There are three periods at which the 
 world is worthless, the time of a plague, the time of a general war, 
 the time of a dissolution of spoken promises." 
 
 The Antiquity of Private Ownership 
 
 That private property in land is a very ancient institution is 
 quite certain. It did not originate with the feudal system and was 
 not introduced into this country by William the Conqueror, as some 
 people seem to imagine. According to the Book of Genesis land 
 was privately owned in ancient Egypt. In the time of the famine, 
 when Joseph was governor of the land, he bought all the cattle of 
 the Egyptians and in return kept the people for a year. At the end 
 of that time, the famine still continuing, the people requested him 
 to buy them and their land for Pharaoh, and keep them, and he did 
 so. " Buy us and our land for bread, and we and our land will be 
 servants unto Pharaoh ; . . . and Joseph bought all the land of 
 Egypt for Pharaoh ; for the Egyptians sold every man his field, 
 because the famine prevailed over them : so the land became 
 Pharaoh's " (Genesis xlvii. 19, 20). The Old Testament contains 
 numerous commands and exhortations to respect private property 
 in land : " Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark " 
 (Deut. xix. 14). " Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour's 
 landmark " (Deut. xxvii. 17). Job regards as exceptionally 
 wicked the man " who removes the landmarks " (Job xxiv. 2). 
 
 There are numerous tablets among the recovered ruins of 
 Babylon and Assyria which represent the title-deeds of property 
 
 ' P. 189. " Unseen Foundations, p. 459. 
 
 D 
 
34 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 in land, giving security of possession to individual men. Others 
 record contracts for the letting and the sale of land.^ When Greek 
 emigrants made settlements on territory either previously unoccupied 
 or conquered by them, their practice was to immediately found a 
 town and divide up and distribute the land. 
 
 The Romans had very clear and precise conceptions of the right 
 of private property, and did as much as any other ancient people 
 to define and protect it. Rome was one of the youngest cities of the 
 ancient world, and, at the date of its birth, private property had 
 long held sway in Italy. 
 
 " It appears to me," ^ says De Coulanges, " exceedingly rash to 
 maintain that the Romans had at first a system of common ownership 
 of land. Such a statement is not supported by any ancient authority. 
 On the contrary, early writers describe a partition of land which takes 
 place at the very time when the city is founded ; and the land thus 
 divided becomes complete and hereditary property. Some years later 
 the city conquers fresh territory ; and again, with but httle delay, it 
 is divided into private property." 
 
 At the first division the property was allotted to and belonged 
 to the family : at the second it belonged to the individual. De 
 Coulanges says : " Thus, then, the two, kinds of proprietary right 
 that the ancient world recognised are seen, one after the other, 
 with an interval of but forty years between." The Romans were 
 one of the first nations to substitute individual for family property. 
 Plato says : " Our first law must be that no man shall lay a hand 
 on the boundary-mark which divides a field from his neighbour's 
 field, for it must remain unmoved " {Laws, viii.). 
 
 England under the Romans 
 
 It seems probable that it was during the three and a half centuries 
 of Roman rule that England became an agricultural country. 
 There are many indications that during that time corn was grown 
 in considerable quantities, and it is recorded that in a.d. 360 the 
 Romans built 800 vessels to carry corn from Britain to the cities 
 on the Rhine which were suffering from famine. 
 
 We know that under the Romans there was private property in 
 land, and that it was cultivated by dependants and slaves. We 
 also know that the manorial system of the Continent in the Middle 
 Ages is considered by many authorities to have been a direct con- 
 tinuation of the conditions which had prevailed under Roman rule. 
 
 1 See Note, p. 40. " Origin of Property in Land, p. 105. 
 
CH. 11 ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 35 
 
 It is reasonable to conclude that the Romans established in England 
 the system of private property to which they were accustomed, 
 and that it continued here after they left, as it did on the Continent.^ 
 There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, while it is pointed 
 out that one characteristic of the English manor — the di\idiag of the 
 estate into land in vUlenage and land in demesne, the latter being 
 cultivated by the tenants of the former, but kept in the lord's hands 
 — was common to the medieval manor and the Roman domain or 
 village. Another characteristic of the English manor was the 
 three-field system. Neither of these two characteristics was found 
 in North- Western Germany and Jutland, where the English invaders 
 of Britain came from. But the three-field system was found in 
 South- West Grermany which was the most Romanised part. From 
 this it seems possible that the English iavaders did not bring the 
 manorial system with them and impose it upon a country in which 
 communal ownership prevailed ; but that they found a system of 
 a manorial character here, and that it dated from the period of 
 Roman rule, and that finding it they adapted it to their own methods, 
 customs, and requirements. 
 
 Be that as it may, Maitland tells us that : " So far back as we 
 can see, the German village had a solid core of individualism " ; 
 and " to say the least, we have no proof that among the Germans 
 the land was continuously tilled before it was owned by individuals, 
 or by those small groups that constituted the households. ... To 
 all appearance, so soon as the village was formed and had ploughed 
 lands around it, the strips into which those fields were divided 
 were owned in severalty by the householders of the village." ^ 
 
 Two things are clear. One is that there are no definite traces 
 of free communities here, and the other is that there are unmis- 
 takable traces of what is afterwards called the manor, within 
 200 years after the English conquered the country. That there 
 was a large population which was not free is also certain. In the 
 seventh century, when land was transferred by grants, the culti- 
 vators on the soil were transferred with it as a dependent population 
 evidently in some form of serfdom. Numerous slaves also went 
 with it. 
 
 1 " One very important result of the Roman occupation was undoubtedly its 
 powerful influence in furthering private property and private appropriation of 
 land." — ^Vinogradoff, The Orowth o/ the Manor, p. 53. 
 
 ^ Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 346-8. 
 
36 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 PT. I 
 
 No Svbstantial Evideilce of Communal Oivnership 
 
 The theory of the German " mark," which was assumed to 
 mean a free community owning and cultivating its land in common, 
 and which was further assumed to have been brought here by the 
 Continental invaders who settled here and took possession of the 
 country after the Romans left, has been shown to be based on a 
 misconception. The " mark " did not mean the community, or 
 the domain, or village, or manor. It meant a boundary, and usually 
 the boundary of a private property. The truth is, as Professor 
 Ashley puts it, that " early German law is throughout based on the 
 assumption of private property in land, and not upon that of common 
 ownership whether by a whole people or by a village group ; and 
 that whatever traces there may be of earlier conditions point to 
 rights possessed by the family and not by any larger body." 
 
 " The history of the mark," says Professor Ashley, " has served 
 Mr. Henry George as a basis for the contention that the common 
 ownership of land is the only natural condition of things ; to Sir 
 Henry Maine it has suggested the precisely opposite conclusion, that 
 the whole movement of civilisation has been from common owner- 
 ship to private. Such arguments are alike worthless, if the mark 
 never existed." 
 
 We must never lose sight of the fact that history is based upon 
 documents and not upon hypotheses or flights of the imagination. 
 When M. de Laveleye says that " the English manor has destroyed the 
 old village community " he makes an entirely hypothetical generalisa- 
 tion. To imagine the manorial lord of the Middle Ages as a warrior 
 who has forcibly set himself over a community of free men is to show 
 that one knows nothing of the documents from the fifth to the tenth 
 centuries, and that one has an altogether childish idea of the origin of 
 feudalism.^ 
 
 Ownership of land in common by a family is an entirely different 
 
 thing in principle and fact and results from ownership in common 
 
 by all in a community or by a whole nation. Ownership by a family 
 
 is co-proprietorship which is complete, absolute, and hereditary to 
 
 the conclusion of all others. When it was undivided it was because 
 
 the family was undivided. Legally it was in the hands of the head 
 
 of the family. He was the real owner and he did what he liked 
 
 with it, within the customs and usages of the community in which 
 
 he lived. 
 
 ^ Coulanges, p. 129. 
 
CH. 11 ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 37 
 
 Even if the evidence for anything hke communal ownership 
 in settled communities were more substantial than it is, and if there 
 be any disposition to rest any argument against private ownership, 
 and in support of the theory of the universal right of the whole 
 human race to the land of the earth, on the distinction between 
 communal or corporate ownership and individual ownership, it 
 must be pointed out that if no man can justly appropriate any 
 portion of the earth's surface without the sanction of all other men, 
 because all those other men have an equal right to it, it follows 
 that a group of men are equally debarred from monopolising and 
 appropriating as their joint property any special area of land. " It 
 is obvious that all the arguments against individual land ownership 
 apply to corporate land-ownership. If the rights of A, B, and C 
 are individually nil, you cannot make any more of your by multi- 
 plying it bythree." ^ If each member of the community is a usurper, 
 if he occupies land as his own, the community of which they are 
 members must also be a usurper if it occupies a particular portion 
 of land as its own and to the exclusion of other similar communities. 
 
 It is also very necessary to distinguish between tenancy, occupa- 
 tion, and cultivation of land in common on the one hand, and 
 ownership in common on the other. They are and were two entirely 
 different things. Confusion of one with the other, and the assump- 
 tion that common occupancy meant common ownership has led 
 many writers on this subject into error. 
 
 In the English manors or townships the land belonged to an 
 individual owner and not to the community. It was a private 
 estate, and the group of peasants who cultivated it in common were 
 the more or less servile tenants. The only thing about it that was 
 collective was the cultivation. It has been made quite clear, as 
 we show in another chapter, that the terms " common," " common 
 wood," and similar phrases, which occur frequently in docu- 
 ments of the ninth and following centuries, refer to a customary 
 right of use enjoyed by tenants in common over land belonging to a 
 lord ; and that there is iio evidence that the tenants were ever 
 joint ovmers of the land over which they enjoyed such rights. 
 
 Early Traces of Private Estates and Servile Cultivators 
 
 The English evidence sustains the conclusion that very soon 
 after the Conquest of Britaia by the English, if not indeed before 
 
 1 Huxley, p., 84. 
 
38 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND ^ pt. i 
 
 that, the manor was the prevailing type of social organisation. 
 Under the Romans the masses of the people in conquered comitries 
 were held as slaves. Indeed, it is probable that when the Romans 
 came here they found the greater part of the people in a condition 
 of serfdom and slavery to the more powerful. Caesar tells us that 
 this was the condition in Gaul, and Professor Ashley reminds us 
 that " when the unconquered tribes of Ireland and Wales come 
 withia the ken of history we find among them a large class of servile 
 cultivators below the free tribesmen." 
 
 There is much that is far from clear in the early history of 
 dependent and servile tenures and service in England. What does 
 appear to be clear is that there were domains or estates, the pro- 
 perty of chiefs or nobles, on which were various grades of occupiers, 
 tenants, or serfs, some more or less free but bound to the soil, others 
 undoubtedly slaves. The further research is carried the more 
 probable does it appear that Mr. Seebohm's view was correct, that 
 the lord of the manor, instead of being a late intruder, was from the 
 first, so far as England was concerned, the OAvner of the soil and the 
 lord of those who lived on it and cultivated it ; that the develop- 
 ment has been in the main and from the first an advance from 
 servitude to freedom, and not an elevation after long centuries of 
 iacreasing degradation. 
 
 The Welsh documents which give us information as to the con- 
 ditions which prevailed in the early Celtic occupation of the country 
 show' that there were free and unfree tenants of the land, and that 
 both were bound to perform certain duties and payments ; showing 
 quite clearly that there were ownership and tenancy and rent-paying 
 there in the very earhest time of which we have anything like 
 historic record. 
 
 The vague idea which is sometimes asserted as an ascertained 
 fact, that any condition lower than absolute freedom was altogether 
 exceptional in early England is a complete delusion. Professor 
 Ashley says: "We can hardly turn over the old English laws without 
 seeing that this could not have been the case. Not only are there 
 frequent references to slaves, but manumission occupies as prominent 
 a position as ta the Continental codes, was accomplished by cere- 
 monies of a similar character, and brought with it the same con- 
 sequence in the abiding subjection of the freedman to his former 
 master. As on the Continent also, the Church interfered for the 
 slave's protection, and endeavoured to secure for him a property 
 in the fruits of his labour." 
 
cH. II ORIGIN OF PRIVATE PROPERTY 39 
 
 Theoretically, no doubt, collective ownership of land and its 
 subsequent development successfully and in the best interests of 
 the community is possible. Practically, it has never been done 
 on anything approaching a considerable, still less a national, scale. 
 
 Modern Experience 
 
 Even in those vast portions of the earth which have been taken 
 possession of and colonised by Europeans duriug the last century 
 and a half, and especially during the last half or three-quarters of 
 a century, no attempt has been made to retain possession of the land 
 for the community as a whole. This has not been because the 
 doctrines that land belongs to the human race as a whole ; that all 
 have an equal right to it ; that it is as indefensible to part with it 
 and give individuals exclusive rights over it as it would be to sell 
 the right to let out for use light and air, — it has not been because 
 these doctrines have not been industriously and persistently pro- 
 claimed. They have not been adopted and acted upon because 
 in every case the people in those countries where effect might have 
 been given to these principles have invariably found, when faced 
 with the realities of the position and the problems they had to 
 solve, that the path of progress, of general well-being, as well as 
 of common sense and general convenience, lay in adopting and 
 continuing the system of individual ownership of land which the 
 unbroken experience of the world has shown to be the real basis 
 of a civilised community. 
 
 All the new countries of the world which have had exceptional 
 opportunities for putting these ideals and theories into practice 
 have not only refused to touch them, but have gone to the other 
 extreme. They have not only sanctioned individual ownership of 
 land : they have given it away. Indeed they have gone further 
 and paid people, by subsidisiag their passages, to go out and occupy 
 it. They have spent large sums in appointing agents and main- 
 taining offices and representatives, and circulating literature in order 
 to persuade people to go out and take their land from them as a gift. 
 
 It is altogether beside the mark to talk about the ownership 
 of land being conferred by landlord parliaments. As a matter of 
 fact it was not. It existed long before parliaments. Indeed, it is 
 obvious that there could not be land-owning parliaments or land- 
 owning authorities of any kind until there existed land-owners and 
 private ownership. In the vast territories in America, Australia, 
 and Africa which have been newly settled during the last century 
 
40 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i 
 
 and a half, private ownership of land has been established under the 
 most democratic auspices the world has ever known. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 The . conditions which prevailed in Babylonia with regard to the 
 personal status of the people and the ownership and tenure of land and 
 houses were ia many important particulars similar to those which 
 existed in England two thousand years or more later. Slavery and 
 serfdom was part of the foundation upon which Babylonian society 
 rested. In times of famine and stress men would sell themselves to 
 pay a debt or obtain subsistence. The slave was always fed and 
 clothed : the free labourer could at times get neither food nor clothing. 
 
 There were various kinds of agricultural tenure. Sometimes the 
 tenant farmed the land, found implements, seed, and manure, and paid 
 the landlord half the produce. Sometimes the owner found implements, 
 oxen, and seeds, and the tenant received an agreed percentage of the 
 profits. The most common form of tenure, however, seems to have 
 been that in which a third of the produce went to the land-owner. In 
 those cases, according to the terms of the lease, the tenant kept the 
 farm-buildings in repair, and even erected them if necessary. The 
 labourers were partly slaves and partly freemen who hired themselves 
 out at so much a month. 
 
 House property was valuable, especially if it included shops. 
 Records of leases and agreements for letting houses are numerous. The 
 tenant usually undertook the repair and maintenance of the premises. 
 Most of the houses were inhabited by single families ; but there were 
 tenements or flats also. 
 
 The value of land depended on the amount of grain that could be 
 grown upon it, and in the early days of Babylonia the owner was paid 
 in grain by the tenant or purchaser. Later a metal currency became 
 general, and in course of time rent was rarely paid in kind. Nearly 
 5000 years before the Domesday survey of William the Conqueror a 
 cadastral survey of Babylonia was made to ascertain the valuation and 
 ownership of the land and property for piuposes of taxation. See 
 Babylonians and Assyrians (The Semitic Series), by Professor A. H. 
 Sayce. 
 
 " In European Eussia village communities did not exist in the olden 
 time ; they originated and developed only out of private property, 
 and since the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries." — Ian St. Lewinski, 
 in The Origin of Property and the Formation of the Village Gommunity. 
 
PAEiT II 
 
 ECONOMIC PROGEESS AND THE OWNERSHIP 
 AND VALUE OF LAND 
 
 41 
 
" Nothing can be clearer than the proposition that the failure of wages to 
 increase with increasing productive power is due to the increase of rent." 
 
 " Unpleasant as it may be to admit it, it is at last becoming evident that the 
 enormous increase in productive power which has marked the present century and 
 is still going on with accelerating ratio, has no tendency to extirpate poverty or 
 to lighten the burdens of those compelled to toil." — Henby Geokge. 
 
 " It is an instructive fact as to the power of abstract fallacies over the human 
 mind, that the glaring disparities between many of the most notorious facts of life, 
 and these theoretical conclusions, should not have awakened the illogical dreamer 
 to suspect, and to detect, the verbal fallacies on which alone his theory reposes." — 
 Duke ov Argyll. 
 
 " There is need to guard against the temptation to overstate the economic 
 evils of our own age, and to ignore the existence of similar and worse evils in earher 
 ages. . . . The pessimistic descriptions of our own age, combined with romantic 
 exaggerations of the happiness of past ages, must tend to the setting aside of 
 methods of progress, the work of which, it slow, is yet solid ; and to the hasty 
 adoption of others of greater promise, but which resemble the potent medicines 
 of the charlatan, and while quickly effecting a little good, sow the seeds of wide- 
 spread and lasting decay." — Prof. Alfred Marshall. 
 
 42 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE NATIONAL INCOME AND HOW IT IS DISTRIBUTED 
 
 Does Material Progress benefit the Masses of the People ? 
 
 A STATEMENT wMch is verv commonly made by propagandists who 
 are of opinion that the whole social fabric of the present age is 
 constructed on a wrong basis, is that under modern conditions the 
 rich are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer, and that 
 this must continue and become more and more accentuated, unless 
 and until the particular fimdamental change which they advocate 
 is made. Some of them make this assertion the foundation of an 
 attack upon what they describe as " capitalism." Others make it 
 the starting-point of a crusade against land-owners and the private 
 ownership of land. 
 
 Henry George tells us that : 
 
 Land being necessary to labour, and being reduced to private 
 ownership, every increase in the productive power of labour but in- 
 creases rent — the price that labour must pay for the opportunity to 
 utilise its powers ; and thus all the advantages gained by the march of 
 progress go to the owners of land, and wages do not increase. ■•■ 
 
 Wages tend constantly to fall, the rich to become very much richer, 
 the poor to become more helpless and hopeless, and the middle class 
 to be swept away.^ 
 
 The ultimate efEect of labour-saving inventions, and of all improved 
 processes and discoveries, is to enable land-owners to demand and 
 labour to pay more for the use of land. . . . The wages of labour do 
 not increase ; on the contrary, if there is any margin for possible 
 reductions they may be absolutely reduced.* 
 
 The enormous increase in productive power . . . has no tendency 
 to extirpate poverty or to hghten the burdens of those compelled to toil. 
 It simply widens the gulf between Dives and Lazarus.* 
 
 1 Progress and Poverty, p. 200. ^ Ibid. p. 375. 
 
 ' Social Problems, p. 186. * Progress and Poverty, p. 5. 
 
 43 
 
44 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 Karl Marx says : 
 
 The poor have been growing and must continue to grow poorer — - 
 the rich have been growing and must continue to grow at once fewer 
 and richer ; whilst persons of medium income have been constantly 
 decreasing in number, and must ultimately become extinct. 
 
 These and similar statements are constantly repeated by 
 Socialists and others. Speaking in the House of Commons,^ Mr. 
 Philip Snowden, M.P., said : 
 
 The working people are getting poorer. The rich are getting 
 richer." And again, " The rich are getting richer every day. They 
 are getting enormously rich. They are getting shamefidly rich. They 
 are getting dangerously rich." 
 
 Mr. Harold Storey, writing in 1913, said : 
 
 " Rent is a maximum charge upon the production of wealth. 
 The amount of it depends upon what people have left when they have 
 met the other necessary costs of life at the accepted standard. The 
 land-owner gets all the surplus." And " Once labour and capital have 
 received the minimum that wiU suffice to keep them afloat, there is no 
 limit to the amount that land can appropriate — except the limit of the 
 wealth produced. It takes all the rest, however much that may be." ^ 
 
 On the other hand, Mr. F. W. Hirst, editor of the Economist, 
 in his edition (1912) of Porter's Progress of the Nation, says : 
 
 It is still true, as Sir Robert GifEen said in 1883 : " The rich have 
 become more nimierous, but not richer individually : the poor are to 
 some smaller extent fewer, and those who remain ' poor ' are, individu- 
 ally, twice as well ofi on the average as they were fifty years ago. The 
 poor have thus had almost all the benefit of the great material advance 
 of the last fifty years." * 
 
 Professor Alfred Marshall says : 
 
 It is doubtful whether the aggregate of the riches of the very rich 
 are as large a part of the total national wealth, even in the United 
 States or in England, now as they have been in some earher phases of 
 civilisation. The difiusion of knowledge, the improvement of educa- 
 tion, the growth of prudent habits among the masses of the people, and 
 the opportunities which the new methods of business offer for the safe 
 investment of small capitals : all these forces are telling on the side 
 of the poorer classes as a whole relatively to the richer. The returns 
 of the income tax and the house tax, the statistics of consumption of 
 commodities, the records of salaries paid to the higher and the lower 
 ranks of servants of Government and public companies, tend in the 
 
 1 December 13, 1911. 
 ^ Economics of Land Value, pp. 40, 41. ' P. 167. 
 
CH.I THE NATIONAL INCOME 45 
 
 same direction, and indicate that middle-class incomes are increasing 
 faster than those of the rich ; that the earnings of artisans are increas- 
 ing faster than those of the professional classes, and that the wages of 
 healthy and vigorous unskilled labourers are increasing faster even than 
 those of the average artisan.^ 
 
 Mr. W. H. Mallock says : 
 
 The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of this country, 
 instead of growing ever poorer and poorer under existing industrial 
 conditions, have been exhibiting a steady advance in respect of the 
 means of subsistence and of comfort, which a himdred years ago would 
 have been beyond the dreams of the wildest Utopians, and which is 
 without a parallel in the past history of the world.^ 
 
 What we want to know is, which of these two types of dia- 
 metrically opposed assertions is correct ; or if neither of them is 
 an accurate statement of the facts of the case, what is the truth 
 of the matter ? 
 
 The National Income 
 
 The Final Report of the First Census of Production of the 
 United Kingdom (1907) provides us, for the first time, with a large 
 amount of extremely valuable information with regard to the out- 
 put and production of this country, which renders it possible to 
 form more detailed and accurate estimates of the income and 
 capital of the nation than was practicable before this information 
 had been obtained and published. It is exceedingly satisfactory 
 to find that this great mass of entirely new official information, and 
 the estimates which the very able director of the census, Mr. A. W. 
 Flux, has been able to base upon it, do, to a very large extent, 
 broadly confirm the estimates which the leading statistical authori- 
 ties amongst us had from time to time made of the income and 
 capital of the country. Their estimates were based upon such 
 information as was available at the time they were made. The 
 detailed statistical material which this census supplies enables us 
 to approach the estimation of the nation's income and capital in an 
 entirely different way, and from an entirely different point of view 
 from that which was possible before. It is, therefore, the more 
 remarkable that estimates which have been built up by entirely 
 different processes, in which altogether different material was used, 
 should produce substantially similar results. That the results are 
 substantially similar not only tends to confirm their broad and 
 
 1 Principles of Economics, p. 687. 
 2 Statistical Monographs, No. 6, March 1911, p. 4 
 
46 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 general accuracy, but also enables us to use the previous estimates 
 for purposes of comparison with a degree of confidence which would 
 have been impossible had the more recent estimates, which were 
 made on the same general lines as the previous ones, been shown 
 to be fallacious and unreliable. 
 
 The Director of the Census of Production estimates that for the 
 year 1907 the total income of the United Kingdom was somewhere 
 between £1,918,000,000 and £2,158,000,000, and suggests that the 
 amount may be put approximately at about £2,000,000,000. It 
 would occupy too much space and take us too far from our immediate 
 purpose, if we were to yield to the temptation to analyse and discuss 
 in detail the very elaborate and extremely instructive and interest- 
 ing tables and comments thereon, which are comprised in this 
 voluminous Report. We can only commend a study of it to those 
 who are interested in the subject. They will speedily be convinced 
 that the main conclusions therein arrived at are very far from being 
 rash guesses, and that the claim made for them that they " are 
 believed to lie within a range from which gross inaccuracy is 
 excluded," is quite justified. For our purpose the most valuable 
 figures are those which give the estimated income of the United 
 Kingdom. They provide us with a basis and starting-point for the 
 calculations and conclusions which here follow. 
 
 The figures of the Report are summarised thus : 
 
 Million £. 
 
 Goods consumed or exchanged for services by classes 
 
 engaged in production and distribution . 1248 to 1408 
 
 Goods consumed or exchanged for services by classes 
 
 engaged in suppljdng services . . 350 to 400 
 
 Savings and investments of all classes . . 320 to 350 
 
 Total . . 1918 to 2158 
 
 Middle figure . . . £2038 
 
 HOW IT IS DIVIDED 
 
 Incomes exceeding £160 a year 
 
 This middle figure of £2,038,000,000 represented what I shall 
 take to be, in what follows, the estimated total net income of all 
 the people in the United Kingdom in the year 1907. It will be 
 interesting to endeavour to ascertain how it was divided. The 
 Annvul Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is a mine of 
 information with regard to incomes assessed for Income Tax. 
 
cH. 1 THE NATIONAL INCOME 47 
 
 From it we learn that the gross income of all kinds, brought under 
 the review of the department in the year 1907-8 (which will best 
 represent the year 1907) was £980,117,000. This represented the 
 gross income of those who were supposed to have an income exceeding 
 £160 a year. This is not the amount on which tax is paid. The 
 Inland Eevenue officials throw their net over a wide area, and at 
 the first cast of it they get into its meshes a considerable amoimt of 
 income which they have to release later. That is to say, the gross 
 amount of income which they review is liable to deductions. For 
 the year in question those deductions amoimted to £308,804,000, 
 leaving the net amount of income on which tax was received at 
 £671,313,000. 
 
 These deductions are of two kinds. One class consists of (1) 
 income belonging to persons who are not liable to tax because their 
 total income does not exceed £160 a year ; (2) income which has 
 been over-assessed or included in error ; (3) allowances for cost of 
 repairs of property and wear and tear of machinery and plant ; and 
 (4) income of charities, hospitals, friendly societies, and municipal 
 bodies, which are exempt from the tax. The other classes of 
 deductions consist of (1) abatements or allowances which are made 
 on a graduated scale on the smaller of the taxable incomes ; (2) 
 allowances in respect of insurance premiums ; and (3) income on 
 which the tax has not been recovered. 
 
 The amount of the first group of these deductions must be 
 deducted in order to ascertain the net amount of the income of 
 those who are liable to income tax. The second group gives the 
 allowances in reduction of tax which are made, mainly in favour of 
 small incomes, by reducing the amount of the income on which tax 
 is charged. Included in this group are also what may be termed 
 the " bad debts " of the department. 
 
 It has been necessary to mention and briefly describe these 
 deductions in order that it may be seen that they have not been 
 overlooked. We need not, however, further refer to those which 
 are abatements and allowances made for the purpose of graduating 
 or otherwise relieving the burden of the tax in certain quarters, 
 because they are not deductions which we can make when we are 
 endeavouring to ascertain the amount of the actual income, and 
 not how much of that actual income is or should be taxed. 
 
 The deductions allowed by the Department which we must 
 make from the gross amount of income which came under the 
 review of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, in order to ascertain 
 
48 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 the real or net income of the United Kingdom which was received 
 in the year 1907, by persons whose total income exceeded £160 a 
 year, are as follows : — 
 
 Exemptions in respect of incomes not exceeding £160 
 
 a year £57,200,000 
 
 Repairs — elands and houses .... 39,622,000 
 
 Wear and tear of machinery and plant . . 20,000,000 
 
 Empty premises, over-assessments, adjusted on appeal 
 
 or otherwise . . . . ' . . 52,503,213 
 
 £169,225,213 
 
 We now get the net amount of the income of persons, etc., 
 
 whose income exceeds £160 a year, thus : 
 
 Gross amomit of income reviewed by the Com- 
 missioners ...... £980,117,000 
 
 Deductions as above . . 169,225,213 
 
 £810,891,787 
 
 In order to arrive at the amount which persons with incomes 
 exceeding £160 a year receive, we must also deduct the sums which 
 are included in the gross figures for the incomes of Charities, Hospitals, 
 Friendly Societies, and Municipal bodies.^ For the year 1907 the 
 amounts of income under these heads which were included in the 
 gross income reviewed for tax were : 
 
 Charities, Hospitals, and Friendly Societies, etc. . £11,578,787 
 Local authorities ...... 20,246,586 
 
 £31,825,373 
 
 After making this further deduction of £31,825,373 from the 
 sum of £810,891,787 already arrived at, we get a net amount of 
 £779,066,414 as the income of individuals in 1907, whose income 
 exceeded £160 a year and was reviewed by the Inland Revenue 
 Commissioners. 
 
 It may be said that some addition should be made to this figure 
 for income which escapes assessment either through under-assess- 
 ment or evasion. On the other hand, it is alleged that many people 
 pay on a larger income than they really receive. It is unquestion- 
 able that, in the assessments, an insufficient allowance is made for 
 depreciation of premises, machinery and plant, and that what is 
 
 * Of course, the income of these bodies which comes under the review of the 
 Inland Revenue Authorities does not include subscriptions. Friendly Society 
 contributions, or local rates. 
 
CH. I THE NATIONAL INCOME 49 
 
 really return of capital is assessed as income in such cases as lease- 
 hold investments and annuities which have been purchased. A 
 further consideration is that, as was pointed out by Sir H. Primrose 
 to the Committee on the Income Tax in 1906, there is a large amount 
 of income, such as the property of clubs, institutions, and special 
 trusts, which is assessed and taxed but is not distributed to in- 
 dividuals as income. These two groups of income — one consisting 
 of income which is under-assessed or not assessed at all, and the 
 other of return or replacement of capital which is assessed as 
 income, and of income that is assessed but is not the income of 
 individuals, might probably quite fairly be set off against each 
 other. So far as it is possible to estimate them, I am disposed 
 to think that they do about balance. We might, therefore, ignore 
 them ; but in order that we may err on the safe side, if we err at 
 all, I propose to add about £21,000,000 to the total net income tax, 
 income at which we have arrived, to allow for such income as may 
 escape assessment in excess of the amoimts which are over-assessed 
 or are not the incomes of individuals, as explained above. This 
 will give us the sum of £800,000,000 as the income of individuals 
 whose income exceeds £160 a year. 
 
 Eeverting to our original figure of the total income of the 
 United Kingdom for 1907, as given in the Report of the Census 
 of Production as £2,038,000,000, we now get the following division 
 of that income : 
 
 Total income of the United Kingdom . . £2,038,000,000 
 
 Inconie of individuals whose income exceeded £160 800,000,000 
 
 Remainder £1,238,000,000 
 
 If we deduct from this remainder the amount of the income 
 of Charities, Hospitals, and Friendly Societies, together with the 
 income of Local Authorities, as shown above, amounting in all to 
 £31,825,373— say £32,000,000— that remainder wiU be reduced to 
 £1,206,000,000, and this is the portion of the total national income 
 of £2,038,000,000 a year which was received by those whose incomes 
 are £160 a year or less. Strictly we probably ought to include in 
 this income that portion of the income of Friendly Societies, etc., 
 which comes under the review of the Inland Revenue Authorities 
 and has been deducted above. It may also perhaps be contended 
 that the income of Charities and Hospitals goes to benefit the poorer 
 members of the commimity practically entirely, and should also be 
 allotted to them. On the whole, however, we think it best to treat 
 
50 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 the whole of the £31,825,373— say £32,000,000— as a separate item 
 which need not be allocated to any particular group. 
 
 Incomes of £160 and less 
 
 All those whose incomes do not exceed £160 a year are not 
 working people in the ordinary acceptation of that much misused 
 term : that is to say, they are not manual workers. They are, 
 however, either manual workers or people who have working-class 
 incomes, and the vast majority of them are persons who are either 
 now working for their livelihood or are elderly people who have in 
 the past been workers. 
 
 Several attempts have been made to separate this section of 
 the Community into two groups— those who are manual workers 
 and those who are not manual workers, and are sometimes described 
 as the lower middle-class — small tradespeople, clerks, and other 
 salaried persons, and people of independent means — and to estimate 
 the total income of each of the two groups. For the purpose for 
 which this book is written, it is not really necessary that those who 
 have incomes not exceeding £160 a year should be divided into 
 groups, and have the precise income of each group estimated. To 
 divide the nation into those who have incomes above £160 and 
 those whose income is £160 or less, would be sufficient for our 
 purpose. It is, however, of some interest to note that the investiga- 
 tions of those who have devoted attention to this subject point to 
 the conclusion that the income of those who are below the £160 
 limit but are not manual workers was about £325,000,000 a year ; ^ 
 from which, according to the figures given above, it follows that 
 the income of those below the £160 limit who are manual workers 
 was about £881,000,000. 
 
 The national income in 1907 would thus appear to be divided 
 somewhat as follows : 
 
 Incomes exceeding £160 a year . £800,000,000 
 
 Incomes not exceeding £160 — 
 
 Intermediate class not manual workers 325,000,000 
 
 Wage-earners ..... 881,000,000 
 
 Income of charities, hospitals, friendly societies and 
 
 local authorities ..... 32,000,000 
 
 £2,038,000,000 
 
 When we are comparing the proportions of the national wealth 
 which go to the two or three great classes into which we have 
 
 ' See p. 56 for figures two years later. 
 
CH. I THE NATIONAL INCOME 51 
 
 divided the people, there are some further considerations which 
 must not be overlooked. One is that of this total income of 
 £2,038,000,000 something like £240,000,000, say £238,000,000, 
 represented interest on capital invested out of the country and 
 earnings of companies, firms, and individuals in other parts of the 
 world. That income was not in any sense earned by work-people 
 or employees of any kind here. When, therefore, we are consider- 
 ing what portion of the income of the people of this country goes 
 to this or that class, we ought to confine ourselves to that income 
 which is produced in this country. If we do that we shall see 
 that the income produced here in 1907 was not £2,038,000,000 but 
 £1,800,000,000, and that of that sum £1,200,000,000, or two-thirds, 
 went to persons whose total income did not exceed £160 a year. 
 
 The second consideration is that a considerable portion of the 
 increase in the income which has gone to the income-tax-pajdng 
 classes during the last 25 or 50 years has been an ordinary return 
 of interest on the enormous increase in capital which has been 
 invested by them in houses and business premises, machiuery and 
 plant, railways and numerous other undertakings during that 
 time. 
 
 The third consideration is that a large number of those who 
 are now in the income-tax-pajdng classes commenced their Uves 
 as working people, and have made their way upward in the social 
 scale as the result of their efforts and ability. Their reward and 
 success is really part of the reward and success which people of the 
 working class have secured. It is not fair to take out of the class 
 those who have won prizes and then say that the class does not 
 get its share of prizes. 
 
 These three points are all important, and might with advantage 
 be elaborated and discussed. I must, however, content myself 
 with merely mentioning them, so that they may be borne in mind. 
 
 Some Comparisons with the Past 
 
 It will now be useful and interesting to tabulate the more 
 important of the estimates of the iacome of the country, and the 
 proportions in which it was shared by various classes, which have 
 been made by statistical authorities from time to time. 
 
 [Table 
 
52 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 
 Total 
 income. 
 
 Income 
 
 above tax 
 
 exemption 
 
 limit. 
 
 Income 
 
 below tax 
 
 exemption 
 
 limit. 
 
 Of those below exemp- 
 tion limit. 
 
 Authority. 
 
 Inter- 
 mediate 
 class. 
 
 Wage- 
 earning 
 class. 
 
 £ in millions 
 
 1688 
 
 £ 
 43 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Davenant and 
 
 1740 
 
 64 
 
 
 
 
 
 Gregory King 
 Decker 
 
 1783 
 
 200 
 
 • ■. 
 
 
 
 
 GifEen 
 
 1800 
 
 230 
 
 
 
 
 78 
 
 MuihaU 
 
 1812 
 1835-40 
 
 431 
 515 
 
 250 
 
 265 
 
 94 
 
 171 
 
 Colquhoun 
 GifEen 
 
 1851 
 
 646 
 
 272 
 
 374 
 
 132 
 
 242 
 
 Levi 
 
 1864 
 
 814 
 
 370 
 
 444 
 
 >*• 
 
 
 jj 
 
 1867 
 
 961 
 
 423 
 
 538 
 
 120 
 
 418 
 
 ,j 
 
 1867 
 
 814 
 
 396 
 
 418 
 
 94 
 
 324 
 
 Baxter 
 
 1875 
 
 1200 
 
 
 
 
 
 Giffen 
 
 1881 
 
 1168 
 
 577 
 
 591 
 
 143 
 
 448 
 
 Levi 
 
 1883 
 
 1270 
 
 602 
 
 668 
 
 118 
 
 550 
 
 Giffen 
 
 1883 
 
 1274 
 
 613 
 
 661 
 
 140 
 
 521 
 
 Levi 
 
 1888 
 
 1300 
 
 660 
 
 640 
 
 
 ... 
 
 Mallock 
 
 1891 
 1903 
 
 1600 
 1750 
 
 
 
 
 ... 
 
 Bowley 
 Gififen 
 
 1904 
 
 1710 
 
 830 
 
 880 
 
 225 
 
 655 
 
 Money 
 
 1907 
 
 1800 
 
 880 
 
 920 
 
 220 
 
 700 
 
 Bowley 
 
 1907 
 
 1945 
 
 880 
 
 1065 
 
 325 
 
 740 
 
 Bowley '■ 
 
 1907 
 
 1804 
 
 909 
 
 935 
 
 232 
 
 703 
 
 Money 
 
 1907 
 
 1964 
 
 672 
 
 1292 
 
 
 ... 
 
 Mallock 
 
 1907 
 
 2038 2 
 
 800 
 
 1206 
 
 325 
 
 881 
 
 Whittaker 
 
 ^ Revised estimate in 1913 before Report of Census of Production was published. 
 ^ Including £32,000,000 income of Charities, Tiiendly Societies, and Local Authorities, 
 which is excluded from the subdivisions into which the total income is afterwards divided. 
 
 Recent Previous Estimates 
 
 The great value of the Census of Production with regard to its 
 bearing on the question we are considering is that it provides us 
 with material for ascertaining and gives us an official estimate of 
 the total income of the whole nation from all sources, based on 
 entirely new information which has been supplied in returns officially 
 obtained from practically every producer in the coimtry. The 
 only persons from whom returns were not obtained were extremely 
 small people, the enormous majority of whom were workers on their 
 own account. The net value of the output of these workers is 
 estimated and included in the total. 
 
 We thus get a far more reliable figure representing the total 
 income of the nation than has been available before, and if we take 
 that as our starting-point, we are on fairly firm ground. The figures 
 supplied by the annual reports of the Inland Revenue Commissioners, 
 supplemented by explanations and estimates which officials of the 
 
CH. I THE NATIONAL INCOME 53 
 
 department gave before the House of Commons Committee on the 
 Income Tax which sat in 1906, do not leave much scope for manipula- 
 tion and difference of opinion as to the total amount of income 
 which is received by persons whose income exceeds £160 a year. 
 When we get that figure a simple sum in subtraction supplies us 
 with the total income of those whose incomes are £160 or less. 
 
 Nevertheless, able statisticians who approach these returns 
 with strong preconceived opinions are apt to strain the facts in 
 their own favour. Two illustrations of this may be given because 
 it will afford an opportunity of explaining the difference between 
 the figures here arrived at and those of some other recent estimates. 
 
 Mr. Chiozza Money and Mr. W. H. Mallock have, in recent 
 years, dealt fully and frequently with this question of the nation's 
 income and its division amongst the various classes of which our 
 population consists. They approach the question from precisely 
 opposite points of view ; and the very different conclusion which 
 each of them derives from the same facts and figures, indicates how 
 opinions influence judgment. 
 
 For instance, Mr. Money estimates that in the year 1907-8 the 
 net income of persons whose income exceeds £160 was £909,000,000. 
 Mr. Mallock on the other hand, using the same returns, arrives at 
 £672,000,000 as the correct amount. 
 
 Mr. Money expands his figures by adding 85 millions to the 
 Inland Eevenue returns as his estimate of under-assessment and 
 profits which escape tax, while he omits to set off against this amount 
 the over-assessments the tax on which is not recovered by those 
 who pay it, the insufficient allowance for depreciation, the inclusion 
 of replaced capital as income, and the income of Charities, Hospitals, 
 Local Authorities, Institutions, Public Trusts, etc., which are not 
 incomes of individuals. 
 
 Mr. Mallock cuts down his figures by deducting for repairs and 
 renewals of all kinds the sum of £165,000,000, whereas the sum 
 shown under these heads in the Inland Revenue returns is £58,500,000. 
 A very large proportion of the difference between these amounts 
 had been included in the accounts of the various individuals, firms, 
 and companies before the gross amount of their income, which 
 came under the review of the Commissioners, had been arrived at. 
 The balance may very well be set off against under-assessment, 
 etc., which Mr. Money adds, and Mr. Mallock does not.^ 
 
 1 Mr. Money adds the items which will increase the amount of his estimate of 
 the Income Tax paying classes and omits to deduct the items which would counter- 
 
54 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.h 
 
 It is not unusual for the errors and exaggerations on opposite 
 sides to so nearly counteract and balance each other that the truth 
 lies almost exactly midway between the two. It appears to be so 
 in this instance. The mean of the two widely different amounts 
 arrived at by Mr. Money and Mr. Mallock in their estimates of 
 incomes exceeding £160 in 1907 is £790,000,000. The figure at 
 which I have arrived, as shown in the preceding pages, is £800,000,000. 
 
 As the result of the publication of the complete returns of the 
 Census of Production, Messrs. Money and Bowley now have to deal 
 with a total income for 1907 at least £200,000,000 larger than they 
 estimated, and as they had already stretched the amount which 
 they put down to incomes exceeding £160 beyond what seem to 
 be legitimate limits, it is difficult to see how they can avoid adding 
 the extra £200,000,000 to their estimate of the income of those whose 
 incomes do not exceed £160. If they do that their figures will 
 approximate much more closely to those at which I have arrived.^ 
 
 That Mr. Bowley and Mr. Money estimated the amount paid in 
 wages much too low when they fixed it at £700,000,000 for 1907, 
 is indicated by the fact that Mr. Bowley himself estimated the 
 amount at £705,000,000 in 1901. Six years of growing population 
 and improving trade would make a great difference. In 1903 the 
 Board of Trade estimated the then wages bill at between £700,000,000 
 and £750,000,000, according to the state of employment, and, as 
 we have just stated, the Census of Production discloses the fact that 
 a much larger total income than was then anticipated has to be 
 accounted for. As the income of the income-tax-paying classes is 
 now pretty thoroughly investigated and ascertained by the Inland 
 Revenue Authorities as the result of long and widespread experience 
 and very complete organisation, it is practically certain that it is 
 the income of the non-income-tax-paying classes which has been 
 under-estimated, and that the figures at which I have arrived do 
 not leave room for serious error. 
 
 A special Committee of Statisticians and Economists appointed 
 
 balance the addition. Mr. Mallook reverses that procedure and deducts a very 
 large amount which ought not to be deducted, while he omits additions which 
 might be made. 
 
 1 In the Economic Journal for March 1913, Prof. Bowley gave a revision of 
 his 1910 estimate for 1907. He added £100,000,000 to the income of the inter- 
 mediate class — below £160 and not manual workers — as the result of the inquiries 
 of the Committee of the British Association of which he was a member. He also 
 increased his estimate of the income of manual workers by £40,000,000. This 
 was befoi'e the Report of the Census of Production had appeared. That Report 
 suggests the necessity for a further addition. 
 
CH. I THE NATIONAL INCOME 55 
 
 by the British Association to iavestigate the amount of the income 
 of the people, other than wages, below the Income Tax exemption 
 limit reported ^ in the autumn of 1910. They arrived at the con- 
 clusion that in 1909 this intermediate group contained 4,000,000 to 
 4,100,000 persons whose aggregate income from all sources was 
 between £300,000,000 and £370,000,000 a year, and they thought 
 the most probable estimate for that year was £335,000,000. 
 
 This estimate indicated that, allowing for the difference in 
 date, Mr. Bowley's estimate of the income of this class in the year 
 1907 at £220,000,000 and Mr. Money's for the same year, at 
 £232,000,000, required increasing by about 50 per cent. 
 
 Movements in the Distribution of Income during the Last Century 
 
 Reliable, detailed, and complete estimates of the income of the 
 nation at the beginning of last century are not available : but there 
 is a good deal of partial and varied information in existence upon 
 which an approximation to the broad facts of the position at that 
 time, may be based. Sic Robert GifEen thought that the total 
 income in 1783 could not exceed £200,000,000. Mulhall publishes 
 an estimate of the income in 1800 which places the total income at 
 £230,000,000, of which £78,000,000 is estimated to be the income of 
 the wage-earning classes. Another estimate in 1805 gave the total 
 income as £250,000,000. The income-tax schedules for 1803 gave 
 a total income for Great Britain above £60 a year, which was then 
 the limit of exemption, of £115,351,000. Calculations based on 
 the known rates of wages at that time indicate that the income of 
 those who had less than £60 a year would be about £75,000,000. 
 This would give a total income of £190,000,000 for Great Britain. 
 If we add one-fifth to this for Ireland we get a total of nearly 
 £230,000,000. If, to be on the safe side, we make allowance for 
 under-assessment and under-estimates, and place the total income 
 for the United Kingdom in 1800 at £250,000,000, of which we take 
 £120,000,000 to be incomes above, and £130,000,000 to be incomes 
 below, £160 a year, we shall probably not be far from the mark. 
 
 From Sir Robert Giffen's figures for 1835^0 onward, we have 
 a number of more complete estimates from which we may select 
 the following for representative periods : 
 
 Journal of the Statistical Society, Dec. 1910. 
 
 [Table 
 
56 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. h 
 
 
 Total 
 income. 
 
 Above tax 
 
 exemption 
 
 limit. 
 
 Below tax 
 
 exemption 
 
 limit. 
 
 Divided into 
 
 Population. 
 
 Inter- 
 mediate 
 class. 
 
 Wage- 
 earning 
 class. 
 
 1800 
 1835-^0 
 1851 
 1867 
 1883 
 1907 
 
 £ 
 
 250 
 515 
 646 
 961 
 1270 
 2038 > 
 
 £ 
 
 120 
 250 
 272 
 423 
 602 
 .800 
 
 £ 
 
 130 
 265 
 374 
 538 
 668 
 1206 
 
 £ 
 
 94 
 132 
 120 
 118 
 325 
 
 £ 
 
 171 
 242 
 418 
 550 
 881 
 
 In millions. 
 15-8 
 20-9 
 27-4 
 
 35-4 
 43-7 
 
 ^ £32,000,000 income of Charities, Friendly Societies, and Local Authorities is Included 
 into the total, but is not included in any of the subdivisions. 
 
 We can now test the accuracy of the statement that the rich 
 are growing richer and the poor are growing poorer. 
 
 Comparing 1835-40 with 1907 the increase in the total incoine 
 of the nation was 295 per cent. The increase in the incomes not 
 exceeding £160 was 355 per cent. Comparing 1883 with 1907 the 
 increase in the total income was 60J per cent, the increase in incomes 
 of £160 and less was 80J per cent. 
 
 The incomes of £160 and less increased at a far greater rate than 
 did those above £160. Between 1840 and 1907 the larger incomes 
 increased 220 per cent, the smaller ones increased 355 per cent. 
 Between 1883 and 1907 the larger incomes increased 33 per cent, 
 the smaller ones increased 80^ per cent. 
 
 In 1835-40 the incomes of £160 and less were as much in total 
 amount as the income of the whole nation was in 1800. 
 
 In 1867 these smaller incomes were as much as the total income 
 in 1835-40. 
 
 In 1883 these smaller incomes were more than the total income 
 m 1867. 
 
 In 1907 the smaller incomes were as much as the total income 
 in 1881. 
 
 Between 1841 and 1907 the total population increased 109 per 
 cent, the incomes below £160 increased 355 per cent. 
 
 Between 1883 and 1907 the population increased 23 per cent, the 
 smaller incomes increased 80 per cent. 
 
 The incomes of the people with £160 a year or less increased at 
 a vastly greater rate than the population did : which, of course, is 
 only another way of saying that the income per head of that part 
 of the population increased very considerably. 
 
 Another way of illustrating the meaning of these figures is to 
 state them in the form of the average income per head and per 
 
THE NATIONAL INCOME 
 
 57 
 
 family. We are not able to give the number of persons whose 
 incomes were respectively above and below £160. We can, however, 
 exclude altogether the income of those who have more than £160 
 a year, and divide the income of those who have £160 or less amongst 
 the whole of the population. The average amount this will show 
 per head and per family will, of course, be much less than the actual 
 average income per head and per family received by those who have 
 £160 or less, because by this calculation we are spreading the income 
 of the smaller people over a larger number of persons than actually 
 receive it. The real position is, therefore, much better than the 
 one these figures disclose. Though much understating the position, 
 they are of value because they indicate the nature and the pro- 
 portions of the progress that has been made. 
 
 The following table, therefore, shows the average amount per 
 person and per family which the total income which was received by 
 those whose incomes were £160 or less would have given if it had been 
 divided amongst the whole population instead of being limited to 
 those who really did receive it : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Per Head. 
 
 Per Family. 
 
 1800 
 1840 
 1883 
 1907 
 
 £8 4 
 £12 13 
 £18 17 
 £27 12 
 
 £36 18 
 
 £56 18 
 
 £84 16 
 
 £124 4 
 
 (For the purposes of this calculation, the average family throughout has been 
 taken to consist of 4^ persona.) 
 
CHAPTEE II 
 
 THE TREND OF WAGES 
 
 In the discussion upon which we are now engaged, we are not 
 concerned with the movement of wages and incomes or the lack of 
 such movement during short periods. We are looking at broad 
 general tendencies and results and not at temporary and intermediate 
 fluctuations. What we desire to know is — ^has the great increase 
 in the wealth of this country, which has taken place in the last 
 100 or 125 years, gone almost exclusively to the rich or to the poor 
 or to the middle class, or has it been pretty generally spread over all 
 classes, and if any class has had a larger proportionate share than 
 the others, which class is it that has had this advantage ? Nor 
 are we concerned just now to discuss the equity of the distribution 
 of the wealth which has been created. Our object, first and fore- 
 most, is to ascertain the facts ; to learn and state, as far as possible, 
 precisely what has taken place. 
 
 We have seen that an examination of the information available 
 with regard to the income of the nation as a whole, and that portion 
 of it which is received by persons who have more than £160 a year, 
 shows that the income of persons who have less than £160 a year 
 has not only increased very much during every quarter of the last 
 three-quarters of a century, but has also increased at a greater 
 rate than the population, and at a greater rate than the incomes 
 of those who have more than £160 a year. What we desire to 
 know now is — does the other information which we possess with 
 regard to the position and condition of the great mass of the 
 people sustain and confirm or throw doubt upon or disprove this 
 conclusion ? 
 
 The fact that wages have increased very much during the last 
 60 or 70 years is notorious, and the evidence for it is overwhelming. 
 The movement has, however, varied much. In some trades it has 
 
 58 
 
THE TREND OF WAGES 
 
 59 
 
 been much greater than in others. The particulars which follow 
 relate to England and Wales imless otherwise stated. 
 
 A criticism which is sometimes made of comparisons which show 
 the increases in wages during the last 60 or 70 years is, that we are 
 taking as a starting-point a period of extreme depression and 
 distress — " the hungry 'forties." It is true that the period from 
 1790 to 1850 was abnormal. The French wars and the resulting 
 heavy taxation and the bad harvests during the first thirty years 
 or more of that period produced conditions of stress and poverty 
 which it took another thirty years to recover from. Duriog the 
 greater part of that period everything was so abnormal that the 
 statistics of it are of little value for comparative purposes ; and 
 most of those which I give begin when the clouds were Ufting and 
 better times were dawning. It is true, therefore, that the com- 
 parison of present conditions is made with times that were bad. It 
 is also the fact, however, that bad though things were in the 'forties, 
 they were better than they were in the 'twenties ; and if the com- 
 parison be carried further back it will be found that such informa- 
 tion as we have shows that as compared with the period, say 1750 
 to 1790, the conditions in 1850, where most of our comparisons 
 begin, shows a great improvement. Mr. Bowley ^ thinks that wages 
 generally increased from 50 per cent to 100 per cent between 1780 
 and the battle of Waterloo.^ After that there was more or less 
 stagnation, with times of severe depression, for forty years. Then 
 an upward turn came, and it has been permanent and largely con- 
 tinuous. Mr. Bowley ^ thinks that the following index numbers — 
 taking 1890-99 as 100 — indicate the movement of money wages 
 generally between 1780 and 1900 : 
 
 1780-90 
 
 40 
 
 1790-1800 . 
 
 45 to 50 
 
 1800-10 
 
 55 to 66 
 
 1810-20 
 
 65 to 70 
 
 1820-30 
 
 65 
 
 1830-40 
 
 60 
 
 1840-50 
 
 60 
 
 1850-60 
 
 65 
 
 1860-70 
 
 75 
 
 1870-80 
 
 95 
 
 1880-90 
 
 90 
 
 1890-99 
 
 100 
 
 ^ Wages in the Nineteenth Century, p. 125. 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 126. 
 
6o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. h 
 
 From the point of view of the immediate purpose for which I 
 have collated the facts and figures which follow, the criticism to 
 which I have just referred is irrelevant. The statement, the truth 
 of which I am investigating, is that material prosperity does not 
 increase wages, does not benefit the working classes, but only in- 
 creases the value of land and adds to the wealth of land-owners ; 
 that the rich become richer and the poor become poorer. The 
 thirty years from 1815 to 1845 were a bad time for everybody. 
 Land-owners, farmers, agricultural labourers, and the people of the 
 industrial manufacturing districts all suffered severely. But 
 taking it as a whole the period from 1850 to the present time has been 
 one of great material progress and prosperity. That is the time 
 then during which we can test the accuracy of the statements 
 which are under consideration. Is it or is it not the fact that during 
 that period material prosperity has only increased the wealth of the 
 land-owners, and that the working classes have, as the result of 
 it, become actually or relatively poorer ? 
 
 Wages of Agricultural Labourers 
 
 Of the great industries agricultural wages are the lowest, and 
 over the century probably show the least improvement. Agri- 
 cultural produce reached high prices during the great French war, 
 and wages rose rapidly from 7s. 6d. per week in 1767-89 to 12s. 9d. 
 in 1811-15 — 70 per cent in 21 years. After that prices fell heavily, 
 labour was plentiful and distress and disturbance prevailed very 
 widely. The lowest point was touched about 1822 when wages 
 fell to 7s. 6d. The conditions were intolerable, and poverty, 
 pauperism, and poor rates increased in every direction. As the 
 country gradually recovered from the cost and drain of the great 
 war and manufacturing industries increased, the demand for labour 
 grew and agricultural wages slowly rose again. The following 
 were the average rates : — 
 
 1834 . . 
 
 . 9s. 4d. 
 
 1892 . 
 
 . 13s. 5d 
 
 1837 . . 
 
 . 10s. 4d. 
 
 1898 . 
 
 . 14s. 5d 
 
 1860 . . 
 
 . lis. 7d. 
 
 1902 . 
 
 . 14s. 8d 
 
 1867-71 
 
 . 12s. 3d. 
 
 1908 
 
 . 15s. 
 
 These wages do not include such allowances as garden, cheap 
 cottage, etc. The Board of Trade, which made extensive investiga- 
 tions and published elaborate reports, estimated that if allowances 
 for cottage, garden, etc. were included, the average agricultural 
 
CH.II THE TREND OF WAGES 6i 
 
 wages in 1902 would be in England 18s. 4d., Wales 18s., Scotland 
 19s. 7d., and Ireland lis. 3d. per week. 
 
 It is sometimes said that agricultural wages are less now in 
 proportion to the necessaries of life than they were in the fifteenth 
 century, and that the position of labourers is worse now than it was 
 in the time of Henry VII. In the first place it must be remembered 
 that for a century or more after the population had been decimated 
 by the Black Death, conditions were special owing to the scarcity 
 of labourers, and that a comparison with that abnormal period is 
 somewhat misleading. In the second place these comparisons 
 are based on Thorold Rogers's very valuable researches, and in some 
 respects his estimates and conclusions from the facts which he 
 published are open to criticism and qualification. If wages be 
 measured by the labour value of wheat — that is by the amount of 
 wheat that the pay for a day's labour would purchase — there has 
 been an improvement since Henry VII. 's time. Professor Alfred 
 Marshall says : 
 
 It would appear that agricultural wages have been generally below 
 a peck of wheat a day ; but that in the first half of the eighteenth 
 century they were about a peck, in the fifteenth century a peck and a 
 half, or perhaps a httle more, while now [1907] they are two or three 
 pecks. Professor Eogers's estimates for the middle ages are higher ; 
 but he seems to have taken the wages of the more favoured part of the 
 population as representative of the whole. In the middle ages, even 
 after a fairly good harvest, the wheat was of a lower quality than the 
 ordinary wheat of to-day ; while after a bad harvest much of it was so 
 musty that nowadays it would not be eaten at all ; and the wheat 
 seldom became bread without paying a high monopoly charge to the 
 mill belonging to the lord of the manor.^ 
 
 In the generation preceding the Revolution agricultural wages 
 were generally 4s. a week and in some districts 5s. The wages 
 of men in the staple manufactures was 6s. a day. Gregory King 
 estimated that half the working people had animal food twice a 
 week, and a half of them not oftener than once a week. King 
 and Davenant thought that nearly one-fourth of the population 
 was in receipt of poor relief. 
 
 Pepys tells us that in 1663 — two years before the plague — at the 
 Lord Mayor's Banquet in the Guildhall in the City of London, 
 only the Lords of the Privy Council and those at the Lord Mayor's 
 table had knives. The other guests had neither knives nor napkins. 
 
 1 Principles of Economics, p. 675. 
 
62 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 They drank out of earthen pitchers, and had wooden dishes, and 
 there was no change of trenchers. 
 
 Sir John Caird said that in 1878 as compared with the time of 
 Queen Elizabeth wages had increased sixfold, while the price of 
 bread had only doubled. In 1770 the farm labourer's wages were 
 Is. 2d. a day, and the price of wheat was 46s. a quarter. In 1878 
 wages were 60 per cent higher than in 1770 and wheat was the same 
 price. " In other words, the labourer's earning power in procuring 
 the stafE of life cost him five day's work to pay for a bushel of 
 wheat in 1770, four days in 1840, and two and a half days in 1870." ^ 
 
 These figures are confirmed by the following, which Mr. Bowley 
 gives for Sussex,^ in which he translates the labourer's weekly wage 
 into pecks of wheat at the market price of the year : 
 
 
 
 Pecks of Wheat 
 
 
 Wages. 
 
 purchasable. 
 
 
 - - - 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 1770 
 
 8 6 
 
 5-7 
 
 1793 
 
 9 6 
 
 60 
 
 1795 
 
 10 6 
 
 4-5 
 
 1813 
 
 13 
 
 4-0 
 
 1821 
 
 9 
 
 5-0 
 
 1822 
 
 8 
 
 5-6 
 
 1824 
 
 9 6 
 
 4-7 
 
 1827 
 
 10 
 
 5-4 
 
 1830 
 
 11 
 
 5-5 
 
 1831 
 
 12 
 
 5-8 
 
 1833 
 
 10 
 
 60 
 
 1834 
 
 10 
 
 7-0 
 
 1836 
 
 10 
 
 6-6 
 
 1840 
 
 10 
 
 4-8 
 
 1851 
 
 10 6 
 
 9 
 
 1860 
 
 11 7 
 
 7-0 
 
 1870 
 
 12 2 
 
 8-3 
 
 1872 
 
 13 4 
 
 7-3 
 
 1880 
 
 13 6 
 
 10-0 
 
 1885 
 
 13 6 
 
 13-0 
 
 1887 
 
 12 
 
 12-0 
 
 1892 
 
 12 
 
 12-7 
 
 This table emphasises the badness of the times from 1795 to 
 1840. Miserable wages and high prices created starvation con- 
 ditions. Aiter that there was some improvement ; but there will 
 have to be a considerable advance in many districts before the 
 conditions can be contemplated with any approach to satisfaction. 
 
 Professor Leone Levi in 1885 said that in 1831 a single hind in 
 Northumberland got lis. a week ; in 1880 he got 18s. a week.* 
 
 ^ The Landed Interest, p. 65. * Wages in the Nineteenth Century, p. 40. 
 
 ^ Income of the Working Classes, p. 10. 
 
CH. n 
 
 THE TREND OF WAGES 
 
 63 
 
 The late Mr. Wilson Fox, in summarising the results of the most 
 prolonged and painstaking official investigation that was probably 
 ever made in this country into the wages and conditions of life of the 
 agricultural labourers, and comparing the position in 1903 with 
 1850, said that in 1903 their wages were higher and their employ- 
 ment more regular. They were better off than when they had the 
 assistance of their wives and children, and had to sacrifice the 
 comfort of their homes and the education and prospects of their 
 children. The necessaries of life were cheaper in 1903 and rents 
 were scarcely any higher, though their houses were better. Their 
 homes were better furnished and they and their families were better 
 fed. Their work was less arduous, education was free.^ 
 
 Wages in some other Trades 
 
 In A General Description of all Trades, by Mr. T. Waller, which 
 was published in London in 1747, the following rates of wages and 
 hours of work in the building trades are given. We add to them 
 the corresponding rates and hours for London in 1912. The average 
 provincial rates of wages would be about 10 per cent less : 
 
 
 1747. 
 
 London, 1912. 
 
 Wages. 
 
 Hours. 
 
 Wages. 
 
 Hours. 
 
 Bricklayers . . . day 
 Bricklayers' labourers . „ 
 Carpenters and joiners . week 
 Masons ... ,, 
 Plumbers , 
 
 2s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. 
 Is. 8d. to 2s. 
 
 15s. 
 
 158. to 18s. 
 
 15s. 
 
 6 to 6 
 
 Per hour. 
 lOJd. 
 7d. 
 lOJd. 
 lOid. 
 lid. 
 
 50 
 50 
 50 
 50 
 50 
 
 Mr. Bowley ^ gives the wages of Manchester carpenters, brick- 
 layers, and labourers thus : 
 
 
 1793. 
 
 1810. 
 
 1823. 
 
 1832. 
 
 1840. 
 
 1859. 
 
 1883. 
 
 Carpenters 
 Bricklayers 
 Labourers 
 
 s. d. 
 18 
 18 
 13 6 
 
 8. d. 
 25 
 22 6 
 15 9 
 
 s. d. 
 22 
 21 
 14 
 
 3. d. 
 24 
 18 6 
 12 
 
 s. d. 
 27 
 27 
 18 
 
 s. d. 
 28 
 31 6 
 19 6 
 
 8. d. 
 36 4 
 38 7 
 25 
 
 Professor Leone Levi, writing in 1885, gave the movement of 
 wages in the cotton trade among the classes of workers named, 
 as follows : ^ 
 
 1 Jtmrnal of Statistical Society, June 1903, p. 309. 
 - Wages in the Nineteenth Century, pp. 60, 62. 
 * Income of the Working Classes, p. 53. 
 
64 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. h 
 
 
 1850. 
 
 1860. 
 
 1865. 
 
 1876. 
 
 Spinners (men) 
 
 Carders .... 
 
 Grinders .... 
 
 20s. 
 20s. 
 14s. 
 
 27s. 
 28s. 
 17s. 
 
 30s. 
 35s. 
 26s. 
 
 35s. to 40s. 
 32s. to 40s. 
 25s. to 28s. 
 
 In a paper which he read before the Social Science Congress 
 at Birmingham in 1884 he estimated that, taking the total income 
 of the family, the working classes were in receipt of 30 per cent 
 more in 1884 than in 1857. 
 
 Comparing the earnings of the working classes in 1883 with 
 those in 1835-40, Sir R. GiSen,^ writing in 1886, estimated the 
 number and income of the manual labour class as follows : 
 
 
 Number. 
 
 Income. 
 
 Per head. 
 
 1835-40 
 1883 
 
 9,000,000 
 13,200,000 
 
 £171,000,000 
 £550,000,000 
 
 £19 
 £41f 
 
 In the results of a prolonged and careful investigation published 
 in the Journal of the Statistical Society three or four years ago, Mr. 
 G. H. Wood showed that wages in the great Lancashire Cotton 
 industry had doubled during the last 70 years, and the hours of 
 work had been reduced by 30 per cent. In the Manchester district 
 the wages of spinners rose from 21s. 8d. in 1841 to 41s. 5d. in 1906. 
 Those of piecers more than doubled and weavers' wages nearly 
 doubled. In Oldham spinners rose from 24s. to 41s. lOd. In 
 Bolton weavers rose from lOs. Id. ia 1851 to 18s. 4d. in 1909. The 
 average wage of all occupied in the trade rose between 1833 and 
 1906 from 10s. 7d. to 19s. 5d. in Ashton, from 10s. lid. to 19s. 2d. 
 in Stockport, from 8s. 3d. to 18s. 6d. in Preston, from 8s. 9d. to 20s. 8d. 
 in Blackburn, and from 9s. 2d. to 19s. 6d. in Rochdale, Bury, Bacup, 
 and Todmorden. 
 
 Mr. F. W. Hirst, of the Economist, in Porter's Progress of 
 the Nation (1912),^ gives the following table of the index numbers 
 of wages in various occupations, taking as the standard of 100 
 the wages paid in the years 1898-1902. The last column in the 
 table shows the average of all the trades named after adjusting the 
 figures to the proportion of the numbers employed in each trade : 
 
 Essays, second series, p. 463. 
 
 " P. 51. 
 
 [Table 
 
CH. 11 
 
 THE TREND OF WAGES 
 
 65 
 
 
 Agricul- 
 tural. 
 
 Build- 
 ing. 
 
 Engin- 
 eering. 
 
 Iron 
 and 
 
 Steel. 
 
 Mining. 
 
 Cotton. 
 
 Furni- 
 ture. 
 
 Average 
 allowing 
 for num- 
 bers. 
 
 1848-52 
 
 1858-62 
 
 1868-72 
 
 1878-82 
 
 1888-92 
 
 1898-1902 
 
 1903-7 
 
 65 
 77 
 85 
 94 
 92 
 100 
 103 
 
 59 
 68 
 77 
 88 
 90 
 100 
 101 
 
 69 
 74 
 79 
 86 
 91 
 100 
 100 
 
 63 
 65 
 74 
 78 
 82 
 100 
 103 
 
 60 
 67 
 72 
 70 
 88 
 100 
 95 
 
 55 
 67 
 79 
 84 
 90 
 100 
 106 
 
 66 
 71 
 81 
 92 
 93 
 100 
 100 
 
 67 
 72 
 81 
 87 
 91 
 100 
 102 
 
 These figures show an increase in the average wage of 50 per 
 cent 'in fifty years and 17 per cent in twenty-five years. 
 
 In 1908 Mr. W. T. Layton gave the results of an interesting 
 inquiry he had made into the movement in the wages of domestic 
 servants during the previous 80 years. Taking the average wage 
 in 1900 as 100, the index numbers based on the average wage in 
 previous five-year periods came out as follows : 
 
 1823-27 
 1833-37 
 1843-47 
 1853-57 
 1863-67 
 
 This shows an increase of roughly 145 per cent in 80 years, 
 75 per cent in 60 years, and 33 per cent in 30 years. 
 
 The Labour Department of the Board of Trade publishes the 
 following index numbers of the rate of wages in various trades, 
 from which the course of wages in the United Kingdom from 1874 
 to 1912 may be seen. A column is added of the index numbers of 
 the prices of forty-five representative commodities adjusted to the 
 Departments' estimate of their consumption. The wages and 
 prices of 1900 are taken as the base year and equal 100 : 
 
 . 42 
 
 1873-77 
 
 . 77 
 
 . 50 
 
 1883-87 
 
 . 88 
 
 . 59 
 
 1893-97 
 
 . 96 
 
 . 58 
 
 1898-1902 . 
 
 . 100 
 
 . 63 
 
 1903-1907 . 
 
 . 103 
 
 
 Building. 
 
 Coal Mining. 
 
 Engineering. 
 
 TextUes. 
 
 Agriculture. 
 
 Prices of 
 
 Com- 
 modities. 
 
 1874 
 
 84-11 
 
 88-90 
 
 88-77 
 
 106-67 
 
 93-22 
 
 148-1 
 
 1880 
 
 85-55 
 
 61-45 
 
 88-05 
 
 89-78 
 
 91-53 
 
 129-6 
 
 1885 
 
 84-45 
 
 63-10 
 
 89-96 
 
 90-22 
 
 90-40 
 
 107-7 
 
 1890 
 
 86-67 
 
 85-85 
 
 92-68 
 
 95-12 
 
 90-96 
 
 104-0 
 
 1895 
 
 92-22 
 
 72-54 
 
 93-18 
 
 94-97 
 
 92-66 
 
 91-0 
 
 1900 
 
 100-00 
 
 100-00 
 
 100-00 
 
 10000 
 
 100-00 
 
 100-0 
 
 1905 
 
 100-00 
 
 81-02 
 
 100-05 
 
 102-67 
 
 101-41 
 
 97-6 
 
 1910 
 
 10000 
 
 89-65 
 
 102-03 
 
 107-11 
 
 102-26 
 
 108-8 
 
 1911 
 
 100-00 
 
 88-83 
 
 103-26 
 
 107-11 
 
 102-26 
 
 109-4 
 
 1912 
 
 101-11 
 
 93-80 
 
 104-24 
 
 110-67 
 
 10508 
 
 114-9 
 
66 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. h 
 
 The Labour Department of the Board of Trade published 
 returns giving the average wages of adult men for a full week's 
 work, which showed that between 1886 and 1906 the wages in the 
 trades named below had increased at the following rates per cent : 
 
 Cotton 
 
 increase 22 per cent 
 
 Woollen and worsted 
 
 
 15 
 
 Gas works 
 
 
 18 
 
 Municipal employment . 
 
 
 19 
 
 Rural authorities 
 
 
 16 
 
 Pig iron . 
 
 
 30| „ 
 
 Engineering 
 
 
 26 
 
 Shipbuilding 
 
 
 23 
 
 With regard to meat, clothing, and housing, Professor Marshall 
 says that the working classes now probably consume more meat, 
 than at any other time in Enghsh history ; that clothing is much 
 cheaper ; and that the popular belief that house rent has risen 
 appears to be due to an imperfect acquaintance with the way in 
 which our forefathers were really housed.^ Of course this does not 
 mean that there is not much that is terribly unsatisfactory now, 
 and that improvement is not urgently needed. For the moment 
 we are only deaUng with the question of comparative conditions. 
 
 The modern suburban artisan's cottage contains sleeping accom- 
 modation far superior to that of the gentry in the middle ages ; and 
 the working class had then no other beds than loose straw, reeking with 
 vermin, and resting on damp mud floors. But even these were prob- 
 ably less unwholesome when bare and shared between human beings 
 and hve stock than when an attempt at respectability covered them 
 with rushes, which were nearly always vile with long accumulated 
 refuse.^ 
 
 Effect of Changes in Grades and Occupations 
 
 When rates of wages are being considered in connection with 
 the progress of the nation, and the conditions and position of the 
 masses of the people at various periods, there are other points than 
 the actual rates of wages paid in given trades for specified grades 
 of work, and the cost of living, to be borne in mind. During the 
 last half-century there has been a great change in the standard of 
 occupations in which the people have been employed. In all 
 trades there are grades of employment and wages. If the pro- 
 portion of the total number employed is larger in the higher and 
 better-paid grades and smaller in the lower and worse-paid grades 
 than it was, there will be a considerable increase in total and average 
 ^ Principles of Economics, pp. 676-7. ^ Ibid. p. 676. 
 
THE TREND OF WAGES 
 
 67 
 
 earnings, even if there has been no advance in the rate of wages in 
 each grade. The result is the same if the proportion of persons 
 employed in the better-paid trades has increased and the proportion 
 in the less well-paid trades has diminished. 
 
 This is what has taken place : the increase in the number of 
 workers in the higher classes of trade has been such as to cause the 
 average wage of all labour to rise much faster than the average 
 of representative wages in each trade. Professor Marshall illus- 
 trates this by taking the case of 1000 persons working in the numbers 
 stated at the wages named : 
 
 500 in grade A at 12s. a week! 
 
 400 „ B „ 25s. „ [-average wage, 20s. 
 
 100 „ C „ 40s. „ J 
 
 If the trade changes and develops so that the numbers in the 
 various grades become as follows, the result will be : 
 
 200 in grade A at 12s. a week] 
 
 400 „ B „ 25s. „ Vaverage wage, 28s. 6d. 
 
 400 „ C „ 40s. „ J 
 
 There would be an increase in the average wage of 8s. 6d. per 
 week without any increase being made in the rate of wage of any 
 grade. 
 
 There are fewer persons in proportion to the whole engaged 
 in the poorly-paid occupations and more in the better-paid ones 
 than was the case haK a century ago. The following particulars 
 are for the years 1881 and 1901, thus covering a period of 20 years. 
 The figures give the number of males of 10 years of age and up- 
 wards out of every miUion males of those ages who were employed 
 in the industries named in 1881 and 1901, in England and Wales : 
 
 Table I. 
 
 Government, local or national . 
 
 Commercial, merchants, clerks, etc. 
 
 Conveyance, railways, etc. 
 
 Coal mines . 
 
 Metals, machines, etc. 
 
 Building 
 
 Paper, printing, etc. 
 
 Wood and furniture 
 
 Chemicals . 
 
 Food (not drink or tobacco) 
 
 Gas, water and sanitary service 
 
 Electricity and electrical apparatus 
 
 380,196 466,611 
 
 1881. 
 
 1901. 
 
 . 10,373 
 
 14,149 
 
 . 33,112 
 
 43,734 
 
 . 83,985 
 
 102,844 
 
 . 40,657 
 
 52,824 
 
 . 83,221 
 
 96,196 
 
 . 81,925 
 
 92,811 
 
 . 12,499 
 
 15,498 
 
 . 17,368 
 
 19,202 
 
 6,696 
 
 8,401 
 
 7,296 
 
 11,201 
 
 2,696 
 
 5,637 
 
 268 
 
 4,114 
 
68 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 Table II. issi. 1901. 
 
 Agriculture 138,327 95,510 
 
 Fishing 3,157 1,955 
 
 General labourers 69,791 131,235 
 
 201,275 131,235 
 
 From Table I. we learn that out of every million males of 10 
 years of age and upwards there were in the occupations there 
 named 86,000 more employed in 1901 than in 1881. 
 
 From Table II. we learn that out of every nulUon there were 
 70,000 fewer employed in the occupations there named. 
 
 As the total number of males of 10 years of age and upwards 
 in England and Wales in 1901 was 12,134,259, we may multiply the 
 above figures by twelve in order to ascertain, roughly, the number 
 of persons employed in each group of occupations. We shall then 
 find that the number of persons employed in the occupations named 
 in Table I. in 1901 was 1,032,000 (86,000 X 12) more than it would 
 have been if the proportion of the males of the country so employed 
 had been the same as it was in 1881. We shall also find that the 
 number of persons employed in the occupations named in Table II. 
 in 1901 was 840,000 (70,000 x 12) less than it would have been if 
 the proportion of the males of the country so employed had been 
 the same as it was in 1881. 
 
 What the facts illustrated by these selected occupations really 
 mean is that during the 20 years 1881-1901 a very large number of 
 people or their children left or never entered such poorly paid 
 occupations as agriculture, fishing, and general labouring, and 
 became engaged in some one or other of the more remunerative 
 occupations, similar to those named in Table I. That transfer 
 alone meant a considerable increase in earnings, apart altogether 
 from the increase in the rate of wages which was obtained in 
 practically all those industries. 
 
 The tables we have given illustrate the movement which took 
 place in 20 years. It has been going on for three-quarters of a 
 century — indeed, we should not be wrong if we said it had been 
 noticeable for 125 years. It has, however, been particularly 
 marked and important during the last 40 years. No mere tabula- 
 tion of the rates of wages paid in various grades of particular trades 
 over stated periods, and no index numbers based merely on those 
 rates, covers or discloses this extremely important phase of the 
 wages problem. Unless we have particulars of the number of 
 
CH. II THE TREND OF WAGES 69 
 
 persons employed at each different rate at the various periods which 
 we are comparing, mere statements of the rates paid in the various 
 grades and in the various trades are of limited value, and may easily 
 prove quite misleading. 
 
 Mr. Wood's Valuable Tables 
 
 Mr. G. H. Wood has published ^ the results of an exceptionally 
 elaborate and painstaking attempt to ascertain the average rate 
 of " real " wages of manual workers in a number of the principal 
 trades of the country combined, for quinquennial periods from 
 1850 to 1902. 
 
 The " real " wage is obtained by adjustiag the actual money 
 wage to the changes which took place in its purchasing power. 
 That is to say, the cost of food, rent, and other necessaries is taken 
 into account. The " real " wage is the actual money wage expressed 
 in the price of the commodities it would purchase. 
 
 Another important adjustment is made in order to show the 
 effect which the " grading up " of labour has had on wages. The 
 average rate of wages is based, first, on the supposition that the same 
 proportion of the total number of workers was employed in the same 
 grade throughout the whole period ; and, second, on the actual 
 numbers employed in the various grades during the five-year 
 periods. 
 
 Mr. Wood further calculates these wages on two other bases : 
 one on the supposition that full time was worked, and the other 
 after allowance has been made for the average lost time in each 
 trade. In each case the result is given in money wages and in 
 index numbers. The average wage actually earned in 1850 is 
 assumed to have been 20s. a week ; and for the index numbers 
 that wage is taken to represent 100. Mr. Wood publishes elaborate 
 tables, and the following is a summary of the result of his investiga- 
 tions and calculations : 
 
 ^ Journal of the Statistical Society, March 1909. 
 
 [Table 
 
70 OWNERSHIP'S^ TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 
 Full Work. 
 
 Allowing for Lost Time. 
 
 Allowing for 
 
 No Change in 
 
 AUowhig for 
 
 No Change in 
 
 
 Change in 
 
 Grade. 
 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Change in 
 
 Grade. 
 
 Grade. 
 
 
 B. d. 
 
 Index 
 No. 
 
 B. 
 
 d. 
 
 Index 
 No. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 Index 
 No. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Index 
 No. 
 
 1850-54 
 
 2 
 
 101 
 
 20 
 
 8 
 
 101 
 
 20 
 
 2 
 
 97 
 
 20 
 
 97 
 
 1855-59 
 
 22 ti 
 
 98 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 96 
 
 21 
 
 2 
 
 92 
 
 20 6 
 
 90 
 
 1860-64 
 
 23 4 
 
 107 
 
 22 
 
 2 
 
 102 
 
 22 
 
 
 
 100 
 
 21 2 
 
 97 
 
 1865-69 
 
 26 
 
 114 
 
 24 
 
 2 
 
 106 
 
 24 
 
 6 
 
 108 
 
 22 8 
 
 100 
 
 1870-74 
 
 29 
 
 125 
 
 26 
 
 8 
 
 114 
 
 28 
 
 4 
 
 122 
 
 26 2 
 
 113 
 
 1876-79 
 
 30 
 
 135 
 
 27 
 
 2 
 
 122 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 127 
 
 25 6 
 
 115 
 
 1880-84 
 
 29 4 
 
 137 
 
 26 
 
 2 
 
 122 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 131 
 
 25 1 
 
 117 
 
 1885-89 
 
 30 2 
 
 155 
 
 26 
 
 4 
 
 135 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 145 
 
 24 5 
 
 125 
 
 1890-94 
 
 32 4 
 
 166 
 
 28 
 
 
 
 143 
 
 30 
 
 6 
 
 157 
 
 26 5 
 
 136 
 
 1895-99 
 
 33 
 
 176 
 
 28 
 
 2 
 
 149 
 
 31 
 
 8 
 
 169 
 
 27 1 
 
 144 
 
 1900-2 
 
 35 6 
 
 181 
 
 30 
 
 
 
 152 
 
 34 
 
 2 
 
 174 
 
 28 9 
 
 147 
 
 Mr. Wood concludes that between 1850-54 and 1900-2 the net 
 advance in the average wage of those whose grade remained un- 
 changed was 50 per cent ; and that the improvement in the standard 
 of comfort due to the " shifting up " of industrial employment 
 was 30 per cent, making 80 per cent in all. 
 
 The reduction ia the cost of food, etc., was, in Mr. Wood's 
 opinion, almost balanced by the increase in the cost of house rent. 
 
 Mr. Webb has since roughly calculated the wages and prices 
 since 1900 in order to bring Mr. Wood's index numbers down to 
 1911, and he gives the result thus : 
 
 
 Index Numbers, allowing for Change 
 in Grade. 
 
 Full Work. 
 
 Allowing for Lost 
 Time. 
 
 1900 
 1901 
 1902 
 1903 
 1904 
 1905 
 1906 
 1907 
 1908 
 1909 
 1910 
 1911 
 
 183 
 181 
 177 
 174 
 172 
 174 
 177 
 178 
 174 
 173 
 171 
 172 
 
 177 
 174 
 169 
 166 
 161 
 166 
 170 
 171 
 160 
 159 
 163 
 166 
 
 The General Movement of Wages and Prices 
 A table published by the Local Government Board shows the 
 
CH. n 
 
 THE TREND OF WAGES 
 
 71 
 
 course of general money, wages, and average prices thus, taking the 
 wages and prices of 1850 as 100 : 
 
 
 Wages. 
 
 Prices. 
 
 1850 
 
 100 
 
 100 
 
 1860 
 
 119-2 
 
 128-6 
 
 1870 
 
 1341 
 
 124-7 
 
 1880 
 
 148-8 
 
 114-3 
 
 1890 
 
 161-3 
 
 93-5 
 
 1900 
 
 178-7 
 
 97-4 
 
 1907 
 
 181-7 
 
 103-9 
 
 1911 
 
 179-9 
 
 113-6 
 
 Mr. Bowley gives the following estimate of the course of wages 
 during the last 35 years, expressed in quinquenial averages : 
 
 
 Nominal 
 Wages. 
 
 Food Prices 
 in London. 
 
 Real Wages. 
 
 1877-81 
 
 79 
 
 142 
 
 56 
 
 1882-86 
 
 78 
 
 127 
 
 61 
 
 1887-91 
 
 84 
 
 107 
 
 79 
 
 1892-96 
 
 88 
 
 100 
 
 88 
 
 1897-1901 
 
 95 
 
 99 
 
 96 
 
 1902-6 
 
 96 
 
 103 
 
 93 
 
 1907-11 
 
 100 
 
 108 
 
 92 
 
 Mr. Asqtdth used the following figures recently when repljdng 
 to a deputation from the Associated Chambers of Commerce. They 
 were prepared by the Labour Department of the Board of Trade, 
 and the index numbers are founded on the prices and the amount 
 of wages current in the base year, 1900 : 
 
 Year. 
 
 rood and 
 Drink. 
 
 Wages. 
 
 Year. 
 
 Food and 
 Drink. 
 
 Wages. 
 
 1879 
 
 138-9 
 
 83-3 
 
 1896 
 
 93-3 
 
 89-9 
 
 1880 
 
 140-9 
 
 83-3 
 
 1897 
 
 97-4 
 
 90-8 
 
 1881 
 
 138-6 
 
 84-8 
 
 1898 
 
 102'2 
 
 93-2 
 
 1882 
 
 141-0 
 
 85-8 
 
 1899 
 
 980 
 
 95-4 
 
 1883 
 
 139-7 
 
 85-8 
 
 1900 
 
 100-0 
 
 100-0 
 
 1884 
 
 123-9 
 
 85-0 
 
 1901 
 
 100-1 
 
 99-1 
 
 1885 
 
 115-4 
 
 83-6 
 
 1902 
 
 101-4 
 
 97-8 
 
 1886 
 
 109-9 
 
 82-9 
 
 1903 
 
 100-6 
 
 97-2 
 
 1887 
 
 106-5 
 
 830 
 
 1904 % 
 
 101-2 
 
 96-6 
 
 1888 
 
 110-5 
 
 84-7 
 
 1905 
 
 101-2 
 
 97-0 
 
 1889 
 
 110-4 
 
 87-5 
 
 1906 
 
 101-0 
 
 98-4 
 
 1890 
 
 108-5 
 
 90-3 
 
 1907 
 
 105-5 
 
 101-8 
 
 1891 
 
 116-3 
 
 91-5 
 
 1908 
 
 107-0 
 
 101-2 
 
 1892 
 
 109-9 
 
 901 
 
 1909 
 
 108-7 
 
 1000 
 
 1893 
 
 108-6 
 
 90-1 
 
 1910 
 
 109-2 
 
 100-3 
 
 1894 
 
 101-9 
 
 89-5 
 
 1911 
 
 111-6 
 
 100-5 
 
 1895 
 
 98-9 
 
 89-1 
 
 1912 
 
 119-9 
 
 103-0 
 
72 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 The Relation of Wages to Prices, 1900-12 
 
 While these figures are very important they must be used with 
 caution, because the wage movements they represent are based on 
 very hmited figures, and do not include, for instance, railway 
 servants and transport workers, both of whom have had consider- 
 able increases in wages in 1912. All the same the figures are 
 useful because they bring out a point to which a good deal 
 of attention has been directed. It is that, owing to the rise in the 
 price of commodities, and therefore of the cost of living, the real 
 purchasing power of nominal wages was less during the last two or 
 three years for which the tables give particulars than it was in say 
 1895-96 and 1897. This does not, however, mean, as some writers 
 and speakers have alleged, that the working classes have now ceased 
 to share in material progress ; that the steady upward tendency 
 of the latter half of the last century has been reversed ; and that 
 their position is now becoming worse rather than better. 
 
 What it does mean, and what has long been well known to all • 
 careful observers, is that wages do not rise and fall with all move- 
 ments in prices ; and also that in times of very good trade nominal 
 wages do not rise to the same extent as trade booms, just as in bad 
 times they do not fall to the same extent as trade is depressed. 
 Nominal wages are much more stable and regular than trade or 
 prices. If we take the index numbers of the last table it will be seen : 
 
 1. That the years 1895-97 and 1910-12 are not fairly repre- 
 sentative years with which to make a comparison. They are years 
 of exceptionally low and exceptionally high prices. 
 
 2. That if the comparison be taken over 25 years, that is from 
 1885 or 1886 to 1910 or 1911, it will be seen that, while the cost of 
 living was as high in 1886 as in 1910, wages were 17J per cent lower 
 25 years ago. 
 
 3. That over the 34 years covered by the table wages had risen 
 nearly 23 per cent, and the cost of food and drink had decreased 
 nearly 14 per cent. 
 
 The truth is that the years 1894, 1895, and 1896 were years of 
 depression and bad tracje. The result was that prices were low ; 
 whereas recent years have been years of booming trade and prices 
 have been high. As nominal wages do not rise and fall immediately 
 and exactly with prices, except in a few industries, the comparison 
 made is a fallacious one for the purpose for which it is used. 
 
 An important factor that is usually overlooked is that in slack 
 
cH. 11 THE TREND OF WAGES 73 
 
 times, though the nominal wage falls little, if at all, the actual 
 receipts of the working class are much less, taking them as a whole. 
 There is more imemployment and a good deal of short time. Where- 
 as in times of good trade there is far less unemployment, and not 
 only is practically every one employed full time, but a very large 
 number are working overtime. The result is that even if the 
 nominal rates of wages were the same at two such different periods, 
 the actual amount of money earned in good times would be very 
 much greater than in bad ones. The index numbers are to that 
 extent somewhat misleading, in so far as they deal with nominal 
 rates of wages and not actual amounts of earnings. 
 
 The fundamental considerations, therefore, are, first, that as 
 wages do not fully rise with prices in booming times, so they do not 
 fall with them in bad times, and consequently if working people 
 do not appear to be getting the full advantage of good times, they 
 have not to bear the full brunt of bad times in a reduction in rates 
 of wages corresponding to the fall in prices. The second considera- 
 tion is that nominal wages and actual earnings are different things, 
 and in good times actual earnings are much greater than in bad 
 times. 
 
 When slack times come again, as they must, prices will fall, 
 and these index numbers will show then that, as compared with 
 prices, wages are much better than they are now. That will not mean 
 that conditions are really better ; but those who have been using 
 the present figures to prove that conditions now are worse than 
 they were wiU find themselves in a difficulty. 
 
 I am not now suggesting that wages have risen as much as they 
 ought to have done during the period of good trade which we have 
 had, nor do I wish to imply that the increased cost of living is not a 
 serious matter, especially to those whose wages are small. Far from 
 it. My personal opinion is that, at any rate in the low-wage occu- 
 pations, there ought to be, and there will have to be, a substantial 
 and permanent increase in wages ; but I cannot discuss that subject 
 here and now. I must therefore content myself with pointing out 
 that wages do steadily, though at times slowly, rise ; and that, 
 while exceptional times, like those of the South African War and the 
 present boom in trade, produce exceptional conditions, the general 
 trend is clear. Mr. Bowley's table, given above, demonstrates that. 
 In spite of variations the average wages — nominal and real— of the 
 last 15 years are much higher than those of the previous 15 years. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 
 
 Population 
 
 A GLANCE at the growth of population in England and Wales during 
 the past 800 or 900 years is very instructive. UntU 1801 there were 
 no reHable censuses. We have to rely on estimates made by the 
 best authorities based on such information as is available. The 
 figures may, however, be regarded as sufficiently accurate for 
 purposes of comparison, and to indicate the broad general move- 
 ment. The following estimates (up to 1750) are usually regarded 
 as fairly reliable : 
 
 England and Wales. 
 Year. Population. 
 
 1086 
 
 1348 . 
 
 4.000,000 
 
 1377 . 
 
 2,000,000 
 
 1500 . 
 
 3,000,000 
 
 1630 . 
 
 4,000,000 
 
 1700 . 
 
 5,475,000 
 
 1750 . 
 
 6,467,000 
 
 1801 . 
 
 8,892,000 
 
 1851 . 
 
 17,928,000 
 
 1901 . 
 
 32,527,000 
 
 1911 . 
 
 36,075,000 
 
 Professor Rogers thinks that the population was less during 
 the Middle Ages than is stated above, and that it doubled between 
 1600 and 1700 ; but that seems improbable. The enormous 
 decrease in numbers between 1348 and 1377 was, of course, due to 
 the Black Death, which decimated the population. The condition 
 of things in those times is indicated by the fact that it took nearly 
 600 years — ^from 1086 to 1630 — for the population to double. Even 
 if we exclude the effects of the terrible plague of 1349 — although 
 
 74 
 
CH. Ill OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 75 
 
 these sweeping destructions of the people by plague and pestilence 
 were by no means uncommon in olden times — ^it took nearly three 
 centuries for the population to double — between 1086 and 1348, 
 and again between 1377 and 1630. What this meant in poverty, 
 disease, famine, ignorance, and war, it is impossible for us to realise. 
 The suffering and misery which kept the population down like this 
 must have been terrible. Whatever was the cause of this poverty 
 and disease, it certainly was not lack of land or of access to it. 
 Only a small part of the country was cultivated. Uncultivated 
 land lay all round in every direction, and there is no trace of any 
 indication that there was any difficulty in the way of any man 
 obtaining land to cultivate. 
 
 The change which resulted from the inventions and discoveries 
 of the eighteenth century, and the mechanical, scientific, and com- 
 mercial progress made since then, has been remarkable. Instead 
 of taking nearly 300 years to double, the population of England 
 and Wales doubled between 1801 and 1851, and again between 
 1851 and 1911. It is now more than four times as great as it was 
 in 1801. Whereas, in the Middle Ages, the population took three 
 (and indeed we might say six) centuries to double, it has quadrupled 
 during the last 110 years. It is impossible to picture the enormous 
 change for the better in the food, clothing, housing, health, means, 
 and general condition of the people which those broad striking facts 
 indicate. 
 
 The change that has taken place in the manufacturing 
 districts has been immense. Until the seventeenth century 
 Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire, now the wealthiest 
 of our great industrial areas, were the poorest counties in England. 
 Where agricultural wages are now amongst the highest they were 
 once the lowest. 
 
 The Death-rate 
 
 The evidence of the great advance that has been made is cumula- 
 tive. We can only very briefly indicate what it is, again remarking 
 that, unless otherwise stated, the figures given refer to England and 
 Wales. 
 
 [Table 
 
76 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 The death-rate per 1000 persons was : 
 
 
 Males. 
 
 Females. 
 
 Children. 
 
 Under 5. 
 
 5 to 10. 
 
 10 to 15. 
 
 1841-50 
 1861-70 
 1881-90 
 1901-1910 
 1911 
 
 22-2 
 22-3 
 19-7 
 16-4 
 15-3 
 
 21-0 
 20-4 
 17-6 
 14-4 
 13-3 
 
 66-0 
 68-6 
 56-8 
 57-7 
 43-7 
 
 90 
 8-0 
 5-3 
 4-3 
 3-4 
 
 5-3 
 4-5 
 30 
 2-5 
 2-1 
 
 The death-rate in 1910 was only 60 per cent of that recorded in 
 the later " forties." The number of deaths in England and Wales 
 in 1910 was 483,000. Had the deaths been in the same proportion 
 to population as they were on the average between 1841 and 1870, 
 the number in 1910 would have been 776,000, or 293,000 more than 
 they were. 
 
 The year 1685 was not an unhealthy one, but more than 1 in 
 23 of the people of London died. That was a death-rate of 43-5 
 per 1000. 
 
 Probably no one class of statistics so clearly and accurately 
 indicates the material position and home condition of the masses 
 of the people as the death-rates of women and children. A steady 
 and persistent decliae in their death-rate means better health as 
 the result of more pay, more food, better clothes, less ignorance, 
 and healthier houses and surroundings. Between 1841-50 and 
 1910 the death-rate of females fell 40 per cent, and the death-rate of 
 children imder 5 years of age fell 48 per cent ; between 5 and 10 
 years of age 68 per cent ; and between 10 and 15 years of age 66 per 
 cent. 
 
 Consumption has been described as " a disease of poverty." 
 The description is not quite accurate, as a large number of com- 
 fortably circumstanced people die of the disease, but there is no 
 doubt that poor people much more readily fall victims to it. The 
 deaths from phthisis among young people under 25 years of age have 
 fallen 70 per cent in the last half-century. The deaths from tubercu- 
 losis were 3637 per milHon of the population in 1851-55 and 1434 per 
 million in 1910. Sbcty years ago the death-rate from consumption 
 was the same in both sexes. Now it is 25 per cent lower amongst 
 women than amongst men. 
 
 The improvement in the total death-rate from all causes is really 
 greater than the mere figures show. During the last 60 years 
 there has been a great change in the proportion of the population 
 
cH. HI OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 77 
 
 living in towns. In 1851 the population of urban areas was 
 approximately 50 per cent of the whole, in 1911 it was 78 per cent 
 of the whole. As the death-rate in urban districts is 4 per 1000 more 
 than in rural districts, a great improvement in general health 
 conditions in the towns would have been indicated if, with the much 
 larger proportion of the people living in towns, the total death-rate 
 had remained the same. That it has gone much beyond that, and 
 actuaUydiminished 37| per cent under the less favourable conditions 
 as regards density of population, is as remarkable as it is satisfactory. 
 
 Pauperism, etc. 
 
 The mean daily number of paupers per 1000 of the population 
 reheved ia the years, named was as follows : 
 
 1850 
 1860 
 1870 
 1880 
 
 56-5 
 40-4 
 44-1 
 29-2 
 
 1890 
 1900 
 1910 
 1912 
 
 24-5 
 21-7 
 22-3 
 180 
 
 There has been a great change, not only in the numbers, but 
 also in the proportions of the components of pauperism. Com- 
 paring 1849 with 1908, we find that while aged and infirm adult 
 paupers have very largely decreased (about 44 per cent) ia pro- 
 portion to the population, they have become a larger proportion 
 of the number of paupers. On the other hand, adult able-bodied 
 paupers and children have diminished enormously (about 74 per 
 cent) in proportion to population, and have also become a much 
 smaller proportion of the number of paupers. The real character 
 of by far the greater part of the pauperism which we have now 
 under normal conditions, is shown by the fact that in 1908 rather 
 more than 85 per cent of aggregate pauperism of England and 
 Wales consisted of persons (children or adults) who receive public 
 assistance on account of physical or mental disability. 
 
 The treatment of paupers has been much improved. In 1850 
 all classes of poor to whom outdoor relief was not given were 
 maintained in the workhouses. Now there are six or seven kinds of 
 establishments for the various classes of indoor poor. As outdoor 
 relief is now very largely Umited to the aged and infirm, it has 
 become possible to make more Uberal grants of relief to them than 
 was formerly the case. The effect of these improvements in the 
 treatment of the poor is seen in the increased cost per head of in- 
 door and outdoor paupers, as shown in the following table : 
 
78 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.h 
 
 1906-7. 
 £29 5 
 7 1 
 
 Cost oir Relief pee Head 
 
 1856-7. 
 Indoor paupers . . . £16 12 
 
 Outdoor paupers . . 4 13 
 
 The cost of lunatics in asylums is not included in these figures. 
 
 The number of blind people in proportion to the population 
 has steadily diminished from 1021 per million in 1851 to 778 per 
 million in 1901. 
 
 Expenditure 
 
 The consumption of tea, sugar, currants and raisins, and tobacco, . 
 in pounds per head, has increased as follows : 
 
 
 1840. 
 
 1875. 
 
 1900. 
 
 1911. 
 
 Tea 
 
 Sugar ... . . 
 Currants and raisins . 
 Tobaooo 
 
 1-22 
 
 15 
 
 1-45 
 
 14 oz. 
 
 4-44 . 
 
 62 
 4-29 
 1 lb. 6 oz. 
 
 6-07 
 85 
 3-70 
 lib. 14oz. 
 
 6-48 
 
 92 
 
 4-89 
 
 2 lb. 1 oz. 
 
 Broadly speaking, those who were comfortably off had as much 
 of these articles as they desired 70 years ago. Apart from the 
 changes due to custom and fashion, a very large proportion of this 
 increased consumption is due to the ability of the masses of the 
 people to purchase more o'^raig to their increased spending power 
 on the one hand, and the reduced price of most of these articles on 
 the other. 
 
 Education, etc. 
 
 The progress of the people in education is indicated by the 
 number who are unable to write their names when they get married. 
 The number per 1000 who signed the register by a mark was : 
 
 
 Men. 
 
 Women. 
 
 Both. 
 
 1845 
 
 332 
 
 496 
 
 240 
 (1847) 
 
 1860 
 
 255 
 
 362 
 
 170 
 
 1875 
 
 172 
 
 232 
 
 93 
 
 1890 
 
 72 
 
 83 
 
 24 
 
 1900 
 
 25 
 
 32 
 
 12 
 
 1910 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 The number of scholars in average attendance at public ele- 
 mentary schools in England and Wales was : 
 
 1868 .... 1,060,000 
 1880 .... 2,750,000 
 1911 .... 5,400,000 
 
CH. Ill 
 
 OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 
 
 79 
 
 Far fewer young people are employed under 15 years of age 
 than was formerly the case. Of boys and girls between 10 and 15 
 years of age, 56| per cent were employed in 1851 and 34 per cent in 
 1901. 
 
 In the first quarter of last century, in cotton factories, half of 
 aU the persons employed were vmder 16 years of age, and one-sixth 
 were under 9 years. 
 
 The deposits in Savings Banks of the United Kingdom increased 
 from £29,000,000 in 1850 to £45,000,000 in 1865, £94,000,000 in 
 1885, and £257,000,000 in 1911. The number of depositors increased 
 from IJ millions in 1860 to 3| millions in 1880 and 14J millions in 
 1911. 
 
 The amount of money invested as share and loan capital in 
 societies in England and "Wales in which working people are mainly 
 interested is indicated in the following table, which contains such 
 information as is available : 
 
 
 Building Societies 
 incorporated. 
 
 Industrial 
 
 Provident 
 
 (Co-operative) 
 
 Societies. 
 
 Registered Trade 
 Unions. 
 
 Friendly 
 Societies. 
 
 1873 
 
 1875 
 
 1880 
 1890 
 
 1900 
 
 1911 
 
 £ 
 
 12,580,000 
 36,950,000 
 
 43,935,000 
 62,030,985 
 
 £ 
 3,766,000 
 
 5,220,000 
 
 6,931,000 
 
 27,503,000 
 54,502,086 
 
 £ 
 107,000 
 (1872) 
 406,000 
 
 285,000 
 1,102,000 
 
 4,137,660 
 
 5,570,690 
 
 £ 
 
 14,303,668 
 (1877) 
 
 22,872,731 
 (1887) 
 
 43,233,000 
 (1901) 
 
 65,274,907 
 
 A striking indication of the improved condition of the working 
 classes is afforded in the extent to which they now have their annual 
 holiday and pay a visit to the seaside. Every year hundreds of 
 thousands of them have outings and holidays, such as their fathers 
 fifty years ago did not have once in a life-time. This year the 
 Manchester Guardian'^ made inquiries in a number of Lancashire 
 towns in order to ascertain how much money was drawn by the 
 working people from the various clubs and societies which abound 
 there, for the purpose of the annual holiday. From the information 
 
 1 August 30, 1930. 
 
8o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.h 
 
 obtained the conclusion was arrived at that the amount withdrawn 
 for the summer holiday this year in the various Lancashire towns 
 was £1,100,000. A large proportion of this, though not all, would 
 be spent in a visit to the seaside or even farther afield. The 
 Editor says : 
 
 In the beginnings of the factory system it was not usual for opera- 
 tives to have holidays at aU except odd days now and then. Their 
 earnings, however, have enabled them by degrees to adopt a more 
 cheerful method of living. Pooling the odd days, and perhaps adding a 
 few more, by arrangement with the employers, they now get a week or 
 ten days, and make the most of it. In the aggregate they spend a very 
 big sum, but not the full million. Many of the older operatives leave 
 a margin towards the purchase of a house or of shares in a cotton miU 
 which they think will give a good return, while others increase the 
 comfort of their dwellings or make an equally sensible use of the money 
 in other ways. 
 
 A correspondent in the same paper adds : 
 
 The savings are laid out with a keener spirit of economy and 
 frugality than one would assume from some accounts that appear in 
 the press. . . . 
 
 But what one ought most to remember is that the hohday savings 
 of the Lancashire operatives only represent a percentage of the total 
 savings of the year. And even some of that which was intended to be 
 spent on pleasure is brought back to be reserved for other purposes. . . . 
 
 Two other points are worth mention — one feature of the crowded 
 Lancashire holiday resorts is the absence of drunkenness, as compared 
 with former times, and another is the improved appearance of dress 
 in the streets. This is particularly remarkable. 
 
 Crime and Drunkenness 
 
 The number of persons tried for indictable ofEences, at Assizes, 
 Quarter Sessions, and summarily in England and Wales was : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Per 1000 of 
 Population. 
 
 Index Number. 
 
 1857 
 
 64,667 
 
 2-84 
 
 100 
 
 1862-66 
 
 59,715 
 
 2-86 
 
 101 
 
 1867-71 
 
 58,480 
 
 2-63 
 
 93 
 
 1872-76 
 
 52,148 
 
 2-20 
 
 77 
 
 1877-81 
 
 57,234 
 
 2-26 
 
 80 
 
 1882-86 
 
 59,259 
 
 2-20 
 
 77 
 
 1887-91 
 
 56,280 
 
 1-98 
 
 70 
 
 1892-96 
 
 54,689 
 
 1-82 
 
 64 
 
 1897-1901 
 
 52,567 
 
 1-65 
 
 68 
 
 1902-6 
 
 59,203 
 
 1-76 
 
 62 
 
 1907-11 
 
 65,071 
 
 1-84 
 
 68 
 
 1911 
 
 62,318 
 
 1-72 
 
 61 
 
CH. in OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 
 
 The number of persons tried for drunkenness was : 
 
 Year. 
 
 Number. 
 
 Per 1000 of 
 Population. 
 
 Index Number. 
 
 1875 
 1885 
 1895 
 1900 
 1905 
 1910 
 1911 
 
 203,989 
 183,221 
 169,298 
 204,286 
 219,276 
 175,449 
 186,182 
 
 8-48 
 6-73 
 5-56 
 6-33 
 6-42 
 4-90 
 5-15 
 
 100 
 80 
 66 
 75 
 76 
 58 
 61 
 
 Housing 
 
 Interesting evidence confirming the view that there has been a 
 very marked general " moving up " in the condition and financial 
 position of the people, especially of those of smaller incomes, is 
 furnished by the statistics of the rental value of the private houses in 
 Great Britain, which are supplied in the Annual Eeports of the Inland 
 Kevenue Commissioners. Those figures are available in detail 
 since the year 1890-91, and therefore now cover a period of twenty 
 years. During that short time the movement has been striking 
 and unmistakable. Here are the figures : 
 
 Private Dwelling- 
 Houses. 
 
 1890-91. 
 
 1910-11. 
 
 Increase. 
 
 Rental. 
 Under £10 
 
 £10-15 
 15-20 
 20-40 
 40-60 
 60-80 
 80- 
 
 No. 
 
 3,271,261 
 
 1,088,329 
 
 586,511 
 
 572,506 
 
 150,093 
 
 46,362 
 
 109,208 
 
 No. 
 
 3,240,221 
 
 2,103,820 
 
 960,395 
 
 1,087,750 
 
 232,432 
 
 64,827 
 
 127,679 
 
 Per cent. 
 -•96 
 93-4 
 63-5 
 89-9 
 54-9 
 39-8 
 16-9 
 
 5,824,270 
 
 7,817,124 
 
 34-2 
 
 These figures indicate a great improvement in housing. During 
 the 20 years the population of Great Britain increased 23-6 per cent. 
 The number of private houses increased 34-2 per cent, showing that 
 there was a much greater supply of houses, and therefore a better 
 choice, and also suggesting that a large proportion of the people 
 had homes of their own. But the most striking and interesting 
 facts revealed by these figures are (1) that there was no increase, 
 but really a small actual decrease, and in proportion to the population 
 a large decrease, in the number of the smallest and poorest houses ; 
 and (2) that the smallest increase in actual numbers, which was 
 
82 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. h 
 
 really a decrease in proportion to the population, was in the number 
 of houses the annual value of which was more than £80 a year, 
 houses which would be occupied by persons whose incomes were 
 £800 or £1000 a year and more. 
 
 The great increase was in houses of from £10 to £40 a year 
 rental, exclusive of rates and taxes. Clearly the working people 
 are better housed, are able to pay better rents, and now live in 
 much larger numbers in £10 to £15 houses, where they used to live 
 in £6 to £10 houses. Equally clearly, there has been a large increase, 
 far larger than the increase in population, in the number of people 
 who can and do Uve ia houses the rental value of which is from 
 £15 to £40 a year. This increase largely represents the advance of 
 the manual labour class into the intermediate or smaller middle 
 class. It means that the sons and daughters of manual workers 
 are in a very large number of cases clerks, commercial travellers, 
 foremen, managers, salesmen, teachers, and the like. They are in 
 better positions than their parents were, and are earning larger 
 incomes and living ia better houses. 
 
 The teaching of these figures is confirmed by the returns of the 
 various censuses with reference to the housing of the people. The 
 following table, which gives the figures for England and Wales only, 
 is very interesting : 
 
 Houses and Pbksons 
 
 
 Houses uninhabited 
 to inhabited. 
 
 Persons per House. 
 
 Persons per square 
 mile. 
 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 
 
 1811 
 
 2-84 
 
 5-65 
 
 174 
 
 1831 
 
 4-83 
 
 5-60 
 
 238 
 
 1851 
 
 4-68 
 
 5-47 
 
 307 
 
 1871 
 
 6-14 
 
 5-33 
 
 390 
 
 1891 
 
 6-83 
 
 5-32 
 
 497 
 
 1901 
 
 7-17 
 
 5-20 
 
 558 
 
 1911 
 
 5-72 
 
 5-05 
 
 618 
 
 These figures show that the people were more than three and 
 a half times as thick upon the ground in 1911 as they were in 1811 ; 
 but the supply of houses more than kept pace with the growing 
 population. In proportion to the total number of houses there were 
 twice as many empty ones to choose from in 1911 as there were in 
 1811. The people were also less crowded together in their houses. 
 There were fewer persons per house, although, as the previous figures 
 we have given show, the houses in 1911 were larger and better than 
 in 1811, and, consequently, there would have been less crowding 
 
OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 
 
 ^3 
 
 than there was then if there had been the same number of persons 
 per house. 
 
 That there has been a substantial decrease in overcrowding 
 is shown by the following table, which gives the amount of technical 
 overcrowding there was in England and Wales in the years named. 
 There is technical overcrowding when the number of persons in a 
 house or tenement is more than two per room. 
 
 OVEBOBOWDINa 
 
 Per cent of the Total Population 
 
 
 1891. 
 
 1901. 
 
 1911. 
 
 In 1 room tenements . 
 In2 „ „ . . . 
 In 3 „ „ ... 
 In 4 „ „ ... 
 
 Total under 5 rooms 
 
 Per cent. 
 1'23 
 3-88 
 3-28 
 2-84 
 
 Per cent. 
 0-76 
 2-72 
 2-48 
 2-24 
 
 Per cent. 
 0-6 
 2-2 
 2-8 
 2-2 
 
 11-23 
 
 8-20 
 
 7-8 
 
 The percentage of the population of the County of London 
 which lived in one-room tenements was : 
 
 1891 
 1901 
 1911 
 
 9-2 per cent. 
 6-7 „ 
 5-9 
 
 The percentage of the population of London which lived more 
 than two persons in a one-room tenement was : 
 
 1891 
 1901 
 1911 
 
 6-1 per cent. 
 
 3-3 
 
 2-6 „ 
 
 The great improvement which has taken place in the condition 
 of the working classes has not been at the cost of the middle class. 
 One of the absurd and entirely unfounded statements which Mr. H. 
 George makes is that : 
 
 Wages and interest tend constantly to fall, rent to rise, the rich 
 to become very much richer, the poor to become more helpless and 
 hopeless, and the middle class to be swept away.^ 
 
 Nothing could be farther from the truth. The houses in which 
 people live are a fair indication of their position and condition. 
 Mr. George says that the rich are getting all the benefit of progress, 
 and that the poor are becoming poorer. If that were true, we 
 
 1 Progress and Poverty, p. 375. 
 
84 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. h 
 
 should find that the two classes of houses which increased most in 
 number would be the smallest and poorest on the one hand, and 
 the largest and best on the other. We have seen that the precise 
 opposite is the fact. The houses which have not increased at all 
 are the smallest and poorest, and next to them the houses which 
 show the smallest iucrease, and show an actual decrease iu propor- 
 tion to the population, are the largest and best, those which are 
 occupied by the rich. 
 
 As to the middle class, we may take it that the great majority 
 of them live in houses the rentals of which range from £20 to £80 
 a year. They wiU largely represent people with incomes of from 
 £160 to £800 or £1000 a year. They may be said to represent the 
 smaller and medium middle class. Certainly they are not a decreas- 
 ing portion of the community. They are not being swept away. 
 Any one whose memory carries him back over the last 40, 50, or 
 60 years knows better than that. One of the most striking features 
 of the progress of the last two generations has been the enormous 
 increase in the suburbs, not only of our great cities, of every town 
 of every size, and especially in the industrial districts, in the number 
 of villas and terraces of houses obviously occupied by middle- 
 class people. The figures we have already given show that in 
 Great Britain,' between 1890-91 and 1910-11, the number of houses 
 the rental of which was from £20 to £80, exclusive of rates and taxes, 
 increased 80 per cent, while the population only increased 23-6 
 per cent. It is quite clear that large numbers of the working classes 
 have moved up in the social scale and are now in the middle class. 
 
 Improvement not only Material 
 
 Nor has the progress been material only. It has been moral 
 also. Professor Marshall reminds us that public feeling is much 
 more humane and sensitive. A hundred years ago school-boys 
 and servants and wives were systematically and often brutally 
 beaten. Criminals were executed for numerous offences, and that 
 and other punishments, like the pillory and whipping at the tail 
 of a cart, were infiicted in public amidst the jeers of the populace. 
 Gentlemen took parties to Bridewell to see women whipped. 
 Brutal prize-fights were common. Prisons were pesthouses and 
 breeding-grounds of crime and horror. Society regarded all this 
 misery and brutality with indifference. We live in^a more merciful 
 age, in which far more is done to protect animals against cruelty 
 than was then done to prevent inhumanity to human beings. As 
 
cH.m OTHER TESTS OF PROGRESS 85 
 
 Macaulay said : " Every class doubtless has gained largely by 
 this great moral change ; but the class which has gained most is 
 the poorest, the most dependent, and the most defenceless." 
 
 In 1810 death was the penalty for more than 40 offences. Juries 
 were unwilling to convict. Between 1805 and 1810 only 59 per cent 
 of those committed were convicted. Yet in 1817, 1302 ; 1820, 
 1236 ; 1831, 1601 ; and in 1832, 1449 were sentenced to death. 
 In 1908 only 25 were, and in 11 cases the sentence was com- 
 muted to penal servitude. 
 
 Nothing has been said here of the great benefits which working 
 people have derived, and very properly so, from the shortening of 
 the hours of labour and the improvement in the conditions under 
 which work is done in factories and workshops and on board ships, 
 and of the provision which has been made for compensating them in 
 case of- accident. All these are directions, in addition to mere 
 increases in money wages, in which they have shared in the material 
 progress of the last century, and especially of the latter half of it. 
 
 In the face of the bare facts and statistics which have been 
 adduced here, with very little comment, it is useless for any one to 
 contend, as Henry George and Karl Marx did, and as their followers 
 to-day do, that " wages tend constantly to fall, the rich to become 
 very much richer, the poor to become more helpless and hopeless, 
 and the middle class to be swept away." The facts are against them. 
 The evidence is cumulative. Any single part of it may be minimised, 
 and possibly to some extent explained away, by ingenious contro- 
 versialists, but the trend and teaching of it all, when taken together, 
 is too clear and obvious for any casuistry or sophistry to controvert 
 or obscure. Great progress has undoubtedly been made, and the 
 masses of the people have shared largely in it. Much remains to be 
 done ; but those who would persuade us that we are altogether on 
 the wrong track, and that the social structure has been built up 
 on an entirely false foundation, are in conflict with the plain facts 
 of life and of modem history. The truth is that much of the imrest 
 and discontent of the present day is the result and proof of the 
 progress that has been made. New desires, new hopes, new aspira- 
 tions, and new needs have been aroused and created by the education 
 of the people, the development of their faculties and powers, and 
 the opening of their nainds to the possibilities which are within 
 them and around them. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 VALUE OF THE LAND OP THE UNITED KINGDOM 
 
 We may now proceed to ascertain the annual value of the land of 
 the United Kingdom. Upon that we may base an estimate of its 
 capital value. Then we shall be able to compare such information 
 as is available with regard to the annual value of the land of the 
 country at various periods during the last one hundred years, and 
 thereby obtaia a general and fairly accurate indication of the increase 
 that has taken place in that value. After that we can proceed to 
 compare the annual value of the land at various periods with the 
 total income of the people from aU other sources. Thus we shall 
 ascertain the relative rates at which the various classes of income 
 have grown, and thereby see how much, if any, truth there is in 
 the assertion that the rent of land absorbs the whole or even the 
 greater part of the results of material progress. 
 
 What is the rental value of the land of the United Kingdom, 
 meaning thereby the value of the land in its natural condition, 
 before anything has been spent upon it — in a word, what is known 
 as its " prairie " value ? The income-tax returns give us the 
 annual value of almost the whole of the land in the country as it 
 stands to-day, together with the buildings upon it. 
 
 The gross assessment of the annual value of lands, houses, etc., 
 for the year 1910-11 was : 
 
 Agricultural land and farm-buildings . . . £52,294,614 
 
 Houses and other buildings, including the sites thereof 222,233,301 
 Other landed property, including some tithes and 
 
 sporting rights ..... 1,294,998 
 
 £275,822,913 
 
 From this gross amount there were deductions for errors in 
 assessments, empty property, and repairs and renewals as follows : 
 
 86 
 
cH.iv VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 87 
 
 Errors in assessment 
 Empty property . 
 Agricultural depression . 
 Repairs and Renewals — 
 
 Lands . . . , 
 Houses and Buildings 
 
 . £10,294,738 
 
 7,971,701 
 
 295,010 
 
 7,223,759 
 . 34,682,941 
 
 £60,468,149 
 As the deductions for over-assessments and empty property 
 are not allocated between lands and buildings, we may divide them 
 proportionately between the two main items. We shall then get 
 this result : 
 
 Gross assessment of agricultural land 
 and buildings . . . £52,294,614 
 
 Less over-assessment and empty property £3,478,227 
 Repairs, etc. ..... 7,223,759 
 
 Agricultural depression . . . 295,010 
 
 10,996,996 
 
 Net value of agricultural land 
 
 and buildings . . . £41,297,618 
 
 Gross assessment of houses and build- 
 ings, including sites . . . £222,233,301 
 Less over-assessment and empty property £14,788,212 
 Repairs, etc. . . . . 34,682,941 
 
 49,471,153 
 
 Net value of houses, buildings, 
 
 and sites . . . £172,762,148 
 
 Value of Agricultural Land 
 
 In order to ascertain the unimproved value of the land of these 
 properties, we must now proceed to ascertain how much of the net 
 value we have arrived at represents buildings and improvements. 
 We will take first the agricultural land. How much of the annual 
 value represents interest on the capital value of the farm-houses, 
 the farm-buildings, reclamation of the land from the waste, drainage, 
 fencing, roads, etc. ? Eighty years ago Mr. M'CuUoch, the economist, 
 estimated that at least half the rent of agricultural land represented 
 interest on the capital value of the buildings and improvements. 
 In a paper read before the Statistical Society in December 1907, 
 Mr. R. J. Thompson estimated that the average capital expenditure 
 on permanent improvements on agricultural land — buildings, 
 draining, fencing, making roads, etc. — was about £12 an acre. 
 
 In his evidence before the Departmental Committee on Local 
 
88 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 Taxation, Mr. Trustram Eve, a well-known surveyor, and Secretary 
 of the Farmers' Club, expressed the opinion that the average un- 
 improved value of the land of ordinary farms ia England is about 
 £8 an acre, and that the value of the worst land that is capable of 
 being cultivated without involving loss in England is £2 an acre. 
 Mr. J. H. Sabin, another experienced surveyor, estimated that, on 
 the average, farm-houses and buildings represent three-sevenths of 
 the total value of a farm. 
 
 The suggestion that this figure is too high, rather than too low, 
 is supported by some further estimates and calculations which Mr. 
 R. J. Thompson made in the paper above referred to. As the result 
 of his inquiries and investigations he estimated that, on the average, 
 35 per cent of the gross rent of agricultural land goes in repairs, 
 management, and outgoings of all kinds, and sinking fund for new 
 buildings, drainage, fenciag, etc. Taking the average rent of 
 agricultural land throughout the Kingdom at 20s. an acre, this 
 deduction of 35 per cent would be 7s. An allowance of 3J per 
 cent per annum on the £12 per acre which he estimates to be the. 
 outlay which has, on the average, been made on permanent improve- 
 ments — ^reclamation, buildings, drainage, fencing, roads, etc. — 
 gives a further 8s. 5d. per acre to be deducted, which leaves 4s. 7d. 
 per acre as the average economic rent. 
 
 Indeed, I am satisfied that the rent of a very large proportion 
 of the farms of this country is not more than 5 per cent on what 
 would be the cost of reclaiming the land from its natural state and 
 equipping it with house and buildings, roads, fences, etc. The 
 " prairie value " is really nil. Cottages have often to be provided 
 for labourers, and let at less than an economic rent. The provision 
 of these cottages at an unremimerative rent is part of the cost of 
 the equipment of the farm. It must be remembered that originally 
 the forest had to be cleared before the field could be set out, rivers 
 had to be embanked, fens to be drained, roots of trees and imder- 
 wood had to be rooted and grubbed. Then the land had to be 
 cleared of stones, and broken up and ploughed, and sown to grass. 
 Roads had to be made, fences erected, and drains put in. Such 
 operations as warping, claying, and marling were necessary. All 
 this took time and involved much expenditure. 
 
 " The Making of the Land of England " 
 
 " There is, it may be broadly asserted," said Mr. Albert Pell, 
 M.P., " but a small portion of rural England, the present value of 
 
CH. iv VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 89 
 
 which is not due wholly or in a very large part to the costly opera- 
 tions which have been conducted wholly at the charge of the succes- 
 sive owners of the soil." 
 
 In The Making of the Land, of England Mr. Pell gives a number 
 of examples of the cost of reclaiming and equipping land in this 
 country. One case is that of 656 acres of the best part of a moor 
 in the north of England. Before it was improved, it was worth Is. 
 a year per acre. The work of improving continued over 14 years, 
 and the cost was : 
 
 Draining 
 Tiiming . 
 Fencing 
 Water-weiring . 
 Cattle-sheds 
 
 . £5,587 4 
 
 8,255 16 
 
 616 7 
 
 224 2 
 
 517 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 5 
 
 2 
 
 1 
 
 Sundries 
 
 790 
 
 3 
 
 
 £15,990 14 
 
 3 
 
 The cost of these simple operations was £24 : 7 : 6 per acre. 
 Some years afterwards it was let at 6s. 8d. per acre, which was 5s. 8d. 
 for the improvements, or a little more than 1 per cent on the outlay. 
 
 Mr. Squarey, in an article on " Farm Capital," in the Journal 
 of the Royal Agricultural Society (1878), estimated that the cost of 
 house, farm-buildings, and cottages alone on a dairy farm would 
 be £12 : 15s. per acre ; on a mixed arable and pasture farm £8 per 
 acre ; on a mixed upland farm £6 : 7s. an acre ; on an average for 
 the whole of £9 an acre for buildings. 
 
 On the Holkham estate, excluding the Park and Domain, the 
 Earls of Leicester spent on buildings, repairs, fencing, and drainage 
 between 1776 and 1883 the sum of £881,986 and on the purchase of 
 land £145,224, giving a total of £1,027,210. In 1882 the gross 
 income from the estate was £52,285, and the outgoings £26,875, 
 leaving a net return of £25,410, which was about the average annual 
 return for the preceding 50 years. 
 
 In a discussion on the taxation of land values at the Surveyors' 
 Institute on March 11, 1912, a letter was read from Mr. Smyth- 
 Richards of Barnstaple, in which he gave the following particulars 
 about a farm in a North Devon agricultural parish : 
 
 Area — 122 acres 2 roods 18 poles. 
 
 Bent £110— landlord paying tithe £12 : 6 : 8. 
 
 Valued by District Valuer — original gross value £2467, which is con- 
 sidered a very full price. He deducts £308 for tithe and £606 for 
 buildings. 
 
 Original gross value £2467, less tithe £308 = £2159. 
 
£464 6 
 
 
 
 666 17 
 
 8 
 
 507 
 
 
 
 51 15 
 
 
 
 328 2 
 
 
 
 122 10 
 
 
 
 56 8 
 
 
 
 £2186 18 
 
 8 
 
 90 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 Mr. S. Richards gives the value of owner's improvements as 
 follows : 
 
 Cost of erection of dwelling-house 
 
 Cost of erection of out-buildings 
 
 338 chains of fencing at 30s. 
 
 46 gates, posts, and ironwork, at 22s. 6d. 
 
 1640J^ chains, draining, at 4s. . 
 
 24J chains occupation roads at £5 
 
 282 apple-trees, 4s. . . . 
 
 Nothing is included for clearing 120 acres of land and laying 
 down about 40 acres of it to meadow, pasture, and orchard, which 
 he estimates would cost another £750. 
 
 Here, then, we have a farm which is now worth £2159, while 
 the cost of reclaiming the land and draining, fencing, and equipping 
 it and erecting the farmhouse and outbuildings on it, if it had to 
 be done now, would be £2936. That is to say, if this land were 
 now ia its natural state the owner would be some £800 better off 
 i£ he left it as it was, than he would be if he reclaimed it and equipped 
 it as this farm is equipped. 
 
 The President of the Surveyors' Institution, a well-known 
 practical agriculturist, who has kept accoimts for the last twelve 
 years over an area of three thousand acres, stated last year (1912) 
 in his presidential address : " So far as agricultural land is con- 
 cerned, it is well known to most of us that if a fair and just estimate 
 were made of the expenditure by owners on the improvement of 
 the land, and this were allowed as a deduction in arriving at the 
 unimproved value, there would be few cases where any value would 
 remain upon which to assess taxation." 
 
 Mr. Chiozza Money, in an estimate he has made, deducts 
 £10,000,000 as the value of the buildings, and then; deducts half 
 of the balance as the value of the improvements, and reaches the 
 conclusion that the rental value of the unimproved, or prairie value 
 of the agricultural, land of the country cannot be put higher than 
 £17,500,000. I am not prepared to say that this figure is too low ; 
 but, ia order to be on the safe side, I will fall back on M'Culloch's 
 estimate, which is certainly not an excessive one, and assume that 
 the average value of the buildings and improvements is haK the 
 net rent of the properties. This would give £20,648,809, or say 
 £21,000,000, as the annual value of the land only. 
 
CH.IV VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 91 
 
 Vahte of the Sites of Houses and Buildings 
 
 Then we come to houses and buildings and their sites. We 
 desire to ascertain the unimproved value of the sites alone. Let 
 us be quite clear as to what this is. In the case of leasehold property, 
 it is not the amount of the ground rent, even if it has just been 
 created. In a large proportion of cases the ground rent bears 
 little relation to the value of the land. It is frequently created 
 after the buildings have been erected, and it is an arbitrary sum, 
 fixed by agreement, secured as a first charge upon the whole property. 
 Often in the same street, with the houses aU exactly alike, and all 
 built at the same time, some of the ground rents will be twice as 
 much as others, and sometimes three, four, and five times as much. 
 It is not unusual to fix the ground rent to suit the purchaser of the 
 leasehold. The more he is prepared to pay in cash, the less will 
 the ground rent be made, and vice versa. There is no greater source 
 of misconception and error amongst those who write and talk on 
 this subject without really understanding it, than the assumption 
 that the ground rent of a house represents, or ever did represent, or 
 ever was intended to represent, the value of the site without any 
 building on it. 
 
 Again, there are often two ground rents — one behind the other. 
 There is a freehold ground rent and then, what is called an 
 " improved " or a " leasehold ground rent." The leaseholder of 
 the building, when he pays the groimd rent, does not know whether 
 there are two ground rents or one. Out of the ground rent which 
 he pays, the receiver of it may have to pay a ground rent to some 
 one else. Neither of these ground rents may represent the true 
 value of the land. It is practically certain that the two together 
 will be far more than the value of the land. 
 
 Further, it is not unusual for land to be sold for building purposes 
 subject to a very small ground rent — say £2 or £5 for several acres. 
 This ground rent may not amount to more than a few pence per 
 house. It bears no relation to the value of the land. In such 
 cases a leasehold ground rent is usually created, and that is a purely 
 arbitrary sum and may bear no relation to the value of the land. 
 
 All attempts, therefore, to arrive at the value of sites by ascer- 
 taining what the ground rents are will be misleading. 
 
 Nor does the value of the cleared site — that is the site with the 
 buildings cleared off it — give the unimproved value of the land. 
 The cost of levelling and preparing the site and making the roads 
 
92 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. u 
 
 and footpaths and constructing the drainage, is great. Something 
 must also be allowed for interest on this capital outlay, and the 
 profit of the man who makes the venture and incurs the risk. The 
 unimproved value of the site is its cleared value, less the value of 
 these improvements. In the case of large quantities of building 
 land, these improvements cost as much as the land. Where the 
 land costs less than £300 an acre, it may be taken that the cost of 
 the roads will be greater than the cost of the land on which the 
 houses stand. 
 
 In the London area, or its immediate vicinity, if a building area 
 of about i acres, so favourably situated as to have frontages to two 
 existing roads, and so favourably shaped that roads could be con- 
 structed at right angles to those roads, and the whole of the area 
 could be utilised — conditions by no means always secured — were 
 developed for moderately small houses with roads 40 feet wide, 
 the following results could be obtained : 
 
 If the building plots were given a depth of 105 feet each, the 
 cost of road-making at 50s. per foot run would be £1750, or about 
 £437 an acre, and 16 per cent of the total area would have to be 
 given up for roads. 
 
 If the building plots were given a depth of only 63 feet, in order 
 to get more houses on the estate, there would be more road con- 
 struction, and the cost of the roads would be £2625 or about £656 
 per acre, and the area occupied by roads would be 24 per cent of 
 the total. 
 
 There is no official or accurate information as to what is the 
 unimproved value of the sites of the houses and other buildings in 
 the United Kingdom. Some years ago (1896) the Valuer to the 
 London County Council estimated that the gross site values of the 
 land of London were about one-third of the gross value of the whole 
 properties — land and buildings. He estimated that, taking the 
 City alone, the gross site value of the City properties was £3,923,000, 
 and the total gross value of the land and buildings was £5,423,018. 
 That meant that the site values in the City were 72 per cent of the 
 total value. Dr. David Murray says : " In the case of tenement 
 property in Glasgow, the value of the building is from 8 to 15 times 
 the value of the land, and in the case of private residences the value 
 of the building is from 10 to 20 times the value of the land." '• 
 Mr. Muspratt estimated that the land rent in Liverpool was 6| to 
 one. Mr. Tomlin calculated that in Wood Green, near London, it 
 * The Land and Finance Bill, p. 53. 
 
CH. IV VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 93 
 
 bore a relationsliip of 7J to one ; BirmingL.am five to one ; Ports- 
 mouth seven to one ; Glasgow less than ten to one. 
 
 Mr. Trustram Eve stated to the Departmental Committee, 1912, 
 that he and the Rating Surveyors' Association were of opinion that 
 the cleared site value of the country excluding farms, etc., does not 
 exceed one-third of the total value — land and structure combined. 
 And Mr. J. H. Sabin, another surveyor, estimated that ground rent 
 values — allowing for increases, siQce old leases were granted — 
 taking the country as a whole, are about one-third the total value. 
 He explained that these ground rent values include outlay for 
 streets and other improvements, and said that if these were de- 
 ducted the value of the site would be about one-fourth of the total 
 value. 
 
 I am of opinion that one-fifth of the gross rental value, or one- 
 fourth of the net rental value of this property — taking the country 
 as a whole, outside London — is a very full estimate of the unimproved 
 site value. It is certainly excessive rather than otherwise. One- 
 fifth of the gross rental of the whole coimtry, including London, is 
 £44,446,660; one-fourth of the net rental is £43,190,537. We 
 may take £44,000,000 as the figure ; and adding £6,000,000 as the 
 extra site value of London beyond the amoimt given, by taking 
 the average of one-fourth the total net value of site and buildings, 
 we get £50,000,000 as the annual unimproved value of the sites of 
 houses and other buildings in the United Kingdom. That figure 
 is possibly 20 per cent too high. 
 
 There are two items in this estimate which must not be over- 
 looked. Unoccupied property is omitted from the assessment on 
 which we have based our calculations ; and the land of properties 
 which are assessed at annual values which do not adequately repre- 
 sent the real value has been estimated on the basis of the assessed 
 value. The annual value of the land of the under-assessed pro- 
 perties, beyond the amount at which it has already been taken, 
 can only be guessed. There is no information on which a 
 reliable estimate can be based. At a venture I put the figure at 
 £5,000,000 ; and the sites of empty buildings at £2,000,000. 
 
 The " other landed property," the annual value of which is 
 £1,294,998, is mainly land, and the unimproved land value may 
 be put down at £1,000,000 a year. 
 
 The property with which we have been dealing is that which 
 is assessed under Schedule A for the income-tax, and this comprises 
 nearly all the land of the country. There is, however, some which 
 
94 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. u 
 
 is not included in that schedule. Railways, canals, docks, mines 
 and quarries, and certain fishing and sporting rights are all assessed 
 under Schedule D. Part of all these properties and undertakings 
 is land. We have very little information as to the unimproved 
 value of this land. Mr. Money estimates its total value at 
 £12,100,000. I shall adopt his estimate and call it £12,500,000. 
 
 Total Annual Value of the Land only 
 
 Bringing our various items together, we get the following 
 total : 
 
 Agricultural land ..... 
 
 Sites of houses and buildings 
 
 Land of empty properties 
 
 Extra value of land of under-assessed properties 
 
 Other property, including sporting rights 
 
 Land of mines, quarries, railways, canals, docks, etc. 
 
 £21,000,000 
 
 50,000,000 
 
 2,000,000 
 
 6,000,000 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 12,500,000 
 
 £91,500,000 
 
 Total annual land value of the United Kingdom 
 
 Mr. Arnold Tojmbee, in 1883, estimated that the unimproved 
 value of the whole of the land of the United Kingdom in 1880 was 
 about £60,000,000 a year. 
 
 Mr. Chiozza Money, M.P., made an estimate ^ of the land values 
 of the United Kingdom, taking as his basis the official returns of 
 income for the year 1910-11, and he arrived at the following result 
 as to annual values : 
 
 Agricultural lands ..... 
 
 Urban land, being houses, etc., London 
 Urban land, rest of United Kingdom . 
 Other landed property, including sporting rights 
 Railways ...... 
 
 Canals and docks ..... 
 
 Mines and quarries .... 
 
 Fishing and sporting rights 
 
 £17,500,000 
 
 16,400,000 
 
 43,200,000 
 
 800,000 
 
 5,000,000 
 
 500,000 
 
 6,400,000 
 
 200,000 
 
 £90,000,000 
 
 It should be noted that, so far as urban land is concerned, 
 Mr. Money's estimate is apparently of cleared site values and 
 not unimproved site values. Elsewhere he says : "I should not 
 have serious quarrel with an estimate of £80,000,000 ; certainly 
 £90,000,000 is a liberal estimate." ^ 
 
 1 Daily Mail Year Book, 1913, p. 23. 
 * Westminster Gazette, October 12, 1912. 
 
cH.iv VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 95 
 
 Estimates of Land Taxers 
 
 Land taxers estimate the value of the land of this country at 
 much higher figures than those at which we have arrived. The 
 methods, and consequently the results, of their estimates and cal- 
 culations — ^like almost all their statements, arguments, and statistics 
 — are, however, quite fallacious and altogether misleading. Mr. 
 Max Hirsch made an estimate of the land values of the United 
 Kingdom, based on the Inland Revenue Returns for 1905-6, and 
 he arrived at the conclusion that the " total ascertainable rental 
 value of the land in the United Kingdom " was £254,208,396. He 
 said, however, that this " does not represent its total rental value," 
 and by another process he calculated that the " total rental value 
 of land (economic rent) was £275,762,799." ^ 
 
 Messrs. Chomley and Outhwaite adopted this estimate in 1909, 
 and arrived at the conclusion that the capital value of the land 
 of the United Kingdom was £6,600,000,000. They added : " In 
 order to err on the side of moderation rather than that of extravag- 
 ance, we are here assuming the land value of the United Kingdom 
 to be only £6,000,000,000 which is considerably less than the 
 figure which our calculations give." ^ Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., M.P., 
 estimates that a tax of Id. in the £ " would bring in something 
 between £15,000,000 and £30,000,000," ^ from which it appears 
 that his opinion as to the capital value of the land of the United 
 Kingdom — and he says " we have obtained our estimates from 
 the best available sources"* — oscillates between £3,600,000,000 
 on the one hand and £7,200,000,000 on the other. 
 
 Their estimate aboimds in blunders, two of which may be 
 mentioned as illustrations of their methods. One is that all the 
 figures they take are gross figures and they make no allowance for 
 errors which were adjusted on appeal or for repairs and wear and 
 tear, etc. Were these deductions made, as they were made by the 
 Inland Revenue Commissioners, and as they must be made in order 
 to arrive at actual net values, their total annual value would be 
 reduced by some £54,000,000 at a stroke. 
 
 Another blunder is a double one. In the first place, they assume 
 that the proportion which the value of the land bears to the total 
 value of land and buildings, etc., is the same in this country as in 
 
 1 Land Values Taxation, by Chomley and Outhwaite, pp. 238 and 242. 
 
 2 Ibid. pp. 146, 147. 
 
 » Letter in The Nation, October 26, 1912. 
 * Ibid. November 16, 1912. 
 
96 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 America, New Zealand, and Australia. They next assume that 
 the proportions which they have arrived at hold good for annual 
 value as well as for capital value. Each of these assumptions is 
 inaccurate and fallacious, and the conclusions based upon them are, 
 consequently, erroneous. 
 
 In New Zealand and Australia the number and value of the 
 buildings in proportion to the amount and value of the land is 
 vastly less than it is here. The buildings are for the most part 
 altogether different in quality and character, the great majority 
 of them being merely wooden structures. That being so, the pro- 
 portion which the value of the land bears to the value of the whole 
 property is, of course, much greater than is the case here. So far 
 as America is concerned, the comparison is based on the proportion- 
 ate values in a few cities there, with the result that the land value 
 is a much smaller proportion — nearly 12 per cent less — of the total 
 value than it is in New Zealand and Australia, where the figures 
 cover both town and country. In American cities, buildings are 
 far less substantial and permanent in character — many are wooden 
 — than they are here. If they were here, they would, as a rule, be 
 worth much less than our buildings are. They are also far more 
 readily pulled down and replaced by larger structures, with the 
 residt that they are regarded as more temporary and are more 
 rapidly depreciated in value than ours are. 
 
 The second mistake is in applying the assumed capital value 
 proportions to annual values. Messrs. Chomley and Outhwaite 
 assume, not only that because in America, New Zealand, and 
 Australia, land value is about 60 per cent of the total capital value, 
 it will be 60 per cent of the total value here, but also that 60 per 
 cent of the total annual value wiU represent land value. That is 
 a gross blunder. The land is worth 25 years' purchase, while the 
 buildings are not worth more than 15 years' purchase, and many 
 of them are not worth that. Consequently, if the land and the 
 buildings were of equal annual value, the capital value of the land 
 as compared with the buildings would be as 25 to 15.^ 
 
 Another feature of this estimate is this — 60 per cent of the amount 
 collected las inhabited house duty, income tax (Schedule A), income 
 tax (Schedule D-3), local rates, and the whole of the land tax, and 
 
 ' Mr. Harold Storey falls into similar errors, and, estimating that the value 
 of the land is 50 per cent of the combined value of land, buildings, etc. arrives at 
 the conclusion that " the total capital xmimproved value of all the land of the 
 country may be estimated to be about £5,000,000,000." — Economics of Land 
 Value, p 108. 
 
CH. IV VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 97 
 
 the local revenue from tolls and dues — ^put down as a total annual 
 sum of £51,163,886 — is added to the annual value of the land of the 
 country, and capitalised at 25 years' purchase, and the capital 
 value of the land is increased £1,279,096,650 thereby. 
 
 Estimated Capital Value of the Land of the United Kingdom 
 
 Taking into account the value of the land, the present income 
 return from which does not at all adequately represent its capital 
 value, my estimate of the total unimproved capital value of the 
 land of the United Kingdom is that it is about £2,500,000,000 to 
 £2,750,000,000. That is, of course, not the cleared site value. 
 It is the unimproved value. The cleared site value, which 
 is the value which we shall get very generally in the National 
 Valuation which is being made by the Inland Revenue authorities, 
 is a very difiEerent and much higher value and wiU probably run 
 up to £3,500,000,000 or more, as it will include a vast amount of 
 expenditure on reclamation, drainage, roads, development and 
 improvements of all kinds, short of actual buildings. 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to note that in a paper read 
 before the Surveyor's Institute in February 1912, Mr. Edwin Savill, 
 F.S.I. , estimated " the site value of all the land in the United 
 Kingdom " at £3,000,000,000. 
 
 In a reprint of a series of articles entitled " A Penny Tax on 
 Land Values " the Daily Chronicle in February 1909 estimated 
 the annual land value thus : 
 
 England and Wales . . . £102,000,000 
 
 Scotland 13,000,000 
 
 Ireland 11,000,000 
 
 £126,000,000 
 
 and on this basis arrived at the conclusion that the capital value 
 of the land of the United Kingdom was £3,150,000,000. Both these 
 estimates refer to cleared site value, and not to imimproved site 
 value, which would, of course, be much less. 
 
 The Movements in the Valtie of Agricultural Land 
 
 It will be interesting at this stage to ascertain as nearly as is 
 practicable to what extent the value of land has increased or 
 decreased over a long period, and during recent years ; and also 
 what proportion such increase as there has been bears to the total 
 wealth of the country and the increase there has been in it. 
 
 H 
 
98 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i. 
 
 In that connection the following figures, which show the move- 
 ment in the average rent per acre of agricultm:al land during the 
 latter half of the last century, are useful : 
 
 
 B. d. 
 
 
 =. d. 
 
 1851-55 . 
 
 . 20 9 
 
 1877-80 . 
 
 . 27 6 
 
 1856-60 . 
 
 . 23 1 
 
 1881-«3 . 
 
 . 26 9 
 
 1861-65 . 
 
 . 23 7 
 
 1884^86 . 
 
 . 24 11 
 
 1866-70 . 
 
 . 24 8 
 
 1887-92 . 
 
 . 22 11 
 
 1871-74 . 
 
 . 28 10 
 
 1893-94 
 
 . 21 8 
 
 1875-77 . 
 
 . 29 4 
 
 1895-96 
 
 . 21 1 
 
 A similar movement in capital values is shown by the following 
 particulars of the average price per acre obtained at all the auction 
 sales in London of estates of over 30 acres : 
 
 Period. 
 
 Price per acre 
 
 1781-1800 . 
 
 . £33 16 
 
 1801-1820 . 
 
 . 36 4 
 
 1821-1840 . 
 
 . 25 14 
 
 1841-1860 . 
 
 . 36 8 
 
 1861-1870 . 
 
 . 43 
 
 1871-1880 . 
 
 . 51 16 
 
 1893-1896 . 
 
 . 26 10 
 
 The following particulars of the average rent per acre of agri- 
 cultural land on a number of farms in two groups of about 70,000 
 and 120,000 acres each, in various counties, were given by Mr. 
 R. J. Thompson in a paper read before the Statistical Society in 
 December 1907 : 
 
 
 Group 70,000 acres. 
 
 Group 120,000 acres. 
 
 
 s. d. 
 
 o. d. 
 
 1801 
 
 11 8 
 
 
 1810 
 
 12 3 
 
 
 1820 
 
 15 5 
 
 18 8 
 
 1830 
 
 15 3 
 
 18 4 
 
 1840 
 
 15 7 
 
 19 1 
 
 1850 
 
 16 3 
 
 20 6 
 
 1860 
 
 18 
 
 23 
 
 1870 
 
 18 9 
 
 24 
 
 1880 
 
 18 5 
 
 21 4 
 
 1890 
 
 15 7 
 
 19 6 
 
 1900 
 
 14 7 
 
 17 2 
 
 These were cases where the actual rent of the same land could 
 be ascertained from carefully kept records extending over the 
 periods named. 
 
CH. .V VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 99 
 
 The Movements in the Incomes from Land and from other Sources 
 
 compared 
 
 We have in the Income Tax Statistics information as to the 
 annual value of the lands and houses assessed for tax ia the early 
 part of last century, while an income tax was levied, and again 
 since 1842, when it was revived. The information given in the 
 earlier periods is not nearly so full and detailed as that which is 
 now published. The returns have been gradually amplified from 
 time to time. The result is that we are not able to ascertain from 
 the earlier returns, with the same precision as we can from the later 
 ones, the net amount of the income derived from particular classes 
 of property under the various headings under which they are grouped. 
 The gross assessments in each class under each headiag are given, 
 but the net assessments are only given for each group as a whole 
 and not for each class in each group as is the case in the returns 
 now issued by the Inland Eevenue Commissioners. Fmrther, 
 deductions for repairs were not allowed under Schedule A until 1894. 
 Consequently, we could only estimate what ought to be deducted 
 for any year prior to that date. We must, therefore, be content 
 with the gross figures and they will suffice for our purpose, because 
 the deductions which would have to be made for repairs, over- 
 assessments, etc., even if they could be ascertained, would not vary 
 very materially at different periods in proportion to the total 
 assessments. Further, it will be seen that the conclusions to be 
 drawn from the figures are so obvious and striking that any possible 
 modification of the relative proportions of the amounts of income 
 under each head that could be made if we had the information in 
 greater detail, and were able to give net instead of gross figures, 
 could not seriously affect those conclusions. 
 
 Prior to 1853 income tax was not levied in Ireland, and it was 
 not until 1862 that the published returns were sufficiently complete 
 to render possible the comparison we desire to make. We can, 
 therefore, only make the longer comparison for Great Britain ; 
 from 1862 we can make it for the United Kingdom. The gross 
 assessments for income tax for Great Britain in the years named 
 from 
 
 1. Lands, Manors, Tithes, and Fines, 
 
 2. Houses and Buildings, including their sites, 
 
 3. All sources liable to Income Tax, 
 
 were as follows : 
 
loo OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i. 
 
 
 Lands, etc. 
 
 Houses, etc. 
 
 Total, all Sources. 
 
 1814r-15 
 
 £ 
 42,426,822 
 
 £ 
 16,259,400 
 
 £ 
 137,621,309 
 
 1845-46 
 
 48,053,788 
 
 39,536.320 
 
 252,971,094 
 
 1862-63 
 
 51,752,772 
 
 58,590,395 
 
 328,147,667 
 
 1869-70 
 
 55,841,648 
 
 77,879,548 
 
 439,416,145 
 
 1889-90 
 
 48,212,101 
 
 134,934,230 
 
 632,159,035 
 
 1910-11 
 
 43,893,955 
 
 216,957,081 
 
 1,005,174,389 
 
 Keeping to gross and not 
 we may for this purpose take 
 houses and buildings stood as 
 buildings and sites. We shall 
 as follows : 
 
 attempting to ascertain net values, 
 the value of the land on which the 
 one-fourth of the total value of the 
 then get the value of the land alone 
 
 Geoss Value or Land and Sites in Great Bbitain 
 
 
 Lands. 
 
 Sites of Buildings. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1814-15 
 
 £ 
 42,426,822 
 
 £ 
 4,064,850 
 
 £ 
 46,491,672 
 
 1845-46 
 
 48,053,788 
 
 9,884,080 
 
 57,937,868 
 
 1862-63 
 
 51,752,772 
 
 14,647,599 
 
 66,400,371 
 
 1869-70 
 
 54,997,570 
 
 19,469,887 
 
 74,467,457 
 
 1880-90 
 
 48,212,101 
 
 33,733,557 
 
 81,945,658 
 
 1910-11 
 
 43,893,955 
 
 54,239,270 
 
 98,133,225 
 
 It will be convenient if we now give similar figures for the 
 United Kingdom for the last 50 years : 
 
 Gboss Value of Lands and Hottses and op all Incomes assessed 
 i-OR Income Tax in the United Kingdom 
 
 
 Lands, &c. 
 
 Houses, &c. 
 
 Total Income, 
 all Sources. 
 
 1862-63 
 1869-70 
 1889-90 
 1910-11 
 
 £ 
 60,775,875 
 65,007,018 
 58,153,900 
 53,589,612 
 
 £ 
 
 61,924,178 
 
 81,519,153 
 
 138,491,662 
 
 222,233,301 
 
 351,745,241 
 
 444,914,228 
 
 669,358,613 
 
 1,045,833,775 
 
 Gross Value 
 
 or THE Land an 
 
 D Sites in the U 
 
 NiTED Kingdom 
 
 
 Land. 
 
 Sites ot Buildings. 
 
 Total. 
 
 1862-63 
 1869-70 
 1889-90 
 1910-11 
 
 £ 
 60,775,875 
 65,007,018 
 58,153,900 
 53,589,612 
 
 £ 
 15,481,049 
 20,379,788 
 34,622,815 
 55,558,325 
 
 £ 
 
 76,256,924 
 
 85,386,806 
 
 92,776,815 
 
 109,147,937 
 
 We may now bring together the gross annual values of the lands 
 
CH. IV VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM loi 
 
 and sites and the total income from all sources assessable to the 
 income tax, and show the percentage which the income from land 
 was of the total income at the dates named : 
 
 
 Land and Sites. 
 
 Total Income. 
 
 Proportion of Land 
 to Total. 
 
 Oreat Britain. 
 
 £ 
 
 £ 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1814^15 
 
 46,491,672 
 
 137,621,309 
 
 33| 
 
 1845^6 
 
 57,937,868 
 
 252,971,094 
 
 23 
 
 1862-63 
 
 66,400,371 
 
 328,147,667 
 
 20 
 
 1869-70 
 
 74,467,457 
 
 439,416,145 
 
 17 
 
 1889-90 
 
 81,945,658 
 
 632,159,035 
 
 13 
 
 1910-11 
 
 98,133,225 
 
 1,005,174,389 
 
 9i 
 
 United Kingdom 
 
 
 
 
 1862-63 
 
 76,256,924 
 
 351,745,241 
 
 21f 
 
 1869-70 
 
 85,386,806 
 
 444,914,228 
 
 19 
 
 1889-90 
 
 92,776,815 
 
 669,358,613 
 
 14 
 
 1910-11 
 
 109,147,937 
 
 1,045,833,775 
 
 lOi 
 
 These figures alone are suflfiicient to expose the glaring inaccuracy 
 and utter absurdity of Mr. Henry George's statement that as the 
 result of progress, civilisation, invention, and increasing population, 
 land-owners get a constantly increasing, and labour and capital a 
 constantly diminishiag, share of the aggregate wealth created ; 
 or, as he puts it, in other words, that progress tends to give a larger 
 and larger proportion of the produce to the owners of land and a 
 smaller and smaller proportion to labour and capital. The facts 
 are, of course, precisely the opposite, and very Uttle knowledge of 
 them or very little investigation of them would have prevented 
 Mr. George ficom falling into this colossal blunder. It lies at the 
 foundation of much of his argument, and the exposure of the 
 ludicrous inaccuracy of his statement knocks the bottom out of 
 the contention which he bases on it and supports by it. 
 
 Increase in Incomes from Land much less than Increase in other 
 
 Incomes 
 
 The figures we have just given show that in Great Britain, 
 between 1814 and 1911, while the gross annual value of the land 
 rather more than doubled, the gross total taxable income of the 
 country increased more than sevenfold. In the United Kingdom, 
 between 1862 and 1911, while the value of the land increased 43 
 per cent, the total gross income increased 197 per cent. 
 
 Put in another way, they show that a hundred years ago the 
 income value of all the land of Great Britain was one-third of the 
 
I02 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .i 
 
 total income-tax paying income. Now it is only one-tenth of the 
 income-tax paying income. 
 
 Nor does this state the position quite fully. In order to make 
 a proper comparison we must compare the increase in the total 
 income (liable to income tax) from sources other than land with the 
 increase in the value of land. These are the figures : 
 
 
 Values of Land Sites. 
 
 other Income. 
 
 Great Britain. 
 
 
 
 1814^15 
 
 £46,491,672 
 
 £91,129,637 
 
 1862-63 
 
 66,400,371 
 
 261,747,296 
 
 1910-11 
 
 98,133,225 
 
 907,041,164 
 
 United Kingdom. 
 
 
 
 1862-63 
 
 76,256,924 
 
 276,488,317 
 
 1910-11 
 
 109,147,937 
 
 936,685,738 
 
 In Great Britain between 1814 and 1911 the annual value of 
 land increased 111 per cent ; but the income (liable to income tax) 
 from other sources increased 895 per cent, or 8 times as much. 
 
 In the United Kingdom, between 1862 and 1911, the gross 
 income from land increased 43 per cent ; but the gross income from 
 other sources increased 240 per cent, or nearly 6 times as much. 
 
 Thus far we have limited our comparison with the income from 
 land to the income from other sources which are liable to income 
 tax. We may now extend the comparison to the total racome of 
 the nation, and especially to that portion of it which is below the 
 income-tax limit. In doing so we must be content to deal with 
 percentages and proportions, as the additional income figures which 
 we are now bringing in are net figures, while the others are gross. 
 The percentages of increase in the net income figures vary consider- 
 ably from those of the gross income figures, and so far as that is 
 so, the comparison we are about to make shows a larger comparative 
 increase in the value of land than would be shown if we could also 
 give the net figures of the income from land. 
 
 We have already shown that the percentage of increase in the 
 gross income from land between 1862 and 1910-11 was 43 per cent. 
 The increase in the total income of the nation from all sources 
 between 1862 and 1907 was : 
 
 Increase in total income ..... 156 per cent. 
 Increase in incomes above the tax exemption limit . 120 „ 
 Increase in incomes below the tax exemption limit . 176 „ 
 
CH. IV VALUE OF LAND IN UNITED KINGDOM 103 
 
 Thus, while the gross income {rom land increased 43 per cent 
 — and the net increase was much less — the net increase in the total 
 income of the country was 155 per cent, and the net increase in the 
 income of the smaller people amongst us — those whose income does 
 not exceed £160 a year — was 176 per cent. It is clear, therefore, 
 that Mr. Henry George's contention that the land-owners secure all 
 the increased wealth that results from progress, and that their share 
 of the total earnings of the community continually increases while 
 the share of capital and labour constantly diminishes, is a monstrous 
 fallacy and an absurd delusion. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 POVERTY AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND 
 
 Henry George says that private ownership of land causes poverty 
 because rent goes into the pockets of the land-owners instead of into 
 the coffers of the community. Of course people are poorer because 
 they have to pay rent, just as they are poorer because they have 
 to pay for other things. If we could have food, or clothes, or houses, 
 or land for nothing, which we now have to pay for, we should be 
 that amount better off than we now are. If we are poor, we may 
 say it is because we have to pay for these thiags. In that sense 
 and in that sense alone is poverty the result of having to pay rent. 
 
 " The Tramj) and the Locomotive " 
 
 But Henry George does not propose to relieve us of the payment 
 of rent. We are still to pay it, but we are to pay it to the community. 
 What the contention really amounts to is that people are poor not 
 because they pay rent, but because they pay it to private individuals 
 and not to the Government. This, it appears, makes aU the differ- 
 ence ; and he tells us that as the result of it : 
 
 The " tramp " comes with the locomotive, and almshouses and 
 prisons are as surely the marks of " material progress " as are costly 
 dwellings, rich warehouses, and magnificent churches. Upon streets 
 lighted with gas and patrolled by uniformed policemen, beggars wait 
 for the passer-by, and in the shadow of college, and library, and museum, 
 are gathering the more hideous Huns and fiercer Vandals of whom 
 Macaulay prophesied. '^ 
 
 He might just as well say that the grocer's shop begets flies, 
 or a circus the crowd of children which gathers around it. Populous 
 places, and places where wealth is which railways render accessible, 
 attract the tramp, the loafer, and the beggar, the idle, the incom- 
 
 ^ Progress and Poverty, p. 4. 
 104 
 
CH.V POVERTY AND PRIVATE OWNERSHIP 105 
 
 petent, the dishonest, and the thriftless. Why do we not have 
 the professional thief — the burglar, the pickpocket, and the card- 
 sharper — ^in rural districts, except when a race meeting is being held ? 
 Simply because there is no scope and opportunity for him. 
 
 He says the tramp " comes " with the locomotive, etc. Just 
 so. He was not there before a happy, prosperous, industrious, 
 law-abidiag citizen. Material progress does not turn a prosperous 
 population into tramps. It makes them more prosperous ; so 
 much so that tramps, loafers, and the like " come " and develop. 
 It does not create them any more than cheese creates mice, or 
 butcher's meat creates blue-bottle flies. 
 
 Poverty where Land is not appropriated 
 
 So far from it being true that poverty, misery, and degradation 
 are the result of private ownership of land, we know that in quite 
 recent times nearly the whole of Africa, large parts of North and 
 South America and of Central Asia and Australia, together with 
 most of the islands of the Pacific, were regions where land was not 
 appropriated as private property, and that there, amongst the 
 negroes of Abyssioia, Ashantee, and Central Africa, the Zulus and 
 Kaffirs of South Africa, the Indians of North and South America, 
 the Aborigines of Australia, the Cannibals of the Pacific and the 
 Tartars of Central Asia, there was savagery, misery and degradation, 
 slavery, polygamy and barbarous tyranny and cruelty far more 
 horrible, widespread, and unmitigated than anything that can be 
 found under the worst conditions where private ownership of land 
 prevails. 
 
 In the countries of the Red Indians of North America, the 
 Zulus of South Africa, the Maoris of New Zealand, and the wandering 
 Tartars of Asia, there was no progress in civiUsation until land was 
 privately appropriated. 
 
 So far from it being true that misery, poverty, and degradation 
 have originated in the private ownership of land, it would be true 
 to say that human misery is greatest and progress has been least 
 where land is not appropriated, and human happiness and well-being 
 have been most advanced where land is held as private property. 
 
 The Duke of Argyll said that when he was connected with the 
 Government of India he could not fail to observe that the portion 
 of that country which had most grown in wealth was precisely that 
 part of it in which the Government had parted with its power of 
 absorbing rent by having agreed to a Permanent Settlement. 
 
io6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 It is stated that China has a land system under which every one 
 holds from and pays a fixed rent to the State. The holdings are 
 small, the average being 7 acres, and estates of more than 200 acres 
 are very rare.^ This has not prevented China from being the most 
 stagnant nation in the world. There is no country where there is 
 more poverty, and where the struggle for existence is more severe. 
 The overcrowding exceeds anything to be found elsewhere, and the 
 deaths from infanticide, suicide, and starvation are appalling. The 
 people live and work under conditions which a British workman 
 would regard as unbearable. Their food he would regard as little 
 better than garbage, and the filth of their villages defies description. 
 
 ^ " La Famille ohinoiae," article in La Nouvelle Beime, March 1883. 
 
CHAPTEE VI 
 
 SOME ECONOMIC FALLACIES 
 
 In Progress and Poverty H. George devotes much space to an elabor- 
 ate discussion of the then current theories of political economists as 
 to wealth, capital, and wages, and to the propounding of some theories 
 of his own with regard thereto. He considered it necessary to 
 demonstrate what he deemed to be the unsoundness of the current 
 views, as a preliminary step to supplanting them by substituting for 
 them his own theories and explanations. I have refrained from 
 followiag him through this part of his dissertation, not because it 
 would not be interesting and instructive to do so, but because it 
 was not really necessary and considerations of time and space had 
 to be borne in mind. It was unnecessary, because if it could be 
 shown that the basis of alleged facts on which he built up the whole 
 framework of his argument was unsound and inaccurate, and that 
 the ultimate conclusion at which he arrived and the policy which 
 he propounded as the legitimate and logical deduction from them 
 were not only untenable and impolitic, but also dishonest and 
 immoral, there was little more to be said about his distinctive pro- 
 posals ; and the result of embarking on a discussion of the other 
 interesting points which he raised, would only be to confuse the 
 really important issues and divert attention to what are largely 
 irrelevant considerations, so far as the one definite practical pro- 
 posal which he made, which his whole book led up to, and with 
 which alone I have dealt, is concerned. 
 
 Throughout this discussion my object has been to refute the 
 theories we were considering by a constant and extensive appeal 
 to facts and experience. There are, however, one or two points 
 with regard to which some brief reference may appropriately be 
 made to the conclusions to which the teachings of poUtical economy 
 lead us. 
 
 107 
 
io8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 The Effect of Improvements in Production and Transit 
 
 H. Greorge's contention is that " eliminating increase of popula- 
 tion," improvement in the methods and powers of production tend 
 to increase the proportion of the aggregate produce which is taken 
 in rent, and to reduce that which goes as wages and interest.^ His 
 argument runs thus : 
 
 The effect of labour-saving improvements will be to increase the 
 production of wealth. Now, for the production of wealth, two things 
 are required — ^labour and land. Therefore, the effect of laboiur-saving 
 improvements will be to extend the demand for land, and wherever the 
 limit of the quality of land in use is reached, to bring into cultivation 
 lands of less natural productiveness, or to extend cultivation on the 
 same lands to a point of lower natural productiveness.^ 
 
 Rent will advance, while wages will fall. Of the aggregate 
 produce, the landholder will get a constantly increasing, the labourer 
 a constantly diminishing, share.* 
 
 It has already been shown that, as a matter of fact, these state- 
 ments are simply untrue, and that might be regarded as sufficient. 
 But it may be useful to point out that an increase in the production 
 of wealth does not necessarily involve any increase in the demand 
 for land, and also that many improvements and developments tend 
 to lower rent rather than raise it. 
 
 An increase in the production of wealth often increases the 
 demand for labour. When that is so, the larger number of people 
 employed will increase the demand for land, for food, houses, 
 clothing, etc. ; but H. George expressly excludes the demand for 
 land owing to increase of population. He says " eliminatiag increase 
 of population," " irrespective of increase of population." 
 
 If there is no increase in the demand for labour, an increase in 
 the production of wealth will not necessarily increase the demand 
 for land. Indeed there may be a great increase in the production 
 of wealth, and in the demand for labour, with little or no increase 
 in the demand for land in the process of producing wealth. Finer 
 materials, more highly finished goods, more elaborate and intricate 
 machines employ vastly more labour without any increased con- 
 sumption of raw material. Fine cotton, woollen or silk goods, costly 
 furniture, expensive dinners, beautiful carriages, expensive pictures, 
 employ much more labour than coarser, commoner and cheaper 
 articles of the same kind, but there is no more raw material in 
 
 ' Progress and Poverty, Preface. * Ibid. p. 173. ' Ibid. p. 246. 
 
CH.VI SOME ECONOMIC FALLACIES 109 
 
 the expensive than in the low-priced articles. There is as much 
 raw steel in a blacksmith's or joiner's chisel as would make 
 hundreds of watch-springs. Clearly, therefore, increased produc- 
 tion of wealth, through improved manufacturing processes, does not 
 always increase the demand for land, but in the great bulk of cases 
 it does increase the demand for labour. 
 
 Improvements in transportation, more, quicker, and cheaper 
 train and shipping communication enormously diminish the dis- 
 advantages of distance and bring into the market produce which 
 was excluded before. This throws out of cultivation less favourable 
 land, by enabling the better soils at a distance to take their place. 
 That raises the " margin of cultivation " and thereby reduces rents. 
 The opening up of the United States, Canada, and the Argentine 
 by railways and improved shipping communication has had this 
 effect here. Improvements in tools and machines which save 
 labour in cultivating the soil reduce rent. Improvements which 
 increase the produce of the soil for the same labour reduce rent 
 stiU more. They all raise the margin of cultivation. Increase 
 the height of buildings, concentrate a town on a less area, and the 
 tendency will be to diminish site values.-' 
 
 Rent and the Price of Produce 
 
 Another equally old and elementary fact which appears to 
 require restating is that rent forms no part of the price of agri- 
 cultural produce. Rent is the remuneration received by land- 
 owners for the use of the natural advantages of the land, whether 
 those advantages arise from the quality of the soU or from its 
 position. " Rent arises from the fact of varying degrees of pro- 
 ductiveness in the lands actually contributing to the supply of the 
 same market, the least productive land paying no rent or a rent so 
 small that it may be treated as none. The rent of all the higher 
 grades of land is measured upwards from this line, the rent of each 
 piece absorbing all the excess of produce above that of the no-rent 
 land." 2 
 
 Rent is the surplus of the crop above the cost of cultivation on the 
 least productive lands contributing to the supply of the market." 
 " That surplus, necessarily, so far as economic forces are concerned, is 
 left in the hands of the landlord. There, so far as economic forces are 
 
 1 Marshall's Principles of Economics, p. 837. 
 * F. A. Walker, Land and its Rent, p. 21. 
 
no OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 concerned, it must remain." ^ " The amount received from a farmer 
 as rent is not paid either by the agricultural labourer or by the consumer 
 of the produce." ^ 
 
 The price of wheat is fixed by the cost of producing that portion 
 of the supply which is required in that market which is produced 
 at the greatest disadvantage, that is, on what is practically no-rent 
 land. 
 
 If the price of the whole crop of wheat is to be fixed by the cost of 
 raising it on the least productive soils actually cultivated, then rent is 
 not a part of the price of agricultural produce, since the least productive 
 soils pay no rent : and therefore rent cannot be a part of the price of 
 the wheat raised therefrom : and if not of this wheat, then of no wheat, 
 since, as we have seen, the price of the whole crop is fixed by the cost 
 of that portion which is raised on the no-rent land.^ 
 
 As Ricardo put it : " Corn is not high because a rent is paid : 
 but a rent is paid because corn is high." If rent were remitted by 
 the land-owner, the tenant would get the same price for his wheat 
 imless he voluntarily gave part of it to the miller, and then the 
 miller would get as much for his flour as before, and so on to the 
 baker. 
 
 As the pressure of population requires the cultivation of less 
 and less favourable soil, the price of produce must rise in order to 
 render such cultivation profitable : that will increase the rent of 
 the more favourable land. On the other hand, improvements in 
 communication bring in produce from lands which are so much 
 more productive than the poorest land here that the produce can 
 bear the cost of transportation and still undersell the produce of 
 that poorest land. This will lower rents because that poorest land 
 will be thrown out of cultivation, and the less poor land will become 
 the standard no-rent or very low-rent land. 
 
 As the means of production and transit are improved by the 
 investment of capital, the share of the total produce which goes to 
 capital increases. One result of the increase of production resulting 
 from enterprise and capital naturally iis that, profits! and interest take 
 a much larger proportion of the total product than the increase of 
 rent does. " Rent is always the difference between the produce 
 obtained by the employment of two equal quantities of capital and 
 labour " (Ricardo). 
 
 1 F. A. Walker, Political Economy, p. 203. » Ibid. p. 236. 
 
 ' F. A. Walker, Land and its Rent, p. 29. 
 
cH.vi SOME ECONOMIC FALLACIES iii 
 
 The Sources of Wealth 
 
 Another fallacy is the teaching that labour, in the ordinary 
 sense of the term, is the sole source of value and wealth. In that 
 early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumula- 
 tion of stock and the appropriation of land, it undoubtedly is so ; 
 but labour is the sole source of value in that rude state of society 
 only. Under the conditions of modern civilisation and develop- 
 ment, the accumulated knowledge of individuals, their intellectual 
 capacity, their moral power and their organisiug ability, their 
 courage and their enterprise are our greatest material assets. 
 
 The agents of production are commonly classed as Land, Labour 
 and Capital. By Land is meant the material and the forces which 
 Nature gives freely for man's aid, in land and water, in air, light and 
 heat. By Labour is meant the economic work of man, whether with 
 the hand or the head. By Capital is meant all stored-up provision for 
 the production of material goods, and for the attainment of those 
 benefits which are commonly reckoned as part of income. It is the 
 main stock of wealth regarded as an agent of production rather than as 
 a direct source of gratification. Capital consists in part of knowledge 
 and organisation : and of this some part is private property and other 
 part is not. Knowledge is our most powerful engine of production : 
 it enables us to subdue Nature, -and force her to satisfy our wants. 
 Organisation aids knowledge. . . . The distinction between public 
 and private property in knowledge and organisation is of great and 
 growing importance : in some respects of more importance than that 
 between public and private property in material things : and partly 
 for that reason it seems best sometimes to reckon Organisation apart 
 as a distinct agent of production.^ 
 
 The Importance avd Value of Business Ability 
 
 It is quite possible to overestimate the importance of capital. 
 Business ability, that combination of mental capacity and moral 
 power with executive and organising ability, which makes a first- 
 class captain of industry, finance, and commerce, is far more valu- 
 able and important and much more rarely possessed than capital. 
 Professor Marshall has very truly observed that in developed 
 industrial commimities the possession of capital is not the sole, 
 or even the main, qualification for employing labour. The labourer 
 does not look to the employer merely to furnish wages, tools, and 
 materials ; he expects him also to provide technical sMU, commercial 
 knowledge, and powers of administration : to assume responsi- 
 ' Marshall, Principles of Economics, pp. 138, 139. 
 
112 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .. 
 
 bilities and provide against contingencies : to shape and direct 
 production and to organise and control the industrial machinery. 
 Those who possess the ability to discharge these important and 
 difficult duties can usually obtain capital. 
 
 The employer thus rises to be the master of the situation. It is 
 no longer true that a man becomes the employer of labour because he 
 is a capitalist. Men command capital because they have the qualifica- 
 tions to employ labour. To men so endowed, capital and labour alike 
 resort, for the opportunity to perform their several functions and to 
 entitle themselves to share in the product of industry.^ 
 
 We have seen that under modern conditions wealth increases 
 rapidly — ^the quantity and the value of goods produced increases 
 out of proportion to the increase in the number of labourers, and 
 the amoimt of their labour. To what is that increase due ? To 
 machinery and organisation, i.e. to capital and the employer. It 
 is invention, discovery, thought, patience, ingenuity that have 
 increased the output of labour enormously. Labour does not 
 necessarily produce wealth. It may be wasted. It may be used 
 to dig a hole and fill it up. It may be unwisely directed and con- 
 sequently produce meagre results. Genius, courage, and great 
 organising skill may direct it, and thereby increase t^e value of its 
 output. The increase — the larger output — is not due to labour, 
 but to the qualities which have organised, guided, and equipped it. 
 Those qualities are possessed and exercised by the few, and it is the 
 few who are strikingly successful. They are successful — not by 
 defrauding the workers, but by making their work more productive. 
 
 Sir John Lawes, at Rothamsted, found that after land had been 
 continuously used for wheat-growing, in the one case nature being 
 unassisted by manure, and in the other the land being suitably and 
 scientifically manured, the average crops in the last 12 years of 
 the 30 were : 
 
 
 Com. 
 
 Straw, 
 
 Total. 
 
 Without manure 
 With special manure 
 
 730 
 2342 
 
 1120 
 4828 
 
 1850 
 7270 
 
 The result showed a profit of 100 per cent on the expenditure of 
 manure. The whole of the extra produce was due to capital and 
 knowledge — not to land or labour. 
 
 1 Marshall, Principles o/ Economics, p. 234 . 
 
cH.vi SOME ECONOMIC FALLACIES 113 
 
 Where the ProJUs of Exceptional Business Ability come from 
 
 The product of industry is divided into four shares : rent, 
 interest, profits, wages. The employer's profits represent what is left 
 after rent and wages and interest on capital have been provided for. 
 Those profits are the earnings of and the reward for the employer's 
 knowledge, energy, and ability, as distinct from rent and interest. 
 They are not obtained through any deduction from the wages of 
 mechanical labour, nor do they constitute a part of the price of 
 manufactured goods. They are drawn from a body of wealth 
 which is created by the exceptional abilities of those employers. 
 Professor Alfred Marshall says : " The earnings of management 
 of a manufacturer represent the value of the addition which his 
 work makes to the total produce of capital and industry." That 
 employers who make large profits do not make them by cutting 
 wages or by obtaining higher prices for their goods than others do 
 for similar articles of the same quality — that is, that they do not 
 squeeze their profits out of either their workpeople or their customers 
 — is proved by the fact that they do not pay lower wages or charge 
 higher prices for goods of equal quality than less successful traders 
 and manufacturers. They owe their success to superior ability, 
 energy, economy, courage, judgment, and prudence. Their profits 
 consist of wealth created by themselves, over and above the wealth 
 which would have been produced in similar industrial enterprises 
 by the same labour and capital under the control of employers of 
 less efi&ciency. 
 
 Professor Marshall says great American fortunes were some- 
 times " earned mainly by the supreme economising force of a great 
 constructive genius working at a new and large problem with a 
 free hand : for instance, the founder of the VanderbUt family, who 
 evolved the New York Central Railroad system out of chaos, prob- 
 ably saved to the people of the United States more than he accumu- 
 lated himseK." 1 
 
 The more inventions and discoveries accumulate, the more 
 complex society becomes, the more civilisation advances, and the 
 more wealth increases, the greater are the risks which com- 
 mercial and industrial enterprises have to face and the more im- 
 portant and valuable do those who can accurately and successfully 
 anticipate and guide the public demand become. Many enter- 
 prises fail. Works are constructed, buildings are erected, plant 
 
 1 PrincvpUs of Economics, p. 686. 
 
 I 
 
114 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. n 
 
 is put down, and the thing fails. The workmen were paid their 
 wages. If they had shared the profit only, they would have got 
 nothing ; as it was the capitalist lost. A canal from Lough Corril 
 to Lough Mask was cut through limestone, which proved to be 
 porous and the water ran through it into the earth. The result 
 was that the canal was a costly failure. Many undertakings — 
 some railways, for example — ^pay little or no interest or dividend, 
 but they pay wages. 
 
 The conceiving mind which initiates the enterprise is always at the 
 root of the whole result, the constructive mind which thinks out the 
 details and designs the structure comes next : the capitalist, who risks 
 his money in the venture, and that other class of capitalists who under- 
 take the actual work of digging or of building, come third and fourth 
 in order : whUst the manual labourers, with their skill and experience 
 in the use of there own muscles and in the handling of tools, come last 
 of all — ^last in point of time, and in order of merit, and in efi&ciency of 
 causation, but nevertheless as indispensable as any other.^ 
 
 Most of the greatest fortunes of modern times have been made 
 by men who were neither land-owners nor capitalists, although, as 
 the result of their success, most of them ultimately became both 
 land-owners and capitalists. Brassey, Morrison, Lister, Coats, 
 Holden, the Rothschilds, Aird, Purness, Brunner, and Wills in this 
 country, and Vanderbilt, Gould, Morgan, Rockefeller, Carnegie, 
 Harriman, Marshall Field, and Wanamaker in America, did not 
 originally make their money out of land. They made it by superior 
 management, which was the outcome of superior knowledge and 
 ability, soimd commercial and financial judgment and great courage 
 and tenacity, combined with exceptional organising capacity. 
 
 Anoidst it all, " it is doubtful," says Professor Marshall, " whether 
 the aggregate of the riches of the very rich are as large a part of 
 the total national wealth even in the United States or in England 
 now as they have been in some earlier phases of civilisation. The 
 diffusion of knowledge, the improvement of education, the growth 
 of prudent habits among the masses of the people, and the oppor- 
 tunities which the new methods of business offer for the safe invest- 
 ment of small capitals — all these forces are telling on the side of 
 the poorer classes as a whole relatively to the richer. The returns 
 of the income tax and the house tax, the statistics of consumption 
 of commodities, the records of salaries paid to the higher and the 
 lower ranks of servants of Government and public companies, tend 
 
 1 Duke of Argyll, Unseen Foundationa of Society, p. 441. 
 
CH. VI SOME ECONOMIC FALLACIES 115 
 
 in the same direction, and indicate that middle-class incomes are 
 increasing faster than those of the rich ; that the earnings of artisans 
 are increasing faster than those of the professional classes, and that 
 the wages of healthy and vigorous unskilled labourers are increasing 
 faster even than those of the average artisan." ^ 
 
 NOTE 
 
 Speaking in London in June 1912, Sir Wilham Lever, of Port 
 Sunlight, said : 
 
 We have in all productive enterprises three factors. There is first a supply 
 of the raw materials which are required. These vary in value and in price 
 according to harvests of plenty and harvests of scarcity, and the finished 
 product, according to the law of demand and supply and consumption the 
 world over also varies in value. That is a variable quantity. There is no 
 fixity about it. No manufacturer can teU on the 1st of January what his 
 raw materials are going to cost him through the year to the 31st of December. 
 With skill and foresight and knowledge he may be able to form a very accurate 
 judgment, but even then, however accurate his skill may be, he cannot exactly 
 tell what his raw material wiU cost. Now, on the other hand, he has in labour 
 and in interest on capital a fixed quantity. If raw materials are dearer he 
 cannot pay any less to labour, nor can he pay any less interest on capital. 
 Those are fixed. Therefore when you have a variable manufacturing cost 
 and a varjring market value, and fixed charges in the form of interest and 
 wages, rates and taxes, repairs and renewals, depreciation and so on, you 
 must have a variable remainder. It may be a profit or a loss, but it will always 
 be variable. You have variable values for your raw materials and for the 
 article you produce. You have fixed charges, and you are bound to have a 
 variable remainder in the profits. There is no getting away from that. Now, 
 this variable remainder is produced not, I venture to say, by capital in a sense 
 other than that a business must be equipped with the right and full amount of 
 capital, just as an engine must be supphed with the fuU pressure of steam ; 
 but this variable quantity or remainder is affected by the skill of management, 
 and I have always resented any one who has talked about Capital and Labour 
 as it they were the only two causes and the only two elements in the pro- 
 ductiveness of industrial undertakings. They have always left out the third, 
 which is management. Now, it is management that is going to produce a 
 profit in the variable remainder. By bad management there may be not only 
 no remainder profit, but actual loss. By extremely good management there 
 may be profits in one industry and actual losses in other less well managed 
 industries of the same class and at the same time. 
 
 It is management, therefore, that produces the variable remainder which 
 we call profits or losses. I have equally resented the doctrine that was 
 preached by some economists a century ago that labour is the source of all 
 wealth. It is the successful management of labour, and only the successful 
 management of labour that can produce any wealth. 
 
 1 Principles of Economics, p. 687. 
 
PAET III 
 
 THE HISTOEY OF THE OWNERSHIP, TENURE, AND 
 TAXATION OF LAND IN ENGLAND 
 
 117 
 
" The roots of the present lie deep in the past, and nothing in the past is 
 dead to the man who would learn how the present came to be what it is." — Bishop 
 Stubbs. 
 
 " Let us remember that our materials for the legal history of the long age 
 which Ues behind Domesday Book are Scanty. A long age it is, even if we measure 
 it only from the date of Augustin's mission. The Conquerer stands midway between 
 ^thelbert and Elizabeth."— F. W. Maitland. 
 
 " When historical information begins, the landed estate is found to exist with 
 many of the features of the fully-developed manor." — Palgbavb's Dictionary of 
 Political Economy. 
 
 " The Theories of the past must be judged in relation to the facts of the past, 
 and not in relation to those of the present. History seems to be proving that no 
 great institution has been without its use for a time and its relative justification." — 
 Professor Ashley. 
 
 " The growth of landed aristocracy is partly to be explained by the influence 
 of capital and of patronage in times of severe social struggle and recurring devasta- 
 tion." — -Dr. VlNOGEADOFF. 
 
 " Our land system is commonly called feudal, sometimes by persons who use 
 the word as a disparaging epithet without any clear notion of what it means. . . . 
 The statement and the beUef impUed in it are so inadequate as to be misleading." — 
 Sir Fbedbeiok Pollock. 
 
 " To imagine the manorial lord of the Middle Ages as a warrior who has forcibly 
 set himself over a community of freemen is to show that one knows nothing of the 
 documents from the fifth to the tenth centuries, and that one has an altogether 
 childish idea of the origin of feudalism." — Fttstel de Coulangbs. 
 
 " Some germs of manorial institutions may be found in the Celtic age : the 
 Koman occupation of the island had undoubtedly a powerful influence on its 
 economic arrangements ; the Old English period is marked by the full development 
 of the rural township ; the feudal epoch finds the Manor at its height ; the dissolu- 
 tion of the Manor forms one of the processes by which modem commercial 
 intercourse was brought about, and survivals of the Manorial system and of its 
 component elements may still be observed all over England." — Dr. Vinogbadoff. 
 
 Ii8 
 
CHAPTEE I 
 
 OWNERSHIP, OCCUPATION, AND STATUS IN ANGLO-SAXON 
 AND EARLY NORMAN TIMES 
 
 When studying tlie introduction and growth of particular institu- 
 tions, laws, and customs, it is essential that we should understand 
 what the previously existing institutions and social and legal 
 structure were, and what were the changes in the political, economic, 
 and social conditions which rendered that growth possible and 
 necessary. 
 
 In early times in Europe, when independent tribes ceased to 
 be nomadic and became fixed settled communities, probably the 
 whole of the land of the settlement that was occupied or used 
 belonged to the chiefs or nobles and the freemen. Below the free- 
 men there were slaves and probably an intermediate class who 
 were not fully slaves. 
 
 The tribal system continued in Wales, Ireland, and the West 
 of Scotland long after it had disappeared in England as the result 
 of the Roman,Danish, and Saxon invasions and conquests. Whether 
 the manorial system here grew out of the Roman land system and was 
 the result of the natural evolution of the times here as on the Con- 
 tinent, or was introduced by the Saxon invaders, is a disputed point 
 which need not detain us. In either case it was a stage in the pro- 
 gress from the tribal system through private ownership and feudal- 
 ism to individual freedom. "The settled serfdom of a servile tenancy, 
 theoretically at will but practically for life, succeeded a condition 
 of barbarism and general slavery." Under the manorial system 
 Saxon freemen, like the Greek and Roman citizens, had below 
 them a considerable number of bondmen who were really slaves. 
 It was an early stage of the advance which slowly but steadily 
 continued and developed. 
 
 119 
 
I20 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 When the Romans left, 
 
 Under the Romans this country had been prosperous. There 
 were a large number of cities, fine main roads, aqueducts, buUdings, 
 and public works. The mineral and agricultural resources were 
 fairly developed in many parts of the country. When they left in 
 the early part of the fifth century a retrograde movement set in ; 
 trade and agriculture declined, towns decayed. For many cen- 
 turies afterwards land outside the towns — ^which soon became few 
 and small — was worth little. There was abundance of it, and the 
 population was sparse. What was of value to the people was their 
 freedom, such as it was ; their homes, such as they were ; their cattle, 
 and their crops. Their enemies were marauders at home and 
 pirates and invaders from abroad. To protect themselves against 
 these it was necessary for them to band themselves together and 
 seek the protection of some powerful chief or noble or king.v' 
 
 The coimtry was torn by iatestine quarrels between the heads 
 of the numerous kingdoms into which the island was divided. There 
 were continual internal feuds and wars, in addition to inroads by 
 the Picts and raids and invasions by predatory Norsemen, Danes, 
 Saxons, and others who gradually effected settlements here. The 
 various invaders drove the ancient inhabitants into remote or 
 imattractive districts or made them their serfs or slaves. Some 
 of them in their turn suffered a similar fate at the hands of sub- 
 sequent invaders. Those who thus established themselves spent 
 much of their time in either attacking or defending themselves 
 against their neighbours and rivals more or less distant. They 
 were rough times, in which the strong arm was supreme and might 
 very largely held the place of right. The bond which held com- 
 munities or groups together was the necessity for mutual protection. 
 The smaller folk supported the noble in his quarrels and expeditions 
 and rendered him services on his estate, according to their rank and 
 station, and he in turn upheld and defended them. It was^an 
 arrangement for mutual benefit and support. 
 
 When parts of the country were occupied by successful invading 
 forces, some of the land was usually given to those who had formed 
 the invading force in portions according to their status and import- 
 ance, while the remaining portion of the occupied territory was 
 retained by the king or chief. From this demesne he derived his 
 supphes, the work being done by serfs and non-free labourers and 
 smaller workmen and tenants. All were banded together more or 
 
cH.i IN ANGLO-SAXON AND NORMAN TIMES 121 
 
 less loosely for defence and plundering expeditions. When one 
 ruler established his authority over the whole of the country the 
 organisation extended and improved, but it was the same in kind 
 and essence. Defence was secured by personal service, and as the 
 country became more settled and towns and commerce developed, 
 levies were made to provide funds. 
 
 The Origin of the Manorial System 
 
 The origin of lords of the manor is to be sought in the growth of 
 personal dependence and private jurisdiction rather than in any 
 direct development of economic relations. Recent research has 
 made it clear that we must put it back to a remoter date than was 
 implied in much of the current teaching of the authorities thirty 
 years ago.^ 
 
 Neither the term manor nor any corresponding designation 
 occurs in Saxon times, and there were important differences between 
 the land law and practice of the old epoch and the new. Never- 
 theless Domesday Book supposes that there were manors in fuU 
 growth in Edward the Confessor's time, and even before. Vino- 
 gradoff says that if we do not find actual manors in Anglo-Saxon 
 times, " we do find several iastitutions working each by itself, but 
 combining in practice to produce the inchoate manorial system 
 which Domesday supposes everywhere." ^ The institutions of 
 landlordship, which were the root of the manorial system, were in 
 full work in the last two centuries of Saxon rule. 
 
 The consolidation of the petty monarchy wielded in after times by 
 the lord of the manor may have taken place in various ways, and most 
 likely did, according to circumstances, take place in aU of them. In 
 some townships a chief house might become richer and more prosperous 
 than the others, until its head possessed a commanding influence and 
 the poorer members were glad to become his dependents. But the 
 man who had thriven and become a lord in his own township would be 
 sought as a protector, sooner or later, by strangers also. There were 
 times of warfare between kingdom and kingdom, and later of Danish 
 
 1 How what was thought to be known, and the old views, have been modified 
 and adjusted, is iudicated by Sir Frederick Pollock's preface to the third edition 
 of his little book on T%e Land Laws. The first edition was pubHshed in 1883, the 
 second in 1887, and ia the preface to the third edition in 1896 he said : "I have 
 found it necessary to rewrite a good deal of the chapter on early customary law, 
 to alter much of the Appendix, and to add a wholly new note on the Origins of the 
 Manor, in order to keep the antiquarian part abreast of the present state of scholar- 
 ship." Since that was written research has modified the views which were current 
 in 1850-1883 still further. 
 
 ' English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 340. 
 
122 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 harrying and general disorder, in which old bounds and usages were 
 overridden, and the bonds of society loosened. There were times of 
 distress, too, when freemen were ready to " bow their heads for meat " 
 to any who would support them, insomuch that the neediest of them 
 were driven to become not merely dependents but bondmen. Thus the 
 dominion of the stronger landholders, once set on foot, was increased 
 by the submission of many sorts of people, now singly, now, perhaps, 
 collectively. Grants of public jurisdiction and revenues from the 
 king completed the strength and pre-eminence of the lords ; and this 
 process, repeated all over the country, had long before the Conquest 
 made England into a land of great estates, cultivated partly by person- 
 ally free dependents and partly by bondmen.^ 
 
 Anglo-Saxon documents, when they do go into detail, show us the 
 tillers of the soil in a condition not materially difierent from the viUenage 
 of the thirteenth century. The labour dues, well known in post- 
 Norman inquests and court rolls, are there ; a lord to whom they are 
 rendered is there ; the highly artificial system of common-field cultiva- 
 tion, though not described in terms, is plainly there too when one has 
 learnt to trace it. Free communities are not visibly there, only sup- 
 posed survivals of ancient freedom, which, after all, may be regarded as 
 ambiguous.^ 
 
 Whatever the precise conditions were prior to that time — and 
 there is still much obscurity about it and considerable difference 
 of opinion among authorities — it appears that when England had 
 become one kingdom something like the manorial system was in 
 existence. In the manorial rolls in which franchises are enumerated 
 " there are English words of immemorial antiquity which had 
 their technical meaning centtiries before the Conquest, and which 
 the Norman lawyers, only half-understanding them, thought it 
 prudent to leave untranslated." ' 
 
 The Constitution of the Manor 
 
 The characteristic of the manor was that the area embraced 
 in it was subject to the authority of a " lord of the manor," who 
 owned absolutely a considerable part of the land and had rights 
 of rent or tribute (which in those days was paid in services or pro- 
 duce and afterwards in serAdces and money, and finally in money, 
 until in a large proportion of the cases all rent ceased) over the 
 other portions of the manor. 
 
 The manor of Norman times was similar to the " ham " or 
 " tun " of Saxon times. It was the estate of a lord with a village 
 
 1 Pollock, Th& Land Laws, p. 35. ^ Ibid. p. 204. a /jj-^ p. n. 
 
CH. I IN ANGLO-SAXON AND NORMAN TIMES 123 
 
 community in villenage upon it. In Saxon times there was the 
 same division under different names of the land of the " ham " 
 and "tun " into the lord's demesne and the land in villenage as in 
 Norman times. The lord of the manor was a thane and the demesne 
 was the " thane's inland." The villeins were geneats, and the land 
 in villenage was geneats-land. The smaller tenants on the land 
 were geburs and cottiers. Beneath these were the iheows or slaves. 
 Some of the theows were slaves by birth. But it seems to have been 
 a not uncommon thing for freemen to sell themselves into slavery 
 imder the pressure of want. " Theows were bought and sold in 
 the market and exported from English ports across the seas, as 
 part of the commercial produce of the island." 
 
 New manors were from time to time created, sometimes by 
 life tenures of forest and waste land being granted by the great 
 earls and the king, on which communities were gathered together 
 and villages bmlt. Yoimg thanes built up new " hams " which 
 gradually extended and were in time created into manors. 
 
 The Saxon kings, as did their Norman, Plantagenet, Tudor, and 
 Stuart successors, rewarded services and friendships by grants of 
 lands from the royal demesne. The abbots and monks were also 
 continually wheedling grants out of the king and other large land- 
 owners for monastic purposes. Bede complained bitterly that 
 these profuse grants had already in his time seriously weakened 
 the king's power of using the royal estates legitimately as a means 
 of keeping up his army and maintaining the national defences. 
 
 Boc-land and Folk-land 
 
 Land was for the most part either Boc-land or Folk-land. The 
 view which was generally held, until recently, was that the land 
 which had become the private property of the king, or a monastery, 
 or a private person, was " boc-land " ; that all other land was folk- 
 land or public-land ; and that this land became attached to the 
 petty kingships as they established their power and asserted their 
 authority and, when the country came under one king, the folk- 
 land was absorbed in the royal demesne and belonged to the 
 people as a whole. Dr. VinogradofE, however, upset this theory, 
 and proved that folk-land was land held without written title or 
 documents, but under the common or customary law. Professor 
 Maitland says, " What is folk-land ? A few years ago the answer 
 that historians gave to this question was this : ' It is the land of 
 the folk, the land belonging to the folk.' Dr. Vinogradoff has 
 
124 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 argued that this is not the right answer. His argument has con- 
 vinced us." ^ 
 
 Bookland is land held by book, by a royal and ecclesiastical privi- 
 legium. Folk-land is land held without book, by unwritten law, by 
 the folk-law. . . . The holder of folk-land is a free landowner, though 
 at an early date the king discovers that over him and his land there 
 exists an alienable superiority. Partly by aUenations of this superiority, 
 partly perhaps by gifts of land of which the king himself is the owner, 
 book-land is created.^ 
 
 Spelman held this view two centuries ago, and he was right. 
 Sir Frederick Pollock, in the third edition of The Land Laws, says : 
 
 For many years all or nearly all scholars, including myself, accepted 
 Allen's explanation that " folk-land " was cyer publicus, land held by 
 the nation for public purposes. But it has been shown by Mr. Vino- 
 gradofE that this brilliant and plausible interpretation really raised 
 more difficulties than it solved ; and the restoration of Spelman's 
 opinion has been accepted, so far as I know, without an expression of 
 dissent in any quarter.' 
 
 We may take it, therefore, as settled that " Folk-land " was 
 land held by folk-right or custom, as distinct from land held by 
 written document, charter, or " book." Different persons might 
 own folk-land. It might belong to private citizens ; it might 
 belong to the king for his private use ; it might belong to the 
 State. It did not belong to the community as such ; it was not, 
 as was once supposed, public land held for public purposes. Land 
 held by anybody was folk-land unless it had been turned into book- 
 land by a written grant or confirmation. 
 
 The System of Agriculture 
 
 We have seen that at the time of the Norman Conquest agri- 
 culture in England had been carried on under the open field system 
 by village communities in villenage, a system of Saxon serfdom ; 
 and that system prevailed throughout all that part of the country 
 which the Saxons had thoroughly conquered, with some exception 
 in Danish districts where freemen and free tenants were found. 
 
 At the time of the Domesday survey the whole of the country 
 was practically manorial or royal demesne. Both in the manors 
 and in the royal demesne the division of the land into two distinct 
 portions — the lord's demesne and land in villenage— was practically 
 
 * Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 244. ' Ibid. p. 257. ' P. 23. 
 
CH.I IN ANGLO-SAXON AND NORMAN TIMES 125 
 
 universal.^ At that time by far the largest part of the country was 
 forest and waste : uncleared and undrained moor, wood and marsh- 
 land. There were 9250 manors, of which about two-fifths were 
 arable or pasture and three-fifths were uncultivated waste.^ The 
 demesne of the manor was cultivated by the lord except such 
 portions as he let ofE to tenants on free tenure at money rents. 
 The land in villenage was held by tenants in villenage, at the will 
 of the lord and at customary services. 
 
 The Open Field System 
 
 The land was in open fields — ^in strips^-divided into three 
 portions, which were cultivated on the rotation principle. A 
 common holding in villenage was a house with a " virgate," or a 
 half-virgate or " yard-land." A virgate comprised about 30 acres — 
 10 acres in each of the three rotation fields — in \ acre or 1 acre 
 strips scattered all over the manor, to which were added 2 or 3 
 acres of pasture. 
 
 Sometimes villein tenants of virgates or half-virgates also held 
 other land in the lord's demesne as free tenants, but they remained 
 tenants in villenage for their virgates. There were also smaller 
 cottage holdings, the holders of which were lower in the social scale 
 than the two grades of holders of virgates and half-virgates, who in 
 turn were inferior to the free tenants of portions of the lord's demesne. 
 
 The homesteads of the villeins were in the villages, and the 
 bundles of scattered strips in the open fields went with them. Below 
 the viUein tenants were the cottiers with small holdings, and below 
 them the servi or slaves, who, after the Domesday times, gradually 
 became merged either among the cottier class, or as household 
 servants or labourers on the lord's demesne.^ In Domesday serfs 
 have no holdings or tenements in the proper sense of the word.* 
 
 These holdings of the villeins were held subject to the 
 customary services, but within the restraints of the villenage there 
 was a measure of freedom. There were woods and commons 
 outside the demesne ia which the tenants of the lord had rights 
 limited by custom. In some cases there were additional payments 
 for rights of grazing cattle, etc. 
 
 ^ Seebohm, p. 84. 
 
 * Gibbins, Industrial History of England, p. 11. 
 
 » " If we turn to the Old English charters we shall have to recognise that, 
 up to the eleventh century, slavery and manumiasion from slavery are playing a 
 most important part in social life." — Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh 
 Century, p. 465. 
 
 * Vinogradoff, English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 463. 
 
126 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. 
 
 Ill 
 
 The open fields as well as the lord's demesne were for some 
 centm:ies ploughed in common, and the amomit of the fields— the 
 number of strips — ^thus allocated to each villein tenant seems to 
 have been in proportion to his contribution to the common stock 
 of work. Eventually the system of common tillage died out, and 
 the villein tenant occupied the scattered strips permanently and 
 cultivated them himself. 
 
 Apparently the villein tenants were entitled to certain services 
 from the village artificers and others who were, so to speak, officials 
 of the village or manor. The blacksmith, the carpenter, the keeper 
 of the poimd, the chief husbandman who supervised and arranged 
 the ploughing, etc., of the land as the representative of the tenants, 
 each had his house in the village and his share of the open fields, 
 and he held them free of the customary tenant's services in con- 
 sideration of their special duties.^ In the bishopric of Durham, in 
 the twelfth century, the pounder, the carpenter, and the smith 
 generally occupied about 12 acres as remuneration for their services 
 to the manor, and the common ploughs of the manor. In other 
 cases the records show that the parish constable, the churchwardens, 
 the parish hayward, and the parish reeve had holdings in virtue of 
 their office.^ 
 
 How holdings came to consist of a number of scattered strips 
 is explained by Seebohm ^ to be due to the way in which the produce 
 of the common holding was allotted to various tenants. His view 
 is, and it is supported by interesting evidence, that each man's 
 share was in proportion to his contribution of oxen, ploughs, etc., 
 to the common tillage, and that, when tilled, the land was allotted 
 in strips of 1 acre or | acre as the case might be, as follows : — The 
 first acre ploughed went to the ploughman, the second to the plough 
 irons, the third to the outside sod ox, the fourth to the outside 
 sward ox, the fifth to the driver, the sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, 
 tenth, and eleventh to the other six oxen in order of worth, and the 
 twelfth for the maintenance of the woodwork of the plough. The 
 number of groups of 12 acres in which a tenant would get one or 
 more strips of an acre would depend on the number of oxen, etc., he 
 contributed to the tillage, and his total holding would be scattered 
 according to the number of separate groups of tillage to which he 
 had contributed oxen, ploughs, or men. 
 
 The " common field " system and cultivation in England 
 
 1 Seebohm, p. 70. '' Slater's English Peasantry, p. 34. 
 
 ' The English ViUage Community. 
 
CH. I IN ANGLO-SAXON AND NORMAN TIMES 127 
 
 obtained in Scotland and in Ireland, and was known there as 
 " Runrig " and " Rundale " respectively. 
 
 This semi-communal method of cultivation had nothing what- 
 ever to do with the idea of any communal ownership of the soil. 
 The cultivators were simply joint tenants for which they all paid 
 rent in kind, or in service, or in money, to the owner of the estate 
 of which this land was a part. 
 
 'Free. Tenants, Villeins, and Serfs 
 
 Long before the Conquest a great part of the cultivation of land 
 in England was done by persons who occupied it by agreement 
 with or permission of the owner, and paid for its use in kind, labour, 
 or money, and sometimes in all three. This land was known as 
 Icen-land — ^loan-land — and it was said to be held on l(Bn or loan. 
 
 Under feudalism, the tenant not only paid the owner for his 
 land in money, kind, and labour, but he owed him personal service, 
 and allegiance, and attendance at his court. The tenant's lord 
 might be similarly bound to an over-lord, and he again to another 
 above him. 
 
 Mere viUenage is that which is so held that the tenant in viQenage, 
 whether free or bond, shall do of villein service whatever is commanded 
 him, and may not know at nightfall what he must do on the morrow, 
 and shall ever be held to uncertain dues ; and he may be taxed at the 
 will of the lord for more or for less . . . yet so that if he be a free man 
 he doth this in the name of viUenage and not in the name of personal 
 service.^ 
 
 The state of villenage and of serfage was practically the same 
 in principle ; the difference was one of degree. Both were bound 
 to the soil and both were subject to a master. Serfs were not slaves 
 as we understand the term. At the time of the Norman Conquest 
 slaves formed about 9 per cent of the population mentioned in 
 Domesday Book, and within a century after that they appear to 
 have been merged in the cottars. 
 
 At this time there were also a number of " socagers " or " soke- 
 men." They were free tenants. They held in fee simple by 
 services to their lord. Their rent was fixed and unalterable. Nor 
 were they fixed to the soil. They were bound to give military 
 service when called upon by their lord. They were of greater 
 independence and of better standing than the villeins. They 
 were much more numerous in the eastern parts of the country than 
 1 Braoton, folio 208b. 
 
128 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND Px.m 
 
 elsewhere. There they were from one-fourth to nearly one-half 
 the population. Taking the country as a whole, however, they 
 were only 4 per cent. The number of free tenants was, however, 
 constantly increasing. Tenants in villenage often commuted 
 their services into money pajonents when the lord preferred to have 
 money so that he could employ any one he wished. Sometimes also 
 a lord would prefer to let his own demesne land for a fixed rent, 
 rather than cultivate it himself. Thus the villein might become 
 a free tenant. 
 
 The majority of the rural population were probably unfree as 
 late as the thirteenth century, but how great a majority we cannot 
 say. Below the villeins were other personally free tenants described 
 by various names, the lowest of whom' were little better off than 
 bondsmen. Certainly a large number of bondmen existed. " Prob- 
 ably most of them were descendants of the British population who 
 had been spared in the Conquest. At all events they were person- 
 ally in their lords' power, and were at their mercy in everything 
 short of life and limb. Whatever they held of land or goods was 
 held only by the lord's permission and might be recalled at Ms will." ^ 
 
 Personal servile status and land held subject to servile services 
 were two distinct things. An unfree man might hold free land, 
 but that would not make him personally a free man. A free man 
 might hold land on a servile tenure, but that did not make him 
 personally unfree. As Bracton put it : " The tenement changes 
 not the condition of a free man any more than of a slave. For a 
 free man may hold in mere villenage, doiag whatever service there- 
 to belongs, and shall none the less be free, since he does this in 
 regard of the villenage, and not in regard of his person." ^ 
 
 The Growth of Freedom 
 
 Towards the end of the fourteenth century the restraints were 
 far less than they had been, but a measure of serfdom remained. 
 Villeins by descent, as distinct from freemen, were boimd to 
 render the customary services, and were bound by regulations and 
 liable to fines on marriage or selling an ox without licence from the 
 lord, or if their daughters lost their chastity. If they left the 
 manor without permission, they were pursued and arrested and 
 brought back. The actual services, however, had been almost 
 entirely commuted for money payments ; but at times some lords 
 tried to enforce the older and stricter rules. It was this that 
 1 PoUook, p. 46. " PoUo 26a. 
 
cH.i IN ANGLO-SAXON AND NORMAN TIMES 129 
 
 created discontent and provoked the resentment and revolt which 
 led to Wat Tyler's rising. 
 
 Meanwhile, as slavery disappeared and peasants of all grades 
 obtained more or less practical freedom, the wage system naturally 
 and inevitably grew up. The more favourably placed and richer 
 villeins became small farmers and often needed labourers. The 
 lords and large farmers dispensed with servile services, and received 
 or paid money in lieu of them. The poorer viUeins and cottars 
 with little or no land were employed by the lord and others who 
 had larger portions of land under their own cultivation. 
 
 After the Great Plague of 1348-i9 the amelioration of the 
 conditions of the villeias proceeded rapidly. Those who did not 
 become free tenants — and the circumstances of the time enabled 
 many of them to do so — ^became customary tenants, that is what 
 we now know as copyholders. Thus the great class of yeomen 
 was created and built up. From the freemen, the servile tenants, 
 and the serfs sprang the freeholder, the copyholder, and the free 
 wage-earning labourer.^ 
 
 The Customary Tenants — Copyholders 
 
 In the old days the lord of the manor wa,s " a kind of small 
 sovereign prince, possessed of his own courts, and doing justice 
 according to his own procedure and customs." His powers and 
 jurisdiction have been shrivelled by the changes of centuries, until 
 now they are next to nothing and only the names remain. 
 
 It is generally held that copyholders are the successors and 
 descendants of villeins who held villein land, and copyhold tenure 
 is villein tenure with the manorial customs protected by law and 
 upheld by the courts. In course of time the greater part of the 
 base tenure and villenage became copyhold on favourable terms, 
 and ultimately was completely enfranchised and became freehold. 
 The conditions of the tenure varied much because the manorial 
 customs on which they were based varied at different times and in 
 different places. As Mr. Tawney puts it, " villeinage was the pit 
 from which copyhold tenure was digged." 
 
 As feudalism died out and the customs of which it consisted 
 weakened, two results ensued. On the one hand the tenants of 
 lands (copyholds) which were subject to them, but had largely 
 shaken them off, were relieved of odious and burdensome obliga- 
 
 1 Freehold was the relation of a free tenant to his lord. Copyhold was the 
 outcome of the relation of a villein to his lord. 
 
 K 
 
I30 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 tions, and were left far freer to pursue their business and push 
 their fortunes in their own way. On the other hand their title and 
 tenure being a customary one, the weakening of custom weakened 
 their hold and diminished their protection, while the advent of 
 greater freedom brought with it competition, commercialism, rack 
 rents, and market prices. 
 
 Technically, with the Conquest the old order of land-owning 
 collapsed, and a clean sweep of old titles was made. Where EngUsh- 
 men still held land it was by express grant from the king, and if 
 they resumed their old estates the title under which they held was 
 the new one of a grant from William I. Heavy payments had to 
 be made for these resumptions. 
 
CHAPTEE II 
 
 THE ORIGIN AND BASIS OF FEUDALISM 
 
 The fundamental basis of feudalism arose out of the conditions 
 which prevailed throughout Europe in the later Eoman times and 
 the early medieval period. 'In those days the great and universal 
 need was protection. ' (JVhen the Koman Empire was decaying and 
 the German settlement was chaotic the safety and protection which 
 a settled and powerful government should provide were wanting) 
 On every hand was felt the need of protection against the attacks 
 of oppressive neighbours, invading tribes, or revolting peasants, 
 and sometimes against the oppression and exactions of govern- 
 ments and their officials. The smaller and weaker freemen and 
 land-owners 
 
 . . . were exposed to attack in almost every relation of life and on 
 every side. As they could not obtain the protection which a government 
 ought to supply, they were driven to obtain it where they could find it 
 on the terms on which they could get it. 
 
 This is the great social fact — ^the failure of government to perform 
 one of its most primary duties, the necessity of finding some substitute 
 in private Ufe — extending in greater or less degree through the whole 
 formative period of feudalism, which explains the transformation of 
 institutions that brought it into existence.^ V 
 
 After the Break-up of the Roman Empire 
 
 The Roman Empire had been an Empire of settled law and 
 order and of security of individual possession — a dominion of far- 
 reaching civilisation which endured longer than any other of which 
 we have knowledge. It was overwhelmed by hordes of prolific and 
 hungrybarbarians, who conquered in order to seize, settle, and possess. 
 " Probably no period in the history of mankind has been so full of 
 
 1 Dr. G. B. Adams, Professor of History, Yale University, article " Feudalism," 
 Ency. Brit., 11th ed. 
 
 131 
 
132 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.hi 
 
 misery, or of misery so widely spread, as the long and dark centuries 
 during whicli the Roman provinces were sinking under the recurring 
 waves of barbarian invasion." ^ 
 
 Those centuries began with the migration of the Goths into the 
 Eastern Roman provinces ia 376, and may be said to have continued 
 to the Norman invasion of England in 1066 — seven centuries during 
 which new possessors were subjugating and taking possession of 
 the old Roman provinces, with the result that during all that time 
 there were few parts of Europe where the people could feel any 
 security of possession in their- homes. Compact masses of barbarians 
 overran Europe : in the East the Goths and Huns ; in the North 
 and West the Scandinavians ; in the South the Arabs. When they 
 conquered a coimtry they sacked the towns and either put the 
 inhabitants ia the country districts to death or became their lords 
 and made them their serfs. When these barbarians had lost their 
 nomadic habits and become more or less civilised, bands of armed 
 men overspread the country, plundering and ransacking and levying 
 tribute on every side. When the war between England and France 
 ceased after the battle of Poictiers, the soldiers of the two armies 
 coalesced and made war on their own account. They formed bands 
 and went off north and south ravaging the country. At Avignon 
 the Pope regaled the leaders and gave absolution and 500,000 
 ducats to their followers. 
 
 For centuries people lived ia continual terror. Fortified towns 
 and country castles and strongholds were an absolute necessity. 
 The castles required courtyards protected by moats and drawbridges 
 so that the peasants could shelter their crops and cattle. The 
 castle, or lord's or chief's house and its surrounding defences, was 
 the place of common defence to which all resorted ia time of danger. 
 It was maiatained for the common good by the labour and service 
 of all. When agriculture became more general and conditions 
 became more settled, the peasants commuted their services into 
 payments. The nobles did the same with the kings, and eventually 
 the king, as the representative of the nation, took over the responsi- 
 bihty of defence and the maiatenance of internal order, and the 
 cost was borne by all in proportion to their means and ability. 
 
 The barons themselves were often a source of trouble and terror 
 to their neighbours. They were apt to carry on warfare amongst 
 themselves in order to enlarge their territories, fill their coffers, and 
 extend their power. Sometimes they and their followers were little 
 
 ' Duke of Argyll, Unseen Foundations of Society, p. 196. 
 
CH.II ORIGIN AND BASIS OF FEUDALISM 133 
 
 better than highwaymen and brigands. They were rough times, 
 and the higher clergy were often no better than the barons. "(The 
 Archbishop of Narbonne, at the end of the twelfth century, strolled 
 about the fields with his canons and archdeacons, hunting the wild 
 beasts, plundering the peasants, and violating the women. He had 
 in his pay a band of Argonese routiers whom he employed to ransack 
 the country." ^ 
 
 The smaller barons were largely crushed out by having their 
 territory seized by more powerful neighbours, or they were com- 
 pelled to seek the protection of the strong-by giving them their 
 allegiance and becoming their vassals. In this way the great barons 
 established dukedoms, principaUties, and little kingdoms. As the 
 smaller barons disappeared and strong kings and great feudatories 
 emerged, petty brigandage and warfare between neighbouring 
 barons gradually ceased. Then agriculture improved and spread 
 and commerce developed. Gradually the special need for the 
 military basis of feudalism ceased and in course of time the system 
 faded away. In some parts it perished by warfare, and it has been 
 said, in reference to those cases, that its destruction was brought 
 about by the very qualities which had justified its existence. The 
 old feudal barons and their castles were largely wiped out in England 
 during the Wars of the Roses. 
 
 Feudalism was ever changing according to the character and 
 power of the respective kings and their barons and the economic 
 and social conditions which from time to time prevailed in the 
 countries in which it existed. The result was that while difierent 
 feudal systems in different countries and at different times have 
 been similar in general character, they have varied much in detail 
 because they started from different forms of government and social 
 organisation and have developed in different ways under different 
 conditions. " Feudal history was always a becoming, always a 
 gradual passing from one stage to another, so long as feudalism 
 continued to form the main organisation of society." ^ 
 
 Feudalism a Natural and Necessary Stage 
 
 ' One of the great gifts bequeathed by the Roman Empire 
 to those who overwhelmed it was its Law. The fundamental 
 principles of the Roman system of jurisprudence were adopted 
 and adapted by the barbarian conquerors, with the result that the 
 principles of equity and order and respect for individual rights 
 1 Lafarq^ue, p. 101. ^ Professor G. B. Adams. 
 
134 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 which had been the strength of the Eoman Empire were continued 
 and formed the foimdation upon which were ultimately built the 
 liberties which we now enjoy. 
 
 The feudal system has been commonly regarded as something 
 new and unique. In some respects of detail and form it was : in 
 principle it was neither. The right of every nation that exists 
 to-day, or ever has existed, to the exclusive use of its territory rests 
 on no other foundation than its power to take, hold, and defend it. 
 Where barbarism has been supplanted by civilisation and progress 
 it has frequently been as the result of conquest, seizure, and sub- 
 jugation, and in such parts of the earth as Central Africa and the 
 islands of the Pacific, where the aboriginal inhabitants were left to 
 themselves, hideous brutahty, degrading superstition, and terrible 
 misery were, and in some parts are yet, the chronic condition. The 
 conscience of mankind has never recognised any obligation on the 
 part of civiUsed nations to leave these peoples ia sole possession of 
 the lands they have drenched with blood and cursed with lust and 
 cruelty. H 
 
 Every community holds and always has held its possessions 
 on a more or less direct military tenure. Military service is the 
 price of secure possession. The more imminent the danger and 
 the less powerful and complete the other organisations for defence, 
 the more obvious and pressing the necessity for personal service. 
 " The northern races — to whom the outward and settled forms, at 
 least, of military tenure had been laaknown in their own coimtry — 
 were all speedily compelled to adopt it when they became the con- 
 querors of other men, and the possessors by conquest of other lands. 
 They neither brought those forms with them out of the lands from 
 which they came, nor did they find them pre-estabhshed in the 
 lands which they invaded. Nothing can show more clearly than 
 this indisputable fact that feudal tenures were nothing but the 
 natural expression of insuperable conditions of actual Ufe." ^ 
 Written laws are accepted doctrines systematised and crystallised. 
 Those doctrines are based on custom and experience, which in turn 
 are the outcome of the necessities of the conditions which prevail. 
 The process of building up structures of property, civiUsation, and 
 jurisprudence is a slow one. The feudal system of law took 500 
 years to develop. Diu'ing rough and rude ages it supplied the 
 place of regular government and enforced the legal doctrines upon 
 which all property and rights depend. 
 
 "^ Unseen Foundations, p. 211. 
 
cH. n ORIGIN AND BASIS OF FEUDALISM 135 
 
 In those times every one knew that the possessions of all had 
 been acquired by military strength and rested upon it for continual 
 defence. This power was to them the origin of all existing rights, 
 and the ever-present necessity of protection to enable them to hold 
 and enj oy any property was always before them. " When barbarous 
 invaders were ever in sight, or were actually thundering at the door, 
 men must have borne in perpetual remembrance the allegiance 
 and the services which were due to those who could hold the gates, 
 and when those gates were all in succession forced, and the invading 
 hosts came in Uke a flood, all those among the conquered races who 
 were allowed to retaia their lands could only, and did only, expect 
 to do so on condition of tribute and dependence." ^ 
 
 The feudal system was in its time the method by which security 
 was maintained, property defended, and civilisation and progress 
 rendered possible. It grew out of the conditions under which the 
 viQage communities, manors, and townships evolved. The feudal 
 barons and their men-at-arms formed a permanent defence force, 
 maintained by the people on the estate which they protected and 
 ruled. After the Norman Conquest every incident of feudalism 
 was saturated with the requirements of battle. The tenure of the 
 poorest servant and that of the greatest noble depended upon and 
 were controlled by a similar polity. " What the tenant-in-chief 
 rendered to his king, what his vassals in turn rendered to himself, 
 and what each viUein rendered to the vassals, were all, so to speak, 
 the various parts of the warrior's armour." ^ 
 
 The 'Services of the Roman Empire to Civilisation 
 
 A form of society which gives security of possession and a system 
 of law which defines, limits, and defends the various and competing 
 rights of persons are fundamental and essential conditions of civilisa- 
 tion and progress. The further research is carried the more do we 
 realise how much Europe and the civilised world owe to Roman 
 Law, Roman Institutions, and Feudalism. A recent writer in a 
 London evening paper ' said : 
 
 The truest indication of what the Roman Empire was is the sigh 
 for its restoration that Europe heaved for nearly a thousand years. 
 ****** 
 
 The autocracy that cleaned out the canals in Egypt, planted flax 
 and encouraged pottery in Gaul, irrigated Africa and taught agriculture 
 to the Moorish nomads, set the wild Iberians to mining and weaving, 
 
 ^ Unseen Foundations, p. 221. 
 ^ Gamier, Annals of the British Peasantry, p. 11. ' Pall Mall Gazette. 
 
136 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 built aqueducts and roads everywhere, established a postal system, and 
 policed land and sea so effectively that a man might fare from York 
 to Palmyra, or from Trier to Morocco, " with his bosom full of gold," 
 may be tyranny governing in its own interests, but it is an institution 
 for which the world has every reason to be grateful.^ 
 
 i|: 4: 4: 4: H: * 
 
 Take it for all in all, the Eoman Empire was the greatest and most 
 beneficent organization of human life and force that the world has ever 
 seen. That it fell after five centuries is surely not a very damning 
 iadictment, as the world goes. . . . The profound sense of tragedy 
 which haunted its orphaned provinces for so many centuries is its best 
 and its sufficient epitaph. 
 
 Where Roman Law and Feudalism did not reach 
 
 As to Feudalism, the Duke of Argyll very forcibly pointed out 
 that — 
 
 We find in the history of Europe the remarkable fact that wealth 
 grew most steadily, civilisation advanced most rapidly, in those nations 
 in which the feudal system reached its highest form ; whilst, on the 
 other hand, in those countries in which its essential character was so 
 marked by imperfect growth that even the very existence of it is some- 
 times denied, the worst economic evils of insecure possession attained 
 their maximum development. This is well seen in the condition during 
 many centuries of those branches of the Celtic race which had been 
 planted beyond the boundary of the Eoman provinces, and were thus 
 isolated from the various influences which together determined the 
 main stream of Eiiropean civilisation.^ 
 
 The Duke refers at length to the early history of Celtic Ireland 
 in illustration of this view. He quotes Montalembert as — despite 
 Ms enthusiastic sympathy with the " Monks of the West " — record- 
 ing, with reluctance and a shudder, the unbroken tale of savage 
 ferocity which is the monotonous burden of the story of the tribal 
 stage of society as exemplified among the Irish Celts from their 
 earliest settlement in the country down to times which elsewhere 
 in Europe were days of much civilisation. It is a dreary record of 
 human degradation and utter savagery, internecine strife, chronic 
 hatred, and continuous slaughter, ravaging, and devastation, inter- 
 spersed with visitations of pestilence. 
 
 The Duke * contends that the long immunity of the Irish Celts 
 from foreign conquest, owing to their geographical position, proved 
 
 ' " In such matters as transit, pubKo health, poUce, water supply, engineering, 
 building, and so forth, Rome of the second century left off pretty much where the 
 reign of Queen Victoria was to resume." — Mr. Stobart, 
 
 ^ Unseen Foundations, p. 230. ^ Ibid. p. 238. 
 
CH.I1 ORIGIN AND BASIS OF FEUDALISM 137 
 
 to be, economically, not a blessing but a curse. The foundations 
 of order and of law had never been laid there, as they had been laid 
 elsewhere in Europe,by the masterful dominion of the Roman Empire. 
 There did not come in an efEective form until the sixteenth century 
 that contact and conflict with the superior branches of the Indo- 
 European stock out of which came all the higher civilisations of 
 Europe. Within historic times Ireland had not been conquered, 
 as the other countries of Europe were all conquered, by a fresh and 
 invading race. The Romans never landed on it. The heathen 
 Norsemen did for a time occupy portions of it ; but they were 
 driven out. When the Normans at last came to it, they did not 
 efiectively occupy it. Ireland was not invaded and subdued by the 
 Normans as England was invaded and subdued by them. Henry II. 
 did not attempt to conquer it. He accepted a proffered fealty. 
 He left no garrison, he did not build a single castle or establish a 
 single stronghold. " There was no happy break in the unhappy 
 continuity of old Celtic customs. No Roman colonists had intro- 
 duced into Ireland the most fruitful of all the gifts inherited by 
 the nations of modern Europe — the gift which the rest of the northern 
 nations had long enjoyed — ^the great conceptions and traditions of 
 the Roman law." '• 
 
 Regarding Scotland, the Duke of Argyll says : " Those parts of 
 Scotland which were for centuries behind the rest of it, and some 
 of which are stiU the most backward, were precisely those districts 
 in which the clan system lasted longest, and in which its everlasting 
 intertribal wars — hardly less bloody and devastating than those of 
 Ireland — wasted the country and often more than decimated the 
 people." 
 
 1 Unseen Foundations, p. 242. ^ Ibid p 263, 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 FEUDALISM IN EN&LAND 
 
 The Military Side 
 
 In the earlier Saxon period in England military service was a 
 personal obEgation. " The host was originally the people in arms : 
 the whole free population, whether land-owners or dependants, 
 their sons, servants, and tenants." Later, this national levy, the 
 fyrd, as it was called, was an array not of the whole able-bodied 
 popidation, but of representatives of aU the households of the 
 country. It was emphatically the host of free men, and in times 
 of necessity it must have included representatives of all the free 
 households of the country. 
 
 With regard to the origin of the connection between land- 
 holding and military service, Stubbs says : " In process of con- 
 quest, land was the reward of service : the service was the obliga- 
 tion of freedom, of which the land was the outward and visible 
 sign. But very early, as soon, perhaps, as the idea of separate 
 property in land was developed, the military service became, not 
 indeed a burden upon the land, but a personal duty that practically 
 depended on the tenure of the land." ^ Attendance at the fyrd 
 became attached to land-holding (not merely land-owning) because 
 it was necessary that the soldiers should be men of some substance 
 and status. " A man without a firm hold on a unit of husbandry, 
 represented by a tenement, could not meet the expenses and require- 
 ments of the fyrd in regard to equipment, food, and necessary loss 
 of time and labour. It was not merely as a fighting man that he 
 had to appear on the scene, but as a self-supporting householder ; 
 and the fyrd had to be considered as much from the point of view 
 of the drain on his resources as from that of personal prowess and 
 ' Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 190. 
 138 
 
cH.m FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 139 
 
 possible bodily danger. In accordance with this, we find that the 
 duty to serve in the/j/rc? is spoken of as one of the normal incidents 
 of land-tenure." ^ 
 
 The Evolution of the Military Organisation 
 
 Gradually the system of the military organisation consisting 
 of all householders, though not completely abandoned, passed into 
 the stage where there was a special class of fighting men out of 
 which the feudal system evolved. With the development of more 
 efl&ciently traiaed and equipped soldiers and heavily armoured 
 knights the old national levies were insufficiently trained, armed, 
 and organised. As progress in civilisation was made and cultiva- 
 tion became more regular and extensive, it was necessary that a 
 large proportion of the people should settle down to a quieter life. 
 The result was the definite settlement of the armed force on the 
 land as a means of providing for the necessary outfit and training of 
 the soldiers of the time. Society was thus organised on a distinctly 
 military basis with a military privileged land-owning class differen- 
 tiated from and politically and socially superior to the rest of the 
 population. 
 
 Dr. Vinogradoff's view as to the evolution of the military institu- 
 tions of Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Danish, and Anglo-Norman social 
 systems is that husbandry provided the broad ground on which 
 the social structure was based. Consumption of produce on the 
 spot was the rule. Commercial dealings were exceptional, and no 
 permanent military system could be formed on commercial Unes 
 by hiring mercenaries. Land tenure necessarily became the maia 
 condition of military service. Warriors had to be settled and be 
 given means of existence in the shape of tenements of some kind. 
 In the disturbed times out of which feudalism arose an aristocratic 
 military system naturally evolved, because the separation of a class 
 permanently engaged in agricultural work from a class permanently 
 engaged in warlike pursuits became necessary. The professional 
 warrior required special and costly armour and outfit, and a good 
 deal of leisure for warlike occupations. This involved a revenue 
 not derived from his own productive labour. The inevitable result 
 was that the position of the professional soldier became one of 
 political superiority to that of the labourer, and he became the lord 
 of the labourer. 
 
 ^ English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 29. 
 
140 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 The Old Saxon MiUtia 
 
 Prior to the adoption of the feudal system of military service, 
 there existed in this country the old Saxon national militia, based 
 on the ancient duty of joining the king's expedition against an 
 enemy. This was a duty which was not only prior to, but it was 
 quite distinct from, and was never in the feudal military service. 
 In 1181 Henry II. issued an Assize of Arms to enforce the old duty, 
 under which all freemen were required to provide themselves with 
 arms and armour according to their means. 
 
 As Dr. Stubbs says, " the service was the obligation of freedom, 
 of which the land was the outward and visible sign," and it became 
 " not indeed a burden upon the land, but a personal duty that 
 practically depended on the tenure of land." This was a different 
 thing from the feudal military tenure. In Saxon times freedom 
 and the tenure of land were practically synonymous ; but the duty 
 of military service was not an obligation of the tenure of land. It was 
 an obligation of freedom, and as the bounds of freedom were extended, 
 and men became free who were not owners or cultivators of land, they 
 were liable all the same to service, or its equivalent payment as free 
 men. The institution of feudal military service ia its more definite 
 and stringent form as part of the system and condition of holding 
 land direct from the king was the result of the Norman Conquest. 
 
 Continental and English Feudalism 
 
 Dr. Adams's view^ is that Feudalism,in any such form as it after- 
 wards prevailed, or in the Continental form of the system and sense 
 of the term, did not exist in England before the Conquest. Certain 
 forms of personal commendation did develop ; certain forms of 
 dependent land tenure came into use ; but he considers that it was 
 not even the early stages of feudahsm. 
 
 It is no doubt true that to some extent the feudal system 
 gradually evolved here as in Europe generally. It arose out of 
 the conditions and necessities of the times. It is also true that 
 something like some phases of it had been growing up in England 
 before the arrival of William I., but it had not developed to any- 
 thing like the extent to which it had been carried on the Continent ; 
 and it was in important particulars and consequences entirely 
 different from the system which prevailed there. The Norman 
 Conquest so accelerated, extended, and intensified the system, and 
 
 ' Article " Feudalism " in Ency. Brit. 
 
cH.iii FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 141 
 
 introduced new features here as lands were confiscated and granted 
 to Norman followers, or to Saxon and other leaders and land-owners 
 who submitted and swore fealty, as to really create conditions 
 which were entirely new in practical working, and, indeed, in 
 important respects, in fundamental priaeiple. 
 
 While "William I. distinctly turned the system of holding land 
 here in the direction of a military tenure, and the circumstances of 
 the time promoted the growth of that kind of tenure and of the 
 whole class of ideas connected with it, he did it gradually, and 
 in several important particulars the system difEered from the 
 Contiaental one. He was careful to avoid those features of the 
 Continental ^ system of feudalism under which the great vassals 
 became rivals of the king. He made the land a grant from himself, 
 and established the doctrine that the military service of the holders 
 of land was due direct to him. 
 
 The Norman kings ruled in a twofold character — they were all 
 that their English predecessors had been and something more. The 
 Norman king was chief of the State. He was also the personal lord of 
 every man in his kingdom. In one character he could call out the 
 military force of the State : in the other he could call on his tenants for 
 the military service due from their lands. As chief of the State he 
 levied the ancient taxes due to the State ; as lord he levied the new- 
 fangled profits, which, according to the new-fangled ideas, were due to 
 the lord from his tenants. In short, William brought in the side of a 
 feudal doctrine which helped to strengthen the crown and kept out the 
 side which helped to weaken it. The doctrine that a man was bound 
 to follow his immediate lord had destroyed the royal power in other 
 lands. William, by making himself the immediate lord of all his subjects, 
 turned that doctrine into the strongest support of the crown.^ 
 
 The Norman king " was both king and lord of all within his realm. 
 To the English he was in the first place king ; to the Normans he was 
 in the first place lord. Each race had need of him, and the Norman 
 kings knew how to play oS each race against the other." * 
 
 He had given the Normans their positions and lands. On the 
 other hand he could and did protect the English against local 
 oppressors, with the result that his successors were often supported 
 
 1 " It was the essence of a fief (Continental) that its tenant owed fealty to his 
 immediate lord, and not to the state or the sovereign. The king might be the 
 immediate lord ; but in this case obedience was due to him, not in his capacity as 
 sovereign, but in his feudal capacity as lord. Thus, during the height of the feudal 
 system in France, the tenants of the immediate vassals of the erown never hesitated 
 to foUow their lord's standard against the king,"— TasweU-Langmead'a English 
 Constitutional History, p. 56. 
 
 ' Freeman, article " England," Ency. Brit., 9th edition. 
 
 ' Constitutional History, vol. i. p. 268. 
 
142 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 by the English against the Norman barons. When the Norman 
 barons revolted in favour of William's son Robert as against William 
 Rufus, it was the Enghsh who enabled William II. to hold the 
 throne. " Both William Rufus and Henry I. were raised to the 
 throne by the English in the teeth of Norman opposition." Stubbs 
 says that " all the troubles of the kingdom after 1075 in his 
 (WUliam I.) son's reign, as well as in his own, proceeded from 
 the insubordination of the Normans, not from the attempts of the 
 English to dethrone the king. . . . They are invariably found on 
 the royal side against the feudatories." 
 
 William I.'s Policy and Plan 
 
 Professor E. Jenks, in his History of English Law,^ summarises 
 very clearly what William's plan was, and why it was what it was. 
 The Norman conqueror realised that, except at the risk of certain 
 revolution, he could not attempt to treat the whole of England as 
 his private possession. William's followers wanted their share of 
 the conquest. Many of the English had accepted his authority on 
 promises of good treatment. The Church had to be rewarded for 
 supporting William's claims. " Nevertheless, William and his 
 officials were quite determined not to ignore the obvious fact that 
 the country was his by the universally admitted right of conquest. 
 Prudence might counsel him to reward his followers with gifts of 
 good things, and to allow those English who had made their peace 
 with him to remain undisturbed in enjoyment of their ancient 
 rights. But somehow or another WilUam meant to be a rich king 
 instead of a poor duke." He also meant to render it impossible for 
 his vassals to render his hfe a burden by their independence and 
 readiness to rebel. 
 
 William, therefore, evolved his scheme, out of which emerged 
 a new national laWj'^ome of it based on immemorial native usage, 
 some of it imported from abroad, and " not a little imposed by the 
 sheer command of a new and immensely stronger central govern- 
 ment." He determined that " every man, noble and simple aUke, 
 should hold his land as a pledge of good behaviour. His duties to 
 king, lord, and neighbour, should be settled once and for all ; and 
 if he failed in them, lie should be turned out of his home and left 
 to starve. It was a drastic scheme ; but a conqueror holding a 
 conquered country by the force of the sword cannot afiord to be 
 squeamish." i 
 
 1 Pp. 27 and 28 
 
CH. Ill FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 143 
 
 " The scheme is embodied in Domesday Book. Much of its 
 details are, no doubt, obscure ; it may well be that we shall never 
 understand them fully." But much is clear. '^" The universal 
 formula : A tenet de B expressed the new bond of society." The 
 great noble held his manors of the king. His under vassals, down 
 to the lord of a petty manor, held of him. Below him came the 
 group of peasants who from time immemorial had ploughed and 
 reaped the fields of the township within the manor.^ They owed 
 dues and services to their superior with the result that the ceorl 
 of Saxon England became, in a sense, an " unfree man," because 
 a substantial part of his time had to be spent in labouring on his 
 lord's domain, because he could not sell his land or even desert it 
 without permission, and his rights as a land-holder were only 
 protected by custom and his lord's court, and not by common law 
 and the royal tribunals. / 
 
 Military tenants had to provide a knight for every 4 or 5 hides 
 of land — 500 to 600 acres — ^held by them to give personal service 
 in arms if required for 40 days in one year. MiUtary service was 
 personal, variable, and uncertain, and applicable only for and in 
 emergencies. 
 
 Dr. Stubbs ^ expresses the opinion that before the Norman 
 Conquest all land-holders, having been bound to the duty of national 
 defence, and a certain quantity of land having customarily furnished 
 a fuUy-armed man, the old rate of military obUgation was in all 
 probability continued in the case of the new grantees after the 
 Conquest ; and he regards it as improbable that gifts of lands by 
 William I. were made on any expressed condition or accepted with 
 a distinct pledge to provide a certain contingent of knights for the 
 king's service. 
 
 Other Tenures 
 
 All land was not held on ordinary miUtary tenure. In addition 
 to and side by side with it there were other tenures — frankalmoign, 
 burgage, socage, and sergeanty. Some held on " free-socage " and 
 some on " burgage." These were permanent tenures subject to 
 a definite rent. Others held subject to rendering certain services 
 as tradesmen, or to plough lands, cart materials, manure crops, etc. 
 Blackstone says : 
 
 It seems probable that the socage tenures were the relics of Saxon 
 Hberty ; retained by such persons as had neither forfeited them to the 
 
 1 Hist. Eng. Law, p. 28. ^ ConstitutionaliHiatory, vol. i. p. 261. 
 
144 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 king, nor been obliged to exchange their tenure for tbe more honourable, 
 as it was called, but, at the same time, more burthensome, tenure of 
 knight service. 
 
 Tenure in burgage was really tenure ia socage in boroughs, and 
 was considered by Blackstone to be " plainly a remnant of Saxon 
 liberty." ^ Concerning the " Socagers " Professor E. Jenks^ says : 
 
 Probably they were substantial ceorls who, because they kept clear 
 of rebellion, could not be deprived of their lands, and who, because they 
 were too wealthy, could not be treated as serfs. They were probably 
 persuaded to go through some form of " commendation " or nominal 
 surrender of their land to the king or other lord, from whom they 
 received it back in terms which satisfied the principle of tenure, but left 
 the tenant very free. It was not inconsistent with socage tenure that 
 the tenant should render personal service to his lord ; but such service 
 must not be of a military character, for that was reserved for knightly 
 tenure, nor must it be of a degrading character, such as that which too 
 often bound the serf. 
 
 It seems to have been speedily commuted into a fixed money 
 rent. After a while it ceased to be worth collecting and the socager 
 became practically the absolute owner of his land. 
 
 * Gommewtaries, vol. ii. pp. 81, 82. ' Hist. Eng. Law, p. 29. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 
 
 The Financial Side 
 
 Dr. Vinogradopf considers that one of the most remarkable 
 features of the history of England is the early development of 
 taxation here. " While other European states were slowly struggling 
 to evolve taxation for common purposes, and while their sovereigns 
 were still almost entirely dependent on the scanty revenue of feudal 
 aids and occasional subsidies, England presented comparatively a 
 very advanced system of direct taxes." 
 
 The King's Revenue under the Saxons 
 
 The Saxon king had (1) his private estate of land which he 
 could dispose of by will ; (2) the demesne of the crown-land, 
 palaces, cities, and boroughs upon old royal estates. These he 
 held as king, and the consent of the Witenagemot was required to 
 their alienation. 
 
 In addition to tolls and market dues, coinage revenue, proceeds 
 of justice, and fines for non-attendance, there were three sources of 
 public revenue : 
 
 1. Customary payments in kind and money, such as food, 
 rents, carriage service, housing and quartering duties, which repre- 
 sented providing for the needs of the king and his household, and 
 for the lord.^ 
 
 2. Ordinary levies on houses and holdings, which were local 
 taxes collected through the lord. 
 
 ^ " In Saxon Britain, as in Prankish Gaul, the king and his chief nobles levied 
 on the produce of their estates, not by drawing half-yearly rents and converting 
 them into money, to be spent in their own distant palaces, but by moving about 
 from tun to tun, from viU to vill, and calling upon their tenants for supplies of food 
 which were consumed upon the spot by themselves and their retainers, doubtless 
 with much wassail and jollity." — Political History of England, vol. i. p. 226. 
 
 I4S L 
 
146 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND i-t. m 
 
 3. Extraordinary impositions — the gelds levied by tlie king. 
 These gradually became the main common tax of the realm. The 
 two taxes or gelds which were levied in times of special danger were 
 " Shipgeld " and " Danegeld," the latter being intended to repel 
 the Danes. It was levied oii all occupiers of land. In the later 
 Saxon times it was levied when there was no invasion, with the 
 result that it was very unpopular and difficult to coUect. It was 
 abolished by Edward the Confessor, but was revived by William I. 
 and continued till 1163. 
 
 Before the Conquest land held by churches, monasteries, or 
 lords for their own sustenance was the inland of the owner, and was 
 usually free from taxes because it provided for the maintenance of 
 the knights or clerics who performed military services or rehgious 
 functions for the king and the pubUc. The other land held from 
 them by their tenants, whether free or servile, was the warland, 
 and had to pay all the dues and taxes. ^ The idea was that the 
 demesne land of the military and clerical class should be free from 
 geld, and that the other land should bear the burden of dues for 
 it, the object being to provide a class of men who should fight 
 and pray, and another class who should pay. They were not, 
 however, free from danegeld and extraordinary taxation of that 
 nature. 
 
 The trinoda necessitas, from which neither thane nor ceorl was 
 exempt, was the threefold obUgation of all free men to serve in the 
 national army, to build and repair fortresses, and to build and 
 maintain bridges. 
 
 The view of the early and middle ages was that the king should 
 live and administer his kingdom on his hereditary revenues and 
 the income from his estate. As we have just stated, prior to the 
 Norman Conquest and more fully developed and strictly enforced 
 afterwards, the king's revenue was mainly derived from the royal 
 demesne (or public land), which was of vast extent ; from fines, 
 taxes, and trade dues, and from special levies. 
 
 Under the Normans 
 
 Under the Norman regime the king's tenants-in-chief, in addition 
 to military service, were also bound to give an " aid " to the king 
 when his eldest son was knighted, when his eldest daughter married, 
 and to ransom him should he be taken captive. Dowell says that, 
 except on these three occasions, " the king had no right to put his 
 ^ VinogradofE, English Society in the Eleventh Century, pp. 186-9. 
 
CH. IV FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 147 
 
 hand upon the purse of a mUitary tenant." ^ There were, however, 
 many other fees, incidents and casualties — all sources of revenue — 
 under the feudal system. There were payments on the death of 
 a tenant-in-chief, wardships when the heir was a minor, fees on 
 the ahenation or taking up the inheritance on lands. In these 
 we see resemblances to the Death and Stamp Duties of our 
 times. 
 
 For several centuries no distinction was made between property 
 held and administered by the king in right of the Crown and on 
 behalf of the nation, and property belonging to him as an individual. 
 After the Conquest whatever was found in the king's hands was 
 thrown into one mass with what had come to the Crown by forfeitures 
 and confiscations, and the whole was registered in Domesday as 
 Terra Regis. 
 
 A large part of the demesne consisted of (1) land held by 
 rural tenants ; (2) land held by town tenants — most of the cities, 
 boroughs, and towns had been founded on pubUc land ; (3) royal 
 forests, and (4) the waste land attached to (1) and (2). From the 
 tenants of these lands the king received rents which were collected 
 by the sheriffs. After a time most of the cities and towns were 
 granted charters, and the rents were commuted for a definite fixed 
 annual payment. All the tenants, rural and urban, were Uable to 
 contribute according to their means to assist the king on occasions 
 of special expense. 
 
 From fines for crimes and offences committed, and for privileges, 
 charters, and monopoUes granted, a considerable revenue was 
 obtained. Customs and trade dues were levied at ports and towns, 
 and toUs and dues at markets. The king had also rights of pur- 
 veyance — ^that is, the right to be supphed with horses and con- 
 veyances in any part of the country ; and of pre-emption — that is, 
 the right to purchase what was required for the royal household on 
 special terms. Special additional levies were made on all classes 
 of owners and occupiers of land, and on towns as occasion required, 
 to repel invasions and raids. 
 
 At first WilHam I. appropriated merely the pubhc and private 
 royal demesne and the forfeited estates of those who had taken up 
 arms against him. Keeping an immense estate for himself he 
 divided the balance amongst his comrades in arms. At first he 
 re-granted the estates of the majority of the EngUsh landholders 
 to them ; but as insurrections followed insurrections in various 
 
 1 Vol. i. p. 23. 
 
148 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND vt. m 
 
 parts of the country, he confiscated the estates of the rebels and 
 conferred them on his Norman followers, in feudal tenure. 
 
 On Whom the Burdens fell 
 
 The feudal burdens, dues, and incidents were not levies and 
 burdens borne by the barons and lords of manors only. They 
 were, so to speak, collected from or rather through them, but they 
 descended right through the social scale. The barons and lords 
 of the manor imposed similar burdens, dues, and incidents on their 
 vassals and dependents as the king did on them. Thus the ramifi- 
 cations of the feudal system extend from the top to the bottom of 
 the social structure. 
 
 Under WilUam Rufus the feudal rights of the king and the 
 procedure of the Courts were turned into instruments of pecuniary 
 extortion, and of arbitrarily taxing tenants-in-chief imder the colour 
 of exacting a legal due. The system then fixed upon the tenants 
 of the king was naturally and, indeed, necessarily extended by them 
 to their sub-tenants.^ 
 
 It is needless to observe that the actual burden of the feudal imposts 
 as well as the older taxation fell on the English : for the Norman lords 
 had no other way of raising their reliefs, aids, tallage, and the rest than 
 from the labours of their native dependents. The exaction may have 
 been treated by them as a tyrannical one, but the hardship directly 
 afEected the Enghsh.^ 
 
 In William II. 's time — " On the body of the people in the first 
 instance fell the burden of the imposts laid on their feudal masters. 
 It was from them, by similar exactions of reliefs, wardship, marriage, 
 and forfeiture that vassals raised money to redeem their own rights : 
 every wrong that the King inflicted on his vassals they might inflict on 
 theirs. " * 
 
 The sub or inferior feudatories or tenants held from their superior 
 on terms of service, money, or corn and cattle, as their superior held 
 from his superior or the king.* 
 
 By Henry I.'s Charter — inter alia — the laws of King Edward 
 with the Conqueror's amendments were restored to the English 
 people : the feudal innovations, inordinate and arbitrary reliefs 
 and amercements, the abuse of the rights of wardship and marriage, 
 the despotic interference with testamentary dispositions were 
 renounced : and as a special boon to tenants by knight service, 
 their demesne lands were freed from all demands except service 
 
 1 Taswell-Langmead, p. 81. * Stubbs, vol. i. p. 279. 
 
 ' Ibid. vol. i. p. 301. * Blaokstone's Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 57. 
 
CH.IV FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 149 
 
 in the field. The Kke reliefs were to extend to the vassals and men 
 of the barons and tenants-in-chief .^ 
 
 Bhckstone's View 
 
 Blackstone says that the aids, benevolences, reliefs, fines, ward- 
 ships, fines on marriages, alienations, which were levied in addition 
 to military service and socage by the Norman kings, were not 
 originally intended and understood by our ancestors when they 
 subjected themselves to them. " By consenting to the introduction 
 of feudal tenure, our English ancestors probably meant no more 
 than to put the Kingdom in a state of defence by establishing a 
 military system ; and to oblige themselves (in respect of their lands) 
 to maintain the King's titles and territories, with equal vigour and 
 fealty as if they had received their lands from his bounty upon those 
 express conditions, as pure proper, beneficiary feudatories. But, 
 whatever their meaning was, the Norman interpreters, skilled in all 
 the niceties of the feudal constitutions, and well understanding the 
 import and extent of the feudal terms, gave a very different con- 
 struction to the proceeding : and thereupon took a handle to intro- 
 duce, not only the rigorous doctrines which prevailed in the duchy 
 of Normandy, but also such fruits and dependencies, such hard- 
 ships and services, as were never known to other nations ; as if 
 the English had, in fact as well as in theory, owed everything they 
 had to the bounty of their sovereign lord." 
 
 " Our ancestors, therefore, who were by no means beneficiaries, 
 but had barely consented to this fiction of tenure from the 
 crown, as the basis of a military discipline, with reason looked 
 upon these deductions as grievous impositions and arbitrary 
 conclusions from principles that, as to them, had no foundation in 
 truth." 2 
 
 This led to friction and difficulty between the king and the 
 barons, and they were continually in a condition of more or less 
 passive or active revolt. We have seen that, so soon as the year 
 1100, a Charter was obtained from Henry I., which had been described 
 as " the first limitation which had been imposed on the despotism 
 established by the Conquest." The unlimited demands made by 
 both the Conqueror and his son Rufus on the barons were exchanged 
 for customary fees, and the barons were bound down to do justice 
 to their imder-tenants and to renounce tyrannical exactions from 
 them. As cultivation of the land spread and improved, tenants 
 * Stubbs, vol. i. p. 305. " Commentaries, vol, ii. p. 51. 
 
I50 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m. 
 
 of the greater barons subdivided their holdings and received under- 
 tenants on condition that they rendered them similar services to 
 those which they themselves rendered to their lords. In this way 
 the feudal profits of the new under-tenants, the fees and fines of 
 wardship, reliefs, and the hke, went to the superior tenants and 
 not to the barons.^ 
 
 The towns speedily rid themselves of the most oppressive 
 incidents of the newly-imposed feudal tenures. " Charter after 
 Charter during Henry's reign raised the townsmen of the boroughs 
 from mere traders, wholly at the mercy of their lord, into customary 
 tenants, who had purchased their freedom by a fixed rent, regulated 
 their own trade, and enjoyed exemption from all but their own 
 justice." ^ 
 
 The Military Difficulty 
 
 Another difficulty was that the possessions of the Norman 
 kings on the Continent were more extensive than their kingdom 
 here. As they were involved in frequent wars there, and they 
 attempted to enforce strictly the obhgation of personal service in 
 arms in them upon the nobles and knights and their subordinates 
 here, continual objection and friction arose. 
 
 On Henry II. 's accession, there were three kinds of military force 
 — all more or less inefEective or burdensome.* 
 
 1. The Standing Army of mercenaries he had promised to 
 disband. 
 
 2. The tenants in chivalry who were divided amongst the 
 feudatories who had each been fighting for himself, and at best 
 their service was only for a limited term. 
 
 3. The national fyrd or militia, which had little discipline and 
 could not be used abroad unless the individual soliders volunteered 
 and were paid. 
 
 The king met the difiiculty by keeping the mercenary force 
 abroad and using it there. As regards the feudal tenants, he desired 
 to weaken the power of the great feudatories by disarming their 
 vassals and obtaining resources under his own control. The intro- 
 duction of scutage in Heu of military service achieved that object. 
 
 Money Payment instead of Personal Service 
 In the second year of the reign of Henry II. — 1156 — ^this system 
 
 ^ Green's Short History of the English People, p. 173. 
 8 Ibid. p. 93, » Stubbs, vol. i. p. 587, etc. 
 
cH.iv FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 151 
 
 of a money payment in lieu of personal service was introduced, and 
 in 1159 — less than a century after the Battle of Hastings — the 
 principle of a payment in commutation of personal service was 
 definitely established. This payment or tax, which was termed 
 " Scutage," or shield money, was levied on the knights' fee of the 
 military tenants of the king when he was at war. One was levied 
 in 1159, in 1172, and in 1186. When scutage was paid by the 
 military tenants, a corresponding tax, termed a " Tallage," was 
 levied on the towns and on the rural freeholders and the non- 
 military rural tenants. 
 
 The Assize of Arms in 1181 supplied a national force to resist 
 invasion and attack at home. The requirements were that the 
 owner of a knight's fee must possess a coat of mail, a helmet, a shield, 
 and a lance : the freeman owning 16 marks of rent or goods must 
 have the same : the owner of 10 marks in rent or goods must have 
 a hauberk, a headpiece of iron, and a lance : and all burghers and 
 freemen must have a wainbois, headpiece, and lance : while the 
 smaller men of less substance were only called upon to provide 
 themselves with a bow and arrows. This was in effect a levy 
 according to " means and substance," that is to say, according 
 to ability to pay. 
 
 The Danegeld, which had been abolished by Edward the Confessor, 
 was revived by William I. in 1084, and was maintained as a regular 
 impost for nearly 80 years ; but it always led to friction and difficulty, 
 and when scutage and tallage were systematically adopted, danegeld 
 was dropped. When danegeld was levied on the counties a corre- 
 sponding aid or auxilium was required from the towns. 
 
 The Commutations 
 
 In the latter part of the thirteenth century, in the time of 
 Edward I., " scutage " was levied on all the military tenants accord- 
 ing to their holding. A " Knight's fee " was usually 4 hides : a 
 hide was usually 4 virgates : and a vixgate was usually 30 acres. 
 That is, 480 acres for a knight's fee. A normal " scutum " was 
 40s. for one knight's fee. That was equal to Id. per acre, and the 
 charge was made on the tenants at that rate. The " scutage " on 
 a virgate of 30 acres was 2s. 6d. Keally the extent of a virgate and 
 a hide varied somewhat in different parts of the country. An 
 acre or strip was supposed to represent the amount of land which 
 could be ploughed in a day, and consequently it varied according 
 to the heaAmiess or otherwise of the soil. Ultimately the term 
 
152 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 " carucate," or " the land of a plough team," was used instead of 
 " hide." 1 
 
 By the latter part of the thirteenth century the customary 
 services of villenage had also largely been commuted for money 
 payments in some parts of the country, and 16s. to 20s. was a 
 usual payment in Beds and Bucks.^ In other parts the services 
 were still rendered, while in others again, while the services to be 
 rendered were set out in great detail in Hundred Rolls, the money 
 value assigned to each of them was stated. The principal services 
 of the villein tenants were 2 or 3 days a week ploughing, reaping, 
 and carting, with certain occasional and extra services which the 
 lord was entitled to require. In addition there were quarterly 
 payments in money or kind : ecclesiastical dues : and the assess- 
 ment for their share of the manor's tax in the shape of tallage and 
 scutage. Cottiers had similar but less services to render and 
 smaller contributions in kind to make. 
 
 The object of these changes was quite as much to strengthen the 
 power of the king and weaken that of the barons as to relieve the 
 tenants. By allowing the tenants and towns to commute their 
 personal service in the field for a money payment, Henry II. obtained 
 means which enabled him to maintain a force of mercenary soldiers 
 who were entirely at his own disposal, and at the same time he 
 diminished the military power of the barons. After a revolt of a 
 number of the barons in 1173-74, the king in 1181 restored the 
 national militia of Saxon times, to which reference has already been 
 made. He thus replaced the feudal organisation by the older 
 obligation of every freeman to serve in defence of the realm. Every 
 knight, every freeholder, every burgess, and every poorer freeman 
 was bound to respond to the king's call, armed according to his 
 position and means. The power to levy an armed nation whoUy 
 at its disposal for purposes of defence relieved the Crown from its 
 dependence on the barons and their feudal retainers. This national 
 militia was again reorganised by Edward I. in 1285 by the Statute 
 of Winchester, under which every man was bound to hold himself 
 in readiness, duly armed, for the king's service in case of invasion 
 or revolt.' 
 
 Taxes on Personal Property 
 
 We have observed that Henry II., in the Assize of Arms in 1181, 
 took a long step towards taxing rent and chattels by obliging the 
 
 "■ Seebohm, p. 39. - Ibid. p. 41. ' Green's Short History, p. 172. 
 
CH. IV FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 153 
 
 owner of such property to equip himself with arms according to 
 the amount which he possessed.^ In Henry III.'s time also an 
 Ordinance of Arms exacted the possession of proper equipment for 
 militia service from every independent householder who could be 
 rated for the possession of chattels worth over 208.^ This would 
 mean freemen, as, according to feudal law, the chattels of serfs 
 would be deemed to belong to their lords. This step and the intro- 
 duction of the tax on movables indicates the development in the 
 material wealth of the country which followed the reforms of 
 Henry II., and the change in the method of raising the revenue 
 and forces of the Crown which naturally and necessarily followed 
 thereon. " The Scutage afiects the tenants ia chivalry : the donum 
 or auxihum, hidage or carucage, affects all holders of land : the 
 tenth, seventh and thirteenth, all people in the realm." ^ As a 
 rule all these taxes were not levied together. It was only on special 
 occasions or for special needs that they were all levied in one 
 year. " The Knights paid aid or scutage, the freeholders carucage, 
 the towns tallage : the whole or each part bore the name of an 
 auxihum." * 
 
 In 1188 a new form of general tax was introduced by Henry II. 
 It is usually described as a tax on movables, but it was more than 
 that ; it was really a general property or iucome tax. In the first 
 instance it was levied for the Second Crusade to deUver Jerusalem 
 from Saladin. It was known as the Saladin tithe. Every freeman, 
 rural and urban — land-owner, tenant, or townsman — was required 
 to contribute one-tenth of his rents, cattle, crops, stock-in-trade, 
 and chattels unless he personally took the cross and served in the 
 expedition. 
 
 Another tax was instituted by Richard I. in 1194. It was 
 termed " carucage," and was levied on ploughed land at rates which 
 usually ranged from 2s. to 5s. per 100 acres. It was practically a 
 revival of danegeld, and was objected to on the same grounds and 
 was abandoned in 1224. 
 
 The Great Charter 
 
 Amongst the grievances which led to the revolt of the barons 
 which ended in the grant of the Great Charter in 1216, were the 
 facts that Richard and John had raised the rate of the scutage, 
 
 1 Stubbs, vol. i. p. 581. 
 
 2 English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 26. 
 
 « Stubbs, vol. i. p. 582. * Ibid. vol. i. p. 583. 
 
154 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. i„ 
 
 restored the danegeld, taxed movables as well as land, and imposed 
 aids, fines, and ransoms at the pleasure of the king. The Great 
 Charter provided that " no scutage or aid shall be imposed in our 
 realm save by the Common Council of the realm," and, as Green 
 points out, the rights which the barons claimed for themselves they 
 claimed for the nation at large. " The under-tenants or farmers 
 were protected against all lawless exactions of their lords in pre- 
 cisely the same terms as these were protected aganst the lawless 
 exactions of the Crown." ^ 
 
 The tax on movables continued. It was levied at various rates 
 according to necessity. It was more frequently resorted to than 
 any of the other direct taxes, and gradually danegeld, scutage, 
 tallage, and carucage were merged in it. The grants of these taxes 
 sometimes included rent from land, and sometimes were limited to 
 particular descriptions of movables ; but, generally speaking, these 
 taxes were levied outside the towns upon the cattle and crops of 
 the landholders, and in towns upon the capital value of stock-in- 
 trade and chattels. 
 
 Disappearance of Scutage and Tallage 
 
 Scutage, in lieu of personal military service, was levyable by 
 the great landlords upon their military tenants. It led to much 
 friction and ill-feeling between the king and his barons, and between 
 them and their knights. Disputes as to hability and as to conditions 
 of tenure were frequent. The tax became difficult to collect and 
 the yield steadily diminished. It was one of the causes of discontent 
 which led to the crisis which culminated in the grant of the Great 
 Charter by John. Scutage finally disappeared as a tax about 1320. 
 
 Tallage, which, it will be remembered, was the corresponding 
 tax to scutage, and was levied on the towns and the non-military 
 rural tenants, fell into disuse, and was abandoned in 1332, a system 
 of general parliamentary grants having been substituted for one 
 of negotiation with separate sections of the community.^ 
 
 The Burden of the Feudal Charges 
 
 The burden and annoyance of the services and payments of 
 
 the feudal system were by no means solely or even chiefly felt by 
 
 the great- land-owners. They oppressed and harassed all classes 
 
 of the people ia every grade of the social structure. Even when the 
 
 1 Short History, p. 129. 
 ■" Dowell's History of Taxation, vol. i. p. 76. 
 
CH.IV FEUDALISM IN ENGLAND 155 
 
 system had been considerably modified and was, in fact, breaking 
 down, there were anomalies and abuses which were burdensome and 
 exasperating. " We sometimes find, even in England, that Knights' 
 service is due, at least what is called Knights' service is due, to a 
 lord who owes no Knights' service to the King, or that more Knights' 
 service is due to the lord than he owes to the King." ^ Lords, 
 especially ecclesiastics who held lands on a tenure on which they 
 did not owe military service, iasisted that lands held by their 
 tenants were held on military tenure ; they claimed payment in lieu 
 of service and enforced rehefs, wardships, fees on marriage, etc.^ 
 In the thirteenth century the king would sometimes exact scutage 
 from the tenants of his tenants-in-chief, although these tenants-in- 
 chief were already rendering service or payment for the land. Thus 
 he got the service or payment twice over.^ 
 
 Serfs paid fines and annual taxes to their lord for leave to live 
 away from the manor. Serfs paid fines on the marriage of their 
 daughter. Other fines were paid if men married daughters ia other 
 manors. Fines were paid to the lord for permission to go to the 
 schools or to enter the church.* Small tenants in socage often paid 
 scutage as well as rent, and their tenures were often nominally and 
 technically military — the same as those by which the knight held 
 his manor. " When we get among the holders of small plots we 
 constantly find that they must pay scutage while they also owe 
 substantial rents." ^ Tenants' sons paid fines on succeediag to 
 the father's cottage. Dr. Savine estimates that there were still 
 some five hundred villein families as late as the accession of Henry 
 VII., and about half that number in the reign of Elizabeth. There 
 is an instance of the legal surrender of an escaped villein as late as 
 1561. 
 
 The popular idea, continually repeated in speeches and pamphlets, 
 
 that under the feudal system the great land- owners bore all the 
 
 burden of the financial and military requirements of the State, is the 
 
 result of a complete misapprehension of the facts. The burdens of 
 
 the feudal system, and all its oppressive iacidents,fell upon all classes 
 
 in every grade of the social scale, and those who rendered military 
 
 service were largely relieved of other payments because they rendered 
 
 that service. 
 
 1 PoUook and Maitland, p. 233. ^ lUd. p. 244. ' Ibid. p. 249. 
 
 * Bogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages, p. 45. 
 
 ^ Pollock and Maitland, p. 257. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 FEUDALISM, A TRANSITION STAGE 
 
 The Great Charter of 1216 specifically provided tliat all the rights 
 secured by the barons as against the Crown should be equally 
 secured by the people as a whole as against the barons. Stubbs 
 says : 
 
 Clause by clause the rights of the commons are provided for as weU 
 as the rights of the nobles : the interest of the freeholders is everywhere 
 coupled with that of the barons and knights : the stock of the merchant 
 and the wainage of the vUlein are preserved from undue severity and 
 amercement as well as the settled estate of the earldom or barony. 
 The knight is protected against the compulsory exaction of his services, 
 and the horse and cart of the freeman against the irregular requisition 
 even of the sheriff.^ 
 
 This proves, if any proof were wanted, that the demands of the 
 barons were no selfish exaction of privilege for themselves : it proves 
 with scarcely less certainty that the people for whom they acted were 
 on their side.^ 
 
 Maitland enforces the same interesting and important point : 
 
 Henry I.'s Charter carefully stipulates that his behaviour to his 
 tenants is to be the model for their behaviour to their tenants. They 
 are to take no more than a just and lawful relief, and are to be content 
 with such rights of wardship and marriage as suffice for the King. The 
 rising, again, which won the Charter of 1215, was distinctly a national 
 rising and the rights which were secured to the tenants in chief as against 
 the King, were secured as against them for their tenants.* 
 
 Parliamentary Control of Finance emerging 
 
 The truth is that parliamentary institutions were slowly emerg- 
 ing and the foundations of control of the tax-payers over the public 
 purse were being laid. When military service had been commuted 
 for a money payment the next step was that prelates, baronage, 
 
 1 Stubbs, vol. i. p. 531. = Ibid. vol. i. p. 531, 
 
 ' Constitutional History of England, p. 160. 
 
 IS6 
 
cH.v FEUDALISM, A TRANSITION STAGE 157 
 
 and commonalty combined to demand that they must be consulted 
 before the king was competent to levy the military tax. This was 
 done in 1216, and the principle of popular assent to all extraordinary 
 taxes was afl&rmed in the Great Charter and gradually developed. 
 
 Many of the controversies between the kings and Parliament, 
 especially during the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries, 
 were due to the different views which the two parties took as to 
 what dues, fees, and taxes the king was entitled to levy without the 
 express sanction of Parliament. A continual source of dispute was 
 as to whether the right of the king to tallage demesne towns and 
 lands had been renounced by Edward I. in the Confirmation of the 
 Charter in 1297. The last attempt to levy tallage was in 1332, 
 and a Statute of 1340 seems to have abolished the royal prerogative 
 of tallaging demesnes. According to Coke no scutage was levied 
 after the eighth year of Edward II. The impost was expressly 
 abolished by Statute 12, Charles II. 
 
 " The disappearance of these ancient taxes is not to be attri- 
 buted either to the opposition of the Parliament or to the good 
 faith of the King so much as to the fact that they were being super- 
 seded by other methods of exaction, which were at once more pro- 
 ductive and more easily manipulated, the subsidies on movables 
 and the customs on import and export." ^ 
 
 The tax on movables became the principal source of revenue. 
 In it was merged the scutage, which was the land tax on the knights' 
 fee, and tallage, the corresponding impost on towns and the royal 
 demesne, and all other forms of direct taxation. Dowell tells us 
 that this tax on movables reached the land-owner through his cattle, 
 farming stock, corn, and other produce of his lands, and the burgher, 
 or townsman, through his furniture, money, and stock-in-trade. 
 The nature of this single tax on movables, and the way in which it 
 reached all classes in the most minute and inquisitorial fashion, 
 is illustrated by some extracts which Dowell gives ^ from the 
 Colchester assessment rolls which were made for levying the taxes 
 of 1295 and 1301 : 
 
 Edward de BernehoUe, the sea-coal dealer : Had 30 qtrs. of sea- 
 coal at 6d. a qtr. ; 12| qtrs. of salt, at 5s. a qtr. ; a brass caldron, 
 value 2s. 6d. ; a cup of mazer (hard wood), value 3s. ; 4 silver spoons 
 at lOd a spoon ; 2 silver cups, value 12s., etc. — Total Assessment, 
 £6:3:4. 
 
 Henry Pakeman, the tanner : Had a mazer cup, a silver buckle, 
 
 1 Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 522. ^ History of Taxation, vol. i. appendix ii. 
 
158 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 i silver spoons, 2 tablecloths, two towels, and other goods, including 
 movables in house, granary and larder ; bark, skins, and utensils 
 for tanning, etc. — Total Assessment, £9 : 17 : 10. 
 These were men of substance. 
 
 Saman, the carpenter : Had a tunic, value 2s. 6d. ; an axe, 
 value 2s. 6d.— Total Assessment, 5s. 
 
 William de Tendring, the tailor : Had an old cloak, value 3s. ; 
 a bed, value 2s. 6d. ; a brass pot, value Is. 6d. ; a pair of scissors, 
 value 3d. — Total Assessment, 7s. 3d. 
 
 Gilbert, the Taselere : Had an old supertunic Is. 3d. ; a sheep 12d. 
 and a lamb 6d. Total assessment, 2s. 9d. 
 
 Walter, the Weaver : Had " a surtout, valued at 2s. 8d. — ^nothing 
 more." 
 
 The idea that the large land-owners provided all the revenue 
 in those early times is clearly a complete delusion. 
 
 During the Hundred Years' War with France many taxes 
 were resorted to with more or less success — ^poll taxes,^ house taxes, 
 land taxes, graduated income taxes. Some of these were largely 
 instrumental in fomenting the discontent which led to the peasants' 
 insurrection under Wat Tyler in 1381 and under Jack Cade in 1450, 
 the ultimate outcome of which was that the " villeins " or tenants 
 of the manor threw ofi their tenure of service to the lord of the 
 manor in the cultivation of his land and commuted it for a money 
 payment, as the barons and tenants of the king had commuted 
 theirs. In 1362 the right to purveyance, which had always been 
 a groimd of complaint, was curtailed and limited so that it should 
 only be exercised on behalf of the king or queen and that payments 
 should be made in ready money.^ 
 
 Decay of the Manorial System 
 An important development was that of the lords of the manor 
 letting their demesne to tenants to cultivate as free tenants at a 
 fixed rent of money or kind. They found this more convenient 
 and profitable than cultivating it themselves. The more prosperous 
 of their villein tenants were glad to avail themselves of this oppor- 
 tunity of improving their position and freeing themselves from servi- 
 tude by putting an end to their personal dependence on their lord.^ 
 The villeins themselves had become copyholders holding their 
 tenancies, not on mere custom and oral tradition or the whim of 
 
 1 In 1377 Parliament granted the king a poll-tax of 4d. a head on all lay- 
 persona over fourteen years of age, 
 
 '^ Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 415. " Green's Short History, p. 246. 
 
CH.V FEUDALISM, A TRANSITION STAGE 159 
 
 their lord as to the services they should render and the payments 
 they should make, but on the definite conditions carefully inscribed 
 on the court-roll of the manor. 
 
 Then came the Black Death of 1349, and the scarcity of labourers 
 and the consequent paralysis of agriculture which followed it. The 
 Statute of Labourers was passed to compel men to work and at the 
 wages paid before the shortage, and to fix prices in accordance there- 
 with. Attempts were also made to return to the feudal conditions 
 as to personal service from the tenants and labourers. Both com- 
 bined to resist. The villein tenants whose freedom from manorial 
 service was questioned required the work of the labourers whom 
 they were willing to pay, and they supported and aided them in 
 organised resistance to efforts of the lords of the manors to return 
 to labour service.^ Canon Knighton of Leicester, who lived shortly 
 after that time, says : " They who had let lands on labour rent to 
 tenants, such rents as are customary in villeinage, were compelled 
 to relieve and remit such labour, and either to utterly excuse them 
 or to rehabilitate their tenants on easier terms and less payments, 
 lest the loss and ruin should become irreparable and the land lie 
 utterly uncultivated." ^ 
 
 The manorial system was crumbling away. The labourer was 
 becoming a free man. The wealthier farmers were making a demand 
 to be recognised as the owners of the part of the demesne which 
 they held on lease, and the copyholders were endeavouring to 
 become freeholders. The absolute slavery of the theows had 
 practically ceased. Writing of the period 1377-81, Mr. Green * says : 
 
 The rise of the free labourer had followed that of the farmer, labour 
 was no longer bound to one spot or one master ; it was free to hire 
 itself to what employer, and to choose what field of employment it 
 would. At the moment we have reached, in fact, the lord of the manor 
 had been reduced over a large part of England to the position of a 
 modern landlord, receiving a rental in money from his tenants, and 
 dependent for the cultivation of his own demesne on paid labourers. 
 
 Disappearance of Villenage and Serfdom 
 
 The terrible suffering of the Black Death period had had one 
 advantage. By enormously curtailing the supply of labourers it 
 had made the tenants and labourers very largely the masters of 
 the situation. The levying of the poll tax of 1380 fanned into 
 flame the discontent which had been smouldering for nearly thirty 
 years, and the Peasants' Eevolt broke out in 1381. The demand 
 
 1 Green's Short History, p. 249. ^ Ibid. p. 250. ' Ibid. p. 247. 
 
i6o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. 
 
 Ill 
 
 of the Essex and Hertfordshire contingents who joined Wat Tyler's 
 Kentishmen was adopted by the allies as their programme. " Their 
 cry was for the abolition of the service of tenure, the tolls and other 
 imposts on buying and selling, for the emancipation of the native 
 or born bondsmen, and for the commutation of villein service for 
 a rent of fourpence an acre." ^ 
 
 The king at Smithfield, on June 15, yielded the demands of 
 leaders of the revolt and gave them the charters of emancipation, 
 but before the end of the month he had repented, and on July 2 
 he annulled the charters of freedom and pardon. The lords, knights, 
 prelates, and monastic corporations were alarmed and declined to 
 recognise the right of the king to deprive them of the services of 
 their tenants, vassals, and villeins. The prisoners taken in the 
 revolt were punished with great severity. All the same a vital 
 blow had been struck at villenage. 
 
 The landlords gave up the practice of demanding base services ; 
 they let their lands to leasehold tenants, and accepted money payments 
 in Ueu of labour ; they ceased to recaU the emancipated labourer into 
 serfdom, or to oppose his assertion of right in the courts of the manor 
 and the county. Rising out of villenage the new freemen enlarged the 
 class of yeomanry and strengthened the cause of the Commons in the 
 country and in Parliament ; and from 1381 onwards rural society in 
 England began to work into its later forms. ^ 
 
 A great social change was consummated. The scarcity and 
 higher price of labourers and the revolt against and the gradual 
 disappearance of the old conditions revolutionised the whole agri- 
 cultural system of the country. Sheep-farming was largely developed 
 and villenage died away.^ The lords adopted the system of letting 
 their demesne lands to smaller tenants who would pay rent for the 
 land and cultivate it themselves. At first the lord supplied them 
 with stock and charged an inclusive rent, until they were able to 
 stock the holdings themselves and become tenant farmers of the 
 modern type.* Half a century later when Jack Cade headed the 
 revolt of 1450 and presented the " Complaint of the Commons of 
 Kent," the grievances of the people had become political rather 
 than social. Green says, " The question of villeinage and serfage 
 finds no place in the ' Complaint ' of 1450. In the seventy years 
 which had elapsed since the last peasant rising, villeinage had died 
 naturally away before the progress of social change." ^ 
 
 » Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 457. * Ibid.vol. ii. p. 460. = Green, Short History, p. 258. 
 
 * Rogers, Six Centuries of Work and Wages, p. 280. 
 
 ' Green, Stwrt History, p. 282. 
 
cH.v FEUDALISM, A TRANSITION STAGE i6i 
 
 Feudalism, a Changing and Temporary Phase 
 
 It follows from the summary which we have given of its history 
 that feudahsm meant difierent things in different places at different 
 times, and views as to what powers a king had, and overlords 
 imder him, and what the rights and position of vassals were varied 
 much and depended largely on the strength or weakness of lord and 
 vassals respectively, and on the stage of development which had 
 been reached at the time which is being considered. 
 
 The rights of sovereignty shade ofE into rights of property ; the 
 same terms and formula cover them both ; the hue between them is 
 drawn rather by force than by theory.^ 
 
 To say then of the Norman law of WUUam's day that it was feudal 
 law is to say very little. ^ 
 
 In some of our modern books military tenure has a definiteness 
 and a stability which it never had elsewhere. When, however, we look 
 at the facts all this definiteness, all this stability, vanish. We see 
 growth and decay ; we see decay beginning before growth is at an end. 
 Before there is much law about military tenure it has almost ceased to 
 be military in any real sense.' 
 
 We also see that feudalism was a temporary phrase, a com- 
 paratively short stage in the economic, social, and political develop- 
 ment of the country. It was not the beginning and foundation of 
 society and the private ownership of property. It was rather a 
 system of government imposed for a time upon conditions of owner- 
 ship and tenure which existed before. In its turn it passed away 
 and the system of government was gradually transformed, and 
 eventually parliamentary government, more and more as we under- 
 stand it, was evolved. Throughout it all the fundamental basis of 
 the private ownership of land remained unchanged. 
 
 Soon after the Conquest a process begins whereby the duty of 
 service in the army becomes rooted in the tenure of land. This goes on 
 for a century : but before it is finished, before the system of knights' 
 fees has been well ordered and arranged, the Kings are already discover- 
 ing that the force thus created is not what they want, or is not all that 
 they want. . . . 
 
 The King would rather have money ; he begins to take scutages. 
 This practically alters the whole nature of the institution. Another 
 century goes by and scutage itself has become antiquated and un- 
 profitable ; another, and scutage is no longer taken. Speaking roughly, 
 we may say that there is one century (1066-1166) in which the military 
 
 1 Pollock and Maitland's History of English Law, p. 45. * Ibid. p. 46. 
 
 » Ibid. p. 230. 
 
1 62 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 tenures are really military though as yet there is little law about them, 
 that there is another century (1166-1266) during which these tenures 
 stiU supply an army though chiefly by supplying the pay for an army ; 
 and that when Edward I. is on the throne the military organization 
 which we call feudal has already broken down and will no longer supply 
 either soldiers or money save in very inadequate amounts.^ 
 
 While it is becoming little better than a misnomer to speak of 
 military tenure . . . the tenant will really neither fight nor pay scutage, 
 but there will be harsh and intricate law for him about the reliefs and 
 wardships and marriage that his lord can claim because the tenure is 
 military. Thus in speaking of tenure by Knights' service as it was 
 before the days of Edward I. we have to speak, not of a stable, but 
 of a very unstable institution.^ 
 
 No really serious war could be carried on by a force whicli 
 would dissipate itself at the end of forty days. 
 
 As to scutage, in the whole course of our history this impost was 
 levied but some forty times, and we cannot be certain that the method 
 of assessing and coUeoting it remained constant.' 
 
 Military service and payment in lieu thereof were always re- 
 sisted and evaded as much as possible, and by the end of the 
 thirteenth century the whole system was becoming obsolete. 
 
 If tenure by Knight service had been abolished in 1300, the Kings 
 of the subsequent ages would have been deprived of the large revenue 
 that they drew from wardships, marriage and so forth : really they 
 would have lost little else.* 
 
 The Object and Justification of Feudalism 
 
 The objects of the feudal system were the same as those" of all 
 systems of government, viz. : to secure the maintenance of law, 
 order, and justice at home, and to protect the people and the realm 
 against aggression from abroad. In order to do this it was necessary 
 to provide the king with the means of maintaining his authority 
 and defending the realm against rebellion at home or attack from 
 without. The basis on which the State rested under the feudal 
 system was mutual protection. From the king to the humblest 
 subject, through each grade, it was the personal obligation of the 
 vassal to protect and aid his superior in battle, and it was the duty 
 of the superior to protect the property, rights, and liberty of his 
 isal. 
 In Anglo-Saxon times citizenship was derived from tribal and 
 
 1 Pollock and Maitland, p. 231. ' Ibid. p. 231. 
 
 » Ibid. p. 231. « Ibid. p. 256. 
 
CH.V FEUDALISM, A TRANSITION STAGE 163 
 
 local association and it succumbed with them. In the thirteenth 
 century and onward a citizenship was developing protected by the 
 central government, and gradually obtaining for itself a direct share 
 in the central power and its councils. " Between the two epochs 
 stands again the doctrine, and to a certain extent the practice of 
 feudalism, which throws local and provincial self-government into 
 the shade, but considers the central organisation itself as a federa- 
 tion of feudal potentates and the country as a territorial union of 
 baronies." ^ 
 
 Feudalism was a distinct and, under the circumstances of the 
 time, probably a necessary and almost inevitable stage in the march 
 of progress from the period of darkness and reaction which followed 
 the downfall of the Roman Empire. 
 
 When conditions so changed that government could free itself 
 from its dependence on the baron, when a professional class arose 
 to form the judiciary, when commerce and towns grew up, when 
 increasing wealth and the circulation of money made regular taxa- 
 tion possible and enabled the government to pay for military and 
 other services, feudalism disappeared as the organisation of society. 
 
 " Nevertheless Feudalism had performed a great service, during 
 an age of disintegration, by maintaining a general framework of 
 government, while allowing the locality to protect and care for 
 itself. When the function of protection and local supervision could 
 be resumed by the general government the feudal age ended. In 
 nearly all the states of Europe this end was reached during, or at 
 the close of, the thirteenth century." ^ 
 
 Modern Methods impossible then 
 
 In days when there was little commerce and less money, and 
 every one was more or less either occupied on the land or directly 
 connected with it, the wealth of the country, such as there was, 
 consisted of the land and such stock, houses, and implements as there 
 were upon it. The means of the people were the produce of the 
 soil. Under those conditions modern systems of government and 
 taxation were impossible. Revenue could not be raised in the 
 modem way to enable the government of a state to administer its 
 affairs, maintain order, keep an army and support the dignity and 
 household of the sovereign. Taxes as we know them were few, 
 because they were largely impossible. As such trading as there 
 
 ' English Society in the Eleventh Century, p. 213. 
 ' Dr. Adams, article " Feudalism," Ency. Brit., llth edition- 
 
1 64 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 was, was for the most part barter, and such payments as there 
 were, were made in kind or personal service, so what was then the 
 equivalent of our modern revenue was provided by personal service 
 and payments in kind. These conditions and the difficulties of 
 commimication over considerable distances rendered it necessary 
 also that the organisation of the state and its defence should be 
 almost entirely local. The Saxon Earls or Thanes and the Norman 
 feudal nobles were of the nature of sub-sovereigns. They had 
 their own local courts of law and their military forces. Their 
 allegiance and services due to the king were similar to those which 
 their retainers, tenants, and serfs owed to them. Services really 
 took the place of taxes, and they were arranged and, so to speak, 
 collected locally. As civilisation advanced and commerce developed, 
 and wealth increased, other sources of revenue became available. 
 Payment in place of service became possible, and new classes of 
 citizens grew up who were justly called upon to contribute in pro- 
 portion to their means to the general expenses of the community 
 and the State. 
 
 As the transition from the tribal to the feudal system, with the 
 changes which it involved in the personal position of the various 
 grades and classes of the people, was slow and gradual, except in 
 so far as a great and rapid change was made by William I. and his 
 immediate successors, so the transition from the feudal to the 
 parliamentary system, and the great changes in the method of supply- 
 ing the needs and forces of the state which accompanied it, and, 
 indeed, rendered it possible, was also slow and gradual. In fact, 
 it was spread over something like 500 years, from Henry II. to 
 Charles II. 
 
 Professor Maitland's View 
 
 " There are indeed historians who have not yet abandoned the 
 habit of speaking of feudalism as though it were a disease of the 
 body politic. . . . But if we use the term, and often we do, in a 
 very wide sense, if we describe several centuries as feudal, then 
 feudalism will appear to us as a natural and even a necessary stage 
 in our history. ... If we use the term m this wide sense then 
 feudalism means civilisation, the separation of employments, the 
 division of labour, the possibility of national defence, the possi- 
 bility of art, science, literature and learned leisure ; the cathedral, 
 the scriptorium, the library, are as truly the work of feudalism as 
 is the baronial castle. When, therefore, we speak of forces which 
 
CH.V FEUDALISM, A TRANSITION STAGE 165 
 
 make for the subjection of the peasantry to seignorial justice and 
 which substitute the manor with its villeins for the free village, 
 we shall — so at least it seems to us — ^be speaking not of abnormal 
 forces, not of retrogression, not of disease, but in the main of normal 
 and healthy growth. Far from us indeed is the cheerful optimism 
 which refuses to see that the process of civilisation is often a cruel 
 process : but the England of the eleventh century is nearer to the 
 England of the nineteenth, than is the England of the seventh — 
 nearer by just 400 years." ^ 
 
 ^ Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 223. 
 
CHAPTER VI 
 
 THE STRUGGLE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 
 
 In the struggle of the f ouiteenth century for constitutional govern- 
 ment as against royal authority and prerogative, and in the success- 
 ful effort to develop the principles embodied in and the advantages 
 gained by the Great Charter in the early part of the previous century, 
 Stubbs points out that it was the knights of the shires who bore 
 the burden of the fight and were the effective champions of popular 
 rights.^ 
 
 In the Middle Ages the theory was that the king should " live 
 on his own " — that is to say, that the revenues of his estates and 
 the feudal incidents thereof, together with the hereditary revenues 
 of the crown and the receipts accruing from the power to grant 
 privileges, charters, monopolies, etc., should provide him with 
 sufficient revenue for the ordinary purposes of state — and that 
 further taxes for special expenditure should not be levied without 
 the consent of the representatives of the people. 
 
 The principle that the king should " live on his own " was a 
 double-edged one. If his income was sufficient for him to rule 
 without special taxation, except in case of war, he was independent 
 of control and, if a strong man, might be a despot. If in order to 
 avoid control he curtailed his expenditure and thereby limited his 
 power, his superiority to and his authority over the wealthiest and 
 most powerful of his barons might disappear and he would become, 
 as many continental sovereigns did under the feudal system, especi- 
 ally in its decay, merely the nominal first and lord among equals, 
 the result of which would be to establish the rule of a territorial 
 oligarchy. 
 
 Another result of requiring the king to live on his own, and of 
 pressing control and opposition to the point of resistance on the 
 
 1 VoL ii. p. 513. 
 l66 
 
CH.VI CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 167 
 
 part of the sovereign was that the king was likely to obtain funds 
 or to secure partisans and friends by alienating portions of the 
 royal demesne by making grants to them. In the course of the 
 long struggle for constitutional government based on financial 
 control the estates of the crown were largely alienated in this way 
 and for this reason. The impoverishment of the crown was really 
 the depletion of the sources of public revenue and inevitably, in 
 the long run, necessitated further taxation of the people. 
 
 The Struggle for Parliamentary Control 
 
 The object of the wiser heads during the long constitutional 
 struggle and development, therefore, was not to impoverish the 
 king nor to unduly restrict proper royal and national expenditure ; 
 but to develop popular freedom, to prevent the waste of national 
 resources, and to secure the proper adjustment and limitation of 
 taxation by extending the control and power of ParHament. In 
 order to do this it was necessary, not so much that the king should 
 " live on his own," as that he should owe his income more and more 
 to parliamentary grants. Parliament accordingly from time to 
 time curtailed the customary and hereditary revenues of the crown, 
 and made specific grants from public money to supplement them. 
 
 The extent to which the king coidd require mihtary service 
 for wars in connection with his French kingdom was doubtful. 
 The service was also limited in duration, 40 days in the year, too 
 short a term to be of any real value for warlike operations on any- 
 thing like an extended scale, especially abroad, and as in those 
 times the army was slowly gathered and disorganised and untrained. 
 An enlisted army, paid by the king and properly drilled, was 
 permanent and much more effective and readily available. 
 
 The commutation of service for payment suited both the king 
 and his subjects. But it had far-reaching results. It soon united 
 the Normans and the English in the common bond of a common 
 policy based on common interests. AVhile it strengthened the 
 king's military power it weakened his civil power. It increased his 
 power to engage in foreign expeditions, but it did not increase the 
 willingness of his people to pay for them. It united all classes of 
 them in a desire to curtail the power of the king to make levies on 
 them, and within 50 years after the adoption of commutation and 
 the institution of payment of scutage and tallage, the whole nation 
 -^churchmen, nobles,! burghers, and peasants — ^united against the 
 king and his mercenaries and forced the Great Charter from him. 
 
1 68 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.ih 
 
 The struggle for control of finance which characterised the 
 thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and was the foundation of parlia- 
 mentary representative government, was overshadowed and placed 
 in abeyance by the Wars of the Roses and the weakness resulting 
 from the feuds of the nobles, followed by the strong rule of the 
 Tudor monarchs ; but the precedents and principles established 
 provided the basis on which the parliamentary party successfully 
 opposed the excesses of prerogative of the weaker Stuart kings in 
 the seventeenth century, and placed the control of the purse by the 
 House of Commons on a firm footing.^ 
 
 The monarchs desired to have revenue free from the control of 
 Parliament. Parliament and the people desired to protect the 
 country agaiost excessive and oppressive levies, and also to secure 
 and maintain that control over the pohcy of the Government which 
 the power to grant or refuse suppUes gives. 
 
 The Outcome of the Struggle with the Stuarts 
 
 After the experience with the Tudor and Stuart monarchs the 
 undesirability of leaving the king with a large revenue which was 
 outside the purview of Parhament, and tempted arbitrary rulers to 
 strain their powers in order to avoid calling Parhament together at 
 all, had become very evident. The next great step, therefore, was 
 taken when Charles II. returned after the Commonwealth. The 
 priuciple was then adopted of voting the king at the commence- 
 ment of each reign a fixed revenue from specified sources which 
 were estimated to produce sufficient to defray the expenditure of 
 the Government iu times of peace. This was followed ia the time 
 of Wilham III. by the appropriation of the revenue voted to be 
 used for defraying specified expenditure. 
 
 The grants of Crown lands made by Charles II., James II., and 
 William III., led to popular agitation from time to time for a reversal 
 of these grants and a resumption of the lands, with the result that 
 on the accession of Anne in 1702 an Act was passed which secured 
 the grantees of Crown lands in their possession of them by recognis- 
 ing what had been done ; but prohibited any future alienation, and 
 provided that any grant for more than 31 years or three Hves should 
 be void. 
 
 Step by step afterwards, the expenditure which the kingj was 
 required to meet out of his revenues was reduced and the amounts 
 voted at the commencement of each reign for the Civil List were 
 ^ Rogers, article " Finance," Ency. Brit. 
 
cH.vi CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 169 
 
 curtailed, until nothing was left to be provided for in that way 
 but the expenditure incidental to the maintenance of the king and 
 the royal family. At the same time the various revenues which 
 had accrued to the king from his estates, his royal prerogatives, 
 were, one by one, transferred to the State, until now only those 
 arising from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster go direct to 
 the royal family. 
 
 Final Abolition of the Feudal Incidents 
 After the disappearance of scutage and tallage about 1320 prac- 
 tically all that remained to the king of the old revenue from the 
 incidents of the feudal tenure were the fees and fines charged on 
 reliefs, wardships, alienation, and other incidents, and the grievous 
 and detested prerogatives of purveyance and pre-emption. In 
 the time of James I. an effort was made to get rid of these feudal 
 dues and incidents — the scandals and abuses of which had become 
 an intolerable grievance — by granting the king a permanent 
 revenue from taxes in their place, but it was not carried through. 
 The result was that in the years 1629-40, when Charles I. was govern- 
 ing without a Parliament and had to resort to every possible device 
 to raise money, his officers strained to the utmost and revived as 
 far as possible anything that was left of the possibility of revenue 
 from wardship and the incidents of the feudal tenures. They did 
 not amount to much but they were very irritating. Benevolences 
 (forced gifts and loans) monopolies, and traffic in honours were all 
 made the most of. 
 
 Under the Commonwealth the Long Parliament by a resolution 
 of both Houses in 1645 abolished the Court of Wards and Liveries, 
 and converted all tenures in chivalry into free and common socage. 
 In 1656 by an Act of the Commonwealth these resolutions were 
 confirmed by legislative enactment. The Commonwealth also 
 introduced a new excise and customs tariff, which included many 
 new taxes, among which were duties on beer, cider, and spirits, both 
 home and imported. At the Restoration in 1660 Charles II. desired 
 to ignore this legislation as illegal and of no effect. At that time 
 the financial position was that during the Conamonwealth the 
 revenue of the State had been raised from sudsidies — ^which were 
 really an income tax and a tax on property, real and personal — and 
 from customs and excise duties. 
 
 Personal military service on the knights' fee, which had only 
 existed for about a century, had been abolished 500 years (1159). 
 
lyo OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.h, 
 
 The payment of scutage, which had been substituted for it, had 
 ceased more than 300 years (1322). Tallage, which had been the 
 corresponding levy on the non- military tenants in towns and 
 counties, had been abandoned since 1332. " During the Common- 
 wealth the vexatious emoluments derived from the military tenures 
 had been suspended, and at the Eestoration the feeling was 
 unanimous in favour of abolishing those intolerable Feudal 
 burthens whi6h had so long survived their raison d'etre." ^ 
 
 By 12 Charles II. c. 24 aU the feudal incidents and all fines for 
 alienation, tenure by homage, etc., were abolished. The rights of 
 purveyance and pre-emption were also permanently abolished in 
 response to the demands of the yeomanry and peasantry.^ " All 
 sorts of tenures held of the King or others were turned into free and 
 common socage (freehold) save only tenures in frankalmoign, copy- 
 holds and the honorary services of grand serjeanty." ^ As Vino- 
 gradoff puts it, " Commutation, the enfranchisement of copyholds, 
 and the abolition of military tenures in the reign of Charles II., led 
 to a gradual absorption of socage in the general class of freehold 
 tenures." 
 
 A Great Boon to the Nation 
 
 The immediate and direct benefits of this Act were great boons 
 to the nation at large. Indirectly the nation gained by the simplifi- 
 cation of tenure and especially by the curtailment of the vexatious 
 prerogatives of the Crown, which had long been a terror and an 
 inspicer of awe. Most of the feudal incidents of fines and personal 
 service levied on and required from the smaller tenants and peasants 
 under their tenures from their landlords and feudal superiors had 
 been abolished and commuted for ordinary tenancies some 250 years 
 earlier. The system had been dead for centuries, and only the 
 minor but by no means the least irritating incidents remained. 
 The greater part of the latter had long fallen into abeyance, and 
 after the complete freedom from them which had been enj oyed during 
 the Commonwealth, and the spirit which had been manifested with 
 regard to arbitrary fines and levies, it was clearly impossible to 
 revive these antiquated and unpopular sources of royal revenue. 
 
 " Though the rights of the Crown over lands held, as the bulk of 
 English estates were held, in military tenure, had ceased to be of any 
 great pecuniary value, they were," says Green, " indirectly a source of 
 
 ^ Taswell-Langmead's Hiatory of English Law, p. 639. 
 
 2 Article " Knighthood," Ency. Brit, p. 116. 
 
 " Taswell-Langmead's History of English Law, p. 640. 
 
CH.VI CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 171 
 
 considerable power. The rights of wardship and of marriage above all 
 enabled the sovereign to exercise a galling pressure on every landed 
 proprietor in his social and domestic concerns. Under Elizabeth the 
 right of wardship had been used to secure the education of aU Catholic 
 minors in the Protestant faith ; and under James and his successor the 
 charge of minors had been granted to Court favourites or sold in open 
 market to the highest bidder. But the real value of these rights to the 
 Crown lay in the political pressure which it was able to exert through 
 them on the country gentry. A Squire was naturally eager to buy the 
 goodwUl of a Sovereign who might soon be the guardian of his daughter 
 and the administrator of his estate. But the same motives which made 
 the Crown cUng to this prerogative made the Parliament anxious to 
 do away with it." ^ 
 
 Eeferring to the abolition of feudal incidents Macaulay says : 
 " In the course of ages whatever was useful in the institution had 
 disappeared, and nothing was left but ceremonies and grievances." 
 The statute of Charles II. abolished the very same class of abuses, 
 the sweeping away of which was promised in the great charter of 
 Henry I., which was the forerunner of Magna Charta. 
 
 Dowdl's View * 
 
 Dowell says : " The reasons for the existence of the feudal 
 incidents had long ceased to be ; and indeed the whole feudal 
 system had long been practically obsolete. The strict enforcement 
 of the incidents under Elizabeth had been the cause of serious 
 complaints. So unpopular had they been found under the admini- 
 stration of James I. that the difficulty of finding taxes in substitu- 
 tion for the feudal revenue had alone prevented the execution of 
 Salisbury's plan for its total abolition in 1610. . . . The Court of 
 Wards and Liveries, in which this revenue was enforced, did not 
 long survive the commencement of the civil war. It ceased to 
 sit from February 24, 1645 ; and, eventually, wardship, livery, 
 primer -seizin, ouster-lemain — all the feudal incidents, and all 
 tenures by homage, and aU fines, licences, seizins, and pardons for 
 alienation had been abolished, and all tenures in capite and by 
 Knights' service of the King or any other person and all tenures 
 in socage in chief, had been turned into free and common socage, 
 that is, ordinary (freehold) tenure. 
 
 " In the same manner, purveyance and pre-emption, royal 
 prerogatives so unpopular that a volume might be filled with 
 excerpta from county histories of complaints regarding these 
 
 1 Short History, p. 619. 
 
172 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. m 
 
 ' insupportable grievances to the people,' had as such also been 
 abolished by the Parliament. All the King's Officers called pur- 
 veyors, victuallers, buyers, takers or caters ; his commissioners 
 by warrant and commission, who ' at will and pleasure had seized 
 and taken the carts, waggons, carriages, and horses of the people 
 for the removal of the King's household and for other pvirposes,' 
 had ceased to be. And the people were secured against all ' seizures 
 and takings of their hay, straw, oats, corn, cattle, victual, flesh, 
 fish, food, timber and other chattels for provision of the King's 
 household, at a price fixed at the pleasure of the King's officer,' 
 or, as frequently happened, without any payment in return. 
 
 " These unpopular prerogatives it was clearly impossible to 
 revive, while it was acknowledged that the courts of wards and 
 liveries and tenures by Knights' service and the consequents upon 
 the same had been found by experience more burdensome, grievous 
 and prejudicial to the Kingdom than they had been beneficial to 
 the King, and that it was impolitic, if not impossible, to revive 
 them." 1 
 
 Intolerable Abuses felt by Rich and Poor alike 
 
 The practice was much abused by the king's courtiers and 
 servants and the right was even claimed by the constables of the 
 king's castles. 
 
 The prerogatives of purveyance included, besides the right of pre- 
 emption of victuals, the compulsory use of horses and carts and even 
 the enforcement of personal labour. In the midst of ploughing or 
 harvest the husbandman was liable to be called on to work and to lend 
 his horses for the service of the court, or of any servant of the King who 
 had sufficient personal influence to enable him to use the King's name. 
 Nor did the abuse end here ; not only individuals, but whole counties, 
 were harassed by the same means : on one occasion the sheriff is ordered 
 to furnish supplies, beef, pork, corn for the coronation festival or for 
 the meeting of Parliament : on another he is directed to levy a supply of 
 corn to victual the army.^ 
 
 Frequent ordinances were issued against it and statutes were 
 passed forbidding the extortion, but : 
 
 No legislation however seems to have been strong enough to check 
 it ; it fills the petitions addressed to the parliament ; not only the King 
 but his sons and servants everywhere claim the right ; it is the frequent 
 theme of the chroniclers ; and it is the subject of ten statutes in the 
 reign of Edward III., by the last of which, passed in 1362, the King 
 
 1 History of Taxation, vol. ii. p. 20. * Stubbs, voL ii. p. 589. 
 
cH.vi CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT 173 
 
 declares that of his own will he abolishes both the name and the practice 
 itself ; only for the personal wants of the King and Queen is purveyance 
 in future to be suffered, and the hateful name of purveyors is changed 
 for that of buyers. It is probable that this statute really effected a 
 reform ; legislation, however, though less frequently required, was 
 occasionally called for ; in the times of civil war purveyance was revived 
 as a terrible instance of oppression, and was not finally abolished until 
 Charles II. resigned it along with the other antiquated rights of the 
 crown. 
 
 Wherever the King or the court went there went a crowd of pur- 
 veyors, taking the provisions of the husbandman, or demanding his 
 services and paying either at nominal prices or not at all. Every old 
 woman trembled for her poultry, the archbishop in his palace trembled 
 for his household and stud until the King had gone by.^ 
 
 Archbishop Islip, writing on these prerogatives in Edward III.'s 
 time, speaks of " a King whose people fly from his approach." ^ 
 Bacon, speaking in James I.'s first Parliament, said the purveyors 
 had become " taxers " instead of " takers." They extorted firom 
 the people annual fines of money, sometimes in gross and sometimes 
 in the nature of stipends, in lieu of their oppressive demands. If 
 they were refused they defaced and despoiled mansions and houses 
 and destroyed ornamental timber or favourite shrubs. They would 
 seize the poor man's hay and poultry, and mulct him in poundage 
 over its payment, which was neither assessed nor attested according 
 to law. Though produce on the highways was exempted and the 
 hours of purveyance was limited to sunlight, they ignored those 
 regulations of the statute book, and no one knew when or where 
 he might not be visited with their unwelcome presence, or, since 
 they refused to exhibit their authority, by whom he was despoUed.^ 
 
 When the feudal incidents were abolished by 12 Charles II. 
 c. 24, " the whole landed interest rejoiced, not only its gentry but its 
 inferior classes also. . . . The labouring classes romped on the 
 village green, toasted the King at its tavern, and omitted to grumble 
 at the increased price of their tipple in the thought that the royal 
 purveyors would trouble them no more." * 
 
 To compensate the king's revenue for his surrender of all his 
 
 rights and privileges under these feudal tenures a set of excise and 
 
 customs duties on beer, spirits and other liquors of half the amount 
 
 charged on these beverages under the Commonwealth was granted 
 
 to the king, his heirs and successors. The other half of these duties, 
 
 1 Stubbs, vol. ii. p. 403. ^ Ibid. vol. ii. p. 375. 
 
 ' Bacon, Works, vol. iv. pp. 305-6. 
 * Gamier's Hiatory of the English Landed Interest, p. 351. 
 
174 OWNERSHIP &c TAXATION OF LAND Px.m 
 
 bringing thenl up to the amount levied under the Commonwealth, 
 was voted as part of the ordinary revenue. It is quite clear from 
 the writings of those who discussed this question in the latter half 
 of the seventeenth century that the general property tax — which 
 has become known as the land tax — was intended to be a general 
 tax according to ability. It failed and became a land tax only. 
 Excise was resorted to because it was believed to be a better way 
 of obtaining the result originally intended. 
 
CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE SO-CALLED " LAND TAXES " OF 1692, 1697 AND 1798 
 
 As has already been stated, in 1663 the old Tudor subsidy was 
 levied for the last time. Dowell says, " It was now acknowledged 
 that the subsidy was effete as a method of taxation." The Common- 
 wealth form of monthly assessments was continued for nearly 30 
 years longer, but as they were levied at the old proportion of charge 
 fixed long before, and " moveable property had sHpped out of the 
 assessment," ^ it was ultimately abandoned and Parliament returned 
 to a pound rate in 1692. The pound rate of 1692 granted to William 
 III. was a tax of 4s. in the pound levied on the annual rent or value 
 of aU real estate ; on the salary of all public offices ; and on the 
 assumed income from personal property, goods and chattels calculated 
 at 6 per cent on the capital value of the property. As had been the 
 case so frequently before with taxes of this kind, loose assessments 
 and fraudulent returns caused a steady decline in the produce of 
 the tax and the old method of fixing the total amount to be raised 
 and apportioning it to the various towns and counties was reverted 
 to in 1697. Within the towns and counties the assessment was 
 divided out between the various parishes or districts according 
 to the assessment of 1692. 
 
 What the Tax really was — first on Personal Property 
 and Income, then on Real Estate 
 
 It is interesting and important to note that this tax of 1697 
 was first a tax on goods, merchandise and personal property, and 
 income from offices and employments. The residue of the sum to 
 be raised was obtained by a pound rate on the rent or annual value 
 of real estate.^ Dowell says : 
 
 In the assessment of the various tax-payers, it happened that as 
 1 Dowell, vol. iii. p. 92. " Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 95 and 96. 
 
 I7S 
 
176 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.... 
 
 the tradesmen and others assessed in respect of their personalty died ofi, 
 or departed from the particular district, the assessors charged their 
 quota upon the land, adding it to the previous charge upon the land- 
 owners ; so that the tax, which was intended to rest in the first instance 
 on goods and offices, the residue only being charged on the land — 
 intended for a general tax on property, gradually became, in effect, a 
 tax on land.^ 
 
 This was the more unfair because personal property and the 
 wealth of the towns were increasing more rapidly. Dowell again 
 emphasises the point thus : 
 
 This property tax of William III. originally intended to bear in the 
 first instance on personal property and offices, subsequently, when 
 personal property again slipped out of assessment, was described as "an 
 aid by a land tax," and in fiscal expression " The annual Land Tax ! " ^ 
 
 This so-called " Land Tax " continued to be levied imtil 1798 at 
 2s., 3s. and 4s. in the pound as circumstances required. In that 
 year it was recast by Pitt. It was separated into three taxes. That 
 portion which had become a land tax was made a fixed perpetual 
 charge on the various districts specified in the act. Provision was 
 made to enable persons to redeem the tax if they wished to do so. 
 The amount yielded by the tax at that time was about £2,400,000 
 a year. Since then much of it has been redeemed, and the net 
 yield in 1912-13 was £687,173. 
 
 The Fixed Assessment 
 
 As we have already seen, the levying of this tax on a fixed 
 assessment, which had not been and was not afterwards revised, 
 was quite in accord with custom and precedent — " this ancient 
 and continuous precedent," as Thorold Eogers describes it. It 
 was not, as it is so commonly represented to have been, a device 
 of the land-owners of the time to escape their fair share of public 
 burdens. As a matter of fact, so far as there was evasion and 
 shifting of burden it was done by the owners of property 
 other than land and the recipients of incomes other than those 
 derived from real estate. 
 
 The essence of contracts for the occupation of land, if these ancient 
 tenures could be called contracts, was that the liabilities of the tenant 
 should be fixed and unchangeable. This idea of a fixed rent in an estate 
 of inheritance pervaded all relations of landlord and vassal. It afEected 
 the subsidies granted to the Crown, the county valuations of which 
 appear to have been unchanged from the days of the Plantagenets to 
 
 1 Vol. ii. p. 53. " Vol. iii. p. 97. 
 
cH.vii THE SO-CALLED "LAND TAXES" 177 
 
 the days of the Stuarts. So with the fee farm rents paid by the free- 
 holders, the labour and subsequently the commuted rents paid by the 
 copyholders. The principle that a tax should be unchanged was 
 adopted in William III. land tax, an assessment which has never been 
 revised after the lapse of nearly two centuries .^ 
 
 Personal Property slipped ovi again 
 
 When Pitt recast the " land tax " in 1798 personal property 
 had almost entirely slipped out of assessment, and only about 
 £150,000 was in that year obtained from the tax on personal property 
 and offices. The portion then derived from personal property at 
 that time was fixed and so to speak stereotyped at that figure, as 
 the land tax was, by ascertaining the amount which had been charged 
 in each district upon " estates in ready money, debts, goods, wares, 
 merchandise or personal estates," and then charging it upon the 
 district to be collected at an equal rate in the pound upon all who 
 possessed personal property in the district. This tax continued 
 but steadily diminished in yield until 1833, when it was repealed.^ 
 
 That part of the old " land tax " which had been levied on 
 offices and employments was also ascertained and levied annually. 
 In 1825 it was limited to offices and pensions which were charged 
 under the Act of 1798. Although it was made perpetual in 1836 
 its yield diminished until it only produced £822 in 1868. It was 
 repealed in 1876.* 
 
 Well may Dr. Cannan, after summarising the history of the 
 Land Tax, say : 
 
 If the provisions of these annual acts had been faithfully carried 
 out, it is plain that in many places land would either at once or very 
 soon have been exempted from the " land tax," since 4s. in the pound 
 on incomes from other sources would have been sufficient to raise 
 the specific sums demanded. What actually happened, however, was 
 that the 4s. in the pound was not levied from personalty, and almost 
 the whole burden was placed upon landowners. In 1797 this practice 
 was legalised and perpetuated.* 
 
 At that time only £150,000 was levied from property other than 
 land ; and in 1833, when all taxation on personalty was abolished 
 by statute, the amoimt was only £5214. 
 
 1 Professor Rogers, The Economic Interpretation of History, p. 15. 
 
 2 Dowell, vol. iii. p. 101. ' Ibid. vol. iii. p. 102. 
 * History of Local Bates, p. 116. 
 
178 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.ih 
 
 View of the Inland Revenue Authorities 
 
 " Notldng can be more certain," says the Report of the Com- 
 missioners of Inland Revenue, 1870,^ " though but little known, 
 that the so-called land tax was in fact a property and income tax, 
 and, moreover, that personal estate was quite as much the object 
 of the charge as land, if not more so. The first Act, that of 1692, 
 shows this very clearly." 
 
 The principal Acts after 1692 were those of 1697 and 1797. 
 Concerning them the Report says : " Now it is a remarkable 
 circumstance that these acts of 1697 and 1797 appear to mark more 
 strongly than before the taxation of personal estate as the primary 
 object of the law." After remarking that for the year 1823 " we 
 are presented with the ludicrous result of a tax of one per cent on 
 the capital value of the personalty of Great Britain," the Report 
 continues : " It seems almost incredible that year after year an 
 Act should have been passed containing the most minute directions 
 for the assessment of personal estate, that year after year assessors 
 should have been sworn to carry those directions iuto effect, and 
 yet that nothing which could be called an assessment should have 
 been made. If indeed there had been no return at aU under this 
 head it would have been less startling than that there should be 
 such a return as that for 1823." 
 
 The Truth of the Matter 
 
 " The vague popular idea that the land of England belongs to 
 the people of England, in the sense that the nation has a right to 
 the whole or part of the rental, and that a special tax on land- values 
 is only the assertion of this just claim, is in the light of history an 
 absurdity." ^ 
 
 " Land taxes are as old as the cultivation of land. But the 
 point is that as soon as personal property became of sufficient 
 importance to attract the attention of the tax-gatherer, all these 
 land taxes were merged in a general system of taxation which 
 applied equally to movables." ^ 
 
 The income tax is really the successor to the old so-called land 
 tax, which was imposed as and intended to be a property and 
 income tax as our income tax now is. When in the time of William 
 III. a new assessment of the old tax was made it was not even called 
 
 * Vol. i. " Professor Nicholson, Bates and Taxes, p. 49. ' P. 50. 
 
cH.vn THE SO-CALLED "LAND TAXES" 179 
 
 a land tax. The Act of 1692 which imposed it described it as " an 
 aid of 4s. in the £ for carrying on a vigorous war against France." 
 
 When Pitt took the matter in hand a century later he made 
 another fresh start. He stuck to and stereotyped the then existing 
 4s. in the £ payable on land on the old valuation, and then he 
 instituted the income tax which was levied on all incomes above 
 £60 a year, from aU sources, land included, so that land not only 
 paid the old 4s. tax, but it paid the new income tax in addition. 
 That income tax continued until the close of the great French War 
 in 1815, when it was repealed, only to be reimposed by Peel iu 1842. 
 
 A Complete Misconception 
 
 We are now m a position to understand how entirely inaccurate 
 is the popidar view of the history of the taxation of land, and to 
 appreciate the extent to which the oft quoted statement of Richard 
 Cobden was based on a complete misconception of the facts. Speak- 
 ing in the House of Commons on Dec. 17, 1845, Cobden said : 
 
 For a period of 150 years after the Conquest the whole of the 
 revenue of the country was derived from the land. During the next 
 150 years it yielded nineteen-twentieths of the revenue — for the next 
 century down to the reign of Richard III. it was nine-tenths. During 
 the next seventy years to the time of Mary it fell to about three-fourths. 
 From this time to the end of the Commonwealth land appeared to have 
 yielded one-haU the revenue. Down to the reign of Anne it was one- 
 fourth. In the reign of George III. it was one-sixth. For the first 
 thirty years of his reign the land yielded one-seventh of the revenue. 
 From 1793 to 1816 (during the period of the Land Tax) land contributed 
 one-ninth. From which time to the present (1845) one twenty-fifth 
 only of the revenue had been derived directly from land. Thus the 
 land, which anciently paid the whole of taxation, paid now only a 
 fraction, or one twenty-fifth, notwithstanding the immense increase 
 that had taken place in the value of the rentals. 
 
 The United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values circulates 
 the same misrepresentation in a leaflet of which the following is a 
 copy : 
 
 [Diagram 
 
i8o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ... 
 
 THE LANDLORDS 
 THREW OFF THEIR TAXES 
 
 AS FOLLOWS:— 
 1216 1366 1483 1553 1653 1714 1760 1793 1815 1845 
 
 ORrUt 4PerCoit llPerCent WarCen! l7Per(kt 25(kCent 50PerCent TSPerfcnl SOIVCmt 95fe-Cent 
 
 The above diagram shows that up to the year 1216 the landlords 
 shifted none of their just burdens. But, commencing in the year 1216, 
 they shifted them ofi their land on to the labourers as the diagram 
 shows. The clear columns show the increasing share of the tax burdens 
 unfairly lifted from their own backs to those of others. The shaded 
 columns show the lessening proportions at those periods still borne by 
 the landlords. As rentals grew taxes on rentals were legislated away, 
 the landlords being the lawmakers. 
 
 This process must be reversed. Taxes and rates must be removed 
 from labour and from industry until the rent of land again becomes the 
 direct source of all public revenues. This is what is meant by the Taxa- 
 tion of Land Values and the Un-Taxation of Industry. 
 
 As a matter of fact it is not correct to say that the whole of the 
 revenue of the country was derived from land during the early part 
 of the period referred to ; and in so far as it was very largely derived 
 from the land it was so because almost everybody was engaged upon 
 the land, and it was the chief source of income and livelihood, and 
 there was little or nothing else that could be taxed. The aim and 
 object was not to assess and tax owners and occupiers of land as 
 
cH.vii THE SO-CALLED "LAND TAXES" i8i 
 
 such, and to exempt other people, but to assess and tax everybody 
 according to his possessions and his ability to pay. In those early 
 times the simplest way of doing this was to assess them according 
 to the amount of land they occupied, and that was what was done. 
 As the position of the country improved and other possessions 
 accumulated, and especially as towns grew up and trade developed, 
 the value of the land which a man owned or occupied became less 
 and less an accurate standard of his wealth and ability to pay. 
 Consequently from a very early time, commencing in 1181, personal 
 property — movables, as it was called — was also taxed. What the 
 decrease in the proportion of the total revenue derived from land 
 means is not that land-owners " threw off their taxes," but that 
 land was becoming a smaller proportion of the total wealth of the 
 nation, as other kinds of wealth developed and accumulated. So 
 far from it being true that the landlords " unfairly lifted an increasing 
 share of the tax burdens from their own backs to those of others," 
 the history of taxation for several centuries is a record of the con- 
 tinual and successful effort which was made by the general tax- 
 payers to evade their share of the tax burdens by lifting them from 
 their own backs to those of the landholders. Again and again, 
 when the taxes were levied on all property and income including 
 stock-in-trade and salaries, the result was that personal property 
 gradually slipped out of the assessment until the tax practically 
 fell entirely, or almost entirely, on land and buildings. Well 
 might Thorold Eogers say that if the historian would examine 
 the records he would sweep away many ancient delusions as to 
 persons and events which seem to be permanently embedded in 
 the popular histories. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 Mr. Chiozza Money, M.P., has very interestingly pointed out, that 
 not only was the so-called Land Tax of 1692 reaUy an income tax, but 
 that the income tax introduced by Pitt in 1799, and revived by Peel in 
 1842, and continued to the present day, was and is practically a revival 
 of the old 1692 tax in an efiective form. Mr. Money says : 
 
 " Pitt did not invent a new tax called the income tax. In 1799 
 the income tax was already hoaiy with age in this country. Pitt found 
 the income tax of 1692 still absurdly levied upon imperfect assessments 
 and bringing in very little revenue. What he actually did was to 
 reform the income tax and give it a new name. He began in 1798 by 
 commuting the old ' Land tax,' as we have seen. Having cleared it 
 out of the way, and made it a fixed charge, he re-enacted an income 
 
1 82 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.i.i 
 
 tax with a better system of assessment. In doing so, however, he 
 closely adhered to the old schedules. 
 
 " Section 2 of the ' Land Tax ' became Schedule D of the new 
 property and income tax. Section 3 of the old Act became what 
 we now call Schedule E. Section 4 of the old Act became what we now 
 call Schedule A. 
 
 " So far from land-owners escaping by Pitt's reform, they began 
 to make a larger contribution to the national exchequer. The old 
 absurd charge remained, and a new one, better assessed, was added to 
 it. Thus we see that while the old ' Land Tax ' was a property and 
 income tax, the new income tax was also a land tax, as it now remains." 
 
 It is interesting to note here also the practical experience of Walpole 
 who, speaking nearly two centuries ago, said that it was safer to tax 
 real than personal estate, because " landed gentlemen are like the 
 flocks upon their plains, who suffer themselves to be shorn without 
 resistance ; whereas the trading part of the nation resemble the boar, 
 who will not sufEer a bristle to be pluckt from his back without making 
 the whole parish to echo with his complaints." ^ 
 
 * Sinclair, History of the Public Revenue, vol. iii., App. p. 79. 
 
PART IV 
 
 WHO EEALLY OWNS THE LAND? 
 
 AND 
 
 SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONESTY AND HONOUR 
 
 183 
 
" statements which arise unbidden to the lips of everyone always contain a 
 foundation of truth, but very often we proceed to build upon this foundation a 
 superstructure composed almost entirely of fiction." — The Spectator. 
 
 " First recognise what is true ; we shall then discern what is false, and properly 
 never till then." — Thomas Cablyle. 
 
 " To examine and reject a fallacious hypothesis is often a means of arriving 
 at the truth." — ^Leaoock. 
 
 " In the long run that which is unjust can never be expedient." — Aristotle. 
 
 " In the interests of a people rising so rapidly into the possession of wealth and 
 capital, it is expedient rather to confirm the traditions of property than to over- 
 throw them." — Professor W. Smart. 
 
 " To take the land without compensation would be robbery : to take it with 
 compensation would be foUy." — W. E. Gladstone. 
 
 " History records imany things which ought to make us hate evil actions ; but 
 neither history nor morals, nor policy can teach us to punish iimooent men on 
 that account." — Edmund Burke. 
 
 184 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 WHO REALLY OWNS THE LAND ? 
 
 We are sometimes told that in strict law land in this country is 
 not the subject of absolute property, that no man is in law the 
 absolute owner of land. He only holds an estate in it, and that 
 estate he holds under the Crown. That is the legal fiction no 
 doubt, ■ but it is nothing more than a legal fiction, embodied 
 though it be in deeds and law. For all practical purposes 
 there is ownership, and when the law says that there is not 
 absolute ownership the term is used to mean something alto- 
 gether different from what ordinary people imderstand by ordinary 
 language. 
 
 The Crown does not own the rents, nor is there anything in the 
 nature of a rent charge reserved to it. The Crown neither exercises 
 nor claims any of the attributes of ownership. 
 
 When on this very unstable and dubious foimdation an attempt 
 is made to build up a contention that the land belongs to the Crown, 
 and that the Crown owns it as the representative of the community, 
 and, therefore, the land belongs to the people, we have an argument 
 which is full of fallacies and flaws. 
 
 In the first place, land does not belong to the Crown in any real 
 sense. In the second place, when the Crown did as Conqueror 
 seize and exercise the power to dispose of land in this country, it 
 was not only an act of pillage based on force but it was a personal 
 act. No rights of the community as such were recognised or 
 thought of. The exercise of the power claimed was always resented 
 and often disputed, and in course of time the Crown was compelled 
 to relinquish its claims and so-called rights. Those rights were 
 relinquished not to the community, but to the individuals over 
 and upon whom they had been arbitrarily and despotically exercised, 
 only so long as they could be maintained by force. 
 
 i8s 
 
1 86 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.,v 
 
 What the Conqueror did 
 
 When William the Conqueror claimed and exercised the power, 
 and therefore the right, to dispose of the land of England amongst 
 his followers and those of the native nobles and land-owners who 
 accepted his sovereignty, he did not do it at the request of, on 
 behalf of, or in the interest of, the community. He thought nothing 
 of or about them. He did it as a personal act on his own behalf 
 and in his own interest. It was essentially arbitrary and despotic 
 in character and fact. Like all other despots and chiefs of bands of 
 marauders, brigands, and pirates, he could only maintain his power 
 and position by, to some extent, conciliating the more powerful of 
 his followers, and sharing some of the plunder with them. Just 
 before the battle of Hastings, WiUiam, addressing his troops, said, 
 " Fight bravely and put all to death : if we win we shall all be rich : 
 what I get, you shall get : If I conquer, you will conquer : if I 
 obtain the land you will obtain it." He did this on condition that 
 they in turn served and supported him and maintained his 
 sovereignty and supremacy. AU this was personal. The King 
 was looking after his own interest and that alone : he was only 
 concerned with the interests of others in so far as they were sub- 
 servient to and necessary to maintain his own. With his immediate 
 and more powerful followers the position was the same. Nor was 
 it different with those of the native men of power and position, who 
 gave the Conqueror their allegiance. None of them cared or thought 
 about the community as such, apart from themselves. Such a 
 thing as the land belonging to the community — ^to the people as 
 a whole — was never dreamed of. If it had been suggested it would 
 have been laughed at. The new King claimed that it belonged to 
 him, and that he could and would do what he liked with it. He 
 based his right on his position as conqueror and on his power to 
 maintain it : in a word, on the strength of his own right arm, so 
 to speak. 
 
 For a time the immediate followers of the Conqueror submitted 
 to and upheld these conditions because their own position as con- 
 quering usurpers of other people's property depended on their so 
 doing. But as weaker kings succeeded the Conqueror, and as the 
 position of the nobles as lords and owners became established by 
 flux of time, they joined hands with the native nobles and land- 
 owners, and made common cause to free themselves from the King's 
 personal claims and the burdens which accompanied them. The 
 
CH.. WHO REALLY OWNS THE LAND? 187 
 
 Crusades and the "Wars with France gave them their opportunities 
 and enabled them not only to rid themselves of many burdensome 
 incidents of personal despotic sovereignty but also to secure for 
 Parhament, as representing the community, that financial control 
 which laid the foimdations of English liberty and representative 
 government. 
 
 The Kings and their Demesne 
 
 The king required more money than his demesne yielded. He 
 required more military service than the conditions of feudal service 
 supplied. The nobles and Parliament realised the power which 
 these needs gave them, and they used it. They made grants of 
 revenue, but they did it on terms, and the terms always involved 
 a diminution of the king's personal power and a surrender of some 
 or other of the onerous conditions which the Conqueror had imposed 
 uponthepeople. So longas thiswasthe position, kings were naturally 
 unwilling to go to Parliament for renewed or new powers of taxation, 
 if they could possibly avoid it, and when they did go they desired 
 to have special friends and supporters there. This in turn led to 
 the diminution of the royal demesne through the kings selling parts 
 of it in order to raise money without going to Parliament and giving 
 other parts to friends, favourites, and supporters in return for 
 services rendered. Dowell tells us that 
 
 Originally the ancient demesne, consisting of lands that had belonged 
 to Edward the Confessor and were considered to have belonged to the 
 Heptarchic Kings, was regarded in the nature of national property. 
 And on that ground Parliament, should the King, by grants of ancient 
 demesne, impoverish himself to such an extent as to compel him to 
 resort to a request for a subsidy, might nullify and cancel the immoder- 
 ate grants. WhUe the demesne not ancient, and aU accretions to the 
 King by escheat and forfeiture, were regarded as the property of the 
 King, which he could alienate without any fear of the subsequent 
 iaterference of Parliament. 
 
 Both kinds of demesne were largely alienated by Henry VIII. 
 and his successors. Elizabeth sold portions freely in order to avoid 
 applications to Parliament, and James I. and Charles I. reduced it 
 still further until at the commencement of the Civil War the revenue 
 from the demesne was only about £120,000. Under the Common- 
 wealth what was left was sold. After the Restoration there was 
 some resumption of the lands which had been parted with, but in 
 1663 the revenue from the demesne was only £100,000 a year. 
 
 One result of the gradual alienation of the demesne was that it 
 
1 88 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .v 
 
 brought the kings more and more under the control of ParHament, 
 and enabled it to increase its authority and power in proportion as 
 the king, owing to the diminution in his ordinary personal sources 
 of revenue, became more and more dependent on ParHament for 
 suppHes, to meet the cost of government and any wars in which 
 he might be involved. 
 
 Norman Tenures were imposed by Force 
 
 The conditions which WiUiam the Conqueror imposed were 
 imposed by force and as the result of conquest. As soon as possible 
 they were restricted and ultimately practically abolished. They 
 never belonged to the community. They were imposed by the 
 king for his own personal advantage and in order to enable him to 
 maintain and retain his personal position as sovereign and over- 
 lord. When the position of the kings was assured to them and 
 the continuance of these conditions became unnecessary and indeed 
 dangerous to the maintenance of the king's position, the burden- 
 some yoke of despotic personal rule was gradually removed and 
 constitutional government, under which the revenues of the state 
 were raised and controlled by Parliament, was as gradually estab- 
 hshed. 
 
 The feudal tenures and the incidents appertaining thereto were 
 burdens imposed by a conqueriug power. They were not the 
 conditions of grants of land by or for the community to individuals. 
 They were the conditions of grants by the king of lands which 
 belonged to others and which he had seized by force, not for the 
 community, but for himself and his followers. They were not 
 services or payments due to the community and received by the 
 king on behalf of the community. They were services and pay- 
 ments demanded and enforced by the king for himself, at the point 
 of the sword, and when the successors of those on whom they were 
 imposed succeeded in throwing them off one by one, century after 
 century, it was not the community but the Crown that was deprived 
 of the produce of burdens which had originally been imposed by 
 force, and used against the community to enable the king to estab- 
 lish his authority over it. Incidentally in this process of re-adjust- 
 ing the relative positions of the Crown, the land-owners, and the 
 community as a whole, considerable burdens of taxation were 
 placed on land-owners. 
 
CH. I WHO REALLY OWNS THE LAND ? 189 
 
 They had less Validity than Svhseqiient Acts of Kings 
 and Parliaments 
 
 The conditions imposed by William the Conqueror upon land- 
 owners and their tenants and others under them were the arbitrary 
 acts of a military despot. Greater authority and validity cannot 
 be attached to the action imposing these conditions than to the 
 actions of his successors and the Parliaments of the day by which 
 those conditions were modified and eventually abandoned in favour 
 of other arrangements which were deemed more equitable and 
 satisfactory. There is no justification for ignoring and treating as 
 null and void the one set of transactions, and attempting to insist 
 on the others as sacred and inviolable. The decisions, the results 
 of which it is desired to get rid of, were at any rate arrived at in a 
 more constitutional manner than those which it is desired to main- 
 tain. They were not the personal arbitrary act of a mihtary 
 conqueror. They were the deliberate decisions of the Parliament 
 of the time. 
 
 If one Part of the Contract were restored the Whole should be 
 
 When attempts are made to establish the right of the pubhc to 
 go back to the conditions instituted by William I., and to claim for 
 them a sanctity and a permanence which is allowed to nothing else 
 before or since, and when, on the strength of that, it is asked that 
 land-owners should now be called upon to fulfill the conditions then 
 imposed, and should therefore bear all the cost of the defence of the 
 country, it must be remembered that at that time many similar 
 and even more onerous conditions applied to other people, and that 
 if the feudal system is to be restored the conditions under which its 
 liabilities and duties were imposed, and on which they were based, 
 should also be revived. When much is made of the grant or re- 
 grant of lands by William I., it must not be forgotten it is equally 
 true that all freeholders in manors owed their land and rights both 
 in law and in fact to grants or regrants from the lord, and that 
 all other tenants held on a more or less onerous servile tenure, 
 and that below them again in status was a large proportion of the 
 population who were serfs attached to the soil by bonds which made 
 them practically the property of the land-owners. It was on those 
 conditions and on that basis that the feudal liabilities were imposed, 
 and if we are to go back and restore the position in one respect we 
 
I90 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 should, in justice and equity, also have to restore the conditions 
 and position on which it depended and was based. 
 
 A curious instance of the survival of the feudal power of lords 
 of the manor to make levies upon their tenants reaches us from the 
 early part of the seventeenth century, where, on the orders of the 
 lord, the steward called the tenants together and informed them 
 that, as he had bought an estate for more than £7000, they must 
 help him to pay for it by each of them giving him three years' rent. 
 They were told that if they did this no more gifts would be required 
 during his lifetime, and, if they did not, he would refuse to renew 
 their holdings as they fell in.^ 
 
 ' Chetham Society Miscellanies, vol. iii. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 SOME CONSIBERATIONS OF HONESTY AND HONOUR 
 
 The contention of Henry George and his followers, and of most 
 advocates of the nationaUsation of land, is that the private owner- 
 ship of land, or, at any rate, of its unimproved value, is wrong, and 
 involves robbery of the public and ought to cease. The ways in 
 which they would deal with and rectify this alleged wrong vary in 
 detail, but in principle and practical effect they are very similar. 
 They aU aim at taking for the use of the community the whole, or 
 a considerable portion of that part of the value, of the land of the 
 country — apart from the value of the buildings and other improve- 
 ments which are on it — which is now private property. 
 
 Confiscation by Taxation 
 
 Some would seize and appropriate the land : others would have 
 the State buy out the present owners. Henry George's followers 
 and many land taxers who have not adopted the policy of the 
 single tax propaganda in its entirety would seize and appropriate 
 the whole or a considerable part of the value of the land by taxing 
 it. Henry Greorge said : 
 
 I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property 
 in land. The first would be unjust : the second needless. Let the 
 individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of 
 what they are pleased to call their land. . . . We may safely leave 
 them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate 
 land : it is only necessary to confiscate rent. . . . We already take 
 some rent in taxation. We have only to make some changes in our 
 modes of taxation to take it all.-'' 
 
 His view is that " though his titles have been acquiesced in genera- 
 tion after generation, to the landed estates of the Duke of Westminster 
 the poorest child that is born in London to-day has as much right as his 
 eldest son. . . . And it is robbed if the right is denied." ^ 
 
 1 Progress and Poverty, p. 288. * Ibid. p. 240. 
 
 191 
 
192 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 Writing of the land of Scotland and claiming that it belonged 
 rightfully to the whole of the people of Scotland, he said, ia a 
 pamphlet Land and the People : 
 
 It therefore follows, from the very fact of their existence, that 
 the right of each one of the Scottish people to an equal share in the 
 land of Scotland is equal and inalienable. . . . 
 
 Why should the landlords be paid ? If the land of Scotland belongs 
 of natural right to the Scottish people, what vaUd claim for payment 
 can be set up by the landlords ? . . . The claim of the landlords to the 
 land rests not on natural right but merely on municipal law — on 
 municipal law which contravenes natural right. And, whenever the 
 sovereign power changes municipal law so as to conform to natural 
 right, what claim can they assert to compensation ? Some of them 
 bought their lands, it is true ; but they got no better title than the seller 
 had to give. . . . Created by force and maintained by force, they have 
 not behind them the first shadow of right. That men, now dead, have 
 had the power to give and grant Scottish lands is true ; but wiQ any 
 one contend they had the right ? 
 
 Repulsive but Dangerous 
 
 These views are stiU being widely circulated and energetically 
 advocated. The publications in which they appear are the stock- 
 in-trade of the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Values, 
 and they are the basis of its propaganda and proposals. More or 
 less openly avowed, they lie at the foundation of most of the pro- 
 posals which are made for the special taxation of land-owners as 
 such. It is desirable, therefore, that they should be examined with 
 some care, in order that we may clear our minds with regard to them. 
 
 As these so-called principles are baldly stated by Henry George, 
 they will be repulsive to, and will be repudiated by, most thoughtful, 
 honest men, but that is no reason why they should not be refuted 
 and exposed. That well-informed people know that they are absurd 
 and iniquitous is not sufficient. Any fallacy and wrong, however 
 ridiculous, is dangerous if the masses of the people are attracted 
 by it. The danger is enormously increased if the proposal takes 
 the form of conferring a financial advantage upon the multitude at 
 the expense of others than themselves. Henry George was well 
 aware of this when he cynicaUy, but very truly, observed that 
 " even the most prejudiced can be relied on to listen with patience 
 to an argument in favour of making some one else pay what they 
 are now paying." ^ 
 
 1 The Irish Land Question, p. 41, 
 
CH.II SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 193 
 
 We must also remember that these proposals are really a revival 
 of old fallacies which have manifested great vitality. A single tax 
 propaganda was prevalent in France in the eighteenth century. 
 It was part of the policy of the Physiocrats. Sir Henry Maine 
 very truly said that Rousseau's philosophy, upon which H. Greorge's 
 teaching is largely based, " still possesses singular fascination for 
 the looser thinkers of every country " ; that " it helped most 
 powerfully to bring about the grosser disappointments of which 
 the first French Revolution was fertile." ^ 
 
 Of course it is easy, popular, and soothing to preach that some 
 one else ought to pay what your hearers or readers are paying ; 
 that some one else is responsible for their difficulties and troubles ; 
 and that the way to improve the world is to reform and tax 
 other people. It is, however, desirable that we should occasion- 
 ally ask whether what is being said is true, and whether these pro- 
 posals to transfer the property of others to ourselves are quite honest. 
 Appeals to covetousness are always easy and always dangerous. 
 They are especially so when they are interlarded with references to 
 religion and justice. It is not surprising, therefore, that many 
 " hailed with rapture the appearance of the teacher who clothed 
 passion in the garb of philosophy ; and preached the sweeping 
 away of rajustice by the perpetration of further injustice, as if it 
 were nothing but the conversion of soimd theory into practice." 
 The truth is, as Professor Smart expressed it : 
 
 All the advantages adduced for the single tax are nothing more 
 than bribes ; and in order to expose the inherent dishonesty of the idea, 
 it is necessary to expound the first principles of pubhc morals. 
 
 Conditions of Ownership 
 
 At the outset of this part of our discussion it should be stated 
 clearly that the recognition of the rights of private property in 
 anything does not involve a recognition of the oimier's right to do 
 what he Ukes with it. His ownership is subject to such regulations, 
 limitations, and conditions as the legislature deems necessary and 
 just. He may own a horse, he may not treat it cruelly, he may 
 not drive it on the footpath or on which side of the road he likes. 
 He may own a pig, but he may not keep it where he Ukes. He may 
 own a gun, but he may not fire it off when and where he likes. 
 
 This is especially true of private property in land. Even those 
 who are most tenacious of the rights of landed property recognise 
 1 Ancient Law, pp. 89-92, 
 
 Q 
 
194 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 that in important respects it is a different thing from other property. 
 The permission of the appropriation of " original and indestructible 
 natural forces," which are often spoken of as the inheritance of the 
 whole species, and the continuance of that appropriation has its 
 basis in expediency — the general good— as well as in justice; and 
 the State has always considered itself entitled, in the interest of 
 the common well-being, to attach to the ownership of land limitations 
 and conditions more stringent and extensive than those which it 
 attaches to other private possessions. 
 
 " Sustained by some of the greatest names — I will say, by' every 
 name of the first rank ia Political Economy, from Turgot and Adam _ 
 Smith to Mill — I hold," says Professor Cairnes in Political Economic "^^rf 
 La^, ", th^t the land of a country presents conditions which separate 
 it economically from the great mass of the other objects of wealth- 
 conditions which, if they do not absolutely, and under all circumstances, 
 impose upon the State the obligation of controlling private enterprise 
 in dealing with land, at least explain why this control is, in certain 
 stages of social progress, indispensable, and why, in fact, it has been 
 constantly put in force whenever public opinion or custom has not been 
 strong enough to do without it." - , , 
 
 " The right to use a piece of land," says Professor Marshall, " gives 
 command over a certain space — a certain part of the earth's surface. 
 The area of the earth is fixed ; the geometric relations in which any 
 particular part of it stands to other parts are fixed. No man has 
 control over them. They are wh'oUy unafiected by demand ; they have 
 no cost of production, there is no supply price at which they can bfe 
 producBid. • I; 
 
 " The use of a certain area of the earth's surface isa primary condition 
 of anything that man can do ; it gives him room for his own actions, 
 with the enjoyment of the heat and light, the air and the rain which 
 nature assigns to that area, and it determines his distance from, and in 
 a great measure his relations to other persons and other things. 
 
 " This property of land is the ultimate cause of the distinction' which 
 all writers on economics are compelled to make between land and other 
 things." 1 
 
 Eurther, an historical justification of an institution is no justifica- 
 tion for its continuance or revival when it is no longer socially 
 beneficial. Consequently, the contention put forward i in this 
 chapter is not that the State' is not entitled to interfere with and 
 regulate the conditions under which land is held as private property, 
 or that it is not entitled to take possession of that property if it 
 is deemed expedient to do so, but that if it does interfere or take 
 possession it must honourably recognise and equitably deal with 
 1 Principles of Eoonomcs, p. 144. 
 
CH.II SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 195 
 
 those rights of private individuals which have not only been created, 
 built up, and sanctioned by ages of custom, but have been regulated, 
 defined, and established by legal enactments extending over many 
 centuries. 
 
 A Grave Injiistice 
 
 For a thousand years and more in this country land has been re- 
 garded as private property, and has passed from person to person by 
 sale, gift, and bequest imder the most careful and solemn sanctions, 
 safeguards, and blading obligations which legislation, custom, and 
 public opinion can give. Land has for centuries been regarded by 
 the pubhc and treated by the law as being as much private property 
 as ordinary merchantable commodities. It has been bought and 
 sold, bequeathed and exchanged in precisely the same way, except 
 that the rights of ownership have been more stringently safeguarded. 
 At one time a man owns land, at another he owns ships, at another 
 he owns debentures or shares in a railway or in a coal-mine, or in 
 some manufacturing concern, at another he owns quantities of iron, 
 corn, cotton, wool, timber, cattle, or sheep. Some men own one kind 
 of property, others own other kinds. Most men own a little of 
 several kinds. The proportions they hold vary from time to time. 
 One day they may own land, and the next day they may sell it, and 
 on the following day buy railway stock or consols, or lend the 
 money to some municipal authority. All has been regarded as 
 private property, marketable and interchangeable at will. 
 
 Now it is proposed to poimce down upon the man who happens 
 to own land at the moment, and penalise him by seizing a consider- 
 able portion of its value. The person upon whom the blow will 
 fall, upon whom the loss wUl be inflicted, is to be selected, not by 
 any process of justice, equity, or reason, but simply because he 
 happens at that moment to be caught owning a particular kind of 
 private property. He is to be selected on the basis of the old game 
 of " hunting the sHpper." If he has just bought land he is to be 
 deprived of a portion of its value ; while the man who sold it to 
 bim is to escape unscathed with the fuU value that was paid to him. 
 Clearly, such an injustice would be an inexcusable outrage. 
 
 The Small Investor 
 Himdreds of thousands of investors are to be deprived of one- 
 fifth, one-fourth, or one-third of the value of their property, in 
 order that others, not one whit more deserving, may retain for their 
 own use a larger proportion of their property which was already 
 
196 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 disproportionately reKeved from taxation. Amongst those to be 
 exceptionally relieved would be the South African millionaires who 
 live here, the great London financiers, and the millionaire manu- 
 facturers and investors in securities other than land. 
 
 It is a great mistake to imagine that the very rich people are 
 the most interested in land and buildings. The small people of 
 the country have a much larger proportion of their money invested 
 in land and buildings than the extremely well-to-do have. During 
 the twelve months ending April 5, 1912, the total amount of money 
 left by persons who left less than £5000 each, was £71,556,747. 
 Of that sum £29,928,969, or 41-8 per cent, was invested in agricul- 
 tural land, houses and business premises, ground rents or mortgages. 
 During the same time the amount left by persons who died worth 
 £250,000 or more each, was £53,114,891, and of that £8,977,659, or 
 only 16-8 per cent, was invested in land and buildings or in mort- 
 gages on them. That is to say, in proportion to the amount they 
 possessed, people who were worth less than £5000 had two and a half 
 times as much invested in land and buildings as those who possessed 
 £250,000 or more had. For the year ending April 5, 1913, the figures 
 were similar. The total amount left by persons who died worth 
 less than £5000 each was £71,510,527. Of that £30,002,202 or 42 
 per cent was in land, buildings, and mortgages. The total amount 
 left by persons who died worth £250,000 or more each was 
 £53,420,344. Of that only £7,939,838 or 15 per cent was invested 
 in land, buildings, and mortgages. Thus those smaller people had, 
 in proportion to their means, nearly three times as much invested 
 in land and buildings as the very wealthy people had. 
 
 When we also remember that Insurance Societies, Friendly 
 Societies, Building Societies, Co-operative Societies, and other 
 bodies in which working people and small tradesmen and middle 
 class people are very closely interested, are large owners of land, 
 houses, business premises, ground rents, and mortgages, we shall 
 realise that any scheme of taxation or appropriation which would 
 transfer a substantial portion of the value of this class of property 
 from those who now own it to the State or the local community, 
 would have far-reaching effects and inflict severe loss upon a most 
 deserving section of the people, whose chief fault would be that, 
 relying on the honour of the State and the sanctity of the law, 
 they had invested the results of long years of thrift and prudence 
 in a class of property which the State had taught them to regard 
 as particularly safe and secure, and which, in not a few instances, 
 
CH.II SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 197 
 
 was one of a very limited selection of investments in which Parlia- 
 ment had compelled them to invest their funds. 
 
 The Responsibility and Attitude of Parliament 
 
 How seriously Parhament has always regarded its responsibility 
 with reference to the investments to which it has Umited trustees, 
 and into which it has compelled holders of the savings of hundreds 
 of thousands of small, and almost whoUy inexperienced, and there- 
 fore largely helpless people, to invest their money, is illustrated 
 by the conditions which, in accord with the Act of Parliament, the 
 Treasury prescribed as those which Colonial Governments must 
 comply with before their securities could be allowed to become 
 trustee securities in this country. One of those conditions is : 
 
 The Colonial Government shall place on record a formal expression 
 of their opinion, that any Colonial legislation which appears to the 
 Imperial Government to alter any of the provisions affecting the stock 
 to the injury of the stockholder, or to involve a departure from the 
 original contract in regard to the stock, would properly be disallowed. 
 
 The Parliament which thus insists on the sacredness of the 
 investments into which it compels trustees to put the money 
 entrusted to them, and which thus guards against any possibility 
 of the conditions of those investments and the contracts on which 
 they are based being altered to the disadvantage of those whose 
 money has been placed in them, is asked by many land taxers to 
 violate its own precepts and priaciples, to ignore the conditions 
 which it imposes upon others, and to itseK injure and inflict loss 
 upon those whom it is its special duty to protect, and whom it has 
 placed in the position in which they are. 
 
 In this connection it is interesting to note that in 1894, the 
 Final Report of a Joint Special Committee of the State of Massa- 
 chusetts, U.S.A., which investigated Henry George's and other 
 proposals,^ said : 
 
 Even Henry George admitted, a few years ago (in an address at 
 Boston, Feb. 22, 1889), that if his scheme were put into operation it 
 would cause the savings banks and insurance companies to fail, and 
 that in an agricultural community it might be difficult to raise the 
 money thought to be needed for municipal wants. But as a people 
 could only have what the plan would furnish, they must economise and 
 bring their wants within their means. This means, among other things, 
 poorer schools and libraries, and, therefore, a more limited education 
 
 1 P. 38. 
 
198 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 for the young, and a less tender care of tte aged and helpless, who are 
 cared for in our charitable institutions. 
 
 If private land-owning is wrong and indefensible, a robbery 
 which ought to cease ; if the poorest child in London has as much 
 right to the estates of the Duke of Westminster as the Duke's son 
 has, this great moral principle will apply whatever the origin of 
 the property, whatever the extent of the estate, whatever the size 
 of the property owned. That is to say, the man who owns the ground 
 on which the cottage in which he lives stands is an interloper and a 
 wrong-doer just as is the large land-owner. The children who 
 have an equal right with every one else to the Duke of Westminster's 
 estates have just as much right to the small plots of land which small 
 owners possess, and often have purchased out of their savings. The 
 conditions under which the original ownership was obtained do not 
 matter. This new gospel of justice and righteousness overrides all 
 that. As George puts it : " How ownership of land was acquired 
 in the past can have no bearing upon the question of how we should 
 treat land now ! " ^ 
 
 A Caustic Exposure 
 
 Henry George and those who are anxious to appropriate a 
 considerable portion of the income which owners of land derive 
 from their property, iu order that they may be reheved from the 
 unpleasant necessity of paying rates and taxes out of their own 
 pockets, always write and talk as though it were the rich, and only 
 the rich, who were to be plundered. The French Physiocrats in 
 the latter part of the eighteenth century had the same idea. 
 
 They advocated a single tax on land ; but it was killed by the 
 caustic sarcasm of Voltaire ^ in his essay on " The Man of Forty 
 Crowns." Voltaire described a French agricultural labourer who 
 owned a small plot of land, and by incessant labour, imder condi- 
 tions of extreme poverty, contrived to secure from the soil produce 
 worth 40 crowns. The tax gatherer, finding that this wretched 
 peasant contrived to keep body and soul together on 20 crowns, 
 assessed his land at the other 20 crowns, and took that amount 
 from him. One day the peasant met an old acquaintance, who 
 had been as poor as he, but had been left a fortune of 400,000 
 crowns a year in cash and securities. He lived in great style and 
 drove a handsome coach and six horses. Said the peasant to his 
 quondam friend, " Of course you pay half your income, 200,000 
 
 1 The Peer and the Prophet, p. 9. ^ L'Homme & Quarante Eoaa. 
 
cH.ii SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 199 
 
 crowns, to the State." His friend replied, " You are joking, I am 
 not a landed proprietor like you. The tax collector would be a fool 
 to assess me because everything I have comes ultimately from the 
 land, and somebody has already paid the tax on that. To make 
 me pay would be intolerable double taxation. Good-bye, my 
 friend, you pay your single tax, enjoy in peace your clear income 
 of 20 crowns ; serve your country well, and come in now and then 
 and have dinner with my lackey. Yes, yes, the single tax is a 
 glorious thing." 
 
 Law Sa&red when it suits them ; Waste Paper when it does not 
 
 We have already remarked that the advocates of these pro- 
 posals jump about from one iaconsistent argument to another in 
 the most contradictory and bewilderiag fashion. If there is, or 
 they think there is or ever has been, anything in the law which 
 appears to support their contention, they fasten on to it with the 
 tenacity of limpets, and exalt its sanctity, its importance, and its 
 irrevocability untU it might be imagined that it had come down 
 to us on the tables of the law from Sinai. But if the law be evoked 
 to justify and uphold the private possession of land to-day, it 
 matters not how long that law has existed, how far throughout the 
 civilised world it has extended, and how many hundreds of thousands 
 of transactions have been based upon it in our own country alone 
 by a score of generations of air classes of our people. It is waved 
 aicUy aside as a thing of no importance whatever, a mere aberration, 
 or at best a temporary opinion which can easily be reversed to- 
 morrow. 
 
 They cannot be allowed to escape from an untenable position 
 by dropping down on both sides of the fence in turn in this fashion, 
 as it suits the exigencies of the moment. Their accoimt of the 
 history of land-owning in this country is very largely an ignorant 
 travesty of the facts, as has already been shown ; but if it were 
 accurate and relevant what would it mean and what would it in- 
 volve ? If the present possessors of land are to be turned out 
 because it is alleged that their predecessors acquired it, mostly in 
 the remote past, by force and fraud, conquest and confiscation, to 
 whom should it now be given, and who amongst us would be entitled 
 to remain here, or anywhere else, except on sufferance ? 
 
 Who were the Original Occupiers .? 
 The history of the world is a record of the conquest and the 
 
200 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 subjugation of weaker races by stronger. The old Roman Empire 
 was acquired by and built up on conquest, robbery, and slaughter. 
 In its turn it fell into the hands of the barbarian-conquering hordes 
 of Goths, Vandals, Huns, and Franks who overran it and seized its 
 territory for themselves. We had in these islands in prehistoric 
 times the pre-Aryan, the Long Barrow, and the GreneUe races, 
 the Round Barrow people and the Goidel and Brython branches 
 of the Celtic family, most, if not indeed all of whom, were invaders. 
 Who and what the original inhabitants were we have no knowledge 
 whatever. After these came other tribes of Celts, who in their 
 txirri were followed by the Romans, the Frisians, the Saxons, the 
 Danes, and the Normans, each of whom pillaged and took possession 
 of more or less of the lands of those who were already here before 
 them. To complete the mingling and confusion, a stream of 
 immigrant aliens of aU nationalities has found its way to these 
 shores for many centuries. We in turn have seized upon and taken 
 possession of vast tracts of the earth's surface in difEerent parts of 
 the globe. If all this is to be revised, reversed, and gone back upon 
 on the ground that it was cruel and imjust, and based on force and 
 fraud, where are we to begin and where to end ? Who and what 
 are we that we are to be entitled to pose and prate ? 
 
 Who is the Robbed and who the Robber ? 
 
 As every one now Uving has had some 30,000,000 ancestors 
 since the Norman Conquest, not to go any further back, it is certain 
 that amongst them there must have been many who were quite as 
 responsible for and quite as much involved in any wrong-doing 
 there may have been in the past as the ancestors of those in whose 
 hands land now is. As Herbert Spencer said, " That bitter feeling 
 towards the landed which contemplation of the past generates in 
 many of the landless is in a great measure misplaced. They are 
 themselves to a considerable extent descendants of the sinners ; 
 whilst those they scowl at are to a considerable extent descendants 
 of the sinned against." Who, indeed, amongst us can show any title 
 and right to be here in these islands at all other than the title 
 and right by which those whom it is sought to wholly or partially 
 dispossess own their property ? We are each and aU descendants 
 of thieving, murdering, marauding tribes of barbarian pirates and 
 brigands, and if the truth must be told, we shall find it difficult to 
 discover any people of any race or nation on the face of the earth 
 who have not a similar history, and who are not where they are 
 
CH. II SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 201 
 
 and what they are, owing to similar proceedings on the part of their 
 ancestors. For any of us to talk about going back into past cen- 
 turies and, in the name of justice, taking anything from anybody 
 now and appropriating it for our own use on the groimd that it was 
 originally obtained by force and fraud from some one else, is the 
 purest cant and hypocrisy, and would be dishonesty and fraud 
 equalling, if not surpassing, anything ever perpetrated by the 
 greatest scoundrels of the past. 
 
 Very little of the land of England is now in the possession of 
 the descendants of those who held it in the time of WilHam the 
 Conqueror. A large number of those who own little or no land to- 
 day, and are amongst the poorest in our midst, are descended from 
 those who seized and appropriated these lands, and from their 
 descendants who sold or otherwise parted with them. Most of the 
 land of this country is now held by persons who have either bought 
 and paid for it or have received it by gift or bequest from persons, 
 or the descendants or legal representatives of persons, who did buy 
 and pay for it. For the descendants of those who sold to demand 
 that those who bought (or their descendants) shovdd be deprived 
 of their purchase because the ancestors of those who sold, and now 
 make the claim, acquired what they sold by force and fraud, is 
 probably the most impudent demand that was ever made, and 
 when that demand is professed to be based on rehgion, morality, 
 and justice, we may well ask if we are asleep or awake. 
 
 Henry VIII. and the Lands of the Monasteries 
 
 It will not be irrelevant to point out here that the position with 
 regard to the disposal of the lands of the monasteries which were 
 dissolved and dispersed by Henry VIII. was not quite what it is 
 popularly supposed it was. The general view is that Henry dis- 
 tributed these lands as gifts amongst his courtiers and the nobles 
 who were his supporters. Henry was not the man to give away 
 much. In some cases, no doubt, he bought political support and 
 facilitated fidehty to the Keformation by making gifts to powerful 
 and doubtful personages ; but for the most part he sold the lands 
 which he seized for what seem to have been fairly good prices. 
 From Lingard's History of England ^ it appears that the procedure 
 was that the plate and jewels were reserved for the king ; the 
 furniture and goods were sold. The church, cloisters, and monks' 
 quarters were stripped of lead and anything that was saleable, and 
 
 1 Vol. iii. p. 266. 
 
202 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND w. .v 
 
 then left to go to ruin. The lands were dealt with by sale, exchange, 
 or gift. The buyers held of the Crown and bought subject to the 
 payment of a reserved rent, equal to 10 per cent of the usual rent. 
 
 The Political History of England^ gives particulars concerning 
 1593 grants of monastic lands. Of the 1593 grants, only 41 were 
 gifts out and out, 28 were disposed of by combination of ^ts and 
 sale or exchange, 1186 were sold, 61 were exchanged, 89 were dis- 
 posed of by combined sale and exchange, and in 188 cases the con- 
 sideration is not stated; The amount received for those for which 
 money was paid was £779,200. The value of land at that time was 
 from 10 to 12 years' purchase. As the annual value of these 1593 
 grants is put down at approximately £90,000, it will be seen that, 
 if allowance be made for those which were given away or exchanged, 
 the amount received for those which were sold represents quite a 
 fair price at the market value of the time, especially when we re- 
 member that the result of these confiscations by the king was to 
 throw a very large amount of land upon the market, and thereby^ 
 inevitably, to send down the price that could be got for it. 
 
 The ancestor of the Duke of Devonshire, in 1540, paid £769 : 8 : 4 
 for lands which had belonged to the Abbey of St. Albans. He 
 afterwards sold them and bought Chatsworth. In the same year 
 the ancestor of the Duke of Bedford paid £1041 : 9 : 2 for lands 
 which had belonged to the abbeys of St. Albans and Boiry St. 
 Bdmimds. The largest purchaser was Sir E. Gresham, who in the 
 same year, 1540, bought the domains of three Yorkshire monasteries 
 for £11,137. To bring these figures to something like present 
 values they should be multiplied by ten. 
 
 If at any time in the distant past — ^in the time of William I. 
 or in the fourteenth century, or in the time of Henry VIII. or of 
 Charles II.— some transaction took place which would not now be 
 regarded as just and equitable, you cannot now, centuries after- 
 wards, rectify an injustice committed in favour of land-owners by 
 doing another injustice to the persons who happen to own land 
 to-day, land which^ for the most part, they or their predecessors 
 legally and honourably purchased. 
 
 Suppose a man owns a freehold property upon which he creates 
 a ground rent which he sells, rfetaining the leasehold interest on the 
 ordinary conditions that he shall pay all rates and taxes. He 
 invests the price of the ground rent in some other security, and 
 continues to receive the net rent of the property less the ground 
 
 1 Vol. V. pp. 497, 498. 
 
cH.ii SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 203 
 
 rent. By what process of justice or reasoning can any one defend 
 the proposal that, on the ground of some alleged inequitable ahena- 
 tion of land by rulers in the past, or on the ground of some theory 
 of natural rights, or, indeed, on any ground, the person who sold 
 this ground rent and pocketed the proceeds should now demand 
 that the purchaser should pay the rates which the seller agreed to 
 pay ; and that the seller should thereby increase his own income 
 and diminish the income of the man to whom he sold the ground 
 rent at a specially high price because the income would not be 
 diminished by such rates as he now desires to levy on it ? Tens of 
 thousands of such transactions have taken place. 
 
 What has evolved through the Centuries 
 
 Out, of the rough and tumble of barbarous times and cruel 
 conquest good evolved. No one who has studied history can 
 doubt that the powerful, warlike tribes which overwhelmed the 
 decaying and worn-out Roman Empire prepared the way for the 
 far higher civilisation of modern Europe, and that the conquest of 
 Britain by Celts, Saxons, Danes, and Normans in turn built up a 
 greater nation here than otherwise would have been possible. To 
 undo and revise that past is impossible. Were it possible it would 
 be unjust and inexpedient. Such revision and reversal could not 
 begin and end with one phase of the ownership of land. If we are 
 to go back to pre-existing conditions, in one respect we ought to go 
 back to the many other then existing conditions which were bound 
 up with the conditions which it is now sought to restore. It is no 
 more possible or desirable to go back upon what has evolved 
 through the centuries than it is possible to put back into the egg 
 the hen which, as a chicken, emerged from it. As has been very 
 truly said : " Modern civilisation is the web woven of the warp and 
 woof of conqueror and conquered, and it is well for humanity that 
 time, which wears away all things, covers mth the mantle of oblivion 
 the rough processes by which they were knit together." 
 
 There can be little doubt that the history of the original occupa- 
 tion and taking possession of land was very similar in all times and 
 in aU countries. Those who first possessed, occupied, reclaimed, and 
 cultivated the land, gave it its fiist value, so far as it had any. 
 They and their neighbours similarly situated formed the community 
 which gave the land its added value, which for a long time was nil 
 and ultimately came very slowly. Large portions of the earth only 
 a century and a half or two centuries ago were desolate wastes, 
 
204 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 covered with brashwood or dense forest, or wildernesses upon which 
 only wild animals and wandering tribes of savages were to be found. 
 Those wild and unproductive regions have been transformed — large 
 portions within the memory of men now living — ^into waving corn- 
 fields, smiling orchards, and prosperous communities, by the labour, 
 patient endurance, courage, and enterprise of those early settlers 
 and those who followed them who left this and other coimtries, 
 and took their Uves in their hands, to cut down the forests, drain 
 the swamps, break up the prairie and create a property and a home 
 for themselves and their families. As the result of intense labour 
 and severe privation tens of thousands of hardy settlers have gone 
 out from these islands and turned the wilderness into a fruitful 
 field in America, Austraha, and New Zealand. They were induced 
 to do it by the promise and prospect of owning the freehold of the 
 homestead they created. But for that prospect, that inducement, 
 and that hope they never would have gone, the desolate shores of 
 those distant lands would never have attracted them, nothing else 
 would have persuaded them to face the inevitable hardship, priva- 
 tion, and toil of an emigrant's lot. Those lands would never have 
 been developed as they were. Now that those hardy people have 
 done what Governments invited them to do, and gave them their 
 land as an inducement to do it ; now that their descendants are 
 reapiag the reward in improved values which was held out to them 
 as a great attraction, Mr Henry George and his followers propose 
 that the solemn engagements of the State should be thrown to the 
 winds, and that because the result of their efEorts has been to found 
 communities which have attracted later settlers from all parts of 
 the world to share and increase their prosperity, the descendants 
 of the original pioneers are to be treated as bands of robbers, and 
 their property is to be filched from them for the benefit of others. 
 Such undiluted dishonesty and fraud would be unthinkable folly. 
 
 What has taken place within the last 200 years in those lands 
 across the seas is precisely the process by which this and other 
 coimtries were settled long centuries ago. Of course, the descendants 
 of those who originally settled the land have benefited by the 
 growth and industry of the whole community which has subse- 
 quently grown up. And why not ? " The motive that led the 
 settler to clear the primeval forest was partly the expectation that 
 population would follow in his track and raise the value of his 
 investment. But for that hope he would hardly have forfeited the 
 comforts of civilised life. Would it be fair after he has cleared a 
 
cH.ii SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 205 
 
 pathway through the jungle for more effeminate followers to deny 
 him the legitimate fruit of his enterprise ? Surely one of the greatest 
 stimulants to material progress is just the knowledge that good, 
 orderly government will increase the value of poverty." ^ 
 
 The Hardships avd Reward of Early Settlers 
 
 Early settlers in new countries undergo many hardships and 
 inconveniences, run many risks, and work exceedingly hard. They 
 engage in a risky venture which was open to all. If the land turns 
 out well and population flows his way, his enterprise, energy, and 
 good fortune may have a high reward. Any one else might have 
 taken the same chance as he did. Often he expects that the produce 
 of the land while he holds it will be an inadequate reward for his 
 hardships, labour, and expenditure. As Professor Alfred Marshall 
 very tndy observes,^ he looks for his reward to the value of the land 
 itself, which he may sell to a new-comer who has no turn for the 
 life of a pioneer. People will not face the risks and hardships of 
 pioneer work as farmers or miners in new countries, unless there 
 are prospects of much higher returns than they can get at home. 
 Farmers look to the improved value of their land — to a steady rise 
 in its value — as an important, if not indeed the chief, factor in their 
 returns for their labour and enterprise. 
 
 What the price is in toil and endurance which the settler really 
 pays for his holding is indicated by the following extract from an 
 article written by an emigrant to Western Australia : ' 
 
 The part of the country which I have seen is wheat-growing land 
 which has been taken up from the Government during the last four or 
 five years. The system is that the Government presents the settler 
 with 160 acres, and sells him up to about 1000 acres round on a system 
 of easy payments. The Agricultural Bank then lends him money on 
 work done at 5 per cent interest. 
 
 The land, when the settler arrives, is simply a forest of gum trees 
 with a thick undergrowth. The trees have to be killed by ring-barking, 
 and burnt out when dead, while the undergrowth has to be cut down 
 with an axe. To do this to 1000 acres is an immense labour. In 
 addition, the whole block has to be fenced, a house built, and a well 
 dug. As the settler can seldom afiord to pay more than one or two 
 hands, and as in many years there is not enough rain to produce a crop, 
 it is often four or even five years before a harvest is obtained. During 
 all this time the settler has been merely accumulating debt at the 
 
 1 S. Smith, M.P., The Nationalisaticm of the Land, p. 14. 
 2 Principles of Economics, p. 430. ' Westminster Gazette, April 2, 1913. 
 
2o6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.iv 
 
 Agricultural Bank, if not with his tradesmen, and getting no return 
 at all. To obtain water a settler may have to sink his well anything 
 from 40 ft. to 80 ft., and untU that is done it is impossible for liim to 
 grow any vegetables or to keep stock, and he has to live entirely on 
 tinned meat and what he can make with flour, etc. 
 
 To sum up, a settler may spend five years in unremitting labour 
 under the most severe conditions of life, and end up deeply in debt. 
 During the next ten years he will be emerging from debt, and in fifteen 
 years he may hope, with luck, to be self-supporting and fairly prosper- 
 ous. It must be admitted that to make this worth while one must start- 
 young, and with an iron constitution. 
 
 How many men have gone under, forfeited their holdings, been 
 sold up, taken to drink, or become permanently embittered is a tale 
 that is not told in the Government pamphlets. It is a tale, however, 
 over which angels weep. 
 
 A Breach of Public Good Faith 
 
 The United States and most of our self-governing colonies at 
 the outset of their national career found themselves in possession 
 of a vast fertile domain almost entirely uncultivated and un- 
 reclaimed. It has, in every case, been enormously reduced by 
 alienations ; all wise and patriotic statesmen agreeing that the 
 greatest and most rapid progress of these colonies and the best 
 interests of all concerned would be best secured, not only by per- 
 mitting those lands to become the individual property of actual 
 cultivators or others who would render effective service to the com- 
 munity — as by the construction of railways — but also by actively 
 and energetically pushing and promoting the sale or gift of those 
 lands to individuals and others to be held as private property. That 
 communities which deliberately adopted and maintained this poUcy 
 of sale and gift with regard to lands which were undoubtedly public 
 property, holding out as one of the inducements to purchasers and 
 settlers the prospect and indeed the certainty of future increment, 
 should, when they have achieved the purpose for which they parted 
 with the land, when they have received the advantages in extended 
 development and growth of population for which they bargained, 
 undertake a scheme for the purpose of recovering for themselves, 
 without paying compensation, that with which they had parted 
 for adequate consideration would simply be unmitigated dishonesty 
 and barefaced fraud. 
 
 Whether new communities should or should not retain as their 
 own property the land of the community and let it out to occupiers 
 on terms to be agreed upon, or whether old communities should 
 
CH. 11 SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 207 
 
 acquire from its possessors the land on which the community lives 
 and nationalise it, are questions which may fairly be discussed. 
 But it is altogether another thing for a community which for 
 centuries has recognised and encouraged such ownership to propose 
 to break faith with those who have lived and laboured and bought, 
 sold. and bequeathed in reliance upon it. Yet this is precisely what 
 Henry George and his followers proposed, and still propose, to do. 
 The methods by which, and the conditions under which, owners of 
 land became possessed of their property have, in reality, nothing 
 whatever to do with what they call their principles. All their 
 references to ancient times, force and fraud, feudal conditions, 
 military tenures, enclosures, the old land tax, the acts of parlia- 
 ments, of landholders, and the like, in addition to being mostly in- 
 accurate and untrue, are mere irrelevances. They are merely the 
 spice and trimming introduced for the purpose of creating prejudice. 
 They are not the ground on which they base and justify their con- 
 tention. They claim the right to abrogate aU law and to ignore 
 all and every method and condition by and under which land ever 
 became private property in any country at any time. We have 
 already quoted one or two of Henry George's statements on this 
 point, but as it is important that there should be no misconception 
 on the point, we may be pardoned for repeating some of them : 
 
 There is on earth no power which can rightfully make a grant of 
 exclusive ownership in land. If all existing men were to unite to grant 
 away their equal rights, they could not grant away the right of those 
 who follow them.^ 
 
 As to what extent human law may create rights is beside this dis- 
 cussion, for what I propose is to change, not violate, human law. . . . 
 If landholders say that land is rightfully property because made so by 
 human law, they cannot charge those who would change that law with 
 advocating robbery. But if they charge that such change in human 
 law would be robbery, then they must show that land is rightfully 
 property irrespective of human law.^ 
 
 How ownership of land was acquired in the past can have no bearing 
 upon the question of how we should treat land now.^ 
 
 Where the Proposals were made 
 
 It is instructive also to remember that these proposals for 
 
 " confiscating rent," as he himself expressed it, were adumbrated 
 
 in the United States of America. That is to say, in the coimtry 
 
 which had spared, and was then sparing, no effort to induce people 
 
 1 Progress of Poverty, p. 240. ' The Peer and the Prophet, p. 7. 
 
 ' Ibid. p. 9. 
 
2o8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 to go from this and other countries to occupy and develop and give 
 value to their land which, without these people, was, and would 
 have long remained, worthless. It was in the very country where, 
 and at the very time when, these people had been tempted to go out 
 by having the prospect of securing the absolute ownership of con- 
 siderable areas of land held out to them, that Henry George com- 
 menced his propaganda and in the name of all the verities called 
 upon his fellow-countrymen to turn round upon those innocent 
 emigrants and deprive them of the value which they had themselves 
 created as the result of ceaseless toil and the endurance of heart- 
 breaking hardships. We say values which they had created, because 
 undoubtedly it was the enterprise, efforts, and presence of these 
 emigrants in communities in the country which gave the land any 
 value it had. At that time, where emigrants had scarcely pene- 
 trated, there were tens of thousands of acres more, in all directions, 
 to be had for nothing, on condition that it should be occupied and 
 used, simply because that was all it was worth and all that could be 
 got for it. This was the shameful fraud he advocated, and that he 
 did it there and then and under those conditions throws a lurid 
 light upon the whole of his teaching. As the Duke of Argyll very 
 truly said : 
 
 Ahab would have been saved all his trouble and Jezebel would have 
 been saved all her tortuous intrigues if only they could have had beside 
 them the voice of Henry George. Elijah was a fool. What right could 
 Naboth have to talk about the " inheritance of his fathers " ! His 
 fathers could have no more right to acquire the ownership of those 
 acres on the HiU of Jezreel than he could have to continue in the usurpa- 
 tion of it. No matter what might be his pretended title, no man and no 
 body of men could give it.^ 
 
 What the Proposals involve, and would lead to 
 
 The gross injustice of Henry George's proposals and teaching 
 is not more serious than the effect which their adoption would have 
 upon public credit and public morality. If men will be dishonest 
 in one direction there is no reason why they should be, and it is 
 useless to expect that they will be, more honest in others. Security 
 in the possession of property is the first condition of progress and 
 civilisation. Until that can be assured, force, theft, and fraud 
 must prevail, and the miserable conditions which exist in Central 
 Asia, in Turkey, and did, until our occupation, exist in Eygpt, 
 always have existed and always will prevail. 
 
 * The Unseen Foundations of Society, p. 404. 
 
cH.n SOME CONSIDERATIONS OF HONOUR 209 
 
 Wherever settled government is established, the first property 
 to receive the protection of law is land. So long as property in it 
 is insecure there will be no trade or industry of any substantial 
 amount. Property in land is safeguarded not only by prescriptive 
 right, which gives a valid title to any property, but also by the 
 strongest titles which the law could devise. To confiscate this 
 property, or any substantial part of it, would be to disorganise the 
 whole economic basis and industrial life of the community. 
 
 There is nothing more certain than if you set at nought the primary 
 laws of morality, of which the eighth commandment is one, the descent 
 to anarchy is swift and sure. It is vain to suppose that men who would 
 confiscate this principal form of property would stop short at it ; if a 
 thief puts his hand into my pocket and tells me he will only abstract 
 the half-crowns, but that the shilhngs are sacred, I will put both my 
 shillings and half-crowns out of reach as soon as possible.^ 
 
 Refudiation of Public and Private Debts 
 
 Henry George preaches repudiation not only as a privilege but 
 as a positive duty. He insists that the ownership of every piece 
 of land shall be taken by force of law without compensation to the 
 settler or any one else who bought in reliance upon the security 
 and honour of the State. After that the next step is easy and 
 inevitable. If no faith is to be kept with the owners of land, why 
 should it be kept with tenants or any one else ? If one generation 
 cannot bind another to a gift, a contract, or a purchase, can it bind 
 another to recognise a lease ? If one promise ought to be broken, 
 why should not another ? Accordingly, Henry George proceeds 
 to show how unfounded are the rules of common honesty, and what 
 a senseless superstition it is to contiaue to recognise long-standing 
 obligations, by advocating the repudiation of public debts. He says : 
 
 The institution of public debts, like the institution of private 
 property in land, rests upon the preposterous assumption that one 
 generation may bind another generation. If a man were to come to 
 me and say, " Here is a promissory note which your great-grandfather 
 gave to my great-grandfather, and which you will obhge me by paying," 
 I would laugh at him, and tell him that if he wanted to collect his note 
 he had better hunt up the man who made it ; that I had nothing to do 
 with my great-grandfather's promises. And if he were to insist upon 
 payment, and to call my attention to the terms of the bond in which 
 my great-grandfather expressly stipulated with his great-grandfather 
 that I should pay him, I would only laugh the more, and be the more 
 
 1 Mr. Samuel Smith, M.P. 
 
2IO OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. iv 
 
 certain ttat he was a lunatic. Yet upon this assumption that ascend- 
 ants may bind descendants, that one generation may legislate for 
 another generation, rests the assumed validity of our land titles and 
 public debts.^ 
 
 It will be noticed that this is an exposition of the right of 
 individuals as well as of nations to repudiate hereditary debts. He 
 would stick to the funds and possessions which his ancestors left, 
 but he would repudiate the liabilities which attached to them. He 
 would take the house which his father left, but he would repudiate 
 the mortgage which represented the money which his father borrowed 
 to enable him to build the house. 
 
 More Public Pillage advocated 
 
 Of course, if we may repudiate what we owe as a community 
 to those who trusted to our honour, still more may we defraud 
 those whose possessions have not been specially entrusted to us. 
 Accordingly we find him advocating the spoliation of the wealthy 
 to practically the uttermost farthing, not only of their land values, 
 but of everything they possess, in order that thereby others may 
 avoid contribution to the nation's requirements. Referring to 
 the debt created by the United States in their struggle for the 
 maintenance of the Union and the suppression of slavery, he con- 
 tends that the Government ought not to have shrunk from con- 
 ducting that war for the benefit of the many at the cost of the 
 wealthy few. This is what he says : 
 
 If, when we called on men to die for their country, we had not 
 shrunk from taking, if necessary, 999,000 dollars from every millionaire, 
 we need not have created any debt.^ 
 
 This proposal has nothing whatever to do with land or land values. 
 
 It is an imblushing advocacy of the plunder of people of whatever 
 
 they possess, simply because they possess a good deal, without any 
 
 regard whatever to the means by which, or the conditions under 
 
 which, they became possessed of it. It is shameless public pillage, 
 
 nothing more and nothing less. It is difficult for honest people to 
 
 understand the mental attitude and moral constitution of a man 
 
 who could indulge in such a propaganda, or of those who support 
 
 it and continue it by circulating his writings and advocating his 
 
 proposals. 
 
 1 Social Problems, p. 154. ^ Ibid. p. 154. 
 
PART V 
 
 ENCLOSURES 
 
" Very often the cause of great political events and great social movements 
 is economical, and has hitherto been neglected." — ThcIeold Eogbes. 
 
 " There is no snare in which the feet of a modem student of ancient lore are 
 more easUy entangled than that which is spread by the similarity of the language 
 of antiquity to modem modes of expression." — Httxlby. 
 
 " Of late years our conceptions of mediaeval history have been unduly coloured 
 by a theory which, as we are now finding, has yet to be proved — the theory, namely, 
 that the powers of lords of manors are so many encroachments which have only 
 acquired a legal authority during the last five or six centuries." — ^Professor W. J. 
 Ashley. 
 
 " There is hardly a feature in the plain man's view of the nature of a common 
 which corresponds to the reaUty as it was used by our ancestors." — ^R. H. Tawnby. 
 
 " It is probable that even before the statute of Merton the lord could deal as 
 he liked with the commons and wastes of his manor so long as he did not derogate 
 from his own grant ; and there seems no reason to suppose that the soil was not 
 considered his from a very early period, probably from the first moment the ques- 
 tion of the soil became of importance." — ^Mr. (now Mr. Justice) Soeutton. 
 
 " The reclaiming of land went on from the very first settlements into later 
 ages as one of the most powerful processes tending to form society and to extend 
 the limits of lite. The struggle against the waste and the spread of cultivation 
 gave rise to a change in the character of commodities and a displacement of rights. 
 . . . The early history of the inevitable struggle is as obscure as it is interesting 
 and important." — Dr. Vinoqeadoi'F. 
 
 " The counterpart of the modem labourer is the medieval slave, and the 
 villein corresponds to the modern small farmer or landholder." 
 
 " You [the labourer] were a slave, then a serf, now a wage-hireling, and you 
 must ultimately become a partner." — Mazzini. 
 
 " In every age prosperity is taken as a matter of course and, in defiance of all 
 experience, mankind reserves its surprise for distress." — R. H. Tawnby. 
 
 " Too often men and women become social and pohtical reformers and philan- 
 thropists because they have been caught by a cry of suffering or an urgent plea of 
 wrongs to be righted : but they have seldom formed any adequate idea of the 
 complexity of the problems with which they attempt to deal, or of the delicacy of 
 the social machine on which they depend." — Dr. Henky Dyer. 
 
CHAPTBE I 
 
 COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 
 
 The enclosure of common fields and waste lands occupies such a 
 prominent position in all discussions concerning the ownership and 
 occupation of land and the position and condition of the agricultural 
 population in this country that I have deemed it desirable to devote 
 a separate section to an account and consideration of it. 
 
 The general term " enclosure " covers two distinct kinds of 
 enclosure which were different in character and efiects in important 
 particulars. The enclosure of common fields — arable and pasture 
 — was the enclosure of land which was already occupied and culti- 
 vated, and the readjustment of the holdings on it and the interests 
 in it. The enclosure of waste land — ^heath, moor, woodland, and 
 marsh — was the enclosure and allotment among those who had 
 ownership of it or interest in it of land which had hitherto been 
 uncultivated, in order that it might be put to effective and profitable 
 use as arable or pasture land. 
 
 Enclosure was the natural result of economic causes and the 
 conditions prevailing at the time at which it took place. It was a 
 continuous process extending over several centuries, although it 
 varied much in extent at different periods. 
 
 The effect which it had upon the condition of the people, and 
 especially on the condition of the peasantry, has been the subject 
 of much controversy, and very contradictory opinions have been 
 expressed with regard to it. There is truth and substance in both 
 of the main attitudes towards it. That enclosure was necessary 
 and inevitable, and that it was beneficial to agriculture, to the agri- 
 cultural districts, and to the nation as a whole; is beyond question. 
 That, as is almost unavoidable when great changes are made, the 
 benefits which were derived from enclosure were accompanied by 
 disturbance, inconvenience, and loss to some, and that these 
 
 213 
 
214 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 increased discontent and gave cause for complaint when other 
 grievances were causing trouble is also certain. 
 
 The broad, general, local and national results were good ; but 
 there was considerable local, class, and individual disturbance and 
 hardship, much of which was probably inevitable, but some of 
 which might have been mitigated or avoided. It is also certain 
 that much disturbance and discontent that was and is stiU in some 
 quarters attributed to enclosure was the result of other influences 
 and conditions. 
 
 Common and Rights of Commmi 
 
 Much of the misconception which prevails on the subject of 
 enclosure and of commons arises from a failure to appreciate the 
 distinction between commons as the term is popularly understood 
 to-day and the common and rights of common of early times.^ 
 Commons are now frequently regarded as, and the term is under- 
 stood to represent, land to which the general pubUc have a right 
 of access for purposes of recreation and of which the poorer members 
 of the community in the vicinity in rural districts may make more 
 or less profitable use. In other days common and rights of common 
 were the usual and an essential part of the system of cultivation 
 and tenure which then prevailed. 
 
 In the Middle Ages every village community would be as anxious 
 to exclude strangers from its lands as it was to preserve its members' 
 rights in them against encroachment from other members or their 
 lord. Exclusive occupation of land was not an institution of the 
 land-owner only or mainly. The legal theory which denied the 
 possibility of public rights over land was in origin and in fact only 
 the formal expression of the dispositions and habits of society. 
 
 The legal position of the waste of the manor was that it was so 
 much of the lord's land as his predecessors or he had not found it 
 worth while either to cultivate or to let to tenants. Professor 
 Gronner points out that the early position of common was in almost 
 every way in entire contrast to the ideas associated with it in the 
 present day. Its existence now is taken as denoting the claims, 
 somewhat vague and precarious, of the public as against those 
 holding the land and engaged in its cultivation. The early rights 
 of common were anything but vague, and were invariably vested 
 
 1 Commenting on the debate on a Bill which was introduced in the House of 
 Commons in 1869 on the Report of a Select Committee, Professor Conner says, 
 " The discussion which took place showed an almost grotesque misunderstanding 
 of the'early nature of common," Common, Land and Inclosure, p. 73. 
 
CH.I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 215 
 
 in those employed in cultivation, or their representatives : they 
 were anything rather than a general claim on the part of the public.^ 
 
 Popular Ideas of " Common " erroneous 
 
 " The English law," says Pollock,^ " is far from countenancing 
 the belief that there is land which belongs to nobody and is free to 
 all the world. Some such beUef is probably held by most people 
 who are not lawyers. . . . But in England it is not legally possible. 
 Land may be subject to public rights of way, to rights of common, 
 and to a great variety of private rights. It may be worthless for 
 all purposes except those of recreation, and the owner may be 
 undiscoverable. But an owner there must be somewhere : the 
 Crown is the last resort if no other is forthcoming. I am not aware 
 that the public at large have a strict right to be anj^where except 
 on highways (including estiiaries and navigable rivers) and public 
 footpaths, in places expressly dedicated to public use and enjoyment 
 by their former owners or by Act of Parhament, and on the fore- 
 shore of the sea between high and low water-mark And, strictly 
 speaking, the right to be even on a highway is limited to the purpose 
 of passing and repassing. . . . No one but a lawyer would guess 
 that the public have a better right to be on Wimbledon Common 
 than on Dartmoor. Yet such is the case. Wimbledon Common 
 has been dedicated to the public by an Act of Parhament. Dart- 
 moor is in practice quite as free for all the world to walk and ride 
 on, but the number of persons who have any strict right to be there 
 is probably by no means a large one. . . . The only legal obstacle 
 to Dartmoor being enclosed is the existence of rights of pasture and 
 turf -cutting over it, which, of course, belong not to the public but 
 to a definite though considerable number of commoners. . . . 
 Practically the unenclosed and untilled ground of England is free 
 to the public for two reasons. The owners have no interest in 
 keeping the pubUc off, and would find it both an invidious and a 
 troublesome thing if they tried." 
 
 " There is hardly," says Mr. Tawney, " a feature in the plain 
 man's view of the nature of a common which corresponds to the 
 reahty as it was used by oui ancestors, and as it is used to-day by 
 communities whose land system has followed a different course of 
 development from our own. He thinks of a common as land 
 which, like a municipal park, ' belongs to the public,' land which 
 any one may use and any one abuse. In the innocence of his heart 
 1 Common Land and Inclosure, p. 3. ^ The Land Laws, pp. 12-15. 
 
2i6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 he will even move his local authority to put in a claim for its pos- 
 session, and is very much surprised when its solicitors tell him that 
 he is fighting for the rights of two or three mouldy tenements. 
 Again, he thinks of a common as a place of fresh air and recreation, 
 not of business. ... In connection with agriculture he thinks of 
 it not at all — is it not waste land, the opposite of land which is 
 under cultivation ? In one respect he is right. Our existing 
 commons are remnants — ^remnants which survived the deluge of 
 eighteenth-century Private Acts maiuly because they consist of land 
 too poor to pay counsel's fees. In all other respects he is wrong. 
 In the earHer period the word Common implied common exclusive- 
 ness quite as much as common enjoyment. The value of a common 
 to the commoners consisted precisely in the guarantee given them 
 by custom that no one might use it except holders of tenements 
 who time out of mind had a right thereto, and that no man might 
 use it to a greater extent than the custom of the manor allowed. 
 And the modern man is especially wrong in regarding commons as 
 though they fell below the margin of economic employment. 
 Commons and common rights, so far from being merely a luxury 
 or a convenience, were really an integral and indispensable part of 
 the system of agriculture, a Hnch-pin the removal of which brought 
 down the whole structure of village society tumbling down." ^ 
 
 With regard to the position of the public with reference to 
 commons which are open spaces, Mr. Scrutton (now Mr. Justice 
 Scrutton) says : 
 
 The public have no rights recognised in law, or which could be 
 enforced in a Court of Law. Owners and occupiers of commonable 
 tenements may have rights of common ; inhabitants of a village may 
 have lawful customs of recreation on village greens : there may even 
 be public rights of way in defined tracks across the commons ; but a 
 right of walking or of recreation over the whole common, in no defined 
 path or places, claimed for the whole public, wiU not be recognised by 
 any court of law.^ 
 
 The Ancient Legal Position 
 
 From the Conquest onward for 300 years the conditions of 
 tenure and the position of the various cultivators and holders of 
 the land remained practically the same. The prevailing conditions 
 in the cultivated areas, which were small, were that portions were 
 cultivated by free tenants who had rights of common pasture. The 
 
 1 The Agrarian Problem in the Sixteenth Century, p. 238. 
 " Commons and Comm/m Fields, p. 173. 
 
CH. I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 217 
 
 rest of the domain was cultivated by villeins and cottars who held 
 by tenure of services due to the lord. Eound these villages and 
 small cultivated areas stretched woodland, moor, marsh, and waste 
 on which pigs and cattle found poor pasture. 
 
 The old legal position was that the lord of the manor was the 
 absolute owner of the soil in his manor, and that all the rights which 
 freeholders and copyholders had arose originally from the grant or 
 sufferance of the lord. Lord Coke and Blackstone held this view. 
 Blackstone says : 
 
 On the arrival of the Normans here, they might give some sparks 
 of enfranchisement to such wretched persons as fell to their share by 
 admitting them to the oath of fealty ; which conferred a right of 
 protection, and raised the tenant to a kind of estate superior to down- 
 right slavery, but inferior to every other condition. This they called 
 villeinage and the tenants villeins. . . . Villeins in process of time 
 gained considerable ground on their lords ; and, in particular, 
 strengthened the tenure of their estates to that degree, that they came 
 to have in them an interest in many places, fuU as good, in others better 
 than their lords. For the good nature and benevolence of many lords 
 of manors having, time out of mind, permitted their villeins and their 
 children to enjoy their possessions without interruption in a regular 
 course of descent, the common law, of which custom is the life, now 
 gave them title to prescribe against their lords, and on performance of 
 the same services to hold their lands, in spite of any determination of 
 the lord's will. . . . Prom what has been premised, it appears that 
 copyholders are in truth no other but villeins, who by a long series of 
 immemorial encroachments on the lord, have at last established a 
 customary right to those estates which before were held absolutely 
 at the lord's will.^ 
 
 A Modern Theory and the Controversy about it 
 
 Diiring the latter half of last century there were two theories 
 with regard to the ownership of land and rights of common, and 
 much controversy arose about them. One was the legal theory and 
 the other the historical theory. It was upon a historical theory as 
 opposed to the legal theory that most of the popular opinions 
 of the last fifty years with regard to land and its enclosure and 
 rights of common were based. Recent historical research has, how- 
 ever, thrown much light on these theories, and enabled us to see 
 the facts far more clearly than was possible before, with the 
 result that we now know that the popular view with regard to 
 commons, rights of common and enclosures is inaccurate. 
 1 Commentaries, vol. ii. p. 92. 
 
2i8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 The legal theory of the right of commons is that the primitive 
 form of property was individual ownership, and that the rights of 
 common were based upon the grant or sufferance of the individual 
 owner. The historical theory was that the natural and original form 
 of property was common ownership, and that rights of common 
 were the survivals of the time before iadividual ownership emerged. 
 
 The legal theory means that rights of common represent the 
 encroachments of the tenants or the public upon the possessions of 
 private owners. The historical theory meant that the rights of 
 common represent what the encroachments of individual owners 
 had not absorbed. 
 
 Probably the truth is that so long as the use of land was pastoral 
 only there was lordship of the head or chief of the tribe or district, 
 and common use by the people and their cattle. As soon as arable 
 cultivation began, ideas of ownership would evolve. When they 
 did they took the form of individual or family and not communal 
 proprietorship. Lordship would then gradually become identical 
 with ownership of land which was not specially allocated to any one 
 else ; and use and occupation of it would be granted by the chief 
 or lord to his serfs and vassals from time to time as circumstances 
 and the growth of population required. 
 
 Seebohm and others have shown good reason to doubt that 
 the common field system of cultivation meant that the cultivators 
 ever owned the soil. It rather suggests that they were always 
 tenants with regulated customary rights and not owners. There 
 is no question that in Anglo-Saxon times land was owned by 
 individuals and cultivated by communities who held under their 
 lords by more or less servile tenure.^ Blackstone and Coke held 
 that rights of common existed subsequently to manors, and 
 originated in the grant or sufferance of the lord.^ 
 
 Mr. Seebohm's investigations supported the main lines of this 
 view. His opinion was that the ordinary Saxon estate was held 
 of a lord with a village community holding by a servile tenure 
 under him. This became the Norman manor. It was a very ancient 
 growth, and probably resulted from a combination of the South 
 German and Roman systems, and existed in its main features before 
 the Saxon invaders came here. He maintained that the Saxon 
 conquerors found here already in existence a form of the manorial 
 system, and they substituted themselves for the old British heads 
 of it. 
 
 1 Dictionary of Political Economy, article " Commons." ' Ibid. 
 
cH.i COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 219 
 
 At one time, for a comparatively short period — about 1850 to 
 1890 — the view of Coke and Blackstone was considered to have 
 been largely controverted and upset by the theory which originated 
 in Germany, and was developed and appUed here by Freeman, 
 Kemble, Sir H. Maine, Stubbs, and Thorold Rogers. This theory 
 claimed to find the beginnings of economic history in self-governing 
 communities of freemen who owned and cultivated the land in 
 common. This free " mark," as it was designated, was supposed 
 to have become the manor of viUenage, with its serfdom and servile 
 tenures, as the result of the aggrandisement and tyranny of one of 
 its number and his successors, who ultimately became the lords of 
 the manor. For a time this view was adopted and taught by Mr. 
 Joshua Williams and other leading legal writers on the subject, 
 the theory being, as Mr. Kenelm Digby stated it, that " the common 
 or uncultivated land of the township was in process of time regarded 
 as the sole property of the lord of the manor, and was called the 
 lord's waste, and the old customary rights of the villagers came, 
 as notions of strict legal rights of property were more exactly 
 defined, to be regarded as rights and user on the lord's soil." 
 
 Mr. Seebohm and others by their researches were able to confute 
 this theory, and to show that fundamentally the older view of Coke 
 and Blackstone was the true one. It was useless to talk of the 
 system having been introduced by the Normans when Mr. Seebohm 
 had shown that more than a century and a half before the Conquest 
 there were here communities tilHng common fields and rendering 
 services and labour in kind " as they were bid," and was also able 
 to distinctly trace their development as communities in manors 
 from slavery through customary and commuted servile duties to 
 freedom centuries later. The result is that the opinion now is that 
 the view previously expressed by Mr. Williams ^ that common 
 appendant was of common right and independent of the lord's 
 grant, and that it is a relic of the pre-Conquest village community 
 is regarded as one which cannot be sustained. 
 
 With regard to villeins and tenants in villenage, the fact is 
 " that at the Conquest an almost complete change of ownership 
 took place, and there is no evidence that any particular respect was 
 paid to vested interests or pre-existing rights. It may be that there 
 was a state of things existing which should have given and did give 
 the cidtivators a moral claim to the consideration of their lord ; 
 but how from the point of view either of law or history their legal 
 1 Bights of Common, p. 37. 
 
220 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 rights can be said to originate otherwise than in the express or 
 tacit grant of the lord, it is hard to understand. There is no evidence 
 to support the view that the soil was not treated as the lord's pro- 
 perty : in the thirteenth century, at any rate, the freehold of the 
 soil held by the tenants in villeinage was treated as being in the lord. 
 . . . And we find the lord in different parts of the country claiming 
 the ownership of the commons and waste against all strangers. . . . 
 It is probable that even before the statute of Merton the lord could 
 deal as he liked with the commons and wastes of his manor so long 
 as he did not derogate from his own grant ; and there seems no 
 reason to suppose that the soil was not considered his from a very 
 early period, probably from the first moment the question of the 
 soil became of importance." ^ 
 
 What appears to be the real truth of the matter in this respect 
 has been well stated by Professor Ashley in his remarks upon the 
 agrarian revolution of the Tudor period : 
 
 Of late years our conceptions of mediaeval history have been unduly 
 coloured by a theory which, as we are now finding, has yet to be proved 
 — the theory, namely, that the powers of lords of manors are so many 
 encroachments which have only acquired a legal authority during the 
 last five or six centuries. The proposition seems far more tenable that, 
 during historical times and until comparatively modern days, the 
 cultivators of the soil were always in a condition of dependence, and 
 held their lands at the arbitrary will of their lords. For centuries the 
 lord knew no other way of getting his land cultivated, and had no 
 wish to get rid of a tenant ; whenever he did so, it was altogether 
 exceptional. But with the tendency to limitation and definition so 
 characteristic of the feudal period, custom tended to harden into law ; 
 and it would seem to have been on the point of becoming law when a 
 change in the economic situation— increasing advantage of pasture over 
 tillage — ^prompted the lords to fall back on their old rights. Then 
 followed a struggle between a legal theory becoming obsolete, but backed 
 by the influence of the land-owners, and a custom on its way to become 
 law, backed by pubhc sentiment and by the pohcy of the government.* 
 
 The Origin of Common and Common Rights 
 
 It was only as circumstances changed and the conditions under 
 which agriculttire was carried on, advanced, and improved, and 
 common right ceased to be an essential appendage to a farm, that 
 the so-called rights of the public, and especially of the poor, which 
 
 1 T. E. Scrutton, Commons and Common Fields, pp. 39, 40. 
 2 Economic History, vol. i. part ii. p. 281, 
 
CH.1 COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 221 
 
 in many instances were not rights, but were the result of trespass or 
 sufferance, became important. 
 
 Under the common field system of cultivation which prevailed 
 under the manorial system, the cultivators had to provide the cattle 
 required to plough the land and carry the produce and other articles. 
 They were also required to manure the land. During a considerable 
 part of the year they could not be kept on the land which was 
 in cultivation for providing grain or hay. Accordingly, in the early 
 manors, each holding of land had attached to it certain rights of 
 common over the waste of the manor. These rights of common 
 entitled the occupants of certain lands to pasturage on the waste 
 for a limited number of cattle, etc., and also to take from the 
 waste such turf as was necessary for fuel, and such wood as was 
 necessary to repair implements, fences, and buildings. These 
 were rights which were attached to the occupation of certain lands 
 and were, so to speak, a part of the tenancy or possession. They 
 were rights over part of the yield of other land of the lord of the 
 manor, usually the lord's waste, which went with the property. 
 
 The earliest form of this right — common appendant — was uni- 
 versally assumed in the case of all freehold tenants of original 
 manors, and was regarded as a necessary part of their tenure.^ It 
 was not necessary to prove it by deed or by prescriptive usage. It 
 attached to arable land only, and was limited to the beasts required 
 for the cultivation of that land — that is, to the oxen or horses 
 required to plough, etc., and the sheep and cows required to manure 
 the soil. A less ancient and less general form of right — common 
 appurtenant — originated by grant or by iminterrupted usage, and 
 had to be proved by deed or prescription. The important point is 
 that this common and these rights of common were not rights of 
 the general public. The public as such had nothing to do with them. 
 They were rights attaching to particular properties. 
 
 In course of time, as land became enclosed and fenced and pasture 
 became more general, rights of common tended to be separated 
 from the cultivation of arable land and to attach to the occupation 
 of the tenement to which the arable land belonged or had belonged. 
 As the origin of the rights of common became obscure, claims to 
 common were raised on behalf of those who hved near the waste. 
 
 ^ Common appendant was the right to common attached to the posseasion of 
 a freehold created prior to the Act Quia Emptores. Service in feudal tenure was 
 really the basis of it. It was of the nature of an incident of socage tenure, and 
 was therefore universal in the case of lands in original socage. It applied 
 only over the lord's waste in respect of arable holdings. 
 
222 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 Their claims were based on usage. Generally, in all parts, the 
 cottagers living near the commons, entirely without any question 
 of the occupation of ancient cottages, came by usage and grace to 
 enjoy the minor privileges of common. They would gather their 
 fuel, turn out their pigs and geese, and often pasture a cow. These 
 privileges were of the nature of a trespass and an encroachment. 
 They owed their origin to sufferance and not to legal right. As 
 enclosure proceeded and the waste diminished they became more 
 important, and when the land upon which they had been exercised 
 was enclosed they were sometimes regarded as sufficiently sub- 
 stantial to be recognised by special allotment. 
 
 Sir John Sinclair's Staiement of the Matter 
 
 A very useful summary of the facts of the case as they were 
 understood by the best authorities 120 years ago, is to be found in 
 a statement by Sir John Sinclair, President of the Board of Agri- 
 culture, which was published as an Appendix to the Eeport of a 
 Select Committee appointed in 1795 to consider the best means of 
 promoting the cultivation of the waste unenclosed and improductive 
 lands of the kingdom. He said : 
 
 England was anciently divided into districts, the extent and value 
 of which varied extremely. Certain portions of these districts, under 
 the name of demesne lands, reserved to the lords and barons of the 
 several divisions, were possessed by the proprietors themselves, and 
 cultivated for their use and behoof by their servants and vassals, the 
 latter of whom had frequently lands granted to them in severalty, 
 subject to the above, and to other services of a feudal nature. In 
 process of time, as population increased, other portions of land were 
 granted by the lord, which the tenants of the manor occupied as common 
 fields and meadows, part of which was kept in grass, for pasturage or 
 for hay, to secure winter provision for their cattle, and the remainder 
 was cultivated for graia. The residue was called the lord's waste, and 
 being considered of little value, the tenants of the manor were permitted 
 to take from it turf for fuel, wood for the purpose of building or repair- 
 ing their houses, constructing their instruments of husbandry, etc. ; 
 and on the herbage, the cattle, sheep, and horses, both of the lord and 
 of his tenants, found the scanty means of subsistence. The first portion 
 was held in severalty, and at an early period was enclosed, to prevent 
 the encroachment of farmers in the neighbourhood. The second, 
 whilst the crop was upon the ground, whether meadow, grass, or grain, 
 belonged exclusively to the persons to whom it was granted, and by 
 whom it was respectively occupied in severalty ; but no sooner was the 
 crop secure than it reverted into a state of commonage, among all the 
 
CH.I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 223 
 
 persons who^had grants of land in such common fields. The third 
 division always remained in common, subject to a variety of regulations, 
 according to the customs established in the different manors, whether 
 the common was stinted or unstinted, or whether more than one manor 
 or township happened to be interested in the same waste. Such were 
 the circumstances, joined to the scanty population and defective agri- 
 culture of the country at that time, to which the great extent of waste 
 lands in the kingdom are to be attributed, in addition to which it may 
 be observed that, in various parts of the kingdom, vast tracts were 
 appropriated to the use of the sovereign under the general name of 
 forests or chases. . . . 
 
 A right of common is, in general, understood to be a profit which 
 one person hath in another's land mthout having any property in the 
 soil. It is an incorporal right originating in some real or supposed 
 agreement between lords and tenants, incident to some tenure for 
 valuable purposes, or founded on long possession. 
 
 The Various Rights of Common 
 
 The rights of common as described by him were : 
 
 1. Common of pasture — a right to feed cattle on the common. 
 
 2. Common of turbary — a right to cut turf for fuel. 
 
 3. Common of estover — a right to cut wood for fuel, repair 
 
 of house, implements and fences. 
 
 Common of pasture was divided into : 
 
 1. Common appendant. 
 
 2. Common appurtenant. 
 
 3. Common in gross. 
 
 4. Common because of vicinage. 
 
 Common appendant was a right of those who held land of the 
 manor to pasture upon the wastes of the manor their commonable 
 cattle which were necessary for cultivating or manuring their land. 
 " It must have had its origin before time of legal memory, for at 
 this day no such right can be created." The ownership of the 
 soil of the land subject to this right was in the lord of the manor. 
 Originally this right belonged to arable land only, though then it 
 could be claimed as belonging to meadow or pasture. 
 
 Common appurtenant is a right, not incident to any tenure, 
 but having its commencement in a grant. 
 
 Common in gross is common appurtenant which has been 
 alienated from the lands to which it was appurtenant, and is held 
 separate from them. Common because of vicinage " is not properly 
 a right, but is merely an excuse for a trespass." 
 
224 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 " All these species of rights of common, except where a particular 
 grant can be shown, must be prescribed for and proved by long and 
 immemorial usage and uninterrupted enjoyment." 
 
 It was considered that these different rights arose from the 
 necessity of enabling cultivators, before artificial manures were 
 known, to continue their land in an arable state, by annexing to 
 their holding sufficient common to support their cattle. The common 
 law annexed this right to grants of land by lords of the manor as 
 incident to such grant. Sinclair's conclusion was : 
 
 That those rights could only have arisen in the infancy of agriculture, 
 and of the arts therewith connected, which might render the existence 
 of such rights necessary. But whatever circumstances might have 
 occasioned such tracts of valuable territory to remain unoccupied and 
 in common, at a time when land from want of population and skill 
 was little in demand ; yet in this age (1795) of extended population and 
 of increased wealth, and of diffused knowledge in agriculture and its 
 attendant arts, any intermixture of property in the same land, as being 
 a great, and in many cases an insurmountable bar to all improvement, 
 is an evil of such magnitude, that to a legislature distinguished for its 
 attention to promote the public interest, it need only be pointed out 
 in order to have it remedied. 
 
 What Enclosure really was 
 
 Enclosure is a wide term and covers widely differently trans- 
 actions. The popular idea is that it means the taking possession 
 and making private property of land, which is really public property, 
 to which the general public have had free access and upon which 
 all neighbouriQg residents had the right to turn their sheep, cattle, 
 and fowls. It is assumed that this is always done by some large 
 land-owner or influential person who is powerful enough to set at 
 nought law, right, and justice, without having any legal and moral 
 ground on which to base any justification for his claims and action. 
 As a matter of fact, however, this idea and the assumptions on 
 which it is based are not only quite inaccurate, they are in every 
 particular precisely the opposite of what was and is the true and 
 real position. 
 
 It must also always be borne in mind, as has already been 
 remarked, that there were two or three kinds of enclosure. One 
 was the enclosure of the common fields which were already being 
 ctiltivated and used as pasture by the lord of the manor and the 
 occupiers of the holdings in the manor. As agricultural knowledge 
 and efficiency developed, these scattered strips were redistributed 
 
CH. I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 225 
 
 so as to bring the whole of each cultivator's holding more or less 
 together, so that they might be fenced in and be occupied and 
 cultivated as a whole and continuously by the same tenant or owner. 
 This was the enclosure and allotment to individual owners of land 
 which was already under cultivation either as arable land or meadow. 
 A second class of enclosure was the bringing into cultivation of 
 waste and open land of which no practical use had been made, or, 
 at any rate, the enclosure of which would leave sufficient other land 
 of the same land to supply all the rights of common of fuel, wood, 
 and pasture which attached to the holdings of the occupjdng culti- 
 vators in the manor. The enclosure and cultivation of old forest 
 land which had gradually been cleared, and of fen and marsh land 
 which was from time to time drained and reclaimed, was in this 
 category. This was an extension of cultivation and profitable 
 occupation, much of which was necessitated by the growth of popula- 
 tion and commerce. A third class of enclosure was the fenciag in 
 and allotment to individual proprietors of that portion of the 
 waste or open land which had been used in common by the cultivat- 
 ing occupiers of the manor, and which could then be more efficiently 
 cultivated and be made far more productive than when it was used 
 in common. This was a kind of enclosure which largely followed 
 from and was closely connected with the transition from the common 
 field system of cultivation to that of the permanent separate 
 occupation of holdings similar to our present-day farms. 
 
 Nor was enclosure by any means always carried out by large 
 land-owners against the wish and interest of the tenants. A large 
 amount of enclosing was done by tenants themselves who desired 
 to consolidate and cultivate personally holdings which had hitherto 
 been scattered and cultivated in common with their fellow-tenants. 
 Enclosure of the waste was also not always done by the land-owner 
 on a large scale. Much of it was done piecemeal and gradually, 
 and was a process continually going on during many centuries. 
 Indeed it is obvious that it must have been so. For hundreds of 
 years the cultivated area in this country was a small proportion 
 not only of the whole, but of the cultivatable area. The villages 
 and their surrounding occupied fields were small islands in an 
 ocean of waste, moor, wood, and fen. As population increased 
 and the needs and capacities of the people grew, and as some 
 cultivators became more prosperous, more land was required and 
 from time to time was taken in from the waste by the tenants 
 themselves, with the consent of the lord and according to the 
 
226 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 custom of the manor. Thus much enclosure which took place did 
 not mean turning people off the land, but was the means by 
 which they were provided for and accommodated on it.^ 
 
 The Legal Position 
 
 The problems to which these various kinds of enclosure gave 
 rise were in some broad general respects the same, but in other 
 respects, and especially in details, there were important difierences. 
 The method of enclosure, the procedure by which common fields 
 and rights of common were redistributed and dealt with, were various, 
 and they differed in kind and importance at different periods. 
 
 The great stimulus which was given to the enclosure move- 
 ment in the sixteenth century gave it the dimensions of an agrarian 
 revolution, with the result that it raised the question of the legal 
 position of the village commimity as regards the commons in a 
 very acute form. The law and popular ideas on the subject were 
 possibly not so far apart as they are now, but they were very much 
 at variance on important points, and it was out of that difference 
 of view and belief that so much difficulty and discontent largely 
 arose. 
 
 The strict and correct interpretation of the law and the facts, 
 the interpretation which the King's Courts determined and con- 
 firmed, was that the members of the village community were simply 
 persons, some of whom had individual rights as occupiers or owners 
 of certain properties which the lord of the manor had at one time 
 or other granted either permanently or for a term or at his will. 
 They were individual rights which they could, under certain condi- 
 tions and at certain times, exercise jointly. They could also, as a 
 community, make rules and regulations and establish and adjust 
 customs with regard to these rights, and within limits those regula- 
 tions would have the status and force of law, and would be upheld 
 in the King's Courts. But these powers and this joint action did 
 not make the individual rights communal rights, still less did they 
 make the land communal property. In law the individual must, 
 if necessary, establish his claim to rights of common under a title 
 of common appendant or common appurtenant, common in gross 
 or common in vicinage. If he could not do that his claim fell 
 to the ground. " Of those four titles," says Mr. Tawney quite 
 truly, " residence in a manor was not one. The occupier, who is 
 
 1 Jack Cade in 1450 does not seem to have complained at all of the enclosure 
 of common land (Stubbs, iii. p. 151). 
 
CH. I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 227 
 
 the unit of English Local Government to-day, had, as such, no 
 standing, because he was not, qua occupier, a holder of one of the 
 arable shares with which, primarily, rights of pasture went." ^ 
 
 As a matter of fact, a number of people, cottagers and labourers, 
 who were not holders of land which conferred any rights of common 
 did use the commons for pigs, cows, and poultry. So long as there 
 was space enough nobody interfered, and no one was iujured or 
 inconvenienced thereby. But it was a use on sufferance — a con- 
 cession or an encroachment — and not of right. Such persons were 
 legally in. an unprotected position, and, as Mr. Tawney puts it, " it 
 is obvious that when enclosing took place there might be a con- 
 siderable number of persons, perhaps an actual majority of the 
 villagers, who could not even raise the question whether they could 
 obtaia redress or not, and that much distress could be caused with- 
 out any infringement of the law." ^ 
 
 The Importance and Position of Copyholders 
 The position of freeholders was a strong one. The courts would 
 uphold their rights if appealed to, and in any rearrangement or 
 enclosure affecting their rights they had to be settled with. The 
 position of copyholders was very varied and less secure. A copy- 
 holder was a tenant at will by copy of the court roll, according to the 
 custom of the manor, the terms being set out on a copy of the entry 
 of admission.^ The nature and conditions of their tenure differed 
 widely, and much turned on what these really were. Some were 
 copyholds of inheritance. These descended to their heirs and 
 successors. Many were copyholds for a term of years or for hfe 
 or for lives, and these reverted to the lord at the end of the term or 
 on the death of the tenant or the lives. All were held on the custom 
 of the manor : but, to be authoritative and binding, the custom 
 must be an immemorial one ; it must have " been used time out of 
 mind." Mere prescription, mere general usage were not custom. 
 Custom varied from manor to manor, and the courts would uphold 
 it, unless it were clearly " unreasonable." 
 
 In many, if not indeed in all, copyhold tenures the rent was 
 
 1 P. 247. " Ibid. 
 
 ' " The copyholder was the root of the difficulty with regard to enclosures of 
 land. He was what was left of the old English villain — the old English non-free 
 peasant. He had got himself free gradually. He was a person who had to hold on 
 conditions of personal service of a rather degrading kind, but who in course of time 
 got privileges according to custom, which finally became legal. Instead of service 
 he now paid in money, but had security on conditions. They could only get the 
 oopyhold where there had been a manor, and now it was a thing dying out." 
 
228 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 fixed. It was only the fine on renewal that was variable, and in 
 many cases the custom of the manor determined its amomit. Where 
 it did not, the fine might be made excessive and be used as a means 
 of oppression. In most cases the copyhold rent had been fixed in 
 days when values were smaU, and consequently the rent was low. 
 Indeed they were not really rents ; they were the conamuted value 
 of services. This gave the copyholder a valuable property as values 
 increased and money prices rose. Mr. Tawney gives some illustra- 
 tions. In one village the rents payable were £16 : : 5 ; " the 
 annual value beyond rent " in 1608 was £93 : 4 : 4. In the manor 
 of Hexham the rents of 314 copyhold tenants were £126 : 4 : 8| ; 
 the " value above the oulde Rentes " in 1608 was £624 : 4 : 1. 
 On another manor the rents paid in 1636 were £11 : 8 : 7^ ; the 
 value of the holdings was £215 :1:6a year. Such tenants were 
 in a favourable position, and we can understand how the more 
 capable of them would save money and take or buy more land. 
 
 Similar conditions did not prevail with regard to the new 
 holdings carved out of the waste or let or sold from the demesne, 
 nor with the new sub-tenants on those old customary holdings 
 which had been acquired and were sub-let by the new capitalist 
 owners and the larger farmers. In those cases the competitive 
 market-price rents were charged and paid. Two results followed 
 from this : on the one hand the commercial value rents were 
 regarded as excessive, and on the other the land-owners were naturally 
 anxious to place as much of their land as possible on this basis. 
 
 As regards copyholders much obviously depended on whether 
 the payments on admission — ^that is continuance or renewal — ^were 
 fixed or could be increased at the will of the lord. Where the 
 holding was not an estate of inheritance it returned to the lord 
 from time to time, and then the lord could either renew it or not, 
 and if he renewed it the terms and conditions could be revised. 
 Even where the holding was an estate of inheritance, if the pay- 
 ments on admission were not fixed, but had to be negotiated and 
 arranged, it was possible for a lord to make a tenant throw up his 
 holding by demanding a prohibitive fine. The outcome, broadly, 
 was that copyholds of inheritance had a firm and permanent title 
 so long as the custom of the manor was observed. Copyholds for 
 life or lives with right of renewal were practically similar to estates 
 of inheritance. Copyholds for life or hves were uncertain and 
 precarious. Copyholds for fixed terms without right and renewal 
 were similar to leases. 
 
CH. I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 229 
 
 Dr. Savine has published ^ particulars which indicate that the 
 manors on which copyholders had an estate of inheritance were 
 about half the total number of manors, while on about two-thirds 
 of the manors the fines were uncertain and not fixed. Mr. Tawney ^ 
 has added particulars of other manors and arrives at the conclusion 
 that copyholds for life or lives were more usual than copyholds for 
 inheritance, and that fixed fines were the exception and variable 
 fimes the general rule. 
 
 Naturally one of the demands constantly made by copyholders 
 liable to variable fines was that the fine should be fixed. In the 
 Yorkshire rising in 1536 and in Ket's insurrection in 1549 this was 
 one of the points put forward. It would, of course, have meant 
 that tenants, who were really little difierent from leaseholders, 
 should be made permanent tenants at a fixed rent. On the other 
 hand, the land-owners contended that, as the value of money had 
 changed enormously, a considerable adjustment of the payments 
 was needed in order to make them really equivalent to the old ones. 
 The point also involved a contest as to whether the owner or the 
 tenant was to pocket the benefit of the increased value of the land. 
 
 Other Customary Tenants 
 
 During the sixteenth century the fixed rent of the socager or 
 freeholder — owing to the faU in the value of money — became so 
 imimportant and yielded so small an income to the lord of the 
 manor that in many cases it disappeared altogether, or became, 
 hardly worth the trouble of collecting. The time was coming when 
 those who held by the more honourable tenure of knight's serAdce 
 would insist on the humbler but less onerous terms of the socager. 
 
 Up to 300 years ago the customary tenants — copyholders or 
 tenants at will — were in number and in the amount of their pay- 
 ments a far more important element in the agricultural life of the 
 country than the freeholders and leaseholders, and of the customary 
 tenants copyholders were much the greater number. All customary 
 land was not copyhold, but almost all copyhold land was customary. 
 
 In addition to the various classes of copyholders there were a 
 large number of leaseholders and tenants at will who had never 
 reached the position of copyholders. Where tenants of the manor 
 were not copyholders and held simply at will — ^like our annual 
 tenancies — or were leaseholders for short terms, or were old customary 
 tenants, or new-comers for whom new or additional holdings had 
 1 Jowmal of Economics, vol. xix. ^ Pp. 300-301. 
 
230 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 been created on the waste or the demesne on more modem condi- 
 tions and without the rights of copyholders, they were, of course, 
 liable to have their tenancies terminated either at any time or when 
 their terms ran out. Such of them as were customary tenants 
 could appeal to the custom of the manor as a copyholder could, 
 but as they had no copy they were without documentary title and 
 had to appeal to the records of the court or to the memory and 
 testimony of others, which, of course, placed them at a disadvantage. 
 These various classes of customary tenants other than copy- 
 holders were very numerous ; on some manors they were the 
 majority. They were the tenants whose position would be affected 
 by the new departure in agriculture which made for grazing farms 
 and larger holdings. It would be for their holdings that higher 
 rents would be given by the larger farmers, and these would be the 
 men who would be bought out or not have their tenancies renewed 
 in order that the strips in the common fields might be consolidated 
 and enclosed. In the ordinary course this would be done quite 
 legally. The owner was entitled by law to make the best and most 
 profitable use of his land — ^the use most in accord with the develop- 
 ments of the time. That it often caused loss and inconvenience 
 and sometimes suffering to those who were disturbed is probable 
 and indeed certain. That as much consideration as might have 
 been shown was not always given to those who, while they had no 
 legal rights, had claims to generous treatment is also probable. 
 But it is equally clear that much of the denunciation of what was 
 done was, and still is, based on a complete misconception of the 
 real facts and legal position. Much of the talk about fraud and 
 robbery was, and is, pure nonsense. That full advantage was 
 often taken of legal rights is doubtless true, but between that 
 and the theft. " filching," and illegality which is sometimes so 
 freely alleged there is a great difference. 
 
 What Rights of Common really were 
 
 We are not now discussing whether the law and the actual 
 position ought to have been what they were. What we are en- 
 deavouring to ascertain is — ^What really was the law, and what 
 really was the position, and what really were the legal rights of the 
 various parties concerned in and affected by these transactions ? 
 
 When we are considering the methods by which, and the condi- 
 tions under which, rights of common were terminated, it must be 
 remembered that the right attached to the holding and not to the 
 
cH.i COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 231 
 
 holder. When a cultivator took or owned a tenement with certain 
 lands or shares of the common fields attached to it he had, in con- 
 sequence, or rather as part of his tenancy or ownership, certain 
 rights of common. The point is that these rights of common were 
 not rights of individuals as such or as members of the general public 
 living there. They were rights which attached to certain adjoining 
 properties of which these individuals were the occupiers or owners. 
 Any one who did not own or occupy a property to which rights of 
 common attached, or who ceased to occupy such a property, had 
 no rights of common. The case was in some respects similar to 
 one which exists and is well known in connection with some squares 
 of residential houses in London. They have a central garden 
 which is " common " to the occupiers of the houses in the square. 
 Access to that garden is a right or privilege which attaches to the 
 houses. The occupiers enjoy it because they occupy those houses. 
 It is not a personal or a pubUc right. The pubUc have no right in 
 the garden, and the right of the present occupiers of the houses to 
 use the garden ceases when their occupation of a house in the 
 square determines. If the gardens in those squares were not care- 
 fully enclosed and protected, the general pubhc would trespass on 
 them, and might in course of time establish certain rights which 
 would materially interfere with the privacy and seclusion of the 
 gardens. Such rights of the public so acquired would not be rights 
 based on any original rights or ownership. They would be the 
 outcome of trespass and encroachment, the result of sufferance on 
 the part of the owner. 
 
 In broad general outline this illustration indicates the position 
 of the various parties — the lord of the manor, the cultivating 
 occupier, and the general pubUc — concerned in the enclosures which 
 took place from the fifteenth century onwards. 
 
 The Effect of Changing Conditions 
 
 There is another point which must not be lost sight of. In 
 early times, when agriculture and the primitive occupations immedi- 
 ately connected with it was practically the only industry, almost 
 everybody was either an occupier of land to which rights of common 
 attached in some form or other, or he was a smith or wheelwright 
 or engaged in some occupation to which rights of common were 
 given, or he was in a position of servitude and was, by his lord, 
 in return for services, allowed certain privileges of common. In 
 later times, on the one hand, as commerce grew and other industries 
 
232 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 developed, and, on the other, as more and more waste land was 
 enclosed and numerous new ownerships and tenancies were created 
 which were without rights of common, and, also, as the old condi- 
 tions of servitude of the poorer classes ceased and the privileges 
 attached to the servitude terminated with it, a considerable popula- 
 tion grew up to whom none of the old rights of common belonged. 
 The fact, however, that at one time almost every one had some 
 rights or privileges of common of one kind or another, as a conse- 
 quence of and attached to his position or holding, tended to create 
 the impression that rights of common were personal and belonged to 
 all, not as occupiers of certain holdings or as renderers of certain 
 services, but as individuals and inhabitants. This erroneous though 
 popular view was perpetuated by the fact that during the long 
 period when the population was small and land was abundant and 
 of little value there was no necessity for restriction or restraint, 
 and little or none was exercised. A very large part — one-half to 
 two-thirds — of the country was waste, and the people adjoining the 
 waste were not interfered with in a reasonable use of its turf, wood, 
 and such pasturage as it afforded and they could use, so long as 
 those who had legal rights were not curtailed in the use of that to 
 which they were entitled. The result was that when the time 
 arrived for the enclosure and effective cultivation of land which 
 had hitherto been open and waste, the difficulties and complications 
 arising from conflicting interests, rights, custom, prescription, 
 trespass, and encroachment were many and great ; and it is very 
 easy now for any partisan to make out what is apparently a very 
 strong and plausible case of robbery, injustice, and hardship if he 
 confines himself, as so many who write on this subject do, to telling 
 only half the story. 
 
 What sort of an impression could a writer of a hundred or a 
 hundred and fifty years hence convey of the England of to-day if 
 he quoted freely and almost exclusively from our popular weekly 
 newspapers ? 
 
 England seen through, the medium of its Sunday Press — the Press 
 which to seven out of ten of its present inhabitants represents the sole 
 picture they possess of the world outside their local lives — takes upon 
 itself an appearance of violence and madness. Men and women knife 
 each other in the dark. Children are foully butchered by unknown 
 assailants. Suicides sprinkle every page : now that a girl mayfdie 
 with another woman's husband ; now that a family may escape the heU 
 of imemployment ; now simply for weariness, because the whole effort 
 of life has lost significance and crumbled into dust and ashes. The most 
 
CH. I COMMONS AND COMMON RIGHTS 233 
 
 insistent noise which reverberates through their pages is the clicking 
 of the huge machine of English justice, as couples once married in afiec- 
 tion are torn apart, or a long procession of murderers, thieves, absconding 
 solicitors, fraudulent company promoters, are swept away into the cold 
 silence of the penal prison. The supply seems never to run short. 
 The various Courts are in continuous sitting, and yet never overtake 
 the work so bountifully provided. Itinerant justices are even com- 
 pelled to journey round the countryside, arresting their courses at the 
 principal towns, ia order more speedily to deal with the continuous 
 parade of brutality, outrage, and unnatural crime. Is it possible, one 
 can imagine the future historian demanding, that any one could have 
 been ia those days altogether sane ? as he pictures the decent wayfarer 
 stealing furtively through labyrinthine ways lest ruffians should spring 
 upon him in the dark, clutching his difficult savings for fear that they 
 should be snatched from him ; with the terror of poverty yawning 
 before him, against which no prudence can guard, in cities visibly given 
 up to the dominion of lust and greed.^ 
 
 If extracts from these papers were seasoned and served up with 
 similar selections from socialistic literature and the speeches of some 
 of our political leaders, an impression would be created which would 
 be a ludicrous travesty of the truth of the case. Much of what was 
 thus quoted might be more or less true, but to present it as a picture 
 of the whole would be to grossly misrepresent and mislead. " Of 
 ten thousand citizens, all but three or four will pass their lives un- 
 chronicled ; and these three or four — a murderer, an adulterer, an 
 adventurer, a saint — will come to stand alone as lives whose exist- 
 ence is recorded." But it is the position, condition, and lives of 
 the others that really matter, and it is about them we must know 
 if we are to form a judgment that will be of any value. It is 
 extremely important that this should be borne in mind when we 
 are reading the accounts of the times we are considering which 
 are presented to us by writers whose view is obviously a very 
 biased one. 
 
 1 C. F. G. Masterman, M.P., The Condition of England, p. 13 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 A SOCIAL REVOLUTION WAS TAKING PLACE 
 
 Conditions and difficulties are often attributed to enclosure which 
 were really the result of the great social revolution which was 
 taking place. Freedom was being substituted for servitude. With 
 the benefits attaching to freedom there came the loss of the privi- 
 leges and advantages which attached to servitude. It is always 
 impossible to have both. Toynbee very truly says : " It is a 
 great law of social development that the movement from slavery 
 to freedom is also movement from security to insecurity of main- 
 tenance. There is a close connection between the growth of freedom 
 and the growth of pauperism ; it is scarcely too much to say that 
 the latter is the price we pay for the former." ^ Servitude carries 
 with it the right to maintenance. Freedom sacrificed that right. 
 Referring to manumission, Dr. Stubbs says, " The native lost the 
 privilege of maintenance which he could claim of his lord." 
 
 The manorial customs and the feudal system owed their existence 
 and their rules, regulations, and practices to the economic and social 
 conditions of the times, and when those conditions changed the 
 systems which had been based on them and had grown out of them 
 altered also. When the lord of the manor cultivated his demesne 
 and suppUed the requirements of his household, and upheld his 
 authority, power, and possessions against attack and aggression 
 by means of a body of retainers and tenants bound to him in serfdom 
 and servitude, it was his interest as well as his duty, according to 
 the custom of the times, to provide them with maintenance, which 
 he did by allotting them land to cultivate, giving them rights of 
 pasturage. It was his interest to have on his estate a sufficient 
 body of capable, strong, and efficient peasantry, and the system of 
 the manor was devised to provide and maintain them. When that 
 
 ^ Induat/rial Bevolution, p. 76. 
 2.34 
 
CH. II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 235 
 
 system decayed and free labour was substituted for bond labour, 
 when wages were paid instead of land being allotted for services 
 required and rendered, there was less necessity for the land-owner 
 to retain a permanent stafE of labourers. When he could engage 
 and dismiss them at will, and pay them wages for the term they 
 worked, his position towards them and theirs towards him, and 
 what were deemed to be his duties and responsibilities towards them 
 and theirs to him, were fundamentally altered. All the conditions 
 of villenage — some hateful to the dependent, as the servile and 
 burdensome incidents ; some beneficial to him, as his share in the 
 common fields, and his protection in his rights and privileges under 
 the manorial court and customs — were based on the idea that he was 
 to be retained and maintained as an instrument of agriculture at 
 the disposal of the manorial authorities. As and when villenage 
 ceased, all or much of this ceased with it. As the villein's freedom 
 developed, the lord's responsibility to him and for him diminished. 
 He and his lord were each thrown more and more upon their own 
 resources. Their mutual relations became more and more com- 
 mercial as they became less and less feudal. 
 
 The Change due to Economic Causes 
 
 In the course of the progress of the world and of the nation it 
 was inevitable that the subsistence husbandry of the mediaeval 
 village should disappear as commercial agriculture sprang up and 
 took its place. The difEerence between the members of a village 
 commimity who cultivated the common fields on the open system, 
 and according to the rules and customs of the manor in order to 
 provide subsistence for themselves ; where the village was an 
 isolated and self-supporting commimity which provided for itself 
 within its own borders almost everything that it required ; and 
 the farmers who produced corn, meat, hides, and wool to sell to other 
 communities of manufacturers and traders, and who consequently 
 desired to have scope for the exercise of their individual skill, 
 knowledge, enterprise, and business and farming ability, — the 
 diSerence between these two kinds of cultivators and their 
 methods and needs was enormous and far-reaching. It involved, 
 it necessitated, it was an agrarian revolution, a revolution as great 
 and as extensive in its efEects and influence as the introduction 
 of the steam-engine, the power-loom, and the spinning- jenny 
 into the textile trades in the latter half of the eighteenth century. 
 It was part of the great modern development of economic enter- 
 
236 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 prise which individual effort, the exercise of individual discretion, 
 and the reward of individual success rendered possible, and which 
 in the course of centuries transformed the world, and our own land 
 more than any other, from mediaevalism to modern commercialism, 
 and civilisation, and progress, and all that is therein involved. 
 
 To talk of the change being due to enclosures is to misread and 
 misunderstand the entire situation and the whole trend of events. 
 Enclosure was an incident necessary and inevitable in the onward 
 march of the nation. The old manorial system with its open fields 
 was becoming as impossible and out-of-date as battle-axes, bows 
 and arrows, and suits of armour. In the course of the change 
 individuals, classes, and communities suffered, hardships were 
 inflicted and sometimes wrongs were done. That is always the 
 case under similar conditions. Every great step forward in material 
 progress, every invention and discovery, every new process and 
 material, every new departure, beneficial though they may all be 
 to the community as a whole and the world at large, injures some. 
 It appears to be inevitable, though all right-thinking people will 
 wish that it were not so, and will desire that every effort should 
 always be made to ease the transition and mLoimise the loss and 
 trouble caused by it. 
 
 There was a Distinct Movement amongst the CuUivaiors 
 
 A characteristic of the period up to the fifteenth century was 
 the multitude of small holdings and the rarity of large ones. In 
 the village communities there was much rough equality of compact 
 groups with more or less similar holdings held on similar conditions. 
 But before the great enclosing period, as it is usually described, of 
 the sixteenth century, and the great agrarian change which accom- 
 panied it, and which it is popularly thought to have caused, the old 
 village commimity system was undergoing a visible reconstruction. 
 
 Quite apart from and a considerable time before there was any 
 movement on the part of lords of the manor to evict tenants and 
 consolidate their holdings into large farms, and quite independent 
 of the great change that was brought about in village life in the 
 sixteenth century by the movement which the lords and large 
 farmers made in substituting tillage for pasture, a very great change 
 had taken place amongst the tenants themselves in their relative 
 positions and relationships. Mr. Tawney shows very clearly that 
 the introduction of commercial relationships and cash transactions 
 
CH. II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 237 
 
 in place of feudal and communal relationships and payments in 
 kind and services had during the fifteenth century resulted in a 
 great increase ia financial iuequality. The capable, industrious, 
 thrifty, and enterprising extended their holdings as they became 
 prosperous. They bought out others, consolidated the holdings, 
 and cultivated the larger quantity of land, while some of them let 
 the acquired holdings again to sub-tenants. In all directions the 
 number of holdings diminished while the size of them iacreased. 
 We have here the growth of the weU-to-do prosperous tenant- 
 farmer extending his business. This is not the lord evicting his 
 tenants and adding their holdings to his demesne, and either retain- 
 ing them himself or reletting them to a large farmer. These are 
 transfers and movements of holdings amongst the tenants them- 
 selves, and show very plainly that, before the " enclosing movement" 
 of the sixteenth century, of which so much is heard, economic forces 
 had long been at work, and were haviag their inevitable effect in 
 breaking up the uniformity of the old village community into large 
 holders and small, and consequently creatiag a larger proportion of 
 employers and employed amongst the tenants themselves. 
 
 A Process of Growth and Extension 
 
 This development of prosperous peasants had been going on 
 for a long time. It was the result of and also resulted in not only 
 the buying up of their neighbours' properties by the more successful 
 ones, but also the bringing into use and occupying of adjoining land 
 which had hitherto been waste, and also the selling or leasing by 
 the lord of more and more of his demesne or customary plots. In 
 the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries land changed hands pretty 
 frequently amongst the various holders, and these changes afforded 
 opportunities for the more prosperous amongst them, and those 
 who had accumulated a little capital, to extend their holdings and 
 there possessions, and prepare the way for a further improvement 
 of their position. 
 
 The occupied and cultivated area was also continually increased 
 by the taking in of parts of the waste land by tenants who obtained 
 permission of the manorial authorities to do so. There was abun- 
 dance of waste unused land available, and it was a gain to every one 
 to have it taken in and cultivated. Indeed it was necessary for 
 the growing population quite as much as to meet the requirements 
 of pushing, enterprising, and prosperous cultivators who desired to 
 extend their holdings. Instances are given where, between the 
 
238 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND ft. v 
 
 thirteenth and sixteenth centuries, the total area of the tenants' 
 holdings in villages had doubled. The communities were simply 
 going through the natural process of overflowing the old customary 
 boundaries and gradually occupying the waste. It is a process 
 which goes on rapidly in all new countries, and has gone on and 
 must go on everywhere where there is land that will pay for culti- 
 vation, and there is a growing population and increasing prosperity. 
 
 The Black Death and the Statute of Labourers 
 
 The Great Plague in the middle of the fourteenth century 
 accentuated, but did not cause, this movement. It accelerated 
 an economic tendency which was already at work. The death of 
 a large number of holders of land, and the poverty of many of the 
 survivors, brought land into the market in far greater quantity than 
 before. It was also cheaper, first, because there was much to sell, 
 and, second, because the great reduction which had taken place in 
 the population rendered it more costly than before to obtain labour 
 to work it. This was two centuries before the great enclosures to 
 which the break-up of the village commtmity system is usually 
 attributed. It was a time when landlords were seeking tenants, 
 with the inevitable result that the tenants were able to get the best 
 of the bargain. Later, when population increased, the position was 
 reversed — tenants were seeking land, with the result that the land- 
 owner had the advantage. The root explanation in both cases was 
 to be found in the working of the old inexorable law of supply and 
 demand, from which we can never get far away in this and so many 
 other of our social problems, no matter how we may try to dodge it. 
 
 In passing, it may not be altogether irrelevant to observe here 
 that the Statute of Labourers of 1349 was not quite that instance 
 of class legislation which it is commonly supposed to have been. 
 It really was a piece of mediaeval socialism. In those days the view 
 was that prices should be fixed by authority, not for the benefit of 
 land-owners, but in the interest of all. It is true that this particular 
 statute did regulate the wages of labourers, but it is generally over- 
 looked, or not known, that it also regulated the prices of provisions 
 and of almost everything that was sold in those days. Speaking 
 of this phase, Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., says : " The purpose of all 
 the craft guilds, the legislation, the town administration of the 
 Middle Ages, was to secure to each class of the community a comfort- 
 able standard of life fitted to their station. Historians and 
 economists express different opinions as to the motive of the Eliza- 
 
CH. II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 239 
 
 bethan statutes. Adam Smith writes of this legislation as part of 
 a general system of oppression of the poor by the rich ; but later 
 writers are more inclined to take the view that it was, both in motive 
 and administration, an attempt to keep up a customary standard of 
 living, and to ensure the workers a guaranteed rate of wages, a pro- 
 tection for their craft, and a safeguard against oppressive prices." ^ 
 Arthur Toynbee says : " The Justices often ordained a rise in 
 wages, and the workmen themselves were strongly in favour of this 
 method of fixing them." ^ 
 
 A New Problem which is now an Old One 
 
 When the mediaeval feudal system with its manorial com- 
 munities broke down, and the churches, hospitals, and monasteries, 
 together with the craft and reUgious guilds of the towns, were largely 
 broken up and dispossessed of their landed property at the time 
 of the Reformation, entirely new conditions were created and new 
 problems commenced to present themselves. The individual ceased 
 to be a member of a compact group, an integral part of the feudal 
 system. 
 
 The whole status of the labouring classes was changed, and the 
 problem came to be how to have a working class of free men, who 
 should yet find it easy to obtain sustenance ; in other words, how to 
 combine political and material freedom. That problem we still 
 have with us. The substitution of hired wage labour for villein 
 services and the building up of a considerable number of middle- 
 class land-owners and larger farmers out of the villein tenants who 
 were the bulk of the occupiers under the feudal and mediaeval 
 regime, with the consequent shifting of the whole of the relationship 
 of the community to a far more definite and distinct commercial, 
 competitive, and cash basis than had ever existed before, involved a 
 great change in the fundamental position and had far-reaching 
 results — ^results which have frequently been attributed to other 
 movements which were themselves also results and not, as is often 
 supposed, original causes. Mr. Tawney remarks ' that these changes 
 meant, on the whole, an upward movement ; an increase in the 
 opportunities of the peasantry to improve their position by purchas- 
 ing or leasing land on favourable terms ; and more freedom and 
 greater scope for the enterprise of the capable and thrifty man who 
 desired to make his way in the world. They meant that custom 
 and authority and class distinctions based on tenure were weakened. 
 
 1 The Living Wage, p. 11. " Toynbee, p. 79. » P. 97. 
 
240 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 They also meant that with the greater freedom came greater risk 
 and responsibility. 
 
 Enclosures Necessary and Inevitable 
 
 When we consider what is termed " enclosing " in the sixteenth 
 century we shall find that it was a different thing in different places, 
 and that as it differed in character and consequences, so differing 
 views were held about it. The peasants who followed Ket and 
 others in their protests and risings were denouncing the turning of 
 cornfields into sheepwalks and the demolition of cottages and home- 
 steads in order to do it. When experienced surveyors and capable 
 agriculturists extolled enclosure, they were usually thinking of the 
 consolidation and enclosure and more scientific and more productive 
 cultivation of the scattered strips in the open fields which were 
 aheadyunder the plough.^ The agitators did not object to enclosures 
 by the smaller tenants. The local justices did not complain if no 
 evictions took place. Then, with regard to the enclosures made by 
 the Lords of Manors or large farmers, so long as they were confined 
 to the lord's demesne there was little grumbling, but when they 
 encroached upon the waste in connection with which the manorial 
 tenants had common rights there was trouble and resentment. 
 
 As we have seen was the case with regard to pasture farming 
 for sheep, so with regard to the consohdation and enclosure of the 
 strips in the common fields, it began amongst the tenants themselves 
 before, and continued while, the land-owners and others took similar 
 steps on a larger scale. 
 
 At the very time when the peasantry agitated most bitterly they 
 were often hedging and ditching their own little holdings and nibbHng 
 away fragments of the waste to be cultivated in severalty. . . . En- 
 closing by lords and large farmers was not so much a movement running 
 counter to existing tendencies as a continuation on a larger scale, and 
 with different results, of developments which in parts of England were 
 already at work.^ 
 
 Enclosure often desired by Tenants 
 
 Enclosure was also often imdertaken by the lord at the request 
 of his tenants. A vast amount of enclosure in the sixteenth century 
 was in this way carried through by consent. More was done by 
 individual tenants on there own account, in order, amongst other 
 
 1 This was really a reallotment or rearrangement rather than enclosure as 
 now generally understood. * Tawney, p. 151. 
 
SOCIAL REVOLUTION 241 
 
 reasons, that they might be free from the restrictions and regula- 
 tions of the common fields as to cultivation and cropping, and also 
 that they might protect themselves against the trespassing of the 
 common cattle. Mr. Tawney gives numerous illustrations of this ^ 
 and then says : 
 
 It is plain from these and similar instances that there was a well- 
 defined movement from the fourteenth century onwards which made 
 for the gradual modtfication or dissolution of the open-field system of 
 cultivation, and that it originated not on the side of the lord or the 
 great farmer but on the side of the peasants themselves, who tried to 
 overcome the inconvenience of that system by a spontaneous process 
 of reaUotment, sometimes, but not always, in conjunction with actual 
 enclosure.^ 
 
 Sometimes, indeed, the small holders desired enclosure and the 
 large farms opposed it, the explanation being that the -larger men 
 were able to put a large number of cattle on the common, and the 
 poorer ones could not do so. As a contemporary chronicler put it : 
 " The poore are not able to store yt with cattle, nor to use the 
 commodytie as they might do if welth woulde serve them. But 
 the rytche do consume their own parts and their neighbouris also : 
 and that is the cause they will not consent to the enclosure and 
 partition thereof." What injured the small tenants and caused 
 the popular protests and revolts against enclosure was not enclosure 
 as such, but enclosure which involved and included either evictions, 
 or the conversion of arable to pasture, or the taking away of common 
 rights or usages. 
 
 As sheep-farming and cattle breedhig and feeding became more 
 profitable, and therefore more and more adopted by agriculturists 
 of all grades, great difficulties arose with regard to the commons. 
 The demand for pasture, and especially for better pasture, grew 
 enormously, and it became more and more difficult to keep the 
 numbers within the regulation limit. The desire of each holder to 
 have some pasture of his own became overwhelming, and agree- 
 ments to enclose and encroach on the waste were as acceptable 
 as they were common. 
 
 Wool Gromn^ and Manufacturing 
 
 In the Middle Ages England was practically the only wool- 
 producing country in Northern Europe, and had a monopoly of 
 the supply of wool to Flanders, the seat of the woollen manufacturers 
 * Pp. 154-165. ' P. 165. 
 
242 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 of the time. Gibbins points out tbat even at the worst periods of 
 civil war our island was incomparably more peaceful than the 
 countries of Western Europe. " From the thirteenth to seventeenth 
 century the farmers of Western Europe could not possibly have 
 kept sheep, the most defenceless and tender of domestic animals, 
 amid the wars that were continually devastating their homesteads ; 
 nor, as a matter of fact, did they do so." ^ 
 
 A feature of the fifteenth century was the development of 
 industrial villages. This was largely due to the short-sighted, 
 vexatious, restrictive regulations of the trade guilds in the towns 
 which drove manufacturers into the villages in order to escape from 
 them, and in many districts something Hke the modern factory 
 system grew up in villages. It is from some of those village com- 
 munities that the great manufacturing towns of to-day have sprimg. 
 The extent to which woollen manufacturing increased between the 
 middle of the fourteenth and the middle of the sixteenth centuries 
 is indicated by the figures which show the average annual export of 
 Enghsh grey cloth, which rose as follows : 
 
 1354 
 
 4,774 pieces 
 
 1609-1523 
 
 . 84,789 „ 
 
 1524-1533 
 
 . 91,349 „ 
 
 1534-1539 
 
 . 102,647 „ 
 
 1540-1547 
 
 . 122,354 „ 
 
 In 1554 the total manufacture was estimated at 160,000 pieces 
 of cloth and 250,000 pieces of hosiery. This development in the 
 textile trades, which for two centuries were the chief sources of the 
 country's wealth, depended upon the production here of a plentiful 
 and cheap supply of wool. Another reason why sheep-farming 
 was developed and grain-growing became less profitable was that 
 the pohcy of the Tudor monarchs was to discourage the export of 
 corn. During the greater part of the fifteenth century the export 
 of grain was free unless the price rose beyond a specified figure ; 
 but in 1491 Henry VII. prohibited the export of grain, and this 
 was repeated by Henry VIII. in 1512. 
 
 A further iraportant influence was the depreciation of money 
 and the corresponding enormous rise in prices. From a number 
 of prices given by Mr. Tawney the following are extracted as 
 illustrations : 
 
 ^ Industrial History, p. 48. 
 
CH. II 
 
 SOCIAL REVOLUTION 
 
 243 
 
 
 Wheat. 
 
 Oats. 
 
 Oxen. 
 
 Sheep. 
 
 1451-1500 
 1501-1540 
 1541-1682 
 
 s. d. 
 
 5 6J per qr. 
 
 6 lOi „ 
 13 lOi „ 
 
 s. d. 
 
 6 6J per qr. 
 9 4i „ 
 20 lOf „ 
 
 «. d. 
 15 7i 
 22 9 
 70 Oi 
 
 s. d. 
 
 1 lOJ 
 
 2 lOi 
 6 4 
 
 Such a change in prices was in itself a revolution and involved 
 many readjustments of relationships. With expenses rising in 
 this way, and everything costing more, it is not surprising that 
 every one who could do so strove to improve his position by turning 
 his land to the use that would }deld the most income to him. 
 
 The Growth of Sheep-farming Natural and General 
 
 I have remarked that the popular idea that sheep -farming for 
 wool production was an innovation introduced by the large land- 
 owners in the sixteenth century requires much modification in 
 view of the facts which recent research has brought to light. Mr. 
 Tavmey gives us particulars of six manors in the south of England 
 on which there were 112 customary tenants who kept amongst 
 them 7440 sheep and 793 other beasts. He points out that the 
 agriculture of the small man was much more diversified during the 
 fifteenth and sixteenth centuries than it had been two centuries 
 before. For a long time the customary tenants had been graziers 
 on a considerable scale and were much interested in the woollen 
 trade. When the profitableness of sheep-farming led the lords of 
 manors to resume possession of their lands and go in for it, there 
 were evictions and rack-renting. 
 
 " But, looking at the fifteenth century as whole," says Mr. Tawney, 
 ■" may we not say with some confidence that the growth of the woollen 
 industry must have brought increasing prosperity to many villages ? 
 Though it was not till almost the last decade that complaints of enclosing 
 became sufficiently clamorous to attract the attention of the Govern- 
 ment, the spread of woollen manufacturers into rural districts was 
 going quietly on throughout the whole century, and benefited the 
 peasants both by the lucrative bye-employment which they offered to 
 both sexes, and by the alternative to arable farming which the demand 
 for wool suppHed in the shape of sheep-grazing." 1 . . . " The large 
 number of sheep kept by the customary tenants of many manors in 
 the south of England, and the increase in the complaints owing to the 
 over-stocking of commons, contained in the Court EoUs of the fifteenth 
 century, show that they were not slow to seize the opportunity, and 
 
 1 P. 114. 
 
244 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 that the great pasture farms, which roused the indignation of More and 
 Latimer, had their precedent in the small flocks of thirty or forty sheep 
 which had long been run by the peasantry upon the common wastes or 
 pastures. It would seem that, as so often happens, the new departure 
 was first made on a small scale by small men, and that it was not until 
 some time had elapsed that its wholesale adoption by large capitalists 
 plunged them into distress. The movement towards pasture farming 
 as a special branch of agriculture is one that proceeds gradually for a 
 hundred years before the demand for wool becomes sufficient to produce 
 the body of capitalist graziers whose interests come into sharp collision 
 with those of the peasantry." ^ 
 
 The Alleged Substitution of Pasture for Arable 
 
 There has been much controversy as to the extent to which 
 the enclosures of the sixteenth century were based on, and resulted 
 in the substitution of pasture for arable cultivation. Very differing 
 views have been propounded by such authorities as Mr Leadam 
 and Professor Gay, who have investigated the available facts and 
 statistical returns with great care. Two or three things are quite 
 clear. One is, that there was not nearly such a diminution of arable 
 cultivation as the outcry at the time and the statements of some 
 writers since would lead us to suppose. The opening up of additional 
 pasture land, which took place on a large scale, obviously very 
 much increased the proportion which pasture bore to arable, but 
 it did not necessarily involve an actual decrease in arable. Another 
 thing is that the large farmers were by no means entirely sheep- 
 farmers. The creation of large farms out of a number of small 
 holdings often meant that the same method and proportion of 
 cultivation was carried on as before. In fact, in many directions 
 the ordinary customary tenants did far more in the way of abolish- 
 ing arable cultivation and becoming graziers than the large farmers 
 did. Statistics can be quoted to support both views. The explana- 
 tion is that changes and conditions varied in different districts, 
 and if the districts be selected, statistics to support any desired view 
 can be obtained. The third thing is that the opinion of the time 
 from the Government downwards,^ was that there was not only a 
 great development of grazing, but also much substitution of pasture 
 for arable cultivation. In part this was caused by the fact that under 
 
 1 P. 115. 
 
 " That there were during some 170 years seven Royal Commissions, a dozen 
 Acts of Parliament, and a large number of Proclamations dealing with enclosure 
 and depopulation of rural areas, shows very plainly that there was a substantial 
 problem to be grappled with. 
 
CH. II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 245 
 
 the earlier conditions, when each village community was virtually 
 self-supporting and the cultivation was subsistence culture and 
 the movement of food supplies was impossible, and, consequently, 
 the specialisation of difEerent localities in the kind of agriculture 
 for which their soil and climate and market was most suited was 
 never dreamed of, the amount of land under the plough, taking the 
 country as a whole, was very large in proportion to the population, 
 and much land was laid down as arable which was by no means 
 well suited for that cultivation. As newer conditions developed 
 under the stimulus of the growth of manufactures and conmierce, 
 the tendency was towards division of labour and more or less 
 specialisation in industry, with the result that land which had been 
 in tillage but was not suitable for it had to give way before the 
 superior advantages of other land elsewhere. 
 
 Several distinct and powerful economic influences were at work. 
 Together they shook the whole economic and social structure of 
 the time to its foundations. Few of the better-educated observers 
 and none of the peasantry and tenants really understood or even 
 perceived these movements. They only saw some of the effects, 
 with the result that they often arrived at superficial and very 
 questionable conclusions, and advocated fallacious remedies. 
 
 Nevertheless, when there were no evictions, the mere fact that 
 pasture took the place of tillage, or that tillage did not increase as 
 the population did, often meant that, as the younger sons of the 
 cottagers grew up, there was little or no work for them, and they 
 had to seek it elsewhere ; and some of them, no doubt, were led to 
 join the ranks of the vagrants about whom so much is said in the 
 histories of the time. 
 
 Enclosure Necessary and Inevitable 
 
 One result of the development of grazing amongst the customary 
 tenants was that they desired more pasture than their share of the 
 common rights supphed, and they made much fuller use of the share 
 they had. Originally the manorial village community was based 
 on tillage, and the right of the tenant to pasture on the waste was 
 limited within conditions which depended on the amount of land he 
 had under tillage. The arrangements of pasturage on the waste 
 gave to each the right to graze no more than a specified number. 
 When these tenants went ia for grazing, and each multiplied his 
 sheep and cattle manyfold, trouble arose. The common was over- 
 stocked and the pasture was impoverished and almost destroyed. 
 
246 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 Everybody wanted more pasture and found that lie had really less. 
 Under such conditions squabbles and quarrels, over-reaching and 
 injustice, were certain to occur, and some revision of methods and 
 conditions became absolutely necessary. 
 
 The " common field " system, with its customs of continual 
 change and re-allocation, destroyed individual initiative and personal 
 motive. With regard to cattle, common grazings were incom- 
 patible with that selection and isolation of the breeding stock which 
 is essential to improvement, and for the exercise of the special skill 
 and knowledge of individual owners. The block which conomon 
 cultivation placed upon innovation and the exercise of individual 
 discretion and judgment probably did more than anything else 
 to check the growth of the spirit of free enterprise in, and keep 
 at a low level, the economic condition of those districts where the 
 common field system longest survived. 
 
 The open field system, and especially its peculiarity of straggling 
 and scattered ownersMp, regarded from a modern agricultural point of 
 view, was absurdly uneconomical. The waste of time in getting about 
 from one part of a farm to another; the uselessness of one owner 
 attempting to clean Ms own land when it could be sown with thistles 
 from the seed blown from the neighbouring strips of a less' careful and 
 thrifty owner ; the quarrelling about headlands and rights of way, or 
 paths made without right ; the constant encroachments of unscrupulous 
 or overbearing holders upon the balks — all this made the system so 
 inconvenient that Arthur Young, coming across it in France, could 
 hardly keep his temper as he described with what perverse ingenuity 
 it seemed to be contrived, as though purposely to make agricidture as 
 awkward and uneconomical as possible.^ 
 
 The Twenty-seventh Annual Eeport of the Enclosure Commis' 
 sioners said : "Of all modes of tenure in a fully-peopled country 
 there is none more prejudicial to improved culture than holding 
 in common." In an enclosure of common fields which took place 
 as recently as 1898, one farmer had 13 acres in 30 parcels, another 
 1| acres in 5 parcels, another 2J acres in 9 parcels, others 80 acres 
 in 164 parcels, and 166 acres in 217 parcels. Even then the doing 
 of the obviously wise and necessary thing took six years of delicate 
 negotiation.^ At Wendover in Bucks one tenant in 1794 held 18 
 acres in 31 allotments. One farmer in Gloucestershire had one 
 acre in 8 strips spread over a large area so that he had to walk 2 or 
 3 miles to visit the whole of his one acre. The cost of reaping and 
 
 ^ Seebohm, The English Village Community, p. 15. 
 ^ Castor and Ailesworth in Northamptonshire. 
 
CH. II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 247 
 
 carting was ridiculous. " The hay lies in so many little parcels 
 in balks and lodes and at such a distance that it costs near as much 
 in gathering as it is worth." ^ 
 
 Commons Uneconomical 
 
 The enclosure of waste lands — commons as much of them were 
 called — was equally necessary and desirable. More food was needed, 
 and consequently more land was required for cultivation as the 
 population grew. Sir John Sinclair was of opinion that commons 
 and waste lands were a very wasteful use of the land, and that to 
 whatever purpose it was devoted incomparably better results would 
 be obtained by such improved cultivation and proper regulation 
 as were only possible under enclosure. Rearing cattle on common 
 and waste meant stunted and starved animals. For lambs, colts, 
 or calves grounds free from disease, and enclosures properly watered 
 and sheltered, afforded better grass and reared the animals far 
 more profitably than common overrun with heath, furze, fern, and 
 brushwood. 
 
 In 1710, when half the stock of the country was fed on commons, 
 as compared with 1795, when there had been much enclosure and 
 feeding on cultivated pasture, the comparative average weight of 
 the animals sold at Smithfield Market was : 
 
 1710. 1795. 
 
 lbs. lbs. 
 
 Beasts . . .370 800 
 
 Calves ... 50 148 
 
 Sheep ... 28 80 
 
 Lambs ... 18 50 
 
 The right of common to those who had it was often of little 
 value. In the north of England, in the latter part of the eighteenth 
 century, the right to pasture ten sheep for a year could be hired for 
 6d. As they would require 6 acres, that was equal to Id. per acre. 
 That meant that at 24 years' purchase the freehold value of 
 the land was only 2s. an acre. In Wales, where the pasturage 
 was better, id. per head was the charge for keeping sheep on 
 the ground. In many parts of the country it was found that it 
 did not pay to use the privilege. Sinclair said : " Let one man, 
 having a right to do so for nothing, put a cow of any value upon 
 the generality of commons any time in spring, and let another 
 give a farmer Is. 6d. a week for the keep of his cow in an enclosure, 
 both being of the same value when first turned out : if both are 
 
 1 Vindication of a Regulated Enclosure, by Rev Jos. Lee (1656). 
 
248 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND ft. v 
 
 driven to market at Michaelmas, the difference of price will do more 
 than repay the expense of the keep, without making any allowance 
 for the additional quantity of milk which the cow kept in an 
 enclosure must yield. In regard to sheep, if they are of a valuable 
 sort, the profit of hiring land instead of putting them on a common 
 for nothing is still greater. And the enormous losses sustained 
 by that species of stock when the rot or any infectious disorder gets 
 into a neglected flock can hardly be calculated." 
 
 Another authority said: "A cow turned on a common may get 
 her own living for three months, which is as much as she will be able 
 to do without some assistance from the garden, bran, etc., and such 
 a cow, being obliged to be on foot all the day and perhaps at night 
 too, gives but a very scanty meal when milked." In 1794 the 
 Reporter to the Board of Agriculture, speaking of Berkshire, said : 
 "We see on all the commons a number of miserable cattle, sheep, 
 and horses which are a disgrace to their respective breeds, and the 
 cause of many distempers." In Cambridgeshire, at Trumpington, out 
 of a flock of 1950 sheep 900 had died in one year of the rot, and 
 the remainder were sickly ; in Croxton, 1000 out of 1400 sheep had 
 perished. In Cottenham, 1815 out of 2600 sheep died ; but adjoin- 
 ing parishes which had been enclosed and drained were free from 
 the disease. " Experience teaches," says a writer in 1656, " that 
 there are usually five rots (in sheep) in common fields, for one in 
 enclosures," owing to the undrained condition of the land. 
 
 Other Influences and Considerations 
 
 From the fifteenth century to the middle of the sixteenth the 
 dominant influence in enclosure was the growth of sheep-farming. 
 After that, up to the end of the seventeenth, and into the early years 
 of the eighteenth century, the marked feature was the enclosure of 
 arable open land in order to permit of improved cultivation and the 
 introduction of new crops — grasses, clover, and roots. In some 
 cases land which, in the earher period, had been turned into pasture 
 was reconverted to tUlage. The growth of towns and industries 
 also developed dairy-farming. From 1750 onwards the growth of 
 population and the increased demand for animal food which accom- 
 panied it, together with the improvements which took place in 
 breeding and feeding as agricultural knowledge increased, combined 
 to encourage the growth of pasture. At the same time the demand 
 for grain also increased and the rising prices of the long war period 
 stimulated arable culture, with the result that enclosure spread 
 
CH.II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 249 
 
 and farming developed on both lines as the character of the soil 
 and the nature of the demand in the immediate neighbourhood 
 rendered it most convenient and profitable. 
 
 Another influence was the reclaiming of the fens and marshes. 
 This brought into cultivation very large tracts of rich arable land 
 which led to the less fertile land in those districts being turned 
 into pasture. In early times " the incessant cropping of land 
 unskilfully farmed, and varied only by wasteful fallowing, led 
 in many places, and particularly on the less strong lands, to 
 exhaustion. When this was accompanied by a great demand 
 for wool, and a disturbance in the labour market due in part to 
 the effect of the plagues and pestilences of the fourteenth, and 
 to the civil discords of the fifteenth century, the partial abandon- 
 ment of cultivated land to sheep, and even to a by no means careful 
 system of sheep-farming, was initially profitable." ^ 
 
 The Troubles of Commons an3. Waste 
 
 The advantage which small cultivators derived from the use of 
 common land may be overestimated. In the struggles and con- 
 troversies with their stronger or more aggressive neighbours they 
 were often subject to much injustice in being crowded off the 
 commons and prevented from exercising such rights as they had. 
 Large farmers overstocked the commons and thus kept out the 
 cattle of the poor. They also encroached on their rights when the 
 labourers were too poor to maintain those rights by keeping their 
 due number of cattle on the common. Commoners also encroached 
 on the rights of each other. On the fells of Cumberland and West- 
 morland in the present day disputes are common, and free fights 
 are not unknown. In many districts, again, difficulty arose through 
 groups of jobbers who hired cottages to obtain common rights of 
 pasture, and then turned so many cattle out that they ate up the 
 whole produce. 
 
 Another trouble was that commons were often socially detri- 
 mental because they encouraged idleness and crime, and thereby 
 promoted poverty and misery. The testimony of numerous writers 
 spread over two or three centuries is very clear and emphatic on this 
 point. Most commons were the rendezvous of highwaymen, and 
 experience showed that an excessive proportion of the crime of the 
 country originated amongst those who lived near commons. The 
 
 "^ Conner, Common Land and Inclosure, p. 121. 
 
250 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 allegation that they increased idleness, were an obstacle to industry, 
 and caused poverty and wretchedness was general.^ 
 
 The following are some of the quotations from a number of 
 contemporary writers in different parts of the country given by 
 Prof. Gonner (Common Land and Inclosure, p. 361) : 
 
 Where wastes and commons are most extensive there I have 
 perceived the cottages are most wretched and worthless, and accustomed 
 to rely on a precarious and vagabond subsistence. 
 
 The poor are lessened by the commons being lessened. 
 
 Despite liberal rights of common there was much poverty and high 
 poor rates at Sutton-Coldfield. 
 
 There were high poor rates at ChaUey in Sussex " owing to plenty 
 of commons which encouraged the poor to such idleness as to bring 
 vast numbers to parish." 
 
 Another that in cheap times used to bask himself all day in the 
 sun, holding a cow by a line to feed on a balk, in dear times betakes 
 himself to the pickaxe and the spade. 
 
 An allotment stimulates to industry much better than a common 
 right which leads to idleness. 
 
 In many cases summer pasture means winter stealing. 
 
 A cottage with a few acres of enclosed land gives the occupier a 
 right to turn stock to these common hUls. The profit of that stock is 
 expected to supersede the necessity of labour, in cultivating the few 
 acres which he possesses. 
 
 The Official Agricultural Eeports frequently said that wastes and 
 commons had " a bad effect on the poor." 
 
 ^ It is clear from the following extracts from the recent (1913) Report of a 
 Select Committee of the House of Commons on Commons that some of the diffi- 
 culties we have referred to continue at the present time : 
 
 In dry seasons numerous fires occur on commons. There is reason to believe 
 that many of these have purposely been ignited by the smaller commoners with 
 the object of preventing the growth of fir trees and other scrub, which, if allowed 
 to spread over the common, would destroy the pasturage. Others have been 
 caused accidentally or mischievously. But whatever the cause, enormous damage 
 often results as it is nobody's business to guard against fires. 
 
 Gipsies or other nomads are a frequent cause of complaint. They are insanitary 
 in their habits, spread disease, are found breaking fences for firewood, and are guilty 
 of petty pilferings. They leave filth and rubbish on the common after their depar- 
 ture. Gipsies have no legal right to camp on a common ; it is doubtful whether 
 the owner has any legal right to give them permission to remain there, and there are 
 often difficulties in removing them. 
 
 Refuse is often deposited on commons, and it is not the duty of any one to 
 prevent this or to remove it if it becomes a nuisance to the neighbourhood. 
 
 On commons where the pasturage rights are very valuable your Committee 
 have had evidence that disputes between commoners are frequent. They arise 
 from the fact that some try to put on the common more stock than they are entitled 
 to, that some put stock on the best part of the common and " dog " the others oii, 
 while others use the common who are alleged not to be entitled to common 
 rights. 
 
CH. II SOCIAL REVOLUTION 251 
 
 It appears clear that what should have been an additional 
 source of income in kind and a valuable part of the coherent manorial 
 agricultural system, when separated from this system, as it was as 
 feudalism faded away, and freedom and independence with its 
 risks and responsibilities took its place, sometimes became a source 
 of difficulty and demoralisation, owing to its precarious nature and 
 the temptation to idleness and loafing which it afforded. Never- 
 theless these common rights or privileges were a distinct advantage 
 and assistance to a large number of honest and industrious poor^ 
 and sudden deprivation of them was an imdoubted loss and hard- 
 ship to all who had derived benefit from them. 
 
 Inevitable 
 
 The fundamental economic fact which it is futile to ignore was 
 that the disappearance of the old open village was iaevitable and 
 the decay of subsistence agriculture unavoidable when sufficient 
 conunercial progress had been made to render improved agriculture 
 profitable. For agricultural improvement and progress experi- 
 ments and enterprise were necessary. These were impracticable 
 imless and until cultivation was individualised. Theoretically it 
 may be contended that this need not have been carried to the 
 extent it has been, but as a matter of fact and experience it has 
 proved to be so all the world over. When the benefits have been 
 secured as the result of individual initiative, venture, and effort, 
 it is easy to say that it could all have been accomplished by the 
 communal and co-operative action of communities of small holders. 
 This never has been the case. When the expansion of the woollen 
 industry here, coupled with our great trade in wool on the Continent, 
 showed clearly the direction in which profitable agriculture was to 
 be found, subsistence farming was bound to give way before more 
 commercial methods and the small man was certain to feel the 
 pressure of the competition of the larger and wealthier farmer. 
 
 The wastefulness of the old regime, compared with the productive- 
 ness of the new, may well seem too obvious to leave room for any 
 discussion of their relative advantages ; and indeed the accession of 
 material wealth which followed the first feeble approach towards the 
 methods of modern agriculture is unquestionable.^ 
 
 That this was not the disturbed peasants' view was very natural, 
 and that his outcry about it should be loud and long was by no 
 means surprising. Looking back over the past we may see, or 
 
 1 Tawney, p. 409. 
 
252 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 think we see, how things might have been managed better and much 
 suffering might have been avoided. There is, however, in all this 
 much " being wise after the event." Great advances, great changes, 
 unquestionable improvements for the community as a whole, have 
 often, if not indeed always, been accompanied by loss, disappoint- 
 ment, inconvenience and suffering to some. All will agree that it 
 is desirable that this should be avoided, and that every effort should 
 be made to avoid it, but no completely satisfactory method of doing 
 that and still securing the overwhelmingly larger benefits of improve- 
 ments and progress has yet been devised. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE METHOD AND EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 
 
 The practice of enclosure as the increase of population and the 
 development of agriculture required it was a very ancient one. 
 It " existed at common law from time of earliest memory and 
 record." 
 
 By the Statute of Merton ^ (1236) parliamentary sanction was 
 given to the enclosure of wastes by the lord of the manor, provided 
 that sufficient pasture was left for the requirements of his freehold 
 tenants. By the Statute of Westminster ^ (1285) enclosure was 
 permitted against commoners who, without being freehold tenants, 
 possessed pasture rights by a special grant. These statutes really 
 only affirmed the common law. 
 
 Enclosures by Agreement and Act of Parliament 
 
 In early times rights of common were terminated in several 
 ways. They could be extinguished by all the properties which had 
 rights of common over a given area of waste coming into the posses- 
 sion of one individual by purchase or otherwise ; or when the 
 occupancy of a holding terminated, the owner could arrange another 
 tenancy under which the rights of common no longer attached and 
 the tenement or holding was let separately from, and independent 
 of, them ; or an agreement could be come to with, or amongst, those 
 who had rights of common ; or the right might be forfeited by 
 disuse, or by breach of the conditions on which it rested. 
 
 Enclosure by agreement approved by the Court of Chancery, 
 or on terms settled by Commissioners appointed by the Court on 
 the application of parties interested, became more common as time 
 passed. From the reign of Charles II. parliamentary sanction was 
 required, and to obtain that, the land -owner, the tithe -owner, 
 
 1 20 Henry III. c. 4. » 13 Edwd. I. c. 46. 
 
 2S3 
 
2 54 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 and four-fifths of the commoners who had rights had to consent. 
 The practice of enclosure by private Act of Parliament extended 
 pretty rapidly throughout the whole of the eighteenth century. 
 These acts were, for the most part, a development of the process 
 of enclosure by agreement, and sometimes they were merely a recital 
 and definite enactment of an agreement already arrived at. Usually, 
 however, they provided for the appointment of Commissioners, 
 who were to adjudicate upon the various interests and settle the 
 disputes between the persons concerned, decide as to the hedging 
 and ditchiag and making of roads and the apportionment of ex- 
 penses. In course of time a number of standard clauses and general 
 provisions grew up and were usually adopted or enforced by Parlia- 
 ment, and in 1801 a public Act was passed which embodied the 
 principal conditions and arrangements which experience had shown 
 to be necessary and desirable. This Act also provided machinery 
 under which enclosures could be made without incurring all the 
 exceedingly heavy expenses which were involved in obtaining private 
 Acts. Thus the method of enclosure which, before the eighteenth 
 century, had been largely a matter of voluntary assent or arbitrary 
 action, and under which there had often been little uniformity or 
 principle in the division of the land concerned, developed into a 
 systematic procedure duriug that century, and at its close the pro- 
 cedure which had evolved was stereotyped iu the Act of 1801. 
 
 Troublesome and Costly 
 
 Enclosure in the eighteenth century was neither easy nor cheap. 
 The consent of a large majority of the persons having common 
 rights, and of the lord of the manor and the person entitled to the 
 tithes, was required. Any one of these classes could defeat the 
 scheme. " The smaller commoners were reluctant to give up their 
 lazy hfe, dependent on the cattle they reared on the common, for 
 one of settled industry. The small freeholder, as his expenses of 
 enclosure were proportionately greater than that of any other class, 
 was not anxious to enclose. Those who lived near the common 
 and enjoyed the full advantage of it, the " one in ten, who took 
 ten times his share," naturally objected to a measure which placed 
 them on an equaUty with more distant tenants." ^ 
 
 The costs were heavy. Separate sets of fees had to be paid for 
 every parish in which the land was. In one extreme case in the 
 fens of Lincolnshire 47 parishes commoned on the fen and 47 sets 
 1 Scrutton, p. 142. 
 
cH.ni EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 255 
 
 of parliamentary fees had to be paid. Unopposed Acts cost many 
 hundreds of pounds and the other costs were vastly more. The 
 cost of enclosing a fen parish in Somerset was £2485, of which the 
 cost of the Act was £500. 
 
 Arthur Young gives particulars of 23 enclosures in Lincolnshire, 
 the result of which was to increase the rent obtained from £15,504 
 to £29,760. The cost of the enclosure was £48,217. There was also 
 beyond this the cost of preparing and equipping the land for occupa- 
 tion and cultivation. In some cases the costs of enclosure alone 
 were as much as £5 an acre. The enclosure of King's Sedgmoor, 
 12,000 acres, about 1798, was £59,000. Some one had to take 
 the responsibiUty of that expense and be prepared to pay it if for 
 any reason the scheme was not carried out. 
 
 When all concerned were agreed that enclosure was desirable, 
 the one or two persons who were prepared to provide the money 
 for the expenses naturally had a dominant voice in deciding the 
 terms and conditions of the scheme. Still the consent of the 
 majority of the interests concerned was required. The usual 
 procedure was to call a public meeting of all concerned. If that 
 meeting decided to proceed, a petition to Parliament for an Act 
 was drawn up. Notices of the intended application were affixed 
 for three Sundays to the church door in each parish affected. The 
 draft was then prepared, and the signatures o£ those who consented 
 had to be obtained. That this had all been done properly had to 
 be proved by witnesses before the Committees of ParHament. The 
 rules and standing orders of ParUament required that certain pro- 
 visions and regulations which experience had shown to be necessary 
 for the protection of all concerned, and especially of the small 
 occupiers, should be inserted in the Bill. 
 
 When the Act was passed the appointed Commissioners com- 
 menced the real and important work. The rule was to hold a 
 public meeting in the district and appoint a clerk, a surveyor, and 
 a valuer. The nature and value of each of the existing holdings 
 and interests was ascertained. Then an estimate was made of 
 the benefit that would result from enclosure, and the problem before 
 the Commissioners was to divide that advantage amongst the 
 various parties concerned. 
 
 The first claim to be met was the general expenses and charges. 
 They were heavy. There were not only all the parhamentary, 
 legal, and professional costs— the costs of obtaining the Act and of 
 administering it and adjusting the various claims. There were 
 
256 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 roads to be made and land to be set aside for the purpose. There 
 were drainage works and, in some cases, irrigation works to be imder- 
 taken. It was not unusual to allocate a gravel pit for road repairs : 
 and it was usual either to provide a fund for the poor or to apportion 
 some of the land to them as common. Next came an allotment 
 or deduction for the rights of the lord of the manor and the tithe- 
 owner. It was not uncommon for the tithe to be reckoned at one- 
 seventh of the value of the land that was dealt with. 
 
 The distribution of what remained amongst the various persons 
 interested was by no means a simple matter, and it would have been 
 a miracle if it had not given rise to complaint from some one, what- 
 ever system of division had been adopted. " AVhen the gravity 
 and delicacy of the task undertaken by the Commissioners is con- 
 sidered," says Professor Gonner, " the existence of complaint 
 against them is not astonishing. It is rather a matter for wonder 
 that the complaints were not far louder and universal. Apart from 
 the mere quantity and the situation of the respective allotments, 
 the change entailed in the new arrangement of the fields and the 
 consequent alteration of old customs must often have led to dis- 
 satisfaction. The Commissioners had, as it were, to lay out the 
 village anew. In place of the old fields, cultivated in strips, and 
 according to a common order, each man was allotted now a small 
 or large several piece. The new inclosures were, as a rule, regular 
 and compact, thus differing from the ancient inclosures. They lay, 
 in the case of some, at a considerable distance from the little 
 village of farm-houses, while others had the advantage of having 
 their holdings conveniently near. Roads had to be made, hedging 
 and ditching done ; while in some instances httle or no increase in 
 value could be perceived for many years. Some of the allotments 
 might be improfitably small. Some land as meadow highly valued 
 before the inclosure might even undergo some diminution through 
 haAong to contribute to the expenses. No doubt the individual 
 proprietor was indemnified by a rise in the value of other land, but 
 the absence of immediate and invariable advantage was enough to 
 try his faith. That discontent was so small and satisfaction so 
 general is the greatest testimony which can be adduced as to the 
 advantage of the change." ^ 
 
 The Position of the Poor 
 
 Throughout the long period over which enclosures of one kind 
 1 Common Land arid Inchaure, p. 82. 
 
CH. .II EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 257 
 
 or another were spread there was much interest taken in the effect 
 which the enclosures had upon the poor, and the provision that 
 was made for guarding their interests. Discussion of this phase 
 was continuous, and considerable difference of opinion was expressed. 
 That in many instances the poor suffered temporarily, if not per- 
 manently, when great changes were made in the industrial economy 
 of the district in which they lived, and the industry in which they 
 were engaged, is beyond question. It was probably largely inevit- 
 able ; nevertheless, an impartial consideration of the whole position 
 leaves the impression that in many instances more might with 
 advantage have been done to avoid consequences which were not 
 intended, and were not foreseen, but were inevitable. On the other 
 hand, it should be pointed out that in a large number of cases special 
 steps were taken to avoid the hardship which might result to the 
 poor if strict legal rights alone were taken into account. It should 
 be clearly understood that from the point of view of strict legal 
 rights the poor had a weak case, and had little to expect when 
 common lands were enclosed. On the other hand, custom and 
 sufferance had enabled them to derive considerable advantage from 
 the common lands, and the loss of these advantages would have 
 been, and where it occurred was, a serious loss to them. Conse- 
 quently, although there was little foothold for a claim as a matter 
 of strict legality, there was a claim on the ground of individual 
 consideration and of public policy, and this claim was widely 
 recognised and more or less generally allowed, or if not allowed, 
 insisted upon by the Courts or by Parliament. This phase of the 
 question was always treated as deserving the serious consideration 
 of the Crown, the Privy Council, or Parliament as the case might be. 
 
 The Disadvantage they were under 
 
 The poor were, of course, always at a disadvantage in presenting 
 their case and claims ; that was especially so as regards Parliament 
 and proceedings in London, where it was practically impossible 
 for them to be directly represented. Nevertheless, the Com- 
 missioners had great powers and great experience, and the wishes 
 and instructions of the authorities in this respect were perfectly 
 plain. Professor Gonner, after mentioning instances which indicate 
 the desire of the Commissioners to act fairly, says : " The claims 
 of the poor were very differently dealt with by different Commis- 
 sioners, principles admitted in some cases being ignored ia others. 
 Still, taking the conduct of the inclosures and the awards as a whole, 
 
 s 
 
258 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v 
 
 there seems to be no ground for alleging a general partiality on 
 behalf of any particular class. The work seems to have been 
 honestly, if not always well, done, and to have been marked by a 
 rough-and-ready fairness." ^ 
 
 After the Act of 1801 the procedure was simplified and made 
 more uniform, but in broad principle it remained substantially the 
 same, as it also did when Inclosure Commissioners were appointed 
 under 8 & 9 Victoria, c. 118. That Act and previous and subsequent 
 resolutions of the House of Commons recognised and enforced the 
 desirability of allotments beiag made for pubHc recreation and also 
 for the labouring poor. At the same time it was often fully recog- 
 nised in the debates that such allotments were based not on legal, 
 but on what might be termed moral, rights. 
 
 The Results as a Whole 
 
 Summing up the whole position of the eighteenth - century 
 enclosures, Professor Gonner, after the most painstaMng and 
 impartial investigation of the whole question which has been made, 
 says that, so far as the work of division and allotment is concerned, 
 there is httle or no ground for any charge of imfairness. The 
 influence of the large proprietors and of the lord of the manor no 
 doubt determined the appUcation for enclosure, and may have 
 decided the nomination of the Commissioners, but the latter had 
 to possess pecuhar qualifications, as well as a reputation for experi- 
 ence and integrity, while there was ample opportunity for protest 
 against any undue exercise of power. 
 
 In the latter part of the century, at any rate, the parliamentary 
 requirements in the case of enclosure were exacting, and the procedure 
 in committee seems to have been careful and well-considered. Direct 
 allegations of general unfairness are rare. The most doubtful matter 
 was the action of the Commissioners with regard to the claims of the 
 neighbouring poor, that is, with regard to the recognition of claims 
 which were not based on legal right. Some greater uniformity would 
 have been desirable. Two things, however, must be borne in mind. 
 Private agreements to enclose were equally free from a legal obligation 
 to recognise them. In the second place, in a large number of awards 
 these are given fair treatment, the Commissioners, in other words, 
 being guided by equitable as distinct from purely legal considerations. 
 Taken as a whole, the work of division and apportionment appears to 
 have been discharged conscientiously and fairly.^ 
 
 1 Common Land and Inclosure, p. 76. ^ Ibid. pp. 94-5. 
 
CH. in EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 259 
 
 Of course, the little local officials of the village court lost their 
 posts when the common field system was abolished in any locality, 
 and their complaints were Ukely to be loud and long. The viewers 
 of the fields, the letters of the cattle, those who supervised the 
 arrangements for cultivating the arable and pasturing the sheep 
 and cows in the meadow, the common shepherd, the chimney 
 peepers and the pinder who had charge of the pound, would all 
 have a grievance and denounce the new arrangements. 
 
 One Misconception 
 
 The popular idea that when commons were enclosed the lord of 
 the manor was allotted nearly the whole of the land, and that only 
 a small portion went to those who had rights of common and other 
 claims on it, is quite erroneous. The proportion usually allotted 
 to the lord of the manor as his share of the surface rights was one- 
 sixteenth ; that is to say, out of every 16 acres he would get one 
 acre and other people would get 15 acres.^ 
 
 Writing in 1878 and quoting a return made to the House of 
 Commons in 1873, Sic John Caicd said that since the Enclosure Act 
 of 1845, 600,000 acres had been enclosed ; the land was divided 
 amongst 26,000 separate owners, in an average proportion of 44^ 
 acres to each lord of the manor, 24 acres to each common-right 
 owner, and 35,450 acres were sold to 3500 purchasers to help to 
 defray the expenses. The 620 lords of the manor received, on 
 the average, about one-fifteenth of the acreage of the wastes. 
 About one-eighth of the total land was devoted to public objects. 
 That would mean that the public got twice as much of the land 
 as the lords of the manor did, and the lords of the manor had to 
 pay heavy costs and expenses for their share. 
 
 The Effect on Employment and Population 
 
 There has always been much discussion as to the effect of 
 enclosure upon employment and population. The advocates of any 
 view on the subject can cull quotations from contemporary writers 
 in support of the contention they put forward. Partisan writers in 
 our own time have selected and used such quotations with great 
 freedom, with the result that some of them have created very mis- 
 leading impressions. A himdred and fifty or two hundred years 
 from now any writer who desired to do so would be able to collect 
 from similar books, pamphlets, and papers an abundant and appar- 
 * See evidence before Committees on Inolosure 1844 and 1913. 
 
26o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 ently imposing and convincing supply of misleading statements 
 and statistics with respect to the condition of the people in these 
 times, and the effect that progress and prosperity has had upon the 
 various classes of the community. 
 
 A Painstaking Investigation 
 
 Professor Gonner has rendered a great service by submitting 
 the numerous and very conflicting statements with regard to the 
 effects of enclosure, which were made at the time and are often 
 repeated now, to the test of a careful examination in the light of 
 statistics and common sense. The evidence of many contemporary 
 observers is clearly shown to be defective and unreliable. They 
 obviously relied too much upon isolated instances within their own 
 experience, and formed general conclusions on a very limited basis, 
 often being misled by the substitution of pasture for certain arable 
 cultivation, and taking little or no notice of other changes and 
 compensating factors which were sometimes operating not very 
 far away. Professor Gonner points out that whUe this was the 
 case in the eighteenth century, " these defects are equally if not 
 more important in earlier periods, when the range of observation 
 was equally, if not more, restricted. In the seventeenth century 
 in particular caution is required in accepting these statements. 
 New land was coming into the cultivated area, with the result that 
 change in the use of old land was necessary, and yet depopulation 
 or lack of work, except in a very narrow sense, was no necessary 
 consequence. New employment, in other words, naight be afforded 
 within reasonable reach." ^ 
 
 After the early period of the fourteenth and fifteenth, and 
 possibly the first half of the sixteenth century, when the population 
 had been reduced by one-half by the Black Death in 1349, and 
 when the great demand for wool for the Continent, and the century 
 of unrest caused by the Wars of the Roses which followed, accentu- 
 ated the economic position created by that disastrous visitation of 
 pestilence, there is no substantial ground for the belief that arable 
 cultivation was seriously and widely discouraged. Even where it 
 was superseded by pasture in some districts the supply of meat 
 and animal products was increased, and more land was brought 
 under the plough elsewhere. 
 
 With regard to employment, speaking broadly, enclosure of 
 land which had been uncultivated meant additional production 
 J Common Land and Inclosure, p. 446. 
 
CH.I.I EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 261 
 
 and additional employment. It did not mean that land previously 
 cultivated was abandoned and allowed to revert to waste, but that 
 it continued to be cultivated in some form or other together with 
 the further land that was brought into use. 
 
 Enclosure of Waste would increase Employment 
 
 The mere enclosure of waste, moor, heath, marsh, and forest 
 would not diminish employment. It would of itself increase it. 
 With regard to the complaint made against enclosure in respect 
 of employment, that common fields which had been arable were 
 turned into pasture, it may be observed that, taking the country 
 or even considerable districts of it as a whole, there was at least 
 as much demand for grain as ever, and there is no evidence that in 
 the total less was produced. If it was not grown in one place it 
 was in another. Such decrease of employment as did take place 
 appears to have been due to the saving of labour which resulted 
 from the consolidation of the holdings, and the better results in the 
 form of crops that were obtained from the same amount of labour, 
 as the result of enclosure. The more business-like and economical 
 working of the land which i^esulted from the mere consoHdation of 
 a number of scattered pieces into one compact holding, necessarily 
 lessened the labour required in carting manure and produce and in 
 other ways. This was a gain to the community as a whole, and 
 such diminution of employment as was thus caused was not 
 relatively great, and was fully compensated by the increased employ- 
 ment given in other directions. It was the disturbance and the 
 change that was the trouble. It should also be remembered that 
 while the change was taking place the process of enclosure gave a 
 considerable amount of extra, though temporary, employment in 
 hedging, ditching, and road-maMng. 
 
 During the latter part of the seventeenth century and through- 
 out the eighteenth century, the growth of local industries and 
 afterwards of manufacturing districts created a very considerable 
 demand for meat and dairy produce which gave employment to 
 agriculturists. 
 
 Professor Gormer shows by detailed investigation that the 
 parishes where enclosure had taken place were frequently the most 
 densely populated, and that " so far as the counties, or even large 
 districts or portions of counties are concerned, there is really no 
 evidence of depopulation." There was, in some districts, a move- 
 ment from rural to urban areas. This was not due to enclosure, but 
 
262 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 PT. V 
 
 to the attractions, often specious, of nominally higher wages and 
 the glamour which towns always have. 
 
 The Aim and Residt of Legislation 
 
 In the preface to his book on The English Peasantry and the 
 Enclosure of Common Fields, Dr. Slater says : 
 
 The policy of the legislature and of the Central Government, ex- 
 pressed in the Enclosure Acts of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, 
 though it claimed, and on the whole rightly claimed, that it effected 
 an immediate and great increase in the country's output of agricultural 
 produce, and an improvement in the breeds of sheep and cattle, was 
 nevertheless essentially a policy directed towards the enhancement of 
 agricultural rents, the building up of large and compact landed estates, 
 the establishment of capitalist farming, the uprooting of peasant 
 proprietors and of small holdings, together with the communal use of 
 land and the midtiplication of the class of landless agricultural labourers. 
 
 This statement is apparently the result of confusing the methods 
 and effects of enclosures with their causes and the intentions of 
 those who legislated with regard to them. One result of the increase 
 in the population of the country and the development of commerce 
 and manufactures was undoubtedly to increase the demand for 
 agricultural produce and therefore for land, and consequently to 
 enhance rents. Improvements in agriculture and the transforma- 
 tion of farming into a business brought capital into the industry 
 and tended to build up larger farms, while the buying of land by 
 successful merchants, manufacturers, and bankers tended to the 
 creation of large and compact estates. The high price obtainable 
 for land and the decay of home industries as the result of the intro- 
 duction of steam and improved machinery diminished the number 
 of small cultivating land-owners. The " communal use of land " 
 had been decaying for two or three centuries. To say that these 
 movements were the aim and result of the policy of the legislature 
 and the Government is as unreasonable as it would be to say that 
 it was their object during last century to build up great towns, 
 increase the value of town property, establish large capitalist business 
 enterprises, introduce railways, telegraphs, and steamships, and 
 to disturb and destroy many industries and throw many people 
 temporarily or permanently out of work. The policy of the legis- 
 lature and the Government, as clearly shown by its Acts and actions, 
 was to recognise economic movements which were obviously inevit- 
 able and certain to be on the whole beneficial, and to attempt to 
 
CH. 1.1 EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 263 
 
 so guide and regulate them that the incidental effects should be as 
 little injurious as possible. In the same way the expressed object 
 of enclosure legislation was on the one hand to facilitate and 
 regularise an imavoidable and on the whole beneficial change, and 
 on the other to protect the interests of the smaller and poorer people 
 who would be affected by it. It would be too much to say that 
 Governments and legislators were always as successful in some parts 
 of their policy as they or we should have liked them to be ; but 
 that it was their policy is beyond question, and no impartial person 
 can read the record of their Acts and administration without realis- 
 ing that this was so. 
 
 The Alleged Depopulation 
 
 The oft-repeated statements as to the results of enclosures ia 
 the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries being to cause depopula- 
 tion cannot be sustained. There is no doubt that Dr. Cunningham's 
 summing up of the case is correct : 
 
 Despite the reiterated allegation (by the opponents of enclosure), 
 it is impossible to believe that enclosing in the eighteenth century 
 imphed either more pasture farming or less employment for labour. 
 The prohibition of export kept down the price of wool ; the bounty on 
 exportation gave direct encouragement to corn-growiag ; the improved 
 agriculture gave more employment to labour than the old.'^ 
 
 Even Dr. Slater, who labours hard through many pages with 
 numerous quotations from contemporary writers to maintain the 
 opposite view, admits " the substantial accuracy " ^ of Dr. 
 Cunningham's opinion, and only defends the statements as to de- 
 population on the ground that they only referred to the effect of the 
 enclosure of arable common fields, and that they must only be con- 
 sidered with regard to the part of the coimtry the person making 
 them is familiar with, and his iaferences with regard to other parts 
 shoidd be neglected. This is clearly a feeble defence. He tells us 
 that " the opponents of enclosure of the sixteenth, seventeenth, 
 and eighteenth centuries almost without exception opposed simply 
 the enclosure of arable common fields ; they usually expressly 
 approve the enclosure of waste, as increasing the means of sub- 
 sistence of the people " ; ^ but in his own book again and again he 
 gives examples, of cases in which the outcry and complaint was 
 against the enclosure of waste, and other writers multiply these 
 examples many-fold. 
 
 1 Growth of English Inchist^y and Commerce, vol. ii. p. 384. 
 
 2 P. 92. ' P. 92. 
 
264 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 Professor Gonner distinctly says that the popular discontent 
 and risings in the middle of the sixteenth century were not necessarily 
 associated with the conversion of arable, and that they were prob- 
 ably just as much due to the enclosures of commons and the con- 
 sequent loss of what the peasantry considered to be their common 
 rights. Further, the allegation and complaint in the present day 
 is not that arable land was converted into pasture, but that the 
 waste, the commons, were enclosed and " filched " from the labour- 
 ing poor and the people. Dr. Slater does not deny " that all kinds 
 of enclosure proceeding over all parts of England and Wales, on 
 the whole, tended to increase population, urban and rural." All 
 he says is that this might be quite true, and yet it might " equally 
 be right that the enclosure of arable fields in the ' champion ' 
 districts of England caused rural depopulation." I am not aware 
 that this was denied. The bringing into cultivation of a vast 
 amount of land which had been waste and the growth of towns and 
 new industrial districts caused much readjustment in agriculture 
 to meet the new conditions. In some districts arable cultivation in- 
 creased, in others it diminished, and generally there was in addition 
 a large increase in pasture. The result of enclosure was to materially 
 increase the produce of arable land per acre, and that alone might 
 reduce the total area under the plough. 
 
 Evidence to the Contrary 
 
 As a matter of fact, however, a Select Committee of the House 
 of Commons in 1801 reported that in the districts which had been 
 enclosed by private Acts between 1755 and 1800 — embracing 
 1,767,651 acres — ^in place of the area under wheat being diminished, 
 it had increased from 155,572 acres to 165,837 acres. The attitude 
 of the critics of enclosure is aptly illustrated by Dr. Slater's comment 
 on these figures : " But these figures include all sorts of enclosure." 
 Of course they do : they would be worthless if they did not. He 
 dwells on those which exclude the cases where waste only was 
 enclosed. But why should those cases be excluded ? What we 
 want to know is — what was the result of enclosure as a whole ? 
 If there was a decrease of arable cultivation in one village and a 
 larger increase of it in another, and a great addition to the pasture 
 land enclosed in both, it is clear that on the whole there would be 
 no depopulation, although there might be some shifting of the 
 people from one district to another. A writer in the district which 
 the people left might tell a tale of reduced population, but unless 
 
CH. Ill EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 265 
 
 he also saw the other districts where there was an increase in the 
 number of the people his testimony is too partial and incomplete 
 to be of any value, and the filling of pages with repetitions of similar 
 accounts of similarly limited experience only indicates shifting of 
 population without at all proving that the total number of people 
 was reduced. 
 
 Between 1517 and 1636 special returns as to the extent of the 
 enclosures and the displacement of people were made by seven 
 Royal Commissioners. The particulars and statistics collected by 
 them certainly do not sustain the allegations and charges that were 
 made by some contemporary writers. Over a period of more than 
 a century and a half — 1455 to 1607 — these agrarian changes only 
 seem to have affected some 2^ to 3 per cent of the whole area of 
 the 24 counties most immediately concerned, and the number of 
 persons displaced is variously put at from 30,000 to 50,000. 
 
 Mr. Hewlett ^ compared the growth of population between 
 1760 and 1780 in 89 parishes which had been enclosed with 450 
 which had not been enclosed, and found that, taking the fijrst and 
 last five years, the births in the enclosed parishes increased 21 per 
 cent, and in the unenclosed parishes only 9 per cent. In very 
 many districts there was a distinct increase in population as the 
 result of the eighteenth-century enclosures. In some there was a 
 decrease and some were stationary. 
 
 Sir John Sinclair ^ considered that the idea that the enclosure 
 and cultivation of waste lands tended to depopulate the country 
 and diminish the number of cottagers was a delusion " as little 
 justified by experience as it is evidently contrary to reason and 
 common sense." He contended that it secured them a good market 
 for their labour, provided constant employment and increased 
 their wages. Instances were referred to in which population had 
 been diminishing prior to enclosure and had largely increased 
 after it. 
 
 Professor Gonner's Concluswns 
 
 Professor Gonner iavestigated the whole question of the alleged 
 depopulation, and his marshalling of the facts is as clear as his 
 conclusions are convincing. The following extracts indicate what 
 his judgment upon the evidence is : 
 
 Speaking generally, the notion that the sole aim and result of 
 enclosure during this period (the seventeenth century) was the con- 
 
 1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Inclosing (1772). 
 2 President of the Board of Agriculture at the end of the eighteenth century. 
 
266 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 version of arable to pasture, must be abandoned. No doubt this took 
 place in many cases. No doubt, too, that in the earliest stage of the 
 movement conversion was an important, though possibly an exaggerated 
 feature. But the description does not apply to the later sixteenth and 
 seventeenth centuries as a whole.^ 
 
 Taking the (seventeenth) century as a whole the grave appre- 
 hensions expressed as to depopulation or diminution of arable were not 
 fulfilled. In large measure inclosure was promoted in view of agri- 
 cultural or even arable necessities. . . . The opportunities which were 
 offering for skilful farming made some alteration imperative. Again, 
 at the very close of the century there is the positive assertion that less 
 land is devoted to stock than was recently the case.^ 
 
 It is not too much to say that the advantages of inclosing wastes 
 and commons are accepted as indubitable even by those whose judg- 
 ment was not otherwise favourable to the new policy.' 
 
 From an early time the dangers of depopulation and popular 
 distress had been the most cogent arguments against inclosure. They 
 were treated as deserving serious consideration by the Crown, the Privy 
 Council, or the Parliament as the case might be.* 
 
 As regards the eighteenth century. Professor Gonner is quite clear 
 that " there is no doubt that the general statement that inclosure 
 occasioned depopulation is incorrect." He tells us that " So far as 
 the counties, or even large districts or portions of counties are con- 
 cerned, there is really no evidence of depopulation.^ 
 
 " No one of the tests employed to investigate the truth of the 
 general allegation as to the efiect of inclosure on population is, perhaps, 
 absolutely conclusive ; but taken together they form very strong 
 evidence. In general they are mutually corroborative ; and it is 
 quite clear that a decline in population or occupation far less marked 
 or widespread than that depicted by the adverse critics of the day, 
 would have left definite traces in these statistics. Moreover, their 
 strength is made the more apparent by the singular paucity of the 
 testimony adduced on the other side." ® 
 
 Confirmation from Dr. Slater 
 
 Dr. Slater admits that : 
 
 Those who had the requisite skill, knowledge, energy, and capital 
 survived the crisis : they were able to take up the farms which their 
 weaker neighbours were compelled to relinquish : to send, in almost 
 every case, a larger surplus of food from the lands of parish, to maintain 
 the state and power of England, and to pay higher rents. In perhaps 
 the majority of cases they raised a larger gross produce, and provided 
 maintenance and employment for a larger population than before. 
 In some cases even (though these were rare exceptions) the labouring 
 population gained in material prosperity as weU as in numbers.'' 
 
 1 P. 186. ^ P. 184. » P. 296. « P. 87. 
 
 " P. 443. « P. 445. ' P. 130. 
 
CH. Ill EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 267 
 
 Indeed such extracts from the body of his book as the following 
 seem out of harmony with the conclusion which we have quoted 
 from his preface : 
 
 While enclosure in a predominantly corn-growing district is associ- 
 ated with " depopulation," in a pastoral district it is associated with 
 increased employment, increased local popidation, a larger production 
 of food, and, on the whole, increased local prosperity. Thus, though 
 there was a rebeUion in Devon and Cornwall in 1549, the same 
 year as Ket's rebeUion, enclosure was not one of the complaints of the 
 rebels. And this was not because enclosure had not begun in Devon 
 and Cornwall, because, as a matter of fact, enclosm'e had advanced 
 fmther in Devon and Cornwall than in most other counties.^ 
 
 Enclosure tended to assist urban industry, therefore, by an in- 
 creased labour supply, an increased market, and, perhaps also, an 
 increased supply of capital ... we find increased population, increased 
 production of aU sorts of commodities, increased national resources for 
 purposes of taxation and foreign war.^ 
 
 Enclosure in the northern and western parts of England in the 
 
 seventeenth and eighteenth centuries increased the area under tUlage.* 
 
 Nor is there any period of the nineteenth century in which any serious 
 
 rural depopulation as a result of enclosxire, and consequent laying down 
 
 ' in pasture, of common fields, could be asserted." * 
 
 The gross agricultural produce of the country as a whole was there- 
 fore increased by enclosure.* 
 
 The contentions of those who, Uke Dr. Price, denounced 
 enclosures in the latter part of the eighteenth century, and asserted 
 that the population was declining, were completely refuted and 
 disposed of by the Census of 1801. Indisputable facts killed their 
 elaborately constructed theories. 
 
 There was Disturbance and, Distress, hut it was exaggerated 
 
 On the other hand, there is the Tindoubted fact that widespread 
 discontent and complaint prevailed with regard to the sixteenth- 
 century enclosures, that vagrancy largely increased, and that many 
 contemporary writers attributed the distress to enclosure and 
 eviction. We have already said enough to indicate that there 
 were other causes at work, and to suggest that these enclosures and 
 consoUdations were the almost inevitable outcome of other far- 
 reaching and irresistible economic movements and social and 
 commercial developments. One result of such shifting of the popu- 
 lation as did take place, and one part of the evidence that such 
 shifting took place, was the extent to which people from the enclosed 
 
 1 P. 160. ' P. 266. » P. 104. ■* P. 93. ^ P. 266. 
 
268 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 and consolidated villages found their way to the unenclosed villages, 
 and squatted and colonised on the waste lands of their manors in 
 numbers and in a way which made it difficult to keep them out. 
 The result was that the Poor Law of 1597 expressly sanctioned the 
 spending of local funds in erecting cottages on the waste for the 
 impotent poor, from which arose bitter complaints that idle rogues 
 and vagabonds were foisted upon the locality. It seems perfectly 
 clear that there was much disturbance and irritation, and often 
 distress ; also that the accounts of contemporary pamphleteers and 
 writers were very highly coloured and much exaggerated. 
 
 There is much evidence that some of the opposition to enclosure 
 and of the disorder which was from time to time caused, was entirely 
 opposed to the general advancement and well-being of the com- 
 munity, and was in fact very similar in character to the rioting 
 and machine-breaking which has at various times in different 
 industries been resorted to in some parts of the country when new 
 machinery has been introduced. This was the case in connection 
 with the drainage and enclosure of fen districts in Lincoln- 
 shire and Yorkshire, and the great fens in, and surrounded by, 
 Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, and Norfolk. This area was largely 
 reclaimed by the Romans, and was then a fertile area. It after- 
 wards reverted to marsh again, owing to the incursions of the sea, 
 which the people there seem to have been unable to prevent. The 
 re-reclamation of this country was beneficent work, if there ever was 
 any. In connection with the reclamation and drainage of the Isle 
 of Axholm there was much rioting and disorder. 
 
 The Commoners led a kind of predatory life ; fisMng and shooting 
 wild fowl, a lazy, lawless existence, almost in a state of nature. They 
 kept a few geese, some sheep if well ofE, and perhaps a cow or a horse. 
 They had freedom to range over a large tract of land which they had 
 hitherto called their own ; and any change which would compel a 
 settled and laborious life appeared to them odious, and they opposed it 
 with the vigour that an open-air career had given them.-"- 
 
 They complained of the land allotted to them, and opposed 
 the reclamation in every way. They cut the dykes, broke down 
 the embankments and fences, and attacked the workmen and burnt 
 their tools. When the morass of the Great Level of the Cambridge- 
 shire Fens — where some 36,000 acres were in winter a vast expanse 
 of water, and in summer a dreary swamp growing nothing but a 
 little coarse hay — was drained and enclosed by the Earl of Bedford 
 
 ^ Scrutton, Commons and Oommxm Fields, p. 106. 
 
CH. Ill EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 269 
 
 and others at an enormous cost, which ruined most of those who 
 went into the undertaking, the fen men were up in arms and 
 destroyed the works. Well may Mr. Scrutton say : " Here, as in 
 other instances, the enclosures of the fens, the most meritorious 
 class of improvements is resisted by the least deserving class of 
 Commoners." 
 
 Similar disturbances took place in the eighteenth century. 
 When Holland Fen in Lincolnshire was enclosed in 1768 the fences 
 were pulled down in the night, and the Commissioner was shot at, 
 and there was much rioting and bloodshed. But Allen's county 
 History says : " Many who had used every effort to oppose the 
 enclosure lived afterwards to see their folly." An instance is given 
 of one man with a doubtful character, who had made a scanty living 
 by fishing and fowling. He rented land after the enclosure, and 
 died worth £20,000, respected by all who knew him. In Somerset 
 the enclosure of Brent Marsh and Sedgemoor Fen was so furiously 
 opposed that for a long time it was suspended. Afterwards, the 
 official reporter of the Board of Agriculture said with reference 
 to it : " Scarcely a farmer can now be found who does not possess 
 a considerable landed property, and many whose fathers Uved in 
 sloth and idleness on the precarious support of a few half-starved 
 cows or limping geese, are now in affluence." 
 
 Difficulties and, what was done to meet them 
 
 There is no doubt, however, that in some directions the poor 
 suffered by the eighteenth and early nineteenth century enclosures, 
 if they gained in others. Against the general improvement in 
 cultivation and prosperity, and consequent increase of employment 
 and population, had to be set loss of fuel, which without legal right 
 they had been allowed to gather so long as the land remained waste, 
 and loss of pasture for cows, which again without legal right had 
 been permitted so long as the land was not otherwise used. In 
 some cases, where rights attached to the cottages but not to the 
 cottagers who rented them, the land allotted to the cottages on 
 enclosure, of course, went to the owner. In other cases, where 
 the occupiers of the cottages were the freeholders or copyholders 
 their share of the expenses of the allotment scheme were more 
 than they could pay, and they sold the land allotted to them. 
 
 When we proceed to consider what was done to meet this diffi- 
 culty we must remember, first, that in the earher days of enclosure 
 there was still much open land left, and some of this was usually 
 
270 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 accessible. The difficulty increased as time went on and enclosure 
 and cultivation spread, so that the population increased and the 
 accessible open land diminished. Accordingly, we find in the en- 
 closure schemes and in contemporary records that in the later 
 periods more attention was paid to this phase, and the claims of 
 the cottagers were carefully considered. The second point is that 
 a distinction existed and was always drawn between those cottagers 
 whose cottages had common rights attached to them and those 
 whose cottages had no such rights, but who had used the commons, 
 by sufferance and not by legal right, possibly quite as much as 
 those who had a recognised right to do so. 
 
 Common right cottages received definite and separate allot- 
 ments. Other cottagers who had no definite legal rights did not 
 receive separate allotments. Whatever was done for them was 
 done for them as a class, and not as individuals, and done as of 
 grace. Again, we must discriminate amongst the occupiers of 
 common right cottages. First, there were those who owned the 
 cottages they occupied. They got an allotment ; but it was some- 
 times too small to be of any value to them ; or the expense of 
 fencing, etc. was too great. In such cases, as we have already 
 remarked, they would often sell their holding or their allotment to 
 an adjoining owner. Then there was the occupier of the common 
 right cottage who was not the owner. When the allotment was 
 made it was made to the owner and not to the occupier, as the 
 right of common attached to the property and not to the occupier. 
 As the owner had to bear his share of the cost and the enclosure — 
 legal, parhamentary, roads, fencing, etc. — ^he either required an 
 additional rent in respect of the allotment, or he separated it from 
 the original holding and consolidated it with some of his other land. 
 
 So far as the occupiers of cottages to which no common rights 
 attached were concerned, their claims were ultra-legal, and were 
 consequently differently treated. They were claims not of right, 
 but for privileges which had been permitted by the owners of the 
 right to common. In the later years of enclosure these claims were 
 given more and more consideration, and the general custom was 
 to settle them by setting aside some money or land for the use of 
 the neighbouring poor. On the whole, there is no doubt that this 
 class suffered loss through being deprived of the extra legal privileges 
 which they had enjoyed by sufferance. The extent to which they 
 were compensated by the general improvement in agriculture and 
 employment which resulted from the enclosures is a disputed point. 
 
cH.m EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 271 
 
 but tte number and persistence of the complaints in the eighteenth 
 century and the attention that is given to them in the literature of 
 the period, make it clear that the change which enclosure involved 
 was a great disturbance, which inflicted a considerable amount of 
 suffering and loss upon many of the poor in the districts concerned. 
 A more generous allotment of land to them, even though they 
 had no legal claim, would have been good poHcy in every way. 
 Where it was done, and in many cases it was, the results were most 
 satisfactory to every one concerned. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 SOME ECONOMIC FACTORS AND THEIR EFFECTS 
 
 Another movement of the eighteenth century and the early parts 
 of the nineteenth was the reduction in number of yeoman farmers 
 and small holders — a most valuable element in the nation. It was 
 the small freeholders who were the backbone of the Parliamentary 
 forces which defeated Charles I. and rendered the Commonwealth 
 possible. It was they who enabled Fairfax and Cromwell to break 
 the power of the King and the country nobles and gentry in the 
 Civil War. 
 
 The Decrease in Yeoman Land-owners 
 
 Yeoman farmers were numerous and fairly prosperous up to 
 the Revolution of 1688 and into the early part of the next century ; 
 but during the next hundred years they diminished in number 
 and gradually disappeared. The causes were economic and social. 
 The expenses attending enclosure induced many to sell. Then 
 agriculture was improving rapidly, and more capital was required 
 to cultivate the land satisfactorily than had formerly been the case. 
 The result was that the small owner found it increasingly difficult 
 to hold his own. 
 
 The most potent cause of the disappearance of the yeoman 
 landholders was that trade and manufactures were developing 
 rapidly. A new wealthy class was created. Successful merchants 
 and manufacturers bought land, obtained titles, and founded 
 families. The greater part of our nobility have sprung from these 
 sources during the last 200 years. 
 
 James Lowther, created Earl of Lonsdale in 1784, was great- 
 grandson of a Turkey merchant. The ancestor of the Barings was a 
 clothier in Devonshire : Anthony Petty, father of Sir W. Petty, and 
 the ancestor on the female side of the Petty Fitzmauiices, was a clothier 
 at Romsay in Hampshire : Sir Josiah Child's son became Earl of Tilney. 
 
 272 
 
CH. IV SOME ECONOMIC FACTORS 273 
 
 The landowners in the West of England " who now," in Defoe's words, 
 " carry their heads so high," made their fortunes in the clothing trade. 
 And not only did a new race of landowners thus spring up, but the old 
 families enriched themselves, and so were enabled to buy more land by 
 intermarriage with the commercial magnates. The Fitzmaurices, for 
 instance, inherited the wealth of the Petty's : Child's daughter married 
 the Marquis of Worcester, and, by a second marriage. Lord GrenviUe of 
 Potheridge : Lord Conway and Walpole married daughters of John 
 Shorter, merchant of London. . . . Contrast this fusion of classes with 
 the French society of the last century, with its impoverished nobility, 
 living often on the seignorial rights and rent charges of their alienated 
 estates, but hardly ever intermarrying with the commercial classes : 
 or to Prussia, where the two classes remained entirely separate, and 
 could not even purchase one another's land.-*- 
 
 Wealthy buyers acquired land at prices which the small free- 
 holders were glad to accept.^ The whole movement of the times 
 was imfavouiable to them, and disposed them to sell. Their lands 
 were arable and small arable lands would not pay, and were bound 
 to be combined in larger holdings. According to Arthur Young, 
 the little farmers worked harder and were to all intents and purposes 
 as low in the comforts of life as the day labourers. Nor were they 
 superior to them in knowledge and capacity ; but the new class of 
 larger farmers were in advance of them in enterprise and under- 
 standing. They were indeed " quite a different sort of men . . . 
 in point of knowledge and ideas " ; and with their improved methods 
 and agriculture the yeomen found it difficult to compete. 
 
 The Advance and, Changes in Manufacturing 
 
 Another difficulty which overtook them was the gradual destruc- 
 tion of domestic industries as the result of the introduction of 
 machinery, the use of water power, the invention of the steam engine, 
 and the growth of the factory system. A further phase of this 
 change was the movement of manufacturers and population to other 
 
 ^ Toynbee, The Industrial Revolution, p. 40. 
 
 ^ " Why did the small freeholder disappear ? Because five times during the 
 war with Napoleon wheat was worth more than 100s. a quarter. Then land was 
 worth forty-two times its rent, and there were people in the cities willing to pay 
 that price for land because of the special relation of land then to poUtical influence. 
 The great oapitaUsts who were making money in the towns wanted land and the 
 political influence it carried with it." — Professor Armstrong. 
 
 " What has caused the extreme concentration of land ownership in England 
 is not so much the conversion of the feudal tenures into fee simple, the spoliation of 
 the rehgious houses, and the enclosure of the commons, as this effect of the rise in 
 the value of the land. The small estates, of which there were many in England 
 two centuries, and even a century ago, have become parts of large estates mainly 
 by purchase." — Henry George, Social Problems, p. 219. 
 
 T 
 
274 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 localities, with the result that with the decay of the small towns 
 they lost their market, and the means of commimication were 
 still too defective to enable them to send their produce farther 
 afield. Lastly, the developing prosperity of the larger towns and 
 manufacturing districts, and the rising standard of comfort, tempted 
 the more capable, and enterprising of them to realise their property 
 and move off to the growiag centres where there were better open- 
 ings for them and their families. The enclosure of waste lands, 
 and the consequent alteration in the position of the small free- 
 holders, also made theic position more difficult.^ 
 
 The changes made by the industrial revolution of the last thirty 
 years of the eighteenth century, due to the invention of machinery 
 and the steam engine, were enormous, and they were brought about 
 so suddenly and quickly that the disturbance of their existiag 
 conditions was nothing less than a social and economic upheaval. 
 Kaye invented the fly-shuttle in 1750 ; Hargreaves patented the 
 spinning-jenny ru 1770 ; Arkwright successfully established a mill 
 at Cromford with his spinning machine in 1771 ; Crompton invented 
 the mule in 1779 ; Cartwright patented the power-loom in 1785 ; 
 Watt took out his first patent for his steam engine in 1769, and it 
 was erected in factories in 1775. At the same time similar advances 
 were made ia the coal and iron industries. The combination of 
 these inventions abohshed home spinning and weaving which had 
 been so largely carried on in agricultural districts as a " supple- 
 mentary industry to the cultivation of the soil." The revolution 
 made England what she is to-day, gave her fifty years' start of 
 other European countries in the race for commercial supremacy, 
 and increased her wealth and population enormously ; but at the 
 same time it transferred important industries from the homes of 
 the people in agricultural districts, and thereby deprived them of 
 a valuable source of addition to their income. William Cobbett 
 writing in 1826 said : 
 
 The villages down this valley of Avon, and indeed it was the same 
 in almost every part of this country, and in the North and West of 
 Hampshire also, used to have great employment for the women and 
 children in the carding and spinning of wool for the making of broad- 
 cloth. This was a very general employment for the women and girls, 
 but it is now wholly gone.^ 
 
 ^ Toynbee, The. Industrial Revolution, pp. 43, 44. 
 ^ Rural Rides, p. 385. 
 
CH. IV SOME ECONOMIC FACTORS 275 
 
 The Improvements in Agriculture 
 
 The changes in agriculture which took place during the period 
 1700-1815 were great and far-reaching. Unquestionably they 
 were an enormous advance. They meant the substitution of some 
 approach to scientific for altogether unscientific culture. " It has 
 been found," said Laurence in 1727, in his Duty of a Steward, 
 " by long experience, that common or open fields are great 
 hindrances to the pubhc good and to the honest improvement 
 which every one might make of his own." 
 
 " The productiveness of agriculture in the eighteenth century," 
 says Thorold Rogers, " was, it is plain, when land was properly culti- 
 vated, four times that of the thirteenth, both as regards corn and stock. 
 The weight of the fatted ox was raised at least threefold. A similar 
 but not so extensive an increase had taken place in sheep, while the 
 weight of the fleece had become fully four times above the average of 
 the earher period." ■*■ 
 
 " Enclosures," says Arnold Toynbee, " brought an extension of 
 arable cultivation and the tillage of inferior soils ; and in small farms of 
 forty to one hundred acres, where the land was exhausted by repeated 
 corn crops, the farm buildings of clay and mud walls and three-fourths 
 of the estate often saturated with water, consohdation into farms of 
 100 to 500 acres meant rotation of crops, leases of nineteen years and 
 good farm buildings. The period was one of great agricultural advance ; 
 the breed of cattle was improved, rotation of crops was generally 
 introduced, the steam plough was invented, agricultural societies were 
 instituted. ... It was said in 1813 that during the previous ten years 
 agricultural produce had increased by one-fourth, and this was an 
 increase upon a great increase in the preceding generation." ^ 
 
 High Prices and Rents during the French War, and the 
 Fall afterwards 
 
 The real trouble of the time was the high prices which pre- 
 vailed during the French War. This increased the cost of living 
 greatly and made the lot of the poor hard. On the other hand, it 
 was one of the causes that stimulated enterprise and the extension 
 of cultivation and the consequent increased employment of labour. 
 Had it not been for the enclosures and the improved farming which 
 they rendered possible, there would have been much less employ- 
 ment in agricultural districts, the supply of food would have been 
 very deficient, and prices would have been higher even than they 
 
 1 Six Geniuries, p. 477. ' The Industrial Eevohition, p. 68. 
 
276 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 were, with the result that the position of the poor would have been 
 much worse than it was. 
 
 One great cause of the trouble and depression which followed 
 the close of the great French War was the great rise in farm rents, 
 which the improvements made in the properties and the high prices 
 obtainable for agricultural^ products during the war had rendered 
 possible. For a hundred years after the Eevolution of 1688 agri- 
 cultural rents were on the whole fairly stationary,^ but Porter 
 teUs us that between 1790 and 1833 they were doubled.^ In some 
 cases the increases in rent were far greater than this. Much of 
 the increase was due to the capital which had been spent in improve- 
 ments after the enclosures. The first Lord Leicester was said to 
 have expended £400,000 in improving his estate. When wealthy 
 merchants and manufacturers bought up land and formed estates 
 they spent money freely in improvements and developments. When 
 the price of corn fell after the war — ^in spite of the Corn Laws which 
 were passed to keep it up — there was serious trouble and difficulty. 
 The old rents could not be paid, and much of the outlay which had 
 been made on agricultural estates became unremunerative. Every- 
 body suffered severely. It was one of the results of the prolonged 
 and costly war and the conditions which it created while it lasted. 
 The Poor Law allowance system which was abolished in 1834 also 
 had disastrous effects, and accentuated the trouble of difficult times 
 by lowering wages, demoralising the people, and encouraging the 
 poorest to beget large families which they could not maintain. 
 
 In 1782 the price of corn was 53s. 9d. per quarter, and that was 
 a high figure compared with the prices of the previous fifty years. 
 From 1795 to 1805 the average price was 81s. 2d., and from 1805 
 to 1815 it was 97s. 6d. In 1800 and 1801 the maximum price 
 reached was 127s. and 128s. 6d. In 1812 the average price was 
 126s. 6d. ; in 1814 it was 74s. 4d. ; in 1821, 56s. Id. ; and in 1822 
 it fell to 44s. 7d. 
 
 The reaction from the heavy expenditure and high prices and 
 high rents of the war period, and a series of disastrous harvests, 
 together with Europe impoverished, combined to cause a period of 
 unexampled depression and distress. Agricultural and manu- 
 facturing districts alike were impoverished, and a whole generation 
 came and went after the close of the French War in 1815 before 
 anything like recovery from one of the most trying periods in 
 British history began to make itself felt. 
 
 * Eden, vol. ii. p. 292. ^ Progress of the Nation, pp. 151, 165. 
 
CH. IV SOME ECONOMIC FACTORS 277 
 
 From the Fifteenth to Nineteenth Century 
 
 A great change took place in the condition of the country and its 
 people between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries, and especially 
 in the eighteenth century. At the time of the Domesday survey 
 the population was chiefly in the southern and eastern counties. 
 The north of England, especially Yorkshire, had been laid waste 
 by WiUiam I. after the revolt of 1068. For half a century the land 
 " lay bare of cultivation and men " for sixty miles north of York, 
 and for centuries it did not recover from this devastation. 
 Domesday Book records district after district and manor after manor 
 in Yorkshire as waste. Till the seventeenth century Lancashire and 
 the West Kidiag of Yorkshire were the poorest coimties in England. 
 
 Writing of the condition of things in the twelfth and thirteenth 
 centuries, Eogers ^ says : 
 
 The houses of the villagers were mean and dirty. Brick-making 
 was a lost art, stone was found only in a few places, and though cheap 
 enough, was certainly not generally employed, even where it was plenti- 
 ful and within reach. The better class of yeomen had timber houses — 
 built on a frame, the space being either lathed and plastered within 
 and without, or filled with clay kneaded up with chopped straw. The 
 floor was the bare earth, though it was sometimes pitched with split 
 flints. The sleeping apartments under the thatched roof were reached 
 by a ladder or rude staircase. . . . The wood fire was on a hob of clay. 
 Chimneys were unknown, except in castles and manor houses, and the 
 smoke escaped through the door or whatever other aperture it could 
 reach. Artificial light was too costly for common use. 
 
 The floor of the homestead was filthy enough, but the surroundings 
 were filthier stUl. Close by the door stood the mixen, a collection of 
 every abomination. 
 
 The house of the peasant cottager was ruder stiU. Most of them 
 were probably bmlt of posts wattled and plastered with clay or mud, 
 with an upper story of poles, reached by a ladder. 
 
 Roads in the Stuart Period, 
 
 Macaulay tells us that in the time of Charles II. only half the 
 country was arable or pasture, the remainder was moor, forest and 
 fen. Thousands of square miles were marsh, forest and heath, and 
 were of so little value that much of it which was not common iu 
 law was allowed by its owners to be used as common. Squatters 
 and trespassers were tolerated to an extent that would now be un- 
 dreamt of. The roads of the country passed mainly over or by 
 1 Six Centuries, p. 67. 
 
278 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 woods, heath, swamp or warren, and unenclosed country. There 
 was scarcely a hedgerow to be seen. Great areas were as bare as 
 Salisbury Plain. John OgUby, Cosmographer Eoyal, describing 
 a tour through England, says that in the fifty miles from Abingdon 
 to Gloucester there was not a single enclosure, and scarcely one 
 between Biggleswade and Lincoln. Red deer and wild bulls were 
 found in the forests of the south and west. Wild cats, eagles, 
 bustards, and cranes were common in certain parts. The last wild 
 boars were killed duriag the civil war. " On the best roads the 
 ruts were deep, the descents precipitous, and the way often such 
 as it was hardly possible to distinguish in the dusk from the un- 
 enclosed heath and fen which lay on both sides." Often the whole 
 width of the road was not available for vehicles. The mud lay deep 
 right and left, and there was only a narrow track of firm ground 
 above the quagmire. Obstructions and quarrels and great delays 
 were common because the drivers of conveyances would not give 
 way to allow others to pass lest they should stick fast in the slough, 
 as many did. 
 
 In 1685 a viceroy of Ireland was five hours in travelling fourteen 
 miles in Wales. At another he had to walk a great part of the way, 
 and his wife was carried in a litter. Markets were often inaccessible 
 for months, and produce rotted while there was scarcity a few miles 
 away. In Kent and Sussex only the strongest horses could get 
 through the bog in winter. When Prince George of Denmark went 
 to Petworth in wet weather he was six hours in going nine miles. 
 Several of the carriages of his retinue were upset and damaged. 
 Most of the conveyances in that district were pulled by oxen. The 
 cost of carrjdng goods by stage waggons was from London to 
 Birmingham £7 a ton, from London to Exeter £12 a ton. On by- 
 roads, and north of York and west of Exeter, goods were carried 
 by long trains of pack-horses. Highwaymen were common. 
 
 Nearly Half the Country Waste Two Hundred Years Ago 
 
 Two hundred years ago the condition of the northern counties 
 was desolate. Cultivation — certainly in Yorkshire — ^was very 
 primitive and defective. Gregory King estimated that in England 
 and Wales in the first half of the eighteenth century 11,000,000 
 acres were arable ; 10,000,000 acres pasture and meadow ; 1,000,000 
 acres houses, gardens, and orchards, or only three-fifths of the 
 whole country. A land agent thought that one -half the country 
 was waste in 1727. 
 
CH. IV SOME ECONOMIC FACTORS 279 
 
 Defoe, in his Tour through the Whole Island (1725), said the 
 country south of the Trent was by far the largest as well as the 
 richest and most populous. In 1700 the population of the six 
 northern counties was less than one-fifth of that of all England. 
 The counties in which the great enclosures of the sixteenth century 
 had taken place were the wealthiest and most prosperous. They 
 were by far the best cultivated. 
 
 The common fields had the best soil in the country, but they 
 were extremely badly cultivated. Arthur Young in his Southern 
 Tour (1772) said : " Never were more miserable crops seen than 
 all the spring ones in the common fields : absolutely beneath 
 contempt." ^ 
 
 Wages and Conditions in the Eighteenth Century 
 
 It was stated that in 1737 the day labourers " by their large 
 wages and cheapness of all necessaries enjoyed better dwellings, 
 diet, and apparel in England than the husbandmen or farmers did 
 in other countries." ^ Writing in 1796, Eden said that at no time 
 since the time of Elizabeth could the labouring classes acquire 
 such a portion of the necessaries and conveniences of life by a day's 
 work as they could before the late unparalleled advance in the 
 price of the necessaries of life.^ 
 
 Toynbee says that on the whole the agricultural labourer, at 
 any rate in the south of England, was much better ofE in the middle 
 of the eighteenth century than his descendants were in the middle 
 of the nineteenth.* In the north of England the position was 
 difEerent ; indeed it may be roughly said that the relative positions 
 of the labourer north and south of the Trent had been exactly 
 reversed in the course of a century.^ This was mainly due to the 
 decay of manufacturing and home industries in the south and the 
 extraordinary growth of the great manufacturing and mining 
 districts in the north, which entirely transformed the conditions 
 in the matter of the demand for labour. 
 
 One reason why agricidtural labourers' wages did not rise 
 more with the prosperity of agriculture between 1750 and 1830 
 was that in the old days the younger labourers were single men and 
 boarded in the farmhouses. They could not marry until there was 
 a cottage vacant, and cottages were limited in number by the land- 
 
 1 p. 384 " State of Great Britain (1737), p. 177. 
 
 ' State of the Poor, vol. i. p. 478. * The Iridustrial Eevolution, p. 47 
 
 « Ibid. p. 47. 
 
28o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v 
 
 owners and farmers in order to keep down the rates. But when 
 the farmers were prosperous for two or three generations and they 
 rose in social position, they refused to board their labourers in 
 their houses. Then the labourers, encouraged by the terribly 
 mistaken Poor Law allowance system, married recklessly, over- 
 crowded the cottages, and overstocked the rural labour market.^ 
 
 Although the labourers lost in some respects by the enclosure 
 of the waste land and commons during the eighteenth century, 
 they gained in others, and their wages and general position improved 
 until the great wars of the latter part of the eighteenth and the 
 early years of the nineteenth centuries sent up prices and the 
 cost of living to such figures that the increase in their wages 
 was more than counterbalanced. 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 That enclosure was a necessity is beyond question. Without it, 
 efficient, progressive, scientific farming was impossible. It is 
 equally obvious and certain that it was inevitable that a great 
 and widespread change affecting the cultivation of the land, the 
 industry on which the vast majority of the people depended for 
 their livelihood, must be attended by inconvenience, loss, and even 
 suffering, and. therefore by discontent and complaint on the part 
 of particular classes. It is the general experience in all cases where 
 new and better systems and methods supersede old ones, to the 
 great advantage of the community as a whole, that the change 
 involves hardship and loss to some, and especially to those whose 
 capacity, age, and financial position do not enable them to adapt 
 themselves to the new conditions imposed by the new methods, or 
 to transfer themselves to other districts or employments. What 
 is desirable is that when these beneficial and inevitable changes 
 take place, the burden and suffering which are caused to individuals 
 and classes should be reduced to the minimum. Unfortunately 
 this has seldom been done. In the past, as now, things were left 
 very largely to work themselves out. The result was that, as in 
 the case of the introduction of railways, the old coaching industry 
 and the inns, smiths, stablemen, and others suffered severely, and 
 as in the case of the introduction of steam and the power-loom and 
 the spinning-jenny into the weaving industries, the hand-loom 
 weavers and other home workers were thrown out of employment, 
 and we had riots and the breaking of machinery, so in the case of 
 
 1 Toynbee, p. 91. 
 
CH.IV SOME ECONOMIC FACTORS 281 
 
 the enclosure of land for cultivation and the change from the common 
 field system to the modern farm, disturbance and loss and consequent 
 complaint from time to time ensued. 
 
 The minute investigation to which the proceedings in connec- 
 tion with enclosures extending over several centuries have been 
 subjected recently by painstaking inquirers has not, however, 
 disclosed any evidence of anything savouring of widespread fraud 
 or intentional injustice. Nor is there anything that would justify 
 a suggestion that the legal rights of any individuals or class were 
 systematically or deliberately violated or ignored. That there was 
 discontent and complaint is beyond question. Our knowledge of 
 human nature would lead us to say that under the circumstances 
 and conditions which had prevailed and then existed it was in- 
 evitable that this should be ; as it would also prepare us to expect 
 that there would be some persons who would endeavour to overreach 
 their fellows, and so far as there was opportunity for so doing they 
 would succeed. It is perfectly clear, however, that it was not the 
 intention of the legal and legislative authorities of the time that 
 this should be, and from time to time steps were taken, the object 
 of which was to ensure that equity should be respected and justice 
 done. Misconceptions prevailed then, as now, as to what the 
 legal rights and powers of the various persons concerned were, and 
 many claims, allegations, and complaints then made, and which are 
 the foundation on which some popular opinions now held are based, 
 have been proved to be the outcome of misapprehensions as to the 
 law and the facts. In the light of subsequent events it appears 
 clear that the methods and results might have been improved. Of 
 what that has ever been done by any people at any time, not 
 excepting ourselves in our own time, may not this be said ? 
 
PART VI 
 
 SOME DIFFICULTIES A:ND THEOEIES 
 
 IN THE 
 
 EVOLUTION OF TAXATION AND LOCAL BATES 
 
 283 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE POLICY AND DIFFICULTIES OF MEDLfflVAL TAXATION 
 
 Up to comparatively modern times — say until the Commonwealth — 
 the greater part of the taxation of this country was levied locally — 
 not according to .statutory enactment, but according to local custom. 
 In the arrangements that were adopted and the changes that were 
 from time to time made, there is no evidence of any intention to 
 specially tax land to an exceptional extent. (Thejobject generally 
 aimed at was to tax persons according to their possessions and 
 means, that is to say, according to their ability to pa^ The ease 
 with which some methods of taxation could be administered and 
 the difficulties which attended the assessment and collection of other 
 taxes inevitably led taxing authorities to take the line of least re- 
 sistance ; but throughout it all the aim was to devise methods of 
 levying taxes on persons according to their taxable capacity, in ways 
 that would be as equitable as was practicable. In the main, when 
 particular kinds of property or special commodities were taxed, it 
 was because they were considered to be representative of the wealth 
 and means of those who owned or used them. 
 
 Little is known of the system of taxation, so far as there was any, 
 in Saxon times. The kings derived their revenue in ordinary times 
 from the royal demesne and the public lands which had belonged 
 to the kingdoms of the heptarchy, and were largely consolidated 
 into the demesne of the king of the whole country when the 
 heptarchy disappeared. There were fines and fees, and in times of 
 special peril an exceptional levy — " shipgeld " — would be made ; 
 and for that levy the shire was the xmit of rating. " Danegeld " 
 was a similar levy imposed later at a specified rate per hide of land. 
 There was also a hearth tax. 
 
 No new form of taxation resulted immediately from the Norman 
 Conquest. The king continued to derive his revenue mainly from 
 the demesne, while the feudal system became gradually established. 
 
 285 
 
286 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi 
 
 The danegeld was revived in 1084 and afterwards made annual ; 
 but it did not last long. It ceased to be settled revenue in 1156 
 and disappeared altogether in 1163. 
 
 An attemptwas made to establish a similar tax in the " carucage," 
 which was levied on ploughed land. It commenced in 1194, but it 
 was so unpopular and inequitable (because it touched only a limited 
 class), and difficult to assess, that it ceased in 1224. 
 
 Taxes in Respect of Land 
 
 These taxes in respect of land, rather than on land, were intended 
 to be general taxes according to wealth and ability to pay. Practi- 
 cally the wealth of the country in those days was in land and agri- 
 culture, and the simplest way of levying a general property or income 
 tax was to levy it according to the quantity of land a man owned or 
 occupied. As a large part of the arable and pasture land was held 
 by small people— under the common field system — ^a tax on land 
 was practically a tax on everybody and not a tax on a limited class as 
 it now would be. 
 
 As time went on and the country progressed, two difficulties 
 arose with regard to this method of taxation and led to its abandon- 
 ment. First, the difficulty of assessment was great. The survey 
 of the Domesday Book was made at great trouble and cost. It was 
 a serious undertaking and one which could not be readily repeated. 
 But a survey or valuation for taxation purposes soon becomes 
 useless unless it is repeated periodically and kept up to date. That 
 was more than could conveniently be done. Second, other forms 
 of property and other sources of income grew up as the nation 
 developed and prosperity grew. 
 
 Taxes on Personal Property 
 
 To meet this difficulty the tax on movables was instituted. 
 This was a levy of a specified proportion of the capital value of 
 personal property as distinguished from land and houses. Land- 
 owners and farmers were assessed and taxed on the value of their 
 cattle, farming stock and produce, and sometimes also on their rents, 
 and townsmen and traders were assessed and taxed on their furniture, 
 money, and stock in trade. The levy varied according to the circum- 
 stances and necessities of the time from |- to -^jy. The first tax of 
 this kind was imposed in 1188. 
 
 At first the tax on movables was supplementary to the taxes 
 on the occupiers and owners of land as such — scutage or tax on the 
 
CH. I POLICY OF MEDIAEVAL TAXATION 287 
 
 knight's fee, carucage, and tallage — but these were gradually 
 abandoned, until they were entirely superseded by the new tax. 
 That is to say a general property tax, levied on rent and personal 
 possessions, was established. All paid except the very poor. 
 Sometimes the exemption was having goods not worth more than 
 3s. 4d., sometimes 6s. 8d., and once 15s. 
 
 Taxes levied on Localities 
 
 In 1334 an important change was made in the assessment and 
 collection of this tax on movables. The keeping up of an assess- 
 ment on the capital value of land had proved to be impracticable, 
 and the tax on rents and movables had been substituted for it. 
 But in course of time it became evident that there were great 
 difficulties, and much doubt existed as to the equity of the sub- 
 stituted taxes. Land possessed one important qualification for 
 taxation. It could always be seen ; it could not be removed or 
 hidden away. That was not the case with movables, especially of 
 the smaller and more valuable kinds. It was also found that this 
 tax was used as a means of extortion and corrupt unfairness by the 
 taxers and collectors. 
 
 The result was that in 1334, when a grant was made of a fifteenth 
 and a tenth ^ on movables, " in order as far as possible to avoid 
 the oppression, extortion, and hardships that had occasioned the 
 complaints," the Commissioners were authorised to arrange with the 
 local commtmities — the cities and boroughs — and with the men of 
 the townships and the ancient demesne, and settle the definite fixed 
 sum to be paid by each community as its share of the national levy. 
 That is to say, the Commissioners fixed with the local authorities 
 of each community the amoimt to be paid by that community as a 
 whole. They then left the local authorities to raise the amount 
 from the individuals who composed the commimity by such method 
 of assessment and collection as was deemed by them most convenient. 
 
 In this way the King's Commissioners got rid of all the difficulties 
 of individual assessments and personal collections by transferring 
 them to the localities, and ensuring that the money required shoidd 
 be raised by those who had local knowledge of the means and 
 possessions of the persons taxed. Practically these taxes were then 
 levied by something sunilar to our modern " precepts " for local 
 rates. Central control and central assessment and collection by 
 
 1 Pifteenths for the counties and tenths for the towns and the tenants of demesne 
 outside the towns. 
 
288 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 PT. VI 
 
 government officials, so far as the individuak taxed and the details 
 of assessing and collecting were concerned, disappeared. 
 
 Assessments became Permanent 
 
 An outcome of this arrangement was that the amounts agreed 
 upon as the sums to be raised by the various communities in 1334 
 became from that time the fixed amounts of the fifteenths and 
 tenths. A fifteenth and a tenth became the recognised expression 
 meaning the amounts at which each community was assessed in 
 1334. When more than the sum represented by that assessment was 
 required, two or three fifteenths and tenths would be granted, and, 
 when less was needed, half a fifteenth and tenth would be granted, 
 it being meant thereby that twice or three times or one-half of the 
 amoimt fixed in 1334 was to be raised by each community. This 
 system of levying the tax on movables continued for three centuries, 
 until indeed this tax of fifteenths and tenths was levied for the last 
 time in 1623. All attempts to disturb the settlement of 1334 and 
 revise the method of levying the tax and revising the assessments 
 . invariably failed. Indeed, it became an ancient and continuous 
 precedent. The fixed land tax of the Revolution and of the 
 eighteenth century which exists now is a survival of the principle 
 and policy adopted nearly 600 years ago. 
 
 Attempts to introduce New Taxes 
 
 As time went on increased revenues were required, and efforts 
 were from time to time made to provide them and relieve the pressure 
 of the tenths and fifteenths by introducing new taxes. These 
 efforts were attended by Hmited success. The " groat " tax — a poll 
 tax of 4d. per head on every person over fourteen years of age — was 
 introduced in 1377, and the graduated poll tax of 1379 precipitated 
 the Peasants' Revolt of 1380 and were both a failure. The tenths 
 and fifteenths had to be continued, but a difficulty was that the jdeld 
 of them was steadily declining. With fixed levies this is inevitable. 
 Reductions had to be allowed to decayed towns ; but growing 
 places resisted any increase. 
 
 In the early years of the fifteenth century, for the prosecution 
 of the war with Fance, the land-owners granted special levies on 
 land as exceptional taxes, care being taken to specify " that 
 the grant should not be taken as a precedent for the future." ^ 
 
 1 Parliamentary Rolls, III. 648. 
 
CH. I POLICY OF MEDIAEVAL TAXATION 289 
 
 Efforts were made to institute permanent supplementary taxes on 
 lands and a graduated income tax, but they were abortive. During 
 the Wars of the Roses which followed almost immediately upon the 
 close of the Hundred Years' War with France there was naturally 
 much difficulty in collecting the ordinary taxation of the country. 
 The fifteenths and tenths were levied more or less successfully from 
 time to time, but the main source of tax revenue during that period 
 was from customs. Under the Tudor sovereigns the old system of 
 grants of fifteenths and tenths continued in use, and for some time 
 any attempts to introduce any novel form of taxation invariably 
 ended in failure. 
 
 Another General Property Tax and a Neio Assessment 
 
 Eventually, however, a supplementary general property tax, 
 known as the Tudor Subsidies, was established and developed. 
 A feature of the new departure was a new and additional tax on 
 iacome from land and on possessions in money, plate, cattle, stock, 
 merchandise, household stufE, and other movables. This was 
 largely an efEort to obtain an assessment on present values in place 
 of the assessment on the old fixed values which was in force for the 
 fifteenths and tenths. As those values had in reality changed very 
 considerably the incidence of the new levy, though made upon the 
 same property as the old one, was very different. 
 
 An ordinary subsidy was 2s. 8d. in the pound on movables 
 and 4s. in the pound on the annual value of land, and the custom 
 was to grant one subsidy and two fifteenths and tenths. One pro- 
 vision was that a person should not be taxed both on his land and 
 on his movables. If he paid on one he was relieved from payment 
 on the other. The tax upon the annual income from land was not 
 an additional tax on land-owners, but was part of a general tax on 
 everybody. Sometimes there was a poll tax on those who did not 
 pay the charge for the subsidy. 
 
 For a long time the old tenths and fifteenths and the new sub- 
 sidies were voted side by side. In the long run, however, the tenths 
 and fifteenths disappeared, and after 1623 the government relied on 
 subsidies as their general property tax. But this form of tax on 
 stock-in-trade, and on personal propertyin general, gradually followed 
 the same lines as such taxes had always done, and have since done 
 elsewhere : personal property slipped out, and the owners of it 
 evaded their liability. 
 
290 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. v, 
 
 The New Assessment became Permanent 
 
 The old objection of the people to have uncertain assessments 
 and levies gradually brought the new subsidy tax to very much the 
 same basis as the old fifteenth and tenth, in so far as it became 
 customary to levy it on the old assessment. At the same time 
 abatements and allowances were from time to time obtained. For 
 these and other reasons the yield of both the subsidies and the 
 fifteenth and tenth fell off, while the Customs revenue increased as 
 the trade of the country developed. It was, and always is, hope- 
 less to secure accurate and equitable assessments of personal 
 property for any considerable length of time. 
 
 The subsidy continued, however, to be used as an occasional 
 property tax down to the time of the Civil War, when Parliament 
 required a more rapid and continuous supply of money, and a system 
 of monthly assessments was adopted. These " monthly assess- 
 ments " of the Commonwealth were levied monthly on the income 
 from lands, houses, rents, profits, goods, chattels, stock, merchandise, 
 offices, " or any other real or personal estate whatsoever." The 
 income from money, stock and other personal property was assumed 
 to be 5 per cent on its capital value. After the Restoration of 
 Charles II, a last trial was made of the old Tudor subsidy, but it 
 proved effete as a source of revenue and was finally abandoned in 
 1663. 
 
 The Commonwealth form of monthly assessments was resorted 
 to several times in the reign of Charles II., and also in the early 
 years of the reign of William and Mary. " But the ' exorbitant 
 inequality of the old proportions of charge, both between county and 
 county, division and division, and parish and parish,' gave rise to 
 serious and well-grounded complaints. Movable property had 
 slipped out of assessments, ' neither money nor personal estate 
 coming in to the aid,' and in consequence of this, the pressure of the 
 tax on the possessors of land was excessive." ^ The monthly 
 assessments were abandoned in 1691. 
 
 Another Assessment and another Property and Income Tax 
 
 In 1692 Parliament returned to a general property and income 
 tax of 4s. in the pound on personal property, offices and all real 
 estate. At varying rates this general tax, which, in one form or 
 another, had been levied for several centuries, continued until 1798. 
 
 1 Dowell's History of Taxation, vol. iii. p. 92. 
 
CH. I POLICY OF MEDIAEVAL TAXATION 291 
 
 It was a tax first, upon personal property, second, upon 
 incomes from piiblic offices or employments of profit, and thirdly, 
 if the two previous classes did not provide the required amount, 
 thel, remainder of the sum required was to be raised by a levy on 
 the yearly value of manors, lands, houses, quarries, mines, tolls, 
 and " aU hereditaments of what nature soever they be." The 
 personal property to be rated was described as — any estate in ready 
 money, or debts due, or in goods, merchandise, or other chattels, 
 or any personal estate whatsoever within the realm. 
 
 As DoweU says, " This property tax of William III. originally 
 intended to bear in the first instance on personal property and 
 offices, subsequently, when personal property slipped out of assess- 
 ment, was described as ' an aid by a land tax,' and in fiscal expression 
 the ' annual land tax ' ! " 1 
 
 I Vol. iii. p. 97. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 THEORIES OF TAXATION IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND 
 EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES 
 
 The very generally held opinion that the abolition of the remaining 
 incidents and charges of the feudal system at the time of the Re- 
 storation, and the resort to excise duties on ale and beer, spirits, 
 coffee, tea, etc., was a purely selfish and unjust transfer of liability 
 from land-owners to the general public is a mistaken and in- 
 accurate view. In the first place, the change was really made 
 under Cromwell in the time of the Commonwealth. It had been 
 strongly desired before the Civil War in the time of James I., and 
 it was confirmed and made permanent on the restoration of Charles 
 II. It is clear, therefore, that it was a change which all parties 
 desired and approved. In the second place, evidence will be 
 adduced to show that the burden and annoyance of the incidents 
 of feudalism which then remained were felt and resented by all 
 classes, and not by the large land-owners only or even chiefly, and 
 that their aboUtion was a national and not a class reUef . 
 
 Apart altogether from the excise duties levied in place of the 
 feudal incidents under Charles II., there were other excise duties of 
 equal amount levied on the same articles for ordinary revenue, and 
 the total of both sets of these excise duties was only the same as the 
 excise duties levied under the Commonwealth. 
 
 The fact was that the old sources of public revenue had long been 
 failing, expenditure had greatly increased, and new and more pro- 
 ductive sources of income for the state were urgently required. 
 When we form an opinion as to what was done in more or less remote 
 times, we shall not reach just and sound conclusions unless we fully 
 understand not only the actual conditions at the time — social, 
 economic, and political— but also the views which were entertained 
 and the objects which were desired and aimed at. We shall fall into 
 
 292 
 
CH. 11 THEORIES OF TAXATION 293 
 
 error, and do grave injustice if we apply present-day standards, 
 knowledge, and opinions to times, actions, and conditions which 
 were very different. 
 
 The Economic Opinions of a Century and a Half 
 
 It will be useful, therefore, in connection with the new departure 
 that was made and developed in the financial system of the country 
 in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries to ascertain what were 
 the opinions held and the principles enunciated with regard to 
 taxation by the leading poHtical and economic authorities during 
 the hundred years or more which immediately preceded the appear- 
 ance of Adam Smith's great work, which laid the foundation of 
 modern political economy. Such an investigation has been made by 
 Professor Sehgman ^ and Mr. Wm. Kennedy ,2 and I am much 
 indebted to them for the material for the following summary. 
 
 The idea upon which excise duties were based was that, as they 
 were taxes on consumable commodities, they were a tax on con- 
 sumption, and therefore a tax on expenditure. They were regarded 
 as the simplest method by which the nearest approach to equality 
 and universality of taxation could be secured. A general ground 
 on which the duties were justified was that the general property 
 taxes had broken down, that " every man should give something," 
 and that excise duties were the most practical way of securing that. 
 
 Various and curious views were entertained as to the incidence 
 and effects of excise taxes, and extremely varied and inconsistent 
 reasons were urged in support of them. 
 
 The Incidence and Effect of Excise Duties 
 
 At the time of the institution of excise taxes, it was held by 
 many authorities either that those taxes did not remain on the poor, 
 or that in so far as they did, they were really an advantage to them 
 because they secured for them still greater benefits. One theory was 
 that as the cost of necessaries increased, wages must also rise. This 
 would mean that the price of the articles produced must be advanced, 
 and the rich consumers of them would thereby pay the taxes. 
 
 A similar theory (Waterhouse, 1662) was that money raised by 
 taxes on the poor returns to them again through increased employ- 
 ment and higher wages, and that a tax was really a loan which 
 returned to the poor in increased amount. It was contended that 
 
 1 Essays in Taxation and Shifting and Incidence of Taxation. 
 2 English Taxation, a.d. 1640-1799 ; An Essay on Policy and Opinion. 
 
294 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi 
 
 as taxes were used for the maintenance of the Court or for war, they 
 made money circulate, and gave employment. One writer went so 
 far as to urge that " public taxes expended in our own country 
 may be accounted the poor and the mechanic's bank, by which they 
 are employed and maintained." 
 A century later Fauquier said : 
 
 The poor do not, never have, nor ever possibly can, pay any tax 
 whatever. A man that has nothing can pay nothing. 
 
 If by taxes, or dearth, or any other cause, the common necessaries 
 of life become so dear that a labourer cannot live at the usual wages : 
 the price of labour must, and in fact usually does, rise ia proportion 
 thereto at least, generally much more. 
 
 If taxes are laid on labour merely, or on such articles as the meanest 
 labourer must want and use, he will stiU live, and his wages must be 
 raised. 
 
 He held that taxes fell ultimately on the rich consumer, " that 
 is, the man of fortune who lives on his income." The idea running 
 through all this, of course, was that wages always are at the minimum 
 of bare subsistence. 
 
 John Houghton, a Fellow of the Royal Society, writing in 1695, 
 said : 
 
 In these duties every person will be taxed, and pay more or less, 
 according to the quantity he or she useth : if poor, they use little, and 
 therefore pay the less : if rich they pay the more, in proportion to what 
 their expense and consumptions are : so that nothing can be more 
 equally laid and charged upon the people than the taxes aforesaid. 
 
 High Duties ami Low Wages Considered, a Stimulus to Industry 
 
 On the other hand, as the opinion that excise duties are really 
 borne by the consumers, whether they were rich or poor, became 
 more generally accepted, the conviction grew in some quarters that 
 such a system of taxation as the main source of revenue was unequal 
 and unjust. The view that additions to the cost of the necessaries 
 of life involved increases in wages to at least a corresponding extent 
 was found to be unconvincing. 
 
 At the same time another line of thought developed and became 
 so widely adopted that it counterbalanced, and for some time quite 
 overwhelmed, any feeling that taxes according to consumption were 
 inequitable. It was based on the opinion that low wages for work- 
 ing people were better for the community as a whole than high ones. 
 
 " Most of the writers of the close of the seventeenth and the 
 
CH. II THEORIES OF TAXATION 295 
 
 first half of the eighteenth century," says Professor Seligman, 
 " imagined that taxes on the necessaries of life would constitute a 
 great stimulus towards an improvement in the condition of the 
 labourer, in sobriety, carefulness, and efficiency. A tax on labour 
 would thus, they thought, be a real spur to industry and commerce, 
 and a benefit to the community in general : for low wages mean low 
 cost of production. When the necessaries of Ufe are taxed, runs the 
 argument, not only will the labourer have to work harder and longer 
 to maintain himself — which will be a benefit to him — ^but, on the 
 other hand, there will be a reduction ia the labour cost to the 
 employer, which will be an advantage to the community." 
 
 This view was very popular for a considerable time amongst 
 employers and writers on economic subjects. John Houghton, in 
 1683, laid down the principle " that this Kingdom will thrive more, 
 and the manufacturers live better, and sell their manufactures 
 cheaper when provisions are dear, than when they are cheap." His 
 contention was that " if there be of food a plenty, laziness foUows 
 it," and his argument was that when the workmen get higher wages, 
 they stop work to spend their earnings in debauchery. The ordinary 
 labourer in England earns enough in three or four days to support 
 him for the entire week. If he had to pay more for his provisions, 
 he would work harder and produce more. This dearness would, 
 ia the end, bring about iudustry and plenty. He therefore 
 proposed higher taxes on food and clothing. 
 
 Taxes on the masses of the people were regarded by this school 
 of thought as blessings, because they were believed to promote 
 thrift and " excite the commonalty to ingenuity, diligence, and 
 frugality." One writer (Temple, 1758) contended that " the only 
 way to make the poor temperate and industrious is to lay them under 
 a necessity of labouring all the time they can spare from meals and 
 sleep, in order to procure the common necessaries of life." 
 
 This controversy as to the advisability of the excise because of 
 its effect in stimulating industry by reducing wages and com- 
 pelling men to work was maintained throughout the eighteenth 
 century. In course of time the opposite view to that expressed in 
 the foregoing extracts found exponents, and Professor Seligman 
 tells us that although the theory that low wages are not necessarily 
 a benefit to a coimtry, and that taxes are not needed to reduce the 
 cost of labour, was not at first a popular doctrine among economic 
 writers, it gradually made headway in scientific and commercial 
 circles, and sounder and more humane views became prevalent. 
 
296 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi 
 
 Some Theories and an Objection 
 
 Throughout the controversy, there were some who contended 
 that all these taxes fell on the land-owners. 
 
 " A general excise upon commodities," said one in 1623, " is a real 
 land tax, and will have the same influence upon the value of lands and 
 rents, as that we call a land tax hath." " The supply of commodities 
 in England is so great that the market is at the mercy of the purchaser. 
 A tax on commodities, therefore, must fall on the producer or seller ; 
 and since everything is a product of the land, a tax on products is a 
 tax on land." 
 
 Others were convinced that the taxes fell on the traders. Sum- 
 ming up an extremely useful and interesting review of the literature 
 of the subject during the period between 1660 and 1800, Professor 
 Seligman says : " It is clear that the discussion of the excise called 
 forth almost every conceivable theory as to its incidence. Some 
 thought that the tax was not shifted at all, some maintained that 
 it was shifted to the land-owner, some believed that it was shifted 
 to the consumer, and some contended that it was again shifted by 
 them to the employers of labour. These views were advanced 
 with all degrees of confidence — but, with few exceptions, with little 
 grasp of fundamental economic principles." 
 
 Taxes on Luxuries, including Bricks 
 
 The chief objection to the excise was its inquisitorial character. 
 It was this that rendered it hateful and repugnant to the masses of 
 the people. The outcome was proposals in 1757 to tax luxuries 
 specially and heavily. Taxes were advocated on " a vast variety of 
 articles that may be placed in the- list of unnecessary expenses, and 
 are only the trappings and gildings of modern vanity and fashionable 
 excess " — " superfluities of the rich, the proud and the extravagant." 
 
 Some writers desired to have a siagle tax on luxuries. The plan 
 of one was to lay " one tax on the consumers of luxiiries, and take 
 ofE all our other taxes, excises and customs." Like the modern 
 advocates of a siagle tax on land, and all other vendors of economic 
 pills for social earthquakes, he was convinced that the result of the 
 adoption of his proposal would be that " we shall become a rich and 
 flourishing people." The special agitation for a single tax on 
 luxuries died away when certain taxes on luxuries had been added 
 to the general taxes of the country. 
 
 Two proposals with regard to " luxuries " which were suggested 
 
cH. It THEORIES OF TAXATION 297 
 
 in the early part of the eighteenth century are specially interesting 
 at the present time, as illustrating how entirely different and con- 
 tradictory the views held at difierent periods and under different 
 conditions may be. One was the proposal (1713) to tax bricks in 
 order to check the growth of London at the expense of the rural 
 districts ; ^ and another (1726) was the suggestion that a law should 
 be enacted restricting the further erection of buildings in London, 
 " whereby the temptation to luxury will, as far as possible, be taken 
 away from the industrious part oi the subject." 
 
 A Single Tax on Houses Advocated 
 
 The general principle that taxation should be as nearly as 
 possible in proportion to the means of the tax-payer being univer- 
 sally accepted, those who felt the force and justice of the objections 
 to the excise taxes cast about for substitutes, and some interesting 
 suggestions were made. The idea of fixing upon some one thing 
 which would fairly represent the taxable capacity of the various 
 members of the community, and levying all taxes on that, was 
 popular with some writers. The proposal was to take some one 
 criterion of the tax-payers' means, which was not only universal, 
 but obvious, and thereby avoid the interference"^ with trade, the 
 inquisitorial investigation, and the encouragement of smuggling 
 and evasion, resulting from the excise taxes. The suggestion was 
 that the desired object would be found in the building occupied by 
 the tax-payer, and, therefore, in place of the general excise, it was 
 proposed by Sir Wm. Decker in 1743 that there should be a single 
 tax on houses. The proposal had many supporters, and an in- 
 teresting outcome of it was a proposal to substitute windows for 
 houses, and concentrate all the duties in one tax and levy it on 
 ■windows. The argument of Horseby, 1744, ran thus : 
 
 The poorer sort of people live in smaU houses, and they seldom 
 have more windows than are absolutely convenient : as, on the other 
 hand, the nobility and gentry live in large and spacious buildings, and 
 consequently have a great number of windows, and perhaps many more 
 for ornament than for use. 
 
 When PeUiam revised the house duty and considerably extended 
 the principle of the window tax in 1743, these particular agitations 
 for single taxes died out. 
 
 1 The duty on bricks and tiles may give a reasonable check to the wanton and 
 extravagant humour of building, particularly about this metropohs, whereby the 
 head is likely to grow too big for the body." — A. Hutchison, 1718. 
 
298 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vt 
 
 Theories as to Taxes on Land 
 
 The first exposition of the theory that all taxes ultimately fall 
 on the value of land, and are therefore really borne by land-owners, is 
 usually attributed to the Physiocrats, but in reality the theory was 
 put forward in England long before their time. When and where it 
 was first advocated we cannot say, but certainly it is to be found in 
 publications issued in this country before the end of the seventeenth 
 century. One writer in 1677 contended that the land-owners " bear 
 all the taxes and pubhc burthens : which in truth are only borne by 
 those who buy and sell not : all sellers raising the price of their 
 commodities, or abating of their goodness, according to their taxes." 
 
 The celebrated John Locke in 1692 reasoned out in some detail 
 the general principle which he stated thus : " Taxes, however 
 contrived, and out of whose hand soever immediately taken, do in a 
 country, where the great fund is in land, for the most part terminate 
 upon land." His argument was that merchants and shopkeepers 
 neither can nor will bear taxes on commodities. They will increase 
 the selling price in proportion to the extra cost to them. " The 
 poor labourer and handicraftsman cannot, for he just lives from 
 hand to mouth already." A tax on the labourer means that his 
 wages must be raised or he will come on the parish, and the burden 
 will be borne by the land in a heavier way. If the labourer's wages 
 rise, the farmer cannot get more for his produce ; indeed, buying will 
 be restricted owing to the increase in price due to the tax on it, and 
 the net price to the farmer may tend downward. The margin out 
 of which he pays rent will, therefore, be reduced, and the landlord's 
 rent must be brought down. 
 
 Davenant (1698) concluded that " all taxes whatsoever are in 
 their last resort a charge upon land." Many other writers about 
 that time supported the same view. 
 
 The Opposite View 
 
 When Walpole brought forward his excise scheme, the problem 
 of the incidence of taxes became a burning question, and there was 
 much controversy with regard to Locke's theory. The opposite 
 view that taxes on land are transferred to the consumer of the 
 produce was put forward with great vigour, especially by the sup- 
 porters of the excise duties. In a publication (1733) which was 
 attributed to Sir Eobert Walpole himself, the writer says : " The 
 land tax falls heavily upon the people, by heightening the rent of 
 
CH. II THEORIES OF TAXATION 299 
 
 lands, and consequently the bread and drink, and other food, so 
 that what the land pays, the people too pay." 
 
 Another writer in the same year contended that " a land tax, 
 which affects aU the common necessaries of life in our own produc- 
 tion, is an actual general excise, in the strict sense of the words." 
 
 Petty (1661) considered that the land tax was shifted to the 
 consumer. The most notable opponents of Locke's proposal for 
 a single tax on land, however, were David Hume (1752) and Sir 
 James Steuart (1767), and in the latter haU of the eighteenth century 
 the economists were agreed in dissenting from Locke's theory that 
 all taxes concentrated on land. Dugald Stewart (1801), after re- 
 marking that the first idea of a single tax on land was borrowed 
 from this country, said " it had been almost forgotten as an exploded 
 chimera, when it was revived by the Economists of France." 
 
 A Bewildering Medley of Views 
 
 Li completing his survey of the views of English economists 
 during the period from the institution of the excise under the 
 Commonwealth to the time just prior to the appearance of Adam 
 Smith's great work on pohtical economy (1776), Professor SeUgman 
 says : " We have found almost as many views as there were writers. 
 That taxes remain where they are imposed, that all taxes are shifted 
 to the land-owner, that they are shifted to the trader, that they rest 
 on the labourer, that they rest on the rich consumer, that they do not 
 rest on the consumer at all — these, and variations of these doctrines 
 meet us in bewildering confusion." 
 
 Two Conclusions therefrom 
 
 Upon this welter of opinion two observations maybe made. Eirst, 
 that with so much variety, confusion, and contradiction of opinion 
 amongst those who were regarded as authorities, it is not surprising 
 that no one clear line of financial policy was evolved and developed, 
 but a medley of taxes, made up by additions and adjustments from 
 time to time as this, that, or the other view about a particular tax 
 appeared to predominate, was piled together. No one school of 
 thought was ever strong enough at any time to completely enforce 
 its views. The utmost that the advocates of particular proposals 
 were able to secure was that some part or instalment of their 
 suggestions was added to the welter of taxes already existing. The 
 result was that confusion became worse confounded, and the list 
 of taxes grew until almost everything that any one bought, sold, 
 
300 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi 
 
 made, touched, or did, was taxed. The outcome was of course 
 constant irritation, an enormous amount of deception and evasion, 
 and an extremely costly and extravagant system of collection and 
 administration. But until clearer views based on sound economic 
 principles prevailed, effective reform was impossible ; and it was 
 really not until Adam Smith produced his epoch-making work that 
 the process of education, upon which a sound public opinion can 
 alone be built up, could even begin. 
 
 Second, that it is neither reasonable nor just to judge the motives 
 of the parliaments and statesmen of those days in matters of taxa- 
 tion upon the basis of the knowledge and views of th« present day. 
 The opinion that people will hold as to the justice and expediency 
 of a tax must depend in the first instance almost entirely on the 
 opinion they entertain as to the incidence of tax, that is, as to who 
 wiU really bear the burden of it, and the effect it will have. A tax 
 which may appear to us to be unwise, and indeed unjust, might 
 appear to them to be both wise and just, simply because their view 
 as to its incidence and effects differed from ours. When we realise 
 what confusion existed as to the incidence of taxes, what a lack 
 there was of any sound and consistent view based on broad economic 
 principles, and how absolutely contradictory views were expounded 
 with considerable ability and obvious sincerity by men of learning, 
 position, and authority, we must not be surprised that parliaments 
 and statesmen and the people at large were confused, and owing to 
 lack of capable leading, based on sound economic principles, taxes 
 were levied which we now regard as unwise and unjust. There is 
 no reason to doubt that for the most part those who imposed them 
 acted for what they believed to be the best according to their 
 judgment based on the information and knowledge they possessed, 
 quite as much as those who advocated or enact changes in our 
 taxation now do. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 LOCAL RATES 
 
 Befoke the sixteenth century, local rates and national taxes were, 
 for the most part, collected together. The tenths and fifteenths, 
 the taxes on movables and the subsidies, as the general taxes on all 
 kiads of property and possessions for national purposes were vari- 
 ously styled, together with any local levies for local needs, were aU 
 assessed and collected locally by the local authorities accordrag to 
 the usual custom of the locality. 
 
 As regards the assessment of local rates, there were no laws to 
 regulate the practice of the local authorities. They exercised their 
 discretion guided by custom. The general principle was that the 
 levies, both for local and national purposes, were to be made accord- 
 ing to the general possessions of the tax-payers, but the precise 
 method was left to local custom and discretion. 
 
 The Poor Law Commissioner's Report on Local Taxation (1843), 
 which contains a valuable history of local rates, speaking of the 
 Town cess or Township rate, tells us that " The King's aids, taxes, 
 and subsidies too, were often imposed on the inhabitants of the 
 Town by the same machinery " ; and again that, " The County 
 Rate with the contributory rates, the Township rate contributing 
 to the Hundred, and the Hundred rate contributing to the County, 
 constituted one complete system of taxation. The County Rate 
 was sometimes again contributory towards the common national 
 burdens ; the King's aids, taxes, and subsidies being in early times 
 imposed by means of the Sheriff of the County, who assigned their 
 shares to the respective Htmdreds within which the necessary 
 portions were collected by the officers of the several townships." 
 Commenting on this practice, Mr. J. Row-Fogo ^ says : 
 
 " We see, therefore, that from very early times local rates have been 
 imposed for general national purposes. Of any intention to place a 
 
 1 Beform of Local Taxation, pp. 38 and 39. 
 301 
 
302 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi 
 
 peculiar burden on land, we also find that there is no trace. As soon as 
 the accumulation of movable property made the danegeld and caruoage 
 no longer general taxes, these imposts disappeared, and made way for 
 taxes which were intended to reach every kind of wealth." And again : 
 " In course of time the method of supplying the public exchequer by 
 rates decayed : after 1623 it fell away altogether. Taxes again came 
 into existence, and rates, instead of supplying both purposes, came to 
 be levied for the objects of local government only." 
 
 The Difficulty of Assessing Personal Property 
 
 V We have already seen that the difi&culty of assessing movables 
 was a continual source of inequality, evasion, and dissatisfaction. 
 It lent itself to bribery and favouritism. The ease with which 
 movables could be concealed and removed facilitated evasion, and 
 led to intense dissatisfaction both on the part of the tax-payers 
 and of the authorities who had to levy and collect the taxes. A 
 general property-tax, including an enumeration and assessment of 
 all movables, was continually striven for and tried, and as con- 
 tinually proved unsatisfactory and indeed impracticable. Person- 
 alty continually slipped out of assessment, and the authorities had 
 to devise other imposts to supply its place and make up the de- 
 ficiency. The National Exchequer could do this, but local authorities 
 could not easily do it. Long before the Act of Elizabelih was taken 
 into the statute book — V 
 
 . . . the statutory instruction to local authorities had been to enumerate 
 all movables, and this was, without exception, the least serviceable 
 mode of assessment that could have been devised : it was troublesome 
 to the assessor, unendurable to the assessed. The regulations came to 
 be enforced later in the case of the central subsidies granted to the 
 King, but local authorities were left free to act as they liked. They 
 assessed, therefore, after a method which afterwards became statutory : 
 " according to their good discretion." Direct assessment ceased, and 
 an indirect guess at ability took its place. ^ 
 
 Local Rates a Kind, of Income Tax 
 
 Local authorities were bound to a^opt some kind of single tax 
 and simple levy, unless they resorted to local customs duties, which 
 were never popular in this country. The result was that they 
 gradually adopted land and buildings as the basis of their local 
 taxation. The land, houses, and buildings occupied and used were 
 regarded as the most convenient and equitable means available of 
 gauging a man's taxable capacity.. It really was a species of in- 
 1 Beform of Local Taxation, p. 65. 
 
CH. Ill LOCAL RATES 303 
 
 direct assessment of income and means. Instead of enumerating 
 all his personal possessions, and taxing him on these, it was assumed 
 that if he were taxed in proportion to the land and buildings he 
 occupied, the practical result would be about the same. The style 
 in which he lived, and the amount of land he cultivated, and the 
 extent of the buildings he occupied in his business, were judged 
 to be fairly accurate indications of the tax-payer's wealth and 
 ability to pay taxes. 
 
 This taxation of a man according to the value of the land and 
 premises he occupied was not intended to be, and was not at aU 
 regarded as, a tax on real property which fell upon the owner. It 
 was regarded more as an income tax. It was considered that it 
 was the occupier who was taxed, and it was intended that he should 
 be. He was made to pay according to his use of a certain land of 
 property. This was not regarded as a tax on the property, but as 
 a tax on him. 
 
 Roads and their Repair 
 
 Dr. Cannan in his History of Local Rates reminds us that — 
 
 Many of the most expensive institutions now maintained by local 
 rates had no existence in the middle ages. Even the fifteenth-century 
 citizen had not to provide for compulsory education, purification of 
 sewage, street lamps, or police in the sense in which we now use the 
 word. There were always roads, of course, but what were those roads 
 like ? . . . For 99 nules out of 100, it must have been what rustics 
 now caU a " soft " or " green " road, in contradistinction to the " hard " 
 or " metalled " road of the modern highway authority. It keeps 
 along the hillside regardless of gradient, because some embanking 
 and draining would have been necessary on the flat land. It is sinuous, 
 owing to the effort to avoid every soft place ; and where the adjacent 
 land-owners have observed the eighth commandment, it is excessively 
 wide between the hedges, because on a " green " road the traffic is 
 constantly endeavouring to find a place where previous passengers 
 have not destroyed the surface. Every improvement obviously dates 
 from the turnpike days. If we wish to picture an EngKsh road in 
 the middle ages, we should think of what we now call a mere " track " 
 across an open heath, or imagine a wide, httle-used country road, with 
 the narrow, metaUed strip in the middle entirely removed.^ 
 
 The cost of public works, and especially the building and main- 
 tenance of bridges and difficult pieces of road, was largely defrayed 
 by the gifts and bequests of private individuals and by religious 
 houses. " The remainder of what we regard as the expenses of 
 1 Cannan, History of Load Bates, p. 7. 
 
304 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi 
 
 local government, so far as they existed, were borne on the broad 
 back of the ' feudal system.' " ^ 
 
 The first general highway act, which was passed in 1555, extended 
 and gave statutory effect to the custom which had hitherto prevailed. 
 It provided that every year the parishioners should elect two persons 
 to be responsible for repairing the maia highways. They were to 
 appoint four days on which the parishioners were to mend the 
 roads. 
 
 Every person for every plough land in tillage or pasture that he or 
 she shall occupy in the same parish, and every other person keeping 
 there a draught or plough, shall find and send, at every day and place 
 to be appointed for the amending of the ways in that parish as is afore- 
 said, one wain or cart, furnished after the custom of the country with 
 oxen, horses, or other cattle, and all other necessaries meet to carry 
 things convenient for that purpose, and also two able men with the 
 same upon the pain of every draught making default 10s. ; and every 
 other householder, and also every cottager and labourer of that parish 
 able to labour and being no hired servant by the year, shall by them- 
 selves or one sufficient labourer for every of them, upon every of the 
 said 4 days, work and travail in the amendment of the said highways, 
 upon pain of every person making default to lose for every day 12d. . . . 
 And every person and carriage aforesaid shall have and bring with them 
 such shovels, spades, picks, mattocks, and other tools and instruments 
 as they do make their own ditches and fences withal, and such as be 
 necessary for their work.^ 
 
 This system lingered on by the side of turnpikes and rates until 
 1835. The Act for " the Hue and Cry," passed in the reign of 
 Elizabeth (1584), provided that persons who had been robbed on 
 the highway should be entitled to have the damage made good by 
 the inhabitants of " the towns, parishes, villages, and hamlets, as 
 well of the said hundred where any such robbery shall be committed," 
 and that the sum required should be raised by taxing and assessing 
 " according to their abilities every inhabitant and dweller in every 
 such town, parish, etc." ^ 
 
 The Support of the Poor 
 
 As the Poor Eate is the basis of all other rates, the history of 
 local levies for the relief of the poor is exceptionally interestiag and 
 instructive in connection with the phase of the subject which we 
 are now considering. 
 
 ''■ Cannan, History of Local Bales, p. 7. 
 ^ Ibid. pp. 8 and 9. » Ibid. p. 46. 
 
CH. Ill LOCAL RATES 305 
 
 " Serfdom," says Mackay, " is itself a system of Poor Law. The 
 Poor Law is not therefore a new device invented in the time of Elizabeth 
 to meet a new disease. The very conception of a Society based on 
 status involves the conception of a Poor Law far more searching and 
 rigid than the celebrated 43 EUz. cap. 2. . . . With the disappearance 
 of Feudalism we might have expected that there would have disappeared 
 the custom which made the poor a charge upon the manor or parish 
 of which they had formerly been serfs. This, however, did not happen, 
 and a history of this survival of mediseval custom is the history of the 
 English Poor Law." ^ 
 
 The support of the poor was in the earliest times a parochial concern, 
 being connected with the maintenance of the Church. The church 
 rate and poor rate were thus for some time the only parochial taxes. 
 Before the 27 Henry VIII. 1536, the relief of the poor had been a legal 
 charge, but undefined in amount, on the revenues of the secular clergy, 
 aided by the many exclusively charitable foundations, and by the 
 regular alms of the monasteries and religious houses, coUegiate churches, 
 hospitals, and cathedrals.^ 
 
 When Henry VIII. suppressed the religious houses and con- 
 fiscated their property, provision for the relief of the poor had to 
 be made from other sources. Under the circumstances it was 
 obvious that the raising of the required revenue would be a difficult 
 and delicate matter. Parliament and the king proceeded cautiously. 
 In 1536 an Act was passed instructing local authorities to maintain 
 the poor and deal with beggars by means of charitable and voluntary 
 alms. The chief officers of the locality and the two churchwardens 
 and two other annual officers in each parish were to collect the 
 money, and all clergymen and preachers were to exhort and stir up 
 the people to give liberally. Fifteen years later another Act was 
 passed requiring more personal and detailed pressure to be put on 
 " every man and woman," especially if they did " obstinately or 
 frowardly refuse to give." 
 
 A Poor Bate 
 
 A step further was taken in 1563, when authority was given to 
 levy a rate, " but still only as an alternative to the voluntary alms, 
 and as the very last resort against the obstinacy of recusants." 
 Another Act in 1572 strengthened the power to raise the money 
 required by a tax. In 1598 it was necessary to make the burden 
 wholly compulsory, and the parish was reverted to as the area in 
 which the poor were to be relieved. 
 
 1 History of the English Poor Law, pp. 10-11. 
 " Report of Poor Law Commissioners, 1843, p. 12. 
 
 X 
 
3o6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi 
 
 In 1601 the famous Act known as 43 Elizabeth c. 2. was passed. 
 This is often referred to as the Act which founded and originated 
 poor rates. As we have seen, that is not correct. Poor rates were 
 levied many years before that Act was passed. What that Act 
 did was to make rather more definite the existing provisions as to 
 those upon whom the rate was to be levied, and to elaborate more 
 precisely the administrative details of the work of the relief of the 
 poor. It provided that " every inhabitant " and " every occupier " 
 should be assessed by the Justices " in such sums of money as they 
 shall think fit." 
 
 On whom it was to he levied 
 
 This was delightfully vague and indefimite. Nothing was said 
 as to what was to be rated or how it was to be assessed. The persons 
 who were to contribute were specified, but nothing at all precise or 
 definite was said as to how the contribution was to be levied upon 
 them. The result was that the judges in the law-courts, as cases 
 were brought before them, had to fill in the gaps and interpret what 
 they deemed to be the intentions of Parliament in the most practical 
 way they could. They practically fell back upon custom, and what 
 they deemed to be public and local convenience. The decisions 
 were conflicting and inconsistent. Sometimes it was declared that 
 personal property was not rateable ; but the weight of authority 
 supported the view that it certainly was, and that was the view 
 which was finally adopted by the judges as settled law. Within the 
 limits of the definite provisions of the statute considerable sanction 
 was given to local custom ; but as it was then usual for the law 
 courts, in judicial decisions, to lay down general principles, there 
 was soon promulgated a body of rules which reduced to something 
 like legal uniformity the varying practices which had grown up as 
 the result of local justices being empowered to assess taxes " as 
 they shall think fit." 
 
 Possessions and Ability to pay intended to be the Basis of 
 
 The judgments in the celebrated Jeffreys case in 1589 are very 
 instructive, as showing that rates were not intended to be a tax on 
 property but on the occupier. The case arose out of an attempt to 
 rate Jeffreys on land in a parish in which he did not reside and 
 which he let to tenants. As Mr. Eow-Fogo puts it : " The judges 
 decided that the lessor who receives rent for these (lands) shall not 
 
CH.III LOCAL RATES 307 
 
 be charged for them in respect of his rent." In other words, owners 
 of property shall not be rated directly on the income from their 
 property. This decision shows how clearly the difference between 
 a land tax and a local rate was recognised by the Court. " The 
 charge is on the person, not on the land, but on the person in respect 
 of the land, for the more equality and indifEerency." " Not rent 
 received, but rent paid was the criterion, or, in the case of an occupy- 
 ing owner, the value of his occupation." And again : " The assess- 
 ment of occupiers, then, on the annual value of their consumption 
 of real property, is not the surviving remnant of a direct tax on 
 general property, but rather the foundation of a complete impost 
 on the entire wealth of each individual." ^ 
 
 There can scarcely be any reasonable doubt that down to the Act 
 of 1572 the poor rate was intended to be assessed upon the inhabitants 
 in proportion to their real ability to contribute, and not according to 
 their abihty as measured by the standards in use for the other rates.^ 
 
 In 1633 Justices Hutton and Croke, in a celebrated rating appeal 
 which was decided at Lincoln, said that it had been resolved, by all 
 the judges in England in conference, " that the assessments for 
 rehef of the poor ought to be made in such manner as before, accord- 
 ing to their visible estates, real and personal, which they had or 
 enjoyed in the town or place where they inhabited." 
 
 In the 1635 edition of Dalton's Country Justice, a work of 
 authority at the time, it is stated that in assessing for the poor rate 
 regard must be had — ■" that men be rated according to their estates 
 of goods known, or according to the yearly value of their lands, 
 farms, or occupyings, and not by estimation, supposition, or report. 
 Also herein the charge of family, retinue, and countenance is in some 
 measure to be regarded : for if one valued at £500 in goods hath 
 but himself and his wife, and another estimated at £1000 hath wife 
 and many chUdien, etc., the first man by reason is to be rated as 
 much as the other ; and so of lands." 
 
 " There is no reason whatever," says Dr. Cannan, " to suppose 
 that what we call manufacturers and tradesmen were not rated in 
 proportion to their supposed profits, so long as the rate was assessed 
 by a vague estimate of ability. As soon, however, as occupiers of 
 lands and houses and tithes are assessed by a pound rate, difficulties 
 arise about these profits. The simplest solution is to trust that the 
 assessment of the houses and other tenements mil do justice among 
 
 1 Eeform of Local Taxation, p. 63. 
 = Caiman, History of Local Bates, p. 67. 
 
3o8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi 
 
 the receivers of such profits. There seems little doubt that this was 
 the course generally followed. But it is easy to see that in some 
 parishes where different kinds of trades were carried on, the value 
 of the tenement alone would not be a very satisfactory basis of 
 assessment. It was natural to look for some concrete thing on 
 which to impose a pound rate, and to find this concrete thing ia 
 stock-in-trade, assuming, of course, that £100 worth of stock-in- 
 trade brought in an income of five or some other number of pounds, 
 and treating this £5 for purposes of rating as equal to £5 of rental 
 value. Accordingly it happened that, while in most parishes no 
 notice was taken of anything except lands, houses, tithes, coal mines, 
 and underwoods, in a few places a system of rating in respect of 
 stock-in-trade existed from the earliest establishment of poimd rates 
 down to the present century." ^ 
 
 Acts of Parliament, Decisions in the Courts, and Practice in 
 the Parishes 
 
 In the seventeenth and the early part of the eighteenth century, 
 a number of Acts from time to time distinctly set out that rates 
 were to be assessed not only on the value of the lands, houses, 
 and premises, which people, occupied, but also on their stock-in-trade 
 and their personal estate. After providing for the assessment of 
 lands, tithes, mines, woods, and tenements, these Acts contained 
 provisions of which the following are examples : a general High- 
 way Act of the Conamonwealth (1654, c. 3), " and also upon the 
 dead goods, commodities, or stock-in-trade of every particular 
 parishioner." Another Highway Act in 1662 included in the 
 assessments, " stock, goods, or other personal estate not being 
 household stuff." 
 
 Acts in 1670 (22 Car. II. c. 12), 1690 (2 W. & M. c. 8), 1691 (3 
 W. & M. c. 12), 1695 (7 & 8 W. III.), 1703 (2 & 3 Anne, c. 8) specific- 
 ally provided for the rating of stocks and personal estate. In 1711 
 another Act (10 Anne, c. 15), for providing a Workhouse at Norwich, 
 empowered the laying of a rate on the inhabitants and on the 
 occupiers of land, houses, etc., " and on all persons having and 
 using stocks and personal estates in the same respective parishes 
 ... or having money out at interest." In 1698, on appeal, a rate 
 which had been laid in the parish of St. Leonards, Shoreditch, was 
 quashed and another rate ordered on the ground that personal 
 estates were not assessed.^ 
 
 ' Cannon, History of Local Eatea, p. 86. ^ Ibid, pp, 88-90. 
 
CH. in LOCAL RATES 309 
 
 An interesting light is thrown on the point as to the rateability 
 of stocks and the difficulty which attended the assessment of them, 
 by the following extract which Dr. Cannan quotes from" A Discourse 
 touching Provision for the Poor " by Lord Chief Justice Hale, who 
 died in 1676 : 
 
 Those places where there are most poor consist for the most part 
 of tradesmen whose estates He principally in their stocks, which they 
 will not endure to be searched into to make them contributory to raise 
 any considerable stock' for the poor, nor, indeed, so much as to the 
 ordinary contributions. ■ But they lay all the rates to the poor upon 
 the rents of lands and > houses, which alone, without the help of the 
 stocks, are not able to raise a stock for the poor, although it is very 
 -plain that stocks are as well by law rateable as land, both to the reUef and 
 raising a stock for the poor. 
 
 A careful examination into the customary method of assessing 
 and levying local rates was made in 1680, and it was ascertained that 
 two methods of ascertaining the contributors' ability to pay were 
 prevalent. One was estimating it by the value of his goods and 
 chattels, and the other by ascertaining the value of the premises 
 he occupied. In 1713, however, it was declared to be " general 
 usage " to apportion the rate according to the annual value of the 
 real property occupied. 
 
 In 1698 the Court of King's Bench remarked in a rating case, 
 " the rent is do standing nde, for circumstances may differ, and 
 there ought to be regard ad statum et facuUates." Dr. Cannan 
 records ^ that as late as 1823, in the Parish of St Mary, Whitechapel, 
 the poor rate was not and never had been assessed at an equal pound 
 rate upon all property in the parish equally but by ancient custom, 
 " without respect to value, but according to the ability of the party 
 charged, such ability being estimated with reference to property, 
 whether in the parish or out of it." 
 
 Some Features and Consequences 
 
 It was natural, however, that farmers and others who derive 
 business profits from the lands or premises they occupy should 
 come to be rated by the value of the land, houses, or premises 
 occupied by them instead of by such estimates as the local authorities 
 could make of the profits they derived from them. 
 
 In small rural communities carrying on agriculture by nearly 
 uniform methods, the rental value of the farms affords as good a criterion 
 
 1 P. 79. 
 
3IO OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi 
 
 of the farmer's means as anything that was likely to be found three 
 centuries ago. Even at the present day a farmer's income, for purposes 
 of the income tax, is assumed to be a fixed proportion of the rent he 
 pays. Similarly, the rental value of shops or factories is not a bad 
 criterion of the means of occupiers engaged in the same trade, and not 
 an extremely bad one of the means of occupiers engaged in different 
 trades. Eental value of the property occupied was thus generally 
 adopted as a basis for estimating the relative ability of the ratepayers.^ 
 The omission to consider salaries, fees, and wages was likewise a 
 matter which caused little dispute and requires little explanation. In 
 most parishes in the seventeenth century there would not be a single 
 person who had sufficient earnings from mere labour to make him be 
 regarded as one who ought to contribute to the support of the poor, 
 and even where there was such a person, he wotild, in all probability, 
 occupy a house the annual value of which would make him contributory 
 in about the proper degree.^ 
 
 Legal Decisions and the Outcome 
 
 In the latter half of the eighteenth century there was consider- 
 able litigation on the point and the decisions were somewhat con- 
 tradictory. Lord Mansfield threw the weight of his great authority, 
 whenever possible, against the rating of personal property, but he 
 felt compelled to decide that it was legally rateable where it had been 
 the custom to assess such property. In 1794, however, Lord Chief 
 Justice Kenyon said that there was no doubt that personal property 
 was liable, although in the case before him it had never been rated 
 except for six years, 1769 to 1775 ; and in 1795 the King's Bench 
 confirmed the quashing of a rate at Darlington because stock-in-trade 
 was not rated, although it was shown that the practice there on 
 this point had varied during the years 1746-94. 
 
 Until 1836 the Legislature refrained from clearly and precisely 
 defining the basis of contribution to rates. Then it only adopted 
 what had become the customary method and established uniformity 
 by stereotyping custom in a declaratory Act. 
 
 The Parochial Assessments Act of 1836 provided for the assess- 
 ment of lands and houses, and said nothing whatever about stock-in- 
 trade and personal property. The Poor Law Commissioners and 
 others appear to have considered that this amounted to a repeal of 
 the law which rendered stock-in-trade liable, but the courts decided 
 otherwise in 1839, and in 1840 the Commissioners issued a curcular 
 in which they said : "It can no longer be doubted that inhabitants 
 
 1 History of LocaVBates, p. 80. 
 2 Ibid. p. 81. 
 
cH.ni LOCAL RATES 311 
 
 of parishes remain liable to the poor rate in respect of stock-in-trade, 
 in like manner as they were before the passing of the Act to regulate 
 parochial assessments, and that every rate may be successfully 
 appealed against if any inhabitant having productive stock-in-trade 
 be omitted therefrom." 
 
 It became perfectly clear then that it was necessary that ParUa- 
 ment should end the confusion and finally determine, by definite 
 exactment, whether or not persons were to be rateable in respect 
 of their personal property as well as of their occupation of land 
 and buildings. A ratepayer refused to pay his rates on the ground 
 that the rate was an illegal one because personalty had not been 
 included in the assessment, and consequently the amount levied 
 upon him was inaccurate, inequitable, and illegal. The courts 
 upheld his claim. This meant that stock-in-trade and other items 
 of personalty were rateable. In practice they had almost univer- 
 sally sUpped out, and the prospect of having to include them was 
 alarming. Parhament had to face the question. It did it in 1840 
 with hesitation. It passed a temporary measure which was to 
 remain in force for one year, exempting personal property from 
 assessment for local rates. That Act has never been made per- 
 manent. To this day it is continued year by year, for a further 
 period of twelve months.^ If, in any year, it were not re-enacted, 
 personal property would become liable to assessment for local rates. 
 
 How and, Why Land and Buildings became the Basis of 
 Assessment 
 
 The truth undoubtedly is that the poor rate was intended to be 
 
 a local income tax upon the inhabitants of the parish. It was 
 
 intended to be a rate levied according to ability to pay. But the 
 
 difficulties which arose in practice led to the assessment being 
 
 limited to their possessions in the parish. Then it became recognised 
 
 as convenient and roughly accurate to assess men according to the 
 
 value of the property occupied by them. The rent of farms was 
 
 deemed to be a fair indication of the farmer's means. The rent of 
 
 shops and factories was deemed an indication of the profits of 
 
 traders and manufacturers, and the rent of houses occupied was 
 
 regarded as an indication of the means of professional and salaried 
 
 and working people. The plan of assessing the rate only on land 
 
 1 In Scotland people were assessed for the poor on their estimated income 
 down to 1861. Then only those places where the system had existed prior to 1845 
 were allowed to continue it. It (Ued out in 1880, Greenock being the last Parochial 
 Board to retain it. 
 
312 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi 
 
 and buildings evolved slowly, and for a very long time custom varied 
 in different places and at different periods. 
 
 " The cloud which obstructs our vision will disappear," says 
 Dr. Carman,^ " if we once abandon the pernicious modern habit of 
 asking whai was rateable. It is never things, but always persons, 
 that pay rates and taxes, and in the fourteenth or even the sixteenth 
 century the metaphor which attributes payment to the thing in 
 respect of which the person is taxed had not taken possession of the 
 ordinary mind as it has now. In the simplest form of ratiag there 
 is nothing in the nature of an assessment or valuation list made up 
 by a modem assessment conmiittee. The total sum to be raised 
 is apportioned directly upon the contributors as the assessors thiak 
 fit or the common agreement decides. It seems quite clear that in 
 the fourteenth and fifteenth century the accepted view was that 
 each inhabitant should pay according to his ability or substance, 
 for in those days ability and substance meant much the same thing : 
 the man who has a large income without having a large capital is 
 a product of modern civilisation. Something in the nature of a 
 valuation list soon sprang up, not because there was as yet any idea 
 that the things of which a man's substance consists ought to be 
 rated, but because the assessors wanted some kind of guide as to the 
 relative ability or substance of the ratepayers. In a purely agri- 
 cultural community, where every person of ability to pay is a farmer, 
 nothing can be more natural than that the assessors, in forming 
 their estimates of relative ability, should consider the number and 
 quality of the acres cultivated by each, and perhaps also the number 
 of sheep and cattle pastured. In a town an equally obvious guide 
 as to the substance of the inhabitants is afforded by the size or 
 value of the houses occupied. When this has once become the 
 settled custom, it is supposed by a natural confusion of mind that 
 the acres and the houses are taxed, and any attempts to carry out the 
 original principle of rating according to ability derived from every 
 source are strenuously resisted by the parties interested." 
 
 Sir Edward Hamilton's Memorandum 
 
 Sir Edward Hamilton, Secretary to the Treasury, summarised 
 the matter very clearly in the Memorandum which he prepared in 
 1897 for the Royal Commission on Local Taxation. 
 
 The origitial intention of the Poor Rate, which is the foundation 
 of aU local rates, and on to which many other rates have been grafted, 
 
 1 P. 22. 
 
LOCAL RATES 
 
 313 
 
 was that it stould be a contribution from the inhabitants of parishes 
 according to their " ability " or substance ; in fact, a sort of local 
 Income Tax. In order to supply some means of ascertaining or assess- 
 ing relative ability or substance it was necessary to resort to a system 
 of valuation ; and in olden days the readiest and most natural basis 
 of valuation to take was the land which the parishioner possessed, or 
 the house which he occupied. Hence annual value became the standard 
 by which the " ability " of householders to contribute to the Poor Eate 
 was to be measured, with the result that receipts derived from movable 
 property slipped through the mesh of the rate net altogether, and the 
 exemption of such property had at last to be legally recognised. 
 
 It may be mentioned, by the way, that the Land Tax was similarly 
 intended to be a tax in respect of property, in the widest sense of the 
 term. " Personal estate," including the profits and salaries of persons 
 holding offices, was as much the original object of the charge as landed 
 estate. But, owing to there being no adequate machinery for assessing 
 persons to the Land Tax, in respect of their personal or non-rateable 
 property, such assessment fell into disuse, and the impossibility of 
 enforcing it was finally admitted in 1833 by the Act 3 Will. 4. c. 12. 
 
 In short, the system under which rates and also the Land Tax are 
 levied has had to be worked in conformity with the limitation attaching 
 to every law and every intention of Parliament relating to taxation — 
 the limitation of what is practically possible. The result is that the 
 assessment of persons to local rates and Land Tax is now confined to 
 land and the structures thereon, irrespectively of the relative " ability," 
 or means of those on whom nominally or actually the charge falls, 
 except so far as dwelling-houses in respect of which rates are levied 
 are good tests of what people can afiord to spend.^ ^ 
 
 The Intention and the Fact 
 
 We have dealt at length with the poor rate because it is the 
 basis of all other rates. They are all levied on the same assessment, 
 and for the most part are collected together with, and as part of, 
 the poor rate in one total amount. We have shown that the 
 poor rate was regarded as and intended to be a personal tax on the 
 occupier. In the judgment in Eowls v. Gells in 1776 it was stated 
 that " the poor rate is not a tax on the land, but a personal charge 
 in respect of the land." It was not, and is not to-day, a charge 
 
 1 G. 9528 of 1899. 
 
 " In the face of these indisputable facts, such statements as the following are 
 a ludicrous travesty : 
 
 " The history of Taxation in this country has been a never-ending struggle on 
 the part of the landholders to escape their fair share of national burdens." — " A 
 Penny Tax on Land Values," Daily Chronicle, Feb., 1909. The truth is that it was 
 the owners of personal property who continually evaded their burden and trans- 
 ferred their share to the owners of land and buildings. 
 
314 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi 
 
 which follows the real estate without regard to any changes of 
 tenancy, but it is a charge which follows the goods of the occupier 
 wherever they may be found, even if they be in another county. 
 Where there is no occupier to tax, the property cannot be charged, 
 a tax in arrear did not and does not attach to a subsequent owner of 
 the property. An occupier going out or coming in is liable only for 
 so much of the current rate as is proportionate to the time he is in 
 occupation. Further, if, for any reason, the owner is entitled to 
 exemption from rates, and the occupier is not, the habUity attaches 
 to the occupier. On the other hand, if the owner is not exempt, 
 but the occupier is, then no rates are payable in respect of the pro- 
 perty. In law rates are a personal tax on occupiers. " In strictness 
 it is incorrect to say that land is rateable. The occupier, and not 
 the thiug occupied, is rateable. But, as the occupier of land is 
 rateable in respect of that land, it is sometimes convenient, for the 
 sake of brevity, to say that the land is rateable." ^ 
 
 " But," as the Report of the Poor Law Commissions on Local 
 Taxation (1843) says, "though certain persons only can be taxed, itis 
 still the property alone that determines the liability of those persons ; 
 and it is still the value of the property that determines the extent of 
 that liability ; moreover, it is a fact unquestionable that in pro- 
 portion to the burden of the tax is the value of the property, in 
 respect of which it is imposed, diminished. ... It will be found 
 upon examination that the Poor Rate is in operation a property tax, 
 and not a personal tax." 
 
 Thus, while rates were intended to be a personal tax on occupiers 
 and other iahabitants — levied on land, houses, stock-in-trade, and 
 other personal property, they were in reality a tax on owners of 
 property. The laws of political economy were stronger than statute 
 law, and, not being at the time understood, the intention of the law 
 was frustrated by their operation. 
 
 ^ Byde on Eating, p. 7. 
 
PART VII 
 
 THE INCIDENCE OF LOCAL RATES 
 
 315 
 
" I feel the deepest anxiety that this question [of who pays the rates] should 
 be thoroughly sifted by every one who takes part in the reform of local taxation." 
 — Lord Gosohbn. 
 
 " We should first endeavour to probe to the utmost the difficult and abstruse 
 question of the true incidence of rates and taxes, and especially of rates." — Sir 
 Ed. HiJHiLTOif. 
 
 " One of the most perplexing questions in political economy." — Lord Fabrbb. 
 
 " The baffling problems of the incidence of rates and taxes." — Seport of Royal 
 Ctymmission ore Local Taxation. 
 
 "There is no problem in the science of political economy which is more intricate, 
 subtle and obscure, or which has been more variously discussed, than the incidence 
 of taxation. It is difficult enough to establish the primary incidence or first blow. 
 It is far more difficult, it indeed it is at all possible, to determine the ultimate 
 incidence or the final blow." — Sir Ed. HAMLTOiir, Memorandum for Local 
 Taxation Commission. 
 
 316 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 INTEODUCTORY 
 
 In discussions on public finance few pouits are more disputed, and 
 none are more important, tlian the incidence of particular taxes. 
 By incidence we mean the ultimate resting-place of the tax, and 
 the problem of incidence is the problem as to upon whom the real 
 burden of the payment of the tax ultimately falls.^ Are prices 
 raised or, what is practically the same thing, are qualities reduced 
 by taxes ; and if so, to what extent ? Are rates an addition to 
 the rent that would be paid if there were no rates, and if they are 
 a reduction from the rent that would otherwise be paid for the 
 premises, do they fall upon the owners of the land or upon the 
 owner of the building or upon both, and are these persons able to 
 transfer them to any one else ? UntU we have ascertained upon 
 whom the burden of the tax or rate ultimately falls, no correct 
 opinion can be formed as to its actual effect and consequently as 
 to its expediency and justice. 
 
 The person who first pays the tax does not necessarily really 
 bear the burden of it. He may transfer or " shift " it to a second 
 person, and that second person may either ultimately bear the tax 
 or he may again transfer it to some other person or persons by whom 
 it is finally borne. There are three distinct phases which must be 
 carefully distiaguished and considered. First, we have the original 
 " impact " or assessment of the tax upon somebody in respect of 
 something : second, we may have the " shifting " or transfer of 
 the tax to others : and third, we have the ultimate " iacidence " 
 of the tax when we have discovered the person or persons upon 
 whom the burden of pajdng it ultimately falls. 
 
 There are further phases of incidence, as the term is used by 
 
 1 " The incidence of a tax marks the final payment by the tax-bearer." 
 — Seligman, Shifting and Incidence, p. 11. 
 
 " The ' real incidence ' of a tax is upon the persons who ultimately pay or 
 pro-Tide the money for a tax." — Dr. Cannan, Mem., 1899, p. 166. 
 
 317 
 
3i8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 some economists, whicli are even more remote and complicated 
 than those to which we have referred. They are the " effects " 
 which taxes have upon the trade, profits, and incomes of individuals, 
 as the result of the curtailment of the demand for, or the supply of, 
 the articles taxed, or an increase or decrease in the supply of, or the 
 demand for, other articles, caused by the imposition of taxes on the 
 articles which are taxed.^ 
 
 The " effects " of taxes are often very far-reaching and extremely 
 difficult to follow in all their ramifications. Strictly speaking, it 
 may be that those " effects " are synonymous with the " incidence " 
 of the tax in the proper meaning of the term, but we shall simplify 
 the consideration of a very perplexing problem it we confine our 
 attention to a more limited meaning of the word " incidence," and 
 use it to signify the final settlement or restrag of the actual tax 
 upon the persons on whom the burden of the ultimate payment 
 of it really falls. The indirect effect which the payment of the 
 tax by those upon whom the burden of it ultimately falls has in 
 other directions and upon other persons raises interesting and 
 important questions, but they are somewhat remote from our 
 immediate object and purpose, and in so far as it may be necessary 
 to discuss them at all, such discussion can conveniently be deferred 
 until the preliminary and more immediately pressing question as 
 to who really pays the tax in the long run has been considered and 
 answered. It is only when we have discovered or satisfied ourselves 
 as to the actual incidence of a tax that we can usefully proceed to 
 discuss its wider effects. 
 
 Eates are really local taxes. Both are levies made upon certain 
 persons in order to provide revenue for public purposes. We are 
 accustomed to speak broadly and generally of national levies as 
 " taxes " and of local levies as " rates." The real difference, how- 
 ever, is not that taxes are levied by the Government for national 
 purposes, and the rates are levied by local authorities for purposes 
 more or less local. The distinction is in the method adopted in 
 determining the levy. " In the case of a tax, the taxing authority 
 decides that individuals shall make particular payments on particular 
 occasions, and the aggregate sum it receives depends on how much 
 these payments add up to. In the case of a rate, the taxing authority 
 decides how much money it wants in the aggregate, and this amount 
 is raised by apportioning the payment of it between the various 
 
 ' " ' Incidence ' here denotes all those efEeots of taxation with which the 
 economist is concerned." — Edgeworth, Economic Journal, vol. x. p. 172. 
 
CH. I INTRODUCTORY 319 
 
 rate-payers in accordance with some definite standard made for 
 the occasion or akeady in existence. ... In the case of a tax, the 
 taxing authority hopes it wiU get a certain sum ; in the case of a 
 rate it knows that it will get it." ^ In the following pages we shall 
 often use the terms " rates " and " taxes " as interchangeable 
 terms when we are discussing general principles. 
 
 The whole problem of the real incidence of rates and taxes is 
 admittedly a very complex and difficult one, and I approach the 
 submission of an exposition of one section of it — the incidence of 
 local rates — with all deference, fully recognisiag the difficulties 
 which eminent authorities have felt in attempting to solve it. 
 
 The Pinal Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation 
 speaks of " the baffling problems of the incidence of rates and 
 taxes." ^ 
 
 The Separate Report on Urban Rating and Site Values speaks 
 of " the intricate question of the incidence of rates," and adds, 
 " We cannot offer an exact solution of this problem — perhaps none 
 is possible." * 
 
 Sir Ed. Hamilton and Sir G. Murray in the Final Report 
 say : " To ascertain where the burthen of taxation idtimately and 
 really rests is one of the most perplexing problems in economic 
 science. ... A tax may be shifted and reshifted to such an extent 
 that the ultimate incidence has no recognisable relation to the 
 primary incidence." The marginal note to this paragraph speaks 
 of " the insoluble problem of incidence." * 
 
 Lord Farrer refers to the incidence of local rates as " one of the 
 most perplexing questions in political economy," and says : " The 
 whole subject is one of such difficulty and complexity, that it is 
 impossible to be positive without beiag presumptuous, or exhaustive 
 without being wearisome." 
 
 Nevertheless, the difficulty must be faced and grappled with 
 if changes in existing methods are to be proposed and discussed 
 with any sound and accurate knowledge of what the present position 
 really is, and what would be the effect of any alterations that are 
 or may be suggested. Unless and imtU we know upon whom the 
 burden of specified rates falls now, and upon whom it would fall 
 if a particular change in the law were made, we shall think, talk, 
 and act in the dark, and we shall not be able to form any reHable 
 opinion as to whether what is proposed is just and reasonable, and 
 will or will not produce the effects anticipated and desired. 
 
 1 Caiman, p. 4. " P. 10. » P. 165. " P. 109. 
 
JJ 
 
 CHAPTEE II 
 
 RATES " ONEROUS " AND " BENEFICIAL " : " CONSTANT 
 AND " DIFEERBNTIAL " 
 
 Economists are accustomed to speak of some rates as " onerous " 
 and of others as " beneficial." Rates are also sometimes divided 
 into rates which are " constant " and those which are " difEerential." 
 It is necessary that we should understand precisely what we 
 mean by these terms before we proceed to use them, because we 
 shall find that any success that may attend our effort to disentangle 
 this very complicated and perplexing problem of the incidence 
 of local rates, will largely depend on the extent to which we arrive 
 at accurate views with regard to the division and classification of 
 the various portions of the charges which make up the total amount 
 of the rates. 
 
 Onerous and Beneficial Rates 
 
 In the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, 
 1901, Sir George Murray and Sir Ed. Hamilton defined as " onerous " 
 those rates which are for expenditure which is national in character, 
 and as " beneficial " those rates which are for services which are 
 local. 
 
 They also said : " On the whole we are disposed to think that 
 the best and simplest test which can be applied in order to determine 
 the class to which any particular service belongs is the degree in 
 which the rate-payer or the owner of rateable property derives direct 
 or immediate benefit from it. From the expenditure on the rehef 
 of the poor, for example, the direct benefit to the individual rate- 
 payer is probably nil. But the provision of sewerage, the lighting 
 of streets, or the removal of house refuse constitute services which 
 not only benefit him directly, but are even provided at less cost 
 than if he had to supply them from his own resources." 
 
 They thought that expenditure on Poor Relief, Police and 
 Criminal Prosecutions, Sanitary Officers' Salaries, Main Roads, 
 
 320 
 
CH. 11 RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 321 
 
 Bridges, and Education was national and " Onerous " ; and that 
 the expenditure on all other services administered by Local Authori- 
 ties was local and " Beneficial." 
 
 In an article in the Economic Journal (1893), Sir George Murray 
 said : 
 
 Taxation may be considered as representing either (a) duties 
 imposed on the individual for the benefit of the community at large, 
 or (6) services rendered to the individual by the community." 
 
 The former class of taxes may be described as " onerous," and the 
 latter as " beneficial." If the rate-payer gets a larger return from the 
 payments which he makes than the average member of the community, 
 the expenditure is to that extent beneficial to him : and in proportion, 
 as the direct return diminishes, the rate becomes " onerous." 
 
 Dr. Cannan, in his history of Local Rates in England,^ says : 
 
 Expenditure out of rates receives the name of " beneficial " if its 
 direct efiect is sufficient to more than counter-balance the opposite 
 effect of the addition to rates, so that in spite of the addition to rates, 
 it tends to cause an actual rise in the value of immovable property, 
 while expenditure out of rates which depresses the value of immovable 
 property is called " onerous." 
 
 A Definition and Explanation attempted 
 
 As this definition appears to exclude from both categories all 
 those rates the benefit from which, resulting to the occupier or 
 owner of the rated premises, is equivalent to the payment made, 
 and therefore neither increases nor decreases the value of the pro- 
 perty,^ we prefer to define the terms " onerous " and " beneficial," 
 as applied to rates and the expenditure of them, thus : " Onerous " 
 rates are those local charges or levies incidental to the ownership or 
 occupation of rateable property which are made to defray expendi- 
 ture which is of a national or general character, and does not directly 
 increase the value of the property in respect of which the rates are 
 levied or benefit the persons paying the rates, beyond the extent 
 to which such expenditure tends to maintain the value of all property 
 and benefits the public at large by securing good government, public, 
 private, and personal security, and general comfort and convenience. 
 Such rates are levied to promote the general well-being. As they 
 are levied upon selected persons and in respect of one class of 
 
 1 Second Edition, p. 180. 
 
 2 Presumably, under Dr. Cannan's definition, these rates would have to be 
 classed as " neutral." 
 
 y 
 
322 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 property only, they are a burden and tax upon those upon whpm 
 they fall. They do not fall in proportion to the benefit which the 
 iadividual who pays derives from the services towards the cost of 
 which he thus compulsorUy contributes. Such rates are, therefore, 
 taxation — necessary and proper, but " onerous " all the same. 
 The rates levied to defray the costs of Poor Relief, Police, Main 
 Roads, and Education are examples of " onerous " rates. That 
 portion of rates, the expenditure of part of which is " beneficial," 
 which is in excess of the benefit which accrues to the property 
 assessed, or the person who pays, is also " onerous." ^ 
 
 " Beneficial " rates are those local charges for services from 
 which the occupiers or owners of rated property derive direct 
 benefit. The rates levied to meet the cost of paving, hghtiag and 
 cleaning streets, sewerage, and the removal of house refuse represent 
 services which are a necessary adjunct to the occupation of the 
 premises in respect of which the rates are paid. Those services 
 are supplied by the local authority at a cost which is probably less 
 than the individual would have to incur if he had to provide them 
 for himself. In any case it is certainly more convenient that the 
 community should undertake them. They add to the value of the 
 premises to the occupier, and in so far as the added value equals 
 or exceeds the payment for them the rates for those services are 
 " beneficial." 
 
 It is not possible to make a strictly accurate and precise division 
 iato these two categories of all the services which local authorities 
 provide, but the broad distinction between the two classes is a real 
 one, and its bearing upon some phases of the rating problem is 
 important. There is, for instance, obviously a very clear difference 
 in character between a rate for the relief of the poor, and one for 
 removing house refuse, and constructing and maintaining sewers. 
 
 Constant and Differential Rates 
 
 The division between the two other categories of " Constant " 
 rates and " Differential " rates, into which rates may be divided, 
 takes a line which differs from that which separates " onerous " 
 from " beneficial " rates. 
 
 " Constant " rates are those portions of the rates on property 
 which have to be paid wherever the property may be. They are 
 
 1 " A burden is some duty or task or payment exacted without any equivalent 
 benefit being received in return." — Sir George Murray, Economic Journal, 1893, 
 p. 701. 
 
CH.II RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 323 
 
 the minimum amount of rates whicli the ratepayer will have to 
 pay on a similar property wherever he goes.^ He cannot avoid 
 them. He wiU pay them anywhere. 
 
 " Differential " rates are the rates which are in excess of the 
 " constant rates," and are payable in respect of the property because 
 it is where it is. They vary much, both in rate in the pound, and 
 also in total amount on similar properties in varying localities. 
 
 Are Rates which are Equivalent to the Benefit received 
 Burdens ? 
 
 Following up the distinction between " onerous " and " bene- 
 ficial " rates, to which we have referred, it is customary to say that, 
 in so far as the benefits derived by individual ratepayers from the 
 services rendered by public authorities equal in pecuniary value 
 the rates or charges paid for them, there is no taxation in the strict 
 sense ; there is simply payment for service rendered and benefit 
 received. Many of the local services do for the occupier what he 
 would otherwise have to do for himself or suffer the inconvenience 
 of going without them. The services are rendered more cheaply 
 and efficiently than each ratepayer could provide them for himself. 
 It is a matter of economy, efficiency, and general convenience that 
 the local authority should supply them and charge for them. 
 They have been described as "a wholesale instead of a retail transac- 
 tion." As the tenant or ratepayer gets what he pays for, just the 
 same as if he bought a pair of boots or a joint of meat, or paid a 
 tram, railway or cab fare, no question of incidence, of taxation, 
 or onerous burden arises.^ 
 
 If it were decided to add to the benefits by, say, supplying food, 
 
 ^ By this is meant " wherever he goes in this country." Whether he could 
 entirely avoid rates or their equivalent expenditure by going to some other part 
 of the world — which is very doubtful — ^is a point which it is not only almost im- 
 possible to determine, but is also so remote as to be of no practical importance. 
 
 ' " So far as the proceeds of a rate are expended in increasing the utility and 
 value of the house, the payment of it need not be regarded as a burden at all." 
 — Professor Sidgwick. 
 
 " In so far as the outlay of rates is reproductive in adding to the value of the 
 houses in the district, they may be said to come out of a fund created by their 
 employment and thus, to adapt a phrase of J. S. Mill's, to be ' paid by no one.' 
 The ' rate ' becomes a ' fee ' instead of a ' tax,' and cannot be counted as a burden 
 in the same way that it otherwise would." — Professor Bastable, Mem Loo. Tax. 
 Sep., p. 141. 
 
 " If a tax falls in exact proportion to the benefit conferred in respect of such 
 tax, there is no incidence of taxation in the strictest sense, because taxation has 
 not occurred. Payment for services rendered has occurred and nothing else." 
 — Sir G. L. Gomme, Mem. Loc. Tax. Sep., p. 317, 
 
324 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vu 
 
 the rates would be increased, but if the rates levied on each house 
 corresponded to the value of the food received and consumed those 
 extra rates would not be an additional burden. They woidd not 
 be a tax. They would simply be payment for articles supplied and 
 service rendered. They would not add to or diminish the value 
 of the property. If they were levied on the owner he would get a 
 corresponding addition to his rent because the supply of food 
 would add that value to the occupation of the premises. 
 
 Sometimes they are 
 
 But is it quite clear that no question of incidence or onerous 
 burden arises with regard to beneficial rates ? The services may 
 be extremely desirable, and, indeed, necessary ; they may be entirely 
 local and largely personal ; and the rate levied to defray the cost 
 of them may be distinctly beneficial because it secures the render- 
 ing of necessary services more efficiently and economically than 
 they could otherwise be obtained. But that does not end the 
 matter. The services may be necessary and they may also be 
 burdensome. Full value may be given to the individual for the 
 payment made by him, but the fact that the services are necessary 
 and consequently that the expenditure is required, may be due to 
 the locality in which the premises are situated and the conditions 
 which surround it and attach to it. For instance, it might be that 
 a river or other long stretch of water had to be crossed in order to 
 get from the locality where the premises were to the railway, 
 market-town, or mainland. A ferry would be a necessity. The 
 most economical and efficient method of providing it might be for 
 the local authority to undertake the service and levy a rate to cover 
 the cost. That rate would represent a beneficial local service to 
 each inhabitant. AU the same it would be a burden and a tax, 
 because it would be a charge, a cost, arising from the special circum- 
 stances of the case : one which residents elsewhere would not have 
 to pay. It would be an onerous burden on that particular locality, 
 and the question as to the incidence of that burden would certainly 
 arise. 
 
 There is really no difference in principle between the cost of 
 such a ferry and much of the cost of services which are necessary 
 in thickly - populated urban localities : services which are not 
 required in rural districts, and are only required in those urban 
 districts owing to the special conditions and necessities which 
 thickly-populated areas create. Consequently, though the services 
 
CH. 11 RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 325 
 
 are necessary and the rates which provide the cost of them represent 
 beneficial local expenditure, they are a burden which is necessitated 
 by the conditions prevailing in the locality, and the question as to 
 the incidence of that burden is an important one and will require 
 consideration. 
 
 The Incidence of Onerous Rates 
 
 It will simplify the discussion of the problem we have before us, 
 if we now proceed to direct our attention in the first place to the 
 incidence of those rates which are usually described as " onerous," 
 as distinct from those which are termed " beneficial," and ask : 
 On whom do onerous rates on houses and business premises really 
 fall ? In the case of ordinary commodities, where there is no 
 monopoly, the broad, general rule is that taxes on them are passed 
 on to the consumer,^ because the production of the commodities 
 must yield a conamercial return, or their production will be reduced 
 imtil they do. Competition wiU not permit more than a commercial 
 return. There is, therefore, no margin in the price out of which 
 producers will permanently pay a tax. It must be added to the 
 price, or the commercial return will be reduced, with the result 
 that production will be curtailed, and the price will again rise to 
 the requisite remunerative standard, which must show a commercial 
 return plus the tax. 
 
 Buildings apart from the land are manufactured articles. They 
 must yield a commercial return to the builder, or the erection of 
 them will cease. In the long run, and on the average, buildings 
 wiU and must yield no more and no less than such a return.^ There- 
 fore, any rates or taxes levied on them must be passed on to either 
 the occupier or the owner of the land on which they stand. 
 
 Onerous rates levied on houses woidd be paid by the occupiers 
 — the consumers — if land also were a manufactured article, a pro- 
 
 1 It is true that taxes on commodities ako tend to some extent to be diffused 
 over the whole community, because, as they either raise prices or reduce profits, 
 they alter the direction in which expenditure and capital flow. They do so 
 because it is optional to people to produce the commodities, or to go into 
 the occupations which are affected, and they will cease to produce those goods 
 or to go into those occupations which, by taxation, are rendered less remunerative 
 and attractive than others, until their withdrawal or abstention has increased the 
 profits, and restored the balance. But the effects of this tendency are so remote 
 that they may be ignored in the discussion of the particular problem which we are 
 considering. 
 
 2 " By universal consent it is agreed that where the tax is an exclusive tax 
 (as in the case of the local rates) or a special tax (as in the case of the inhabited 
 house-duty), the building owner wiU not bear any part of the burden." — Sehgman, 
 S. avd I., p. 301. 
 
326 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 duced commodity, and its value represented capital, labour, and 
 material employed in making it. The building value of land (apart 
 from the expenditure upon it to prepare it for being built upon) 
 does not represent anything of the kind. It is a special value. 
 When the building value of land exceeds the agricultural value, 
 there are no factors in that portion of the price which is above the 
 agricultural value, which represent any fixed necessary value, any 
 point of resistance below which the price cannot permanently fall, 
 or up to which it must rise, if the supply of it is to continue to be 
 produced. In this respect, the value of building land difiers funda- 
 mentally and entirely from the value of all produced commodities. 
 
 The PecuUar Characteristdcs of Land 
 
 The quantity of land is fixed, and no withdrawal of capital 
 from investment in it will reduce the supply of it. It can only be 
 sold at building value by accepting a price which will enable the 
 builder to sell or let the premises at the market rate, and obtain a 
 sufficient margin to give him a commercial return on the building, 
 after the rates on fjne whole property have been paid. 
 
 The national services which the expenditure of onerous rates 
 provides, do not add to the value of land and buildings as such, as 
 distinct from other classes of property and other sources of income. 
 Those rates being levied on that class of property only, are therefore 
 a burden : and they are a burden which under present conditions 
 cannot be evaded when the property is occupied and is yielding a 
 revenue. On which of the three parties interested in the property 
 — site-owner, building-owner, or occupier ^— do they fall ? 
 
 In the ordinary way the effective weapon that enables a con- 
 sumer to resist and avoid the payment of a tax on a commodity is 
 his ability to do without the article, and use something else which 
 is not taxed, or is taxed very much less. Aie all, or any, of the 
 parties interested in buildings in that position ? Can they go 
 elsewhere ? If they can, to what extent can they escape the rates 
 in question ? 
 
 Builders and occupiers of houses are owners or users of capital, 
 or makers of payments which they are more or less free to employ 
 or make elsewhere. They are not bound to a particular site. The 
 owner of land is not in that position : he cannot transfer his land 
 
 ^ In the case of business premises, so far as rates fall on the occupier, the possi- 
 bility that some portion of them wonld be shifted on to his customers would have 
 to be borne in mind. 
 
CH. II RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 327 
 
 to some other locality, not even to the next street ; nor can he put 
 it to more remunerative use where it is, than for buildiag purposes, 
 if the building value be in excess of its agricultural value. 
 
 As the owner of building land cannot take it elsewhere, and 
 cannot use it more profitably than for building purposes ; and as 
 in addition, there is no point of resistance, analogous to cost of 
 production, to prevent the price of his land or land that competes 
 with it from falling permanently below a given minimum, that 
 portion of the site value of property which is in excess of the 
 agricultural value of the land woidd appear to be the squeezable 
 and fluid factor in the total value upon which the burden of rates 
 wiU tend to faU.^ The precise extent to which this is so wiU be 
 more clearly appreciated as we proceed. 
 
 Houses on cheap Land of only Agricultural Value 
 
 Houses built on the lowest priced land available — land of no 
 more than low agricultural value — are " the marginal product " and 
 the price of the whole supply of houses is based on the relation 
 which the special advantages of the site on which they stand 
 and the cost of erecting them in that position bear to the price 
 at which houses at the point of the marginal product can be 
 supplied. 
 
 To the extent of its agricultural value, building land has a 
 definite value altogether apart from and independent of its building 
 value, and it wiU never, in the ordinary course, be sold or let for 
 building land at a lower price than it is worth as agricultural 
 land. 
 
 Consequently, if land be sold or let for building purposes at its 
 agricultural value, the rates that will be levied on the property, 
 when the premises have been buUt, in excess of those which would 
 be levied on the land alone as agricultural land, wiU fall on the 
 occupier, because the owner will not consent to any deduction from 
 the price or rent which he could obtain for the land for agricultural 
 purposes, and the builder will require a commercial return for the 
 building. 
 
 1 " The builder calculates on a certain profit or else he would not build : he 
 knows that tenants of a certain class can afford to give a certain rent and no more 
 for a certain Hnd of house ; and therefore if building is to take place at all, it is 
 clear that the rates must fall there where alone a margin exists to bear them ; that 
 is to say, on the price given, or ground rent promised to the owner of the soil." 
 — Lord Goschen in Draft Report for the Select Committee on Local Taxation, 1870. 
 
328 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vn 
 
 Houses on Sites which have a Building Value 
 
 When land is sold or let for building purposes at more than its 
 agricultural value, or its value for any other purpose, the position 
 is altered. The extra value of the land, beyond its agricultural 
 value, arises from its position. An occupier would pay for the 
 premises on that land the additional price which represents the 
 full extra value which the position of the site gives it, i£ the rates 
 he had to pay there were no more than those which he would have 
 to pay for similar premises on the cheapest land available anjwheie. 
 
 In so far as the rates on the premises in the more favourable 
 position are more than they would be on premises on the lower 
 priced and less favourably situated site, they will be a set off against 
 the more favourable position of the better site, and will, 'to the 
 amoimt of the excess, reduce its value. 
 
 The additional cost of the more favourable site to those who 
 occupy the premises erected on it will be the extra amount of the 
 rent of the land, plus the extra amount of the rates, and premises 
 will not be occupied or erected there in preference to the lowest 
 priced site available, unless the position of the more favourable 
 site is worth at least as much more than the other as the extra rent 
 and extra rates combined amount to. As the land-owner wiU only 
 receive the extra rent, or its equivalent, the extra rates are deducted 
 from the extra value of the site ; that is, they come off the building 
 value of the land, and, therefore, are allowed for and really paid 
 by the land-owner. Mr. Sargant (now Mr. Justice Sargant) illustrated 
 this poiat thus : — " Suppose an occupier is deciding between two 
 houses — one in the country £100 rent, no land value, rates 2s. in £, 
 or £10 : one in London, rent £150 — ^£100 for house, as in the other 
 case, and £50 for site, rates 5s. in £ or £37 : 10s. This house will, 
 therefore, cost him £77 : 10s. more than the other, and he wiU not 
 pay that extra unless the position is worth — not £50 but £77 : 10s. 
 more than the country one. Clearly the £27 : 10s. comes off the 
 site value and reduces it from £77 : 10s. to £50, and is deducted 
 therefrom by anticipation." ^ 
 
 This is the position with regard to the site which has acquired 
 a building value somewhat in excess of its agricultural value. Pre- 
 cisely the same principle applies through every grade in value, 
 right up to the most valuable site ia the centre of the City of London. 
 
 Of course, it is not suggested that any one who is contemplating 
 1 Urban Bating, p. 48. 
 
cH.i. RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 329 
 
 erecting premises on one of the most expensive sites in the City of 
 London ever considers, as a practicable alternative, building it on 
 Dartmoor, or in some other distant part, where the cost of a piece 
 of land for a site would be so small as to be practically negligible. 
 What does occur is that such a person does consider less expensive 
 sites in the City, and satisfies himself that the one he selects is worth 
 the extra cost beyond what would be the cost of other less expensive 
 ones. Others, who build on the less costly sites, compare their 
 cost and value with others still less expensive : and this goes on 
 through every grade of value until those sites are reached to which 
 the lowest priced and lowest rated ones are alternatives. 
 
 It is necessary that we should bear in mind, throughout the 
 discussion of this question, that there is a great difference between 
 the price which a builder will pay the owner for a site, or the price 
 at which a site would sell if the buildings on it were puUed down, 
 and the full value of the position it occupies. The price at which 
 the site will sell, or would be valued for rating purposes, is the net 
 or market value — the price the owner will get for it. The full or 
 gross value of the site to the user or occupier of it is what he pays 
 for it, and that is the price the owner gets for it, plus those rates 
 and taxes and other charges which attach to it, because of its special 
 position. Those rates, etc., are, therefore, a deduction from its full 
 value — a deduction which falls on the owner, because he only 
 receives the net price. 
 
 Differential Rates 
 
 When referring to the distinction between " onerous " and 
 " beneficial " rates, earlier in this discussion, we remarked that it 
 is customary to say that when the benefits derived from the services 
 rendered, for which the rates pay, are equal in value to the rates 
 which are paid for them, there is, strictly speaking, no taxation and 
 no onerous burden : there is simply payment for value received. 
 We expressed the opioion that when some aspects of the problems 
 connected with rating and taxing are under consideration, this may 
 be true ; but we pointed out that a rate for which fuU value is 
 received in beneficial service may also be a tax and a burden, the 
 incidence of which it is important we should determine. 
 
 When we consider the question from the point of view of the 
 incidence of the extra cost which is involved in the form of rates 
 when a house is occupied in a town, as compared with what the 
 rates would be on a house of the same value on land of negligible 
 
330 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v.i 
 
 value in a low-rated rural district, other considerations than those 
 of payment for value received arise ; and we must bear in mind, 
 not only that the rates will be heavier in the town, because (1) the 
 total assessable value of the house and site will be higher, owing to 
 the higher value of the site ; and (2) the rates will be much more ia 
 the £ ; but also that the whole of some and much of other services, 
 for which heavy rates are levied, are necessary in the town, but 
 are neither required nor provided in the coimtry. There is no 
 sewers rate in the country, and the costs ia lieu of it are small. 
 There is no cost of removal of house refuse. The cost of the main- 
 tenance of roads and footpaths is much less, and there is no ex- 
 penditure for lighting them. These are some of the charges on 
 property in towns for services which are necessary there, but they 
 are necessary because conditions prevail which are closely connected 
 with and, indeed, are inseparable from high site values. They are, 
 therefore, a set-off against and a deduction from that value, and, 
 consequently, fall upon the land-owner. 
 
 Differential Cost of Building 
 
 There is a further consideration, and that is that the cost of 
 building a house of the same size, and providing the same accom- 
 modation is greater in a large town than in a country district. The 
 building regulations are much more stringent, and add very con- 
 siderably to the cost, wages are much higher, and the conditions 
 under which the work has to be done add to the cost. Size for 
 size, and accommodation for accommodation, a house in a large 
 town will cost 20 per cent more to build than one in a country 
 district. This means that the rent of the building alone will be 
 20 per cent higher, and all the rates will be on a correspondingly 
 higher assessment. This is aU extra cost involved ia using the 
 more favourable site, and is a set-off against, and a deduction from, 
 its value. 
 
 The Incidence of Differential Rates and Costs 
 
 Just as rent, as political economists use the term, represents 
 the superior advantage which a given piece of land has in situation, 
 including therein facilities for busiaess and ease of access to markets, 
 or in quality, character or conformation, over the least favourably 
 placed or constituted land which the conditions of supply and 
 demand render it possible to use, so all rates, taxes, and charges, 
 which have to be paid in respect of the occupation or use of any 
 
CH. I. RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 331 
 
 land and the premises on it, because of its special position and 
 value — that is to say, all rates, taxes and charges which are in 
 excess of those which would have to be paid in respect of the same 
 area of land and similar premises in the districts where these burdens 
 would be the least — are a deduction from, and a set off against, the 
 special value of the more favourable land. They are disadvantages 
 attaching to the occupation of that land which, to the extent of 
 the amount of them, diminish and coimterbalance the value of its 
 advantages, and the rent or price which is actually paid to the 
 owner for the land is arrived at by deducting the cost of these dis- 
 advantages — ^the extra amount paid in taxes, rates, and charges — 
 from the full or gross value of the advantages of the site. 
 
 Summary of Conclusions 
 
 The position, as regards the incidence of local rates, at which 
 we have now arrived is this : 
 
 1. The occupier of a house on land, which has no higher 
 value as a building site than its agricultural value, will have 
 to bear the cost of aU the rates, payable in respect of the property, 
 which are in excess of those which would be payable on the 
 land if it were not built on. Such of the rates so payable as are 
 " beneficial " are not a burden. The real burden is the amount 
 by which the " onerous " rates on the premises exceed the rates 
 of all kinds that would be payable on the land if it were not 
 built on. That portion of the burden remains on the occupier. 
 He cannot shift it. It is of the nature of " a consumer's tax." 
 
 2. In the case of premises, the site of which has a building 
 value considerably in excess of its agricultural value — 
 
 The occupier will have to bear the cost of the rates that would 
 be payable on a similar house in a low-rated district, where the 
 land was of no more than agricultural value, less the amount 
 of the rates that would be levied on the site in the low-rated 
 district, if it were agricultural land. Of the portion of the 
 rates thus payable by the tenant only those which were 
 " onerous " would be a burden. 
 
 The land-owner will have to bear, as a deduction from the 
 full or gross value of the site in order to arrive at its letting 
 or selling value — 
 
 AU the rates that would have fallen on the site if it were 
 used as agricultural land ; 
 
332 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 All " onerous " rates payable in respect of the premises 
 in excess of those which would be payable on a similar house in 
 a low-rated agricultural district ; 
 
 All the rates payable in respect of the property which, 
 though they are " beneficial " rates in the ordinary sense of 
 the term, are the cost of services which are rendered necessary 
 by the position of the property, and would not be required or 
 would be less expensive in a sparsely populated district. 
 
 The general principle which emerges is that the occupier has 
 to bear that portion of the rates which he would have to pay 
 wherever he went, and the land-owner has to bear the burden of 
 all the rates which the occupier could avoid by going to a district 
 where the value of the land would be very small, and the rates 
 he would have to pay on the building would be low. This is 
 subject to the proviso that the extra rates will not fall upon the 
 owner of the land until the clear net price or rental receivable by 
 him for the land as building land exceeds the price or rent he could 
 get for it for any other purpose. 
 
 This conclusion is practically the one arrived at by those Com- 
 missioners who signed the separate Eeport of the Eoyal Commis- 
 sion on Local Taxation on Urban Rating and Site Values, 1901.^ 
 They said : 
 
 The main principle of the incidence of rates is that the tenant has 
 to bear that part of the rates which he cannot avoid, go where he will, 
 but the lessor has to bear the real burden of all rates which the tenant 
 could avoid by going elsewhere. 
 
 An Illustration 
 
 The working of the principle may be illustrated and put into 
 figures by comparing two properties — ^houses of similar size on 
 sites of the same area, say 18 to the acre, one in. a low-rated agri- 
 cultural district, and the other in a large town — thus : 
 
 Country House — 
 
 Site at agricultural value — annual value of 
 
 of an acre, say .... 
 House — costs £500— annual value 
 Rates, 3s. in the £, say 
 
 1 
 
 £ 
 
 30 
 
 4 
 
 s. 
 3 
 
 
 10 
 
 d. 
 
 
 6 
 
 Cost to tenant — Rent and Rates ^ 
 
 34 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 1 p. 156. 
 
 ^ The amount of the rates that would be levied on ^ of an acre of agricul- 
 tural laud, if it were not built on, is so small that it may be ignored. 
 
CH. II RATES ONEROUS AND BENEFICIAL 333 
 
 £ s. d. 
 Toum House — 
 
 Site — ^land at £1500 an acre — annual value £3 10 
 Site — ^Annual return on cost of developing 
 the estate, making roads and sewers, etc., 
 say 1 10 
 
 House — costs £600 — annual value 
 
 Rates, 7s. in the £ . . . . 
 
 Cost to tenant — Rent and Rates on Lease 
 Cost to tenant of similar house in agricultural 
 district ..... 
 
 Extra cost of house in town 
 
 -500 
 36 
 14 7 
 
 55 7 
 
 34 13 6 
 
 20 13 6 
 
 That extra cost is the extra annual value of the site in the town 
 beyond the value of a site of similar size in an agricultural district. 
 It is the extra payment the tenant has to make for it. It is the 
 extra value fixed by the higgle of the market. It is the total 
 or gross extra value. That extra annual value is absorbed thus : 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 7 
 
 10 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 7 
 
 
 
 Annual value of extra cost of building the house, making 
 roads, drains, etc. ...... 
 
 Extra or " difEerential " rates .... 
 
 Extra aimual cost of the land 
 
 20 13 6 
 
 The portion of the gross extra annual site value of £20 : 13 : 6 
 that goes to the land-owner is £3 : 7 : a year, apart from the return 
 upon the outlay for roads, drains, etc., if he made them. 
 
 The proportion of the whole of the rates which falls on the site 
 value of the town house in this case is more than two-thirds. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 RATES AND THE PRICE OF LAND 
 
 The amount which a person who is buying a house will give for it 
 depends, as a rule and except in the case of special properties, 
 on the amount of rent for which it will let. The amount which 
 a builder can get for a house, therefore, depends on the rent obtain- 
 able for it, and the price which a builder can pay for land — either 
 as groimd rent or for the purchase of the freehold — wiU depend 
 on the price he can obtain for the property when he has built 
 the house. He will not build unless the price he can obtain 
 will leave him a commercial return for his outlay, his skill, and his 
 time. The amount he can pay for the land will be such as wiU 
 enable the price he can get for the property to show him a com- 
 mercial return. 
 
 As the price a builder can get for a house depends on the rent 
 for which it will let, and he will not buy or lease land and build the 
 house unless the price which he can get for it shows a commercial 
 return, the price which he can pay for the land really depends on 
 the rent for which the house, when built, will let. 
 
 The rent for which the house will let, when built, will be the 
 market annual value of the property ; and that annual value will 
 be made up of the total of : 
 
 1. The full or gross value of the position, and the benefits 
 
 accruing therefrom. 
 
 2. The value of the building. 
 
 3. The value of the public services attaching thereto. 
 
 Less 
 
 {a) The extra annual rent of the building owing to the extra 
 
 cost of building in that locality. 
 (6) The amoimt of the rates and taxes payable by the occupier 
 
 334 
 
CH. Ill RATES AND THE PRICE OF LAND 335 
 
 for the house where it is, in excess of the amount that 
 would be payable for a similar house and similar services 
 (so far as they woidd be required) in a low-rated district 
 where land is cheap. 
 
 The part of the total gross value of the property of£ which these 
 deductions come is the site value. They cannot come off the value 
 of the building. They fall upon the owner of the site, because they 
 represent cost which arises from and is incidental to its special 
 position. As it is the special position of the site that gives it its 
 extra value, all special costs, rates, and taxes which also accrue 
 because of the special position of the site, are a set off agaiast that 
 extra value. The net market value of the site is its fuU gross value, 
 less the extra costs and rates which are involved in using it, and are 
 inseparable from it. 
 
 The net value thus arrived at is the price the builder can pay 
 for the site. 
 
 Rates which reduce the Value of the Land 
 
 Clearly, therefore, the extra rates which are payable on a house 
 in a town in excess of those which would be payable on a house of 
 similar size in a rural district, where rates are low and land is of httle 
 value, fall upon the owner of the site and are deducted from the 
 amount which he would otherwise receive for his land. 
 
 The fact that rates per se reduce the value of property, and are 
 a deduction from the rent which would otherwise be obtained, is 
 obscured and concealed by the obverse facts : 
 
 1. That rates wisely expended for beneficial purposes add 
 to the value of property, and consequently the payment of those 
 rates is coimterbalanced by the added value, with the result 
 that there is neither increase nor reduction in the rent actually 
 paid. 
 
 2. That when the rates are more or less onerous, and conse- 
 quently expenditure of them does not increase the rent which 
 an occupier is wiUing to pay, they are usually caused by or are 
 coincident with developments in the locality — ^increase of popula- 
 tion and business — which do increase the value of property, 
 with the result that the payments are again balanced. 
 
 The factors and conditions which tend to increase the value of 
 property usually counterbalance, and frequently more than counter- 
 balance, the effect of the rates in decreasing its value. AH the same. 
 
336 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.v., 
 
 the rates are a definite and unquestionable deduction from the value 
 of property, just as public and private improvements and expendi- 
 ture and growth of population do unquestionably and definitely 
 add to that value. Many people clearly perceive the latter, but 
 entirely overlook the former fact. 
 
 Rates do not come off the Value of the Building 
 
 If it be suggested that part of the onerous rates falls on the 
 building as distinguished from the land, and that an increase in 
 those rates reduces the value of the building, as well as the value 
 of the land, it will be seen that this is not so, if we consider what 
 the position would be if the buUdiag was cleared off the site. 
 
 Take the case of a house, the rent of which, on lease, is £75 a 
 year ; the groimd rent is £15 a year ; £60 is the rent of the building. 
 The capital value of the buUdiag may be put at £1000. Supposing 
 it to be modern, and in thoroughly good repair, so that its value 
 would be the price at which it could be replaced. The rates are 
 6s. 8d. in the £, or £25 a year. The total cost of the house to the 
 occupier is therefore £100 a year, and that must be assumed to 
 be its market value for occupation. 
 
 If the rates were increased to 8s. in the £, and the extra Is. 4d. 
 in the £ were onerous rates, representing expenditure which did 
 not increase the value of the property, and no other change occurred 
 in the conditions or surroundings of the property, the effect of that 
 addition of Is. 4d. in the £ to the rates would be to reduce the rental 
 value of the property from £75 to about £71 : 10s., at which figure 
 the total cost of the house — rent and rates combined — would 
 remain at about £100. 
 
 As the value of the building was £1000, and it would cost that 
 amount to replace it, the rental value of the building alone would 
 remain £60. The balance of the rent — £11 : 10s. — ^would, therefore, 
 represent the value of the site. That is to say, if the site were 
 cleared, owing to the buUding being destroyed, by fire or earth- 
 quake, and the erection upon it of a house similar to the one which 
 had been destroyed was the most profitable use to which it could be 
 put, the rent which could be obtained for that site would be £11 : 10s. 
 and not £15. 
 
 As the utmost that could be got for the house — rent and rates 
 combined — would be £100 a year, and the rates were 8s. in the £ 
 on the rental value, the rent could not be more than £71 : 10s. As 
 it would cost £1000 to build the house, and it would not be built 
 
CH. II. RATES AND THE PRICE OF LAND 337 
 
 unless it could show a retm-n of 6 per cent, or £60, the utmost that 
 a builder would pay for the ground would be £11 : 10s. a year. In 
 other words, the £3 : 10s., or thereabouts, of extra rates would come 
 off the value of the land. 
 
 The fact that it did so come off the value of the land would be 
 disguised so long as the house stood and the old lease endured, 
 because the old ground rent of £15 would continue payable, and the 
 owner of the building would have to be content with a less return 
 than 6 per cent on his investment ; but that would be, not because 
 the extra rate really fell on the building, but because he was the 
 temporary owner of both land and building, and was under a con- 
 tract which compelled him to pay more for the land than, under 
 the changed conditions, it was worth. 
 
 Precisely the same principle applies when the total value of the 
 property increases more than sufficient to counterbalance the 
 effect of the increase in the rates. When that is so, it is stiU the 
 site, and not the building, which has increased in value, but as, 
 under his lease, the leaseholder has not to pay any more ground 
 rent than before, he gets the whole of the increased rental value of 
 the property as an increased return on his investment in the building. 
 
 It is only by assuming that the buildings have disappeared, 
 and the site is cleared, and that nothing else affecting the value of 
 the property has occurred, that the real effect of the increase in the 
 rates can be seen clearly. 
 
 Incidence of Rates when Buildings are erected 
 
 It may, however, be said that " as soon as land is built on the 
 rates are enormously increased. The greater part of the increased 
 assessment is based on and caused by the value added by the 
 building, and is only levied when the building has been erected. 
 Those additional rates, beyond the small portion levied on the 
 land before it is built on, clearly fall on the building, are a tax on 
 buHding, and check the building of houses." This is a plausible, 
 but largely fallacious view. 
 
 That the creation and occurrence of certain conditions is 
 followed by the levying of a much larger amount in rates does not 
 necessarily mean that the burden of those rates falls upon those who 
 create and cause the conditions. The truth in this instance is 
 that the fact that additional rates will be payable when the land is 
 devoted to the purpose which gives it its special value is, as we have 
 shown, fully taken into account when the land is sold or let for 
 
338 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi. 
 
 building purposes, and correspondingly reduces the price wMch 
 would otherwise be paid for it. 
 
 A tax on all houses and buildings is a tax on the use of land for 
 the purpose of erecting houses and buildings on it, and in so far as 
 land which is required for buildings is usually more valuable, for 
 the reasons which cause it to be so required, the additional taxes 
 which fall upon the property when it is so used are a set-off against 
 the extra value of the land. As Lord Goschen put it in his Draft 
 Report for the Select Committee on Local Taxation in 1870 : 
 
 To sum up the case of house property generally, it appears that 
 the owners of building land, like the owners of other land, have to 
 submit to a reduction of rent equivalent to the average amoimt of 
 rates which the builder or other lessee calculates that he would have 
 to pay according to the average of past rates. 
 
 Site value is purely a matter of the value of one position for 
 particular purposes, as compared with others. There are a number 
 of sites available, but some are more suitable than others. Com- 
 petition in the market fixes the value of any one of them. That 
 value does not include the onerous rates. They do not add to the 
 value. They are a deduction from it. The land is, in fact, sold or 
 let with the knowledge that the property will be subject to a largely 
 increased annual payment for onerous rates by the user of it when 
 it is built upon, and it is worth that amount less in consequence. 
 
 The number of sites possessing given advantages or qualifica- 
 tions is Limited. The extent to which the building value exceeds 
 the agricultural value is the measure of the advantages for building 
 purposes which that land has over other land which can be had 
 at agricidtural value. That value is kept down by the amount of 
 the onerous rates that will be levied upon the property when the 
 house is built upon the land.^ 
 
 * Mr. Harper, Chief Valuer at Somerset House, as a member of the Depart- 
 mental Committee on Local Taxation, 1912, examined Mr. H. Trustram Eve, the 
 well-known surveyor, and, speaking of a building agreement with bare land Mr. 
 Harper put it to Mr. Eve that " the burden of the rates hereafter to be calculated 
 on the value of the site and structure combined, so far as it can be foreseen when 
 the ground rent is fixed, is taken out of the value of the site ? " Mr. Eve replied, 
 " Yes." (Question 3464.) 
 
 " When the builder is bargaining with the freeholder to fix the ground rent he 
 has in his mind the probable amount of rates that will be levied on site and structure 
 together, and he succeeds in getting a lower ground rent in consequence of the 
 burden ? " "I agree." " Therefore, to that extent at that moment the in- 
 cidence of future rates is anticipated ? " "I agree." (Questions 3468-9.) 
 
CH. Ill RATES AND THE PRICE OF LAND 339 
 
 The Actual Value is Rent plus Rates 
 
 Throughout the discussion of this question it must be assumed 
 that the rent at which premises are let is their market value, and 
 that this value is determined by the ordinary laws of supply and 
 demand. The landlord gets as much as he can ; the occupier pays 
 no more than he must. The higgle of the property market settles 
 the value of premises at a figure which is as high and as low as the 
 supply of and the demand for premises in each particular locality 
 will allow. The real cost of the premises to the occupier is the rent 
 he pays plus the rates and taxes which attach to the occupation of 
 them. When the occupier decides whether the house is worth the 
 cost, and whether he can afford it and will take it, it is this total 
 cost, rent and rates combined, that he considers. Whether he takes 
 the rates into account accurately or not is not to the point. He 
 uses his judgment and to the best of his ability he allows for them. 
 Some occupiers may be foolish and careless in this respect as in 
 others, but the great majority are not so. As Dr. Cannan says : 
 " Some people, of course, are fools enough to do anything, but there 
 are not fools enough to afiect the matter. The action of the people 
 who do affect it is guided by common sense." 
 
 Mr. Sargant illustrated the point thus : If an intending occupier 
 considers a shop in Cheapside worth £500 a year more than one in 
 Edgware Eoad, and the rates in both places are 5s. in the £, he will 
 not pay £500 more for the Cheapside shop because, with the rates, 
 it would cost him £625 more ajid is only worth £500 more. He 
 would pay £400 more rent, which, with rates, would bring the cost 
 to him up to £500. 
 
 Rates influence Rents 
 
 Sir H. Hunt, in his evidence before the Select Committee of 
 the House of Commons on Local Taxation (1870), gave cases where 
 in London (Tachbrook Street and Lowndes Square) sides of streets 
 and squares were in different parishes, and had different rates, with 
 the results that the rents of similar houses in the same streets and 
 squares varied accordingly. 
 
 It must be true as a general rule that if a tenant is prepared to 
 pay a given sum in rent, and also to undertake the liability of so much 
 in rates, he would be able and willing, if exempted from the payment 
 of the rates, to pay a sum equal to the rent plus the rates. {Rep. of 
 Select Com. on Town Holdings, 1892.) 
 
 There is overwhelming testimony to the fact that in entering upon 
 
340 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi, 
 
 a tenancy building lessees invariably take the amount of rates into 
 account, and that ordinary occupiers on the whole, and as a general 
 rule, do the same. Some tenants may be careless, some ignorant, and 
 a good many may disregard the last 2d. in the £. But the general 
 principle is no more disturbed by such accidents than the principle 
 that such a reduction of the tea-duty goes to benefit tea-drinkers is 
 on the whole disturbed by the fact that some people buy tea carelessly 
 and ignorantly. {Loc. Tax Com., Separate Report on Urban Eating arid 
 Site Values, by Lord Balfour and others, 1901, p. 156.) 
 
 An interesting light is thrown upon the subject of the real 
 incidence of rates in the Poor Belief Act 1819, which in s.l9 pro- 
 vided that the rates for small properties might be levied upon owners 
 instead of occupiers in order that local authorities might avoid the 
 difficulties and the waste and risk of loss in the collection of those 
 rates. The section recites that : 
 
 In many parishes, and more especially in large and populous towns, 
 the payment of the poors rates is greatly evaded, by reason that great 
 numbers of houses within such parishes are let out in lodgings, or in 
 separate apartments, or for short terms, or are let to tenants who quit 
 their residence or become insolvent before the rates charged on them 
 can be collected : and it has been found that in many instances the 
 persons letting such houses do actually charge and receive much higher 
 rents for the same, upon the groimd and expectation that the occupiers 
 thereof cannot be effectually assessed to the poors rates, and will not 
 be charged with or required to pay such rates, and do thus obtain an 
 undue advantage to themselves, etc. 
 
 That is to say, the owners of houses where the tenants were able 
 to evade payments of the rates got a higher rent because that evasion 
 was possible. When the occupier evaded the rates the owner got 
 a higher rent out of him. 
 
 At the present time the owners pay the rates direct on a very 
 large proportion of house property. In London they do so on 
 more than 60 per cent in value — that property being let at a rent 
 which includes rates and taxes. It was estimated by Mr. Sargant 
 in his evidence before the Committee on Town Holdings, 1890, 
 that, taking the country as a whole, three-fourths of the occupiers 
 do not pay their rates directly. In every case, of course, the rent 
 is correspondingly higher when the owner pays the rates. In such 
 cases it really makes no difference who actually pays the rates to 
 the collector — the owner or the occupier — the net result to both is 
 in the long run practically the same. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 THE OPINIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS 
 
 The Royal Commission on Local Taxation which reported in 1901 
 sought the opinion of a number of the leading Professors of Political 
 Economy and other authorities in the hope, no doubt, that under 
 the guidance of those eminent men they would be able to arrive at 
 some clear and definite solution of " the perplexing problem " of 
 the real incidence of local rates. If that was their anticipation they 
 were disappointed, because after they had received a large number 
 of interesting and lengthy memoranda on the subject from these 
 gentlemen, we find them, in their Final Report, referring to " the 
 baffling problem of the incidence of local rates and taxes." 
 
 Few people who read those Memoranda through from beginning 
 to end will fail to sympathise with the state of " confusion worse 
 confounded " in which the Commissioners evidently found them- 
 selves after they had to the best of their ability digested and assimi- 
 lated the conflicting opinions and theories which the leading authori- 
 ties in political economy placed before them. The Blue Book in 
 which those opinions are published is well calculated to whiten the 
 hair of any ordinary man who attempts to master it, and to leave 
 him with the conviction that he has indeed embarked upon the 
 study of an " insoluble problem." 
 
 The Select Committee on Town Holdings (1892) did not feel 
 able to say more than that " The real as opposed to the apparent 
 incidence of Local Taxation in towns falls partly upon the owner 
 of the land, partly upon the house-owner, and partly upon the 
 occupier. The proportions in which the burden is distributed are 
 difficult to determine." 
 
 The Majority Report of the Commission on Local Taxation 
 (1901) adopted and endorsed this opinion and added : " It is im- 
 practicable to lay down any general rule as to the proportions in 
 
 341 
 
342 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vn 
 
 which the burden is distributed, or to determine it in individual 
 cases." 
 
 The Commissioners who presented the Separate Report on 
 Urban Rating and Site Values said : " We cannot offer an exact 
 solution of this problem — perhaps none is possible." They did, 
 however, in my opinion, get very close to the true solution when 
 they said : " The main principle of the incidence of rates is that the 
 tenant has to bear the burden of that part of the rates which he 
 cannot avoid, go where he will, but the lessor has to bear the real 
 burden of all rates which the tenant could avoid by goiug else- 
 where." ^ They also expressed the opinion that the tenant can 
 avoid the rates on site value by going to an outlying district where 
 that value is negligible : but he will have to pay rates on his house 
 wherever he goes, and that portion will stick to him, though he will 
 probably shift on to the owner that portion of the rates on the 
 building value which is exceptionally high if the district be highly 
 rated.^ 
 
 Lord Farrer remarks that : " Taxes have a tendency to stick 
 where they fall." He thinks some part of the rates is shifted from 
 the occupier to the owner ; but that we cannot expect to arrive at 
 any definite conclusion as to the exact proportion. He appears 
 to think that practically all of them fall on the owner on a change 
 of tenancy. He thinks that the incidence of Inhabited House 
 Duty is similar to that of Rates, and that it is a burden on landlords. 
 
 Lord Courtney thinks that the Inhabited House Duty is borne 
 by the occupier, except where " the site forms an important part 
 of the value of the house," when the proportion of the duty payable 
 on that value falls on the owner. The same reasoning applies to 
 rates. On trade premises the rates are part of the trade costs and 
 are transferred to the customers. 
 
 Professor Marshall considers that a tax on that part of the value 
 of the land which arises from its position and not from the expendi- 
 ture of labour and capital by its owner " cannot settle anywhere 
 except on the landlord : a lessee being, of course, landlord for the 
 time being." Taxes on buildings and that part of the value of 
 land which is due to the expenditure of its owner " have peculiari- 
 ties of their own." " In general they tend to be shifted in the 
 same way as, though more slowly and irregularly than, taxes on 
 movable goods." Rates, the current expenditure of which gives 
 full value to the occupier remain with him, as they should. Other 
 1 P. 155. 2 p. 156. 
 
CH. IV OPINIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS 343 
 
 rates (onerous rates) on site values are entirely borne by the owner : 
 those on building values tend to be borne by the occupier ; but 
 part of exceptionally onerous rates falls on the owner. In his 
 evidence before the Commission Professor Marshall said : " A tax 
 on that part of the annual value of land which arises from its position, 
 its extension, its yearly income of light and heat, rain and air, 
 cannot settle anywhere except on the landlord." 
 
 Professor Edgeworth is of opinion that difiEerential rates fall on 
 the owners. " A rate on trade premises falls partly on the customer, 
 partly on the trader, partly on the owner, in proportions difficult 
 to determine." 
 
 Professor Bastable says : " Where building sites command a 
 high, or what is usually called a monopoly, value the ultimate 
 incidence of rates is clearly on the ground-owner." 
 
 Professor Price says : " As to rates, the presumption is that 
 the rates on the value of the ground fall on the groimd-owner, and 
 those on the value of the buUding fall on the occupier. 
 
 Mr. C. H. Sargant thinks that Inhabited House Duty on the 
 value of the site falls on the site-owner : on the value of the building 
 it faUs on the occupier. " Constant Rates " fall as the Inhabited 
 House Duty does ; but if the premises are occupied for trade 
 purposes the part which falls on the occupier is transferred to the 
 customers. " Differential Rates," so far as they are onerous, fall, 
 both in respect of site and bmlding, on the owner of the site. 
 
 Mr. T. Mackay says : " Sooner or later the rates fall on the 
 owner, in the case both of private houses and business premises. 
 
 Sir G. L. Gomme is of opinion that onerous taxes fall on the 
 owner of the site. Beneficial taxes fall on the occupier who gets 
 value for them. This applies both to private houses and business 
 premises. The Inhabited House Duty faUs upon the owner. 
 
 Professor Gonner's view is that rates on the value of the bmldiag 
 fall on the occupier. Those on the value of the ground fall on 
 the owner of the land. Taxes on the building value of trade premises 
 are shifted on to the consumer. Inhabited House Duty falls mainly 
 on the occupier, but partly on the owner of the site. 
 
 Professor Sidgwick considers that " the whole burden of the 
 differential rate, so far as it is onerous, must fall on the owner of 
 the ground value." " A house let after a differential rate has been 
 imposed must be assumed to be let on terms which throw the whole 
 burden of the rate on the owner of the ground value." "The 
 shitting of the primary incidence of rates from occupier to owner 
 
344 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND vr. vi, 
 
 would not produce economic effects of great importance on the 
 whole." " I hold that the excess of urban over rural rates in any 
 case falls in the main on owners of ground values." 
 
 Professor Sidgwick's memorandum on this complicated and 
 difficult question appears to me to be the clearest, soundest, and 
 most illuminating reply received by the Commissioners from the 
 financial and economic experts to whom they sent their inquiries. 
 It is perhaps natural that I should hold this opinion because Professor 
 Sidgwick's views are very largely identical with the opinions at 
 which I have arrived by the somewhat different method which is 
 expounded in this volume. 
 
 Dr. E. Cannan says that the consequence of rates for unpro- 
 ductive purposes being higher in one place than another is to make 
 the value of the land lower in the high-rated and higher in the low- 
 rated places than would be the case if the rates were equal in all 
 cases. " If occupiers were allowed to deduct either rates, or the 
 cost of gettiag their hair cut, or any other expense, from their rents, 
 then their rents would be that much higher. If they were not 
 allowed to deduct the income tax, their rents would be that much 
 lower." 
 
 Sir E. GifEen says : " Eates on house and trade premises are 
 deductions from the property in the nature of a rent-charge." 
 
 " That burden (rates) falls ab initio upon the ground landlord, 
 diminishing the sum of capital or income he is able to obtain for his 
 property." " All local taxes, I believe, must ultimately fall on 
 real property. The octroi of a city like Paris depresses pro tanto 
 the rent of the City, which would be increased if there were no 
 octroi." 
 
 Sir E. W. Hamilton, in his Memorandum already quoted, says : 
 " The conviction which I have formed is that a part of the rates in 
 respect of houses falls on the land-owner as certainly as a part falls 
 on the occupier. What amount each of those parts represents 
 I do not pretend to say. But I shall assume, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, that half the rates fall on the occupiers, and that the other 
 half falls on those who have superior interests in the houses. . . . 
 This apportionment of rates is, I admit, hypothetical ; but, when 
 aU circumstances are taken into account, it is probably a reasonable 
 hypothesis." 
 
 Mr. Dudley Baxter took a similar view many years ago in his 
 Local Government and Taxation, when he said : " Onerous " rates 
 are about half the total rates. 
 
CH. iv OPINIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS 345 
 
 W. E. Gladstone said, at Ormskirk, in October 1868 : " We 
 must all agree that the ultimate burden of the rates comes upon 
 the landlord. Whether they be parochial rates or borough rates, 
 they -mil at last find their way to the landlord." 
 
 E. Cobden, speaking in 1850, said : " It is known to everybody 
 that the assessment is on the rent, and if the rate is assessed on the 
 rent, why the tenant charges it to the landlord when he takes his 
 farm. He calculates what his rates and taxes are, and if the farm 
 is highly rated he pays less rent." 
 
 Mr. Harper, now Chief Government Valuer, ia his evidence 
 before the Eoyal Commission on Local Taxation 14 years ago, 
 said : " Were all property relieved of the charge for rates, it can 
 hardly be doubted that the result would be an increase in rents to 
 a corresponding amount, subject to some slight allowance for 
 economic friction." 
 
 Mr. Trustram Eve, when giving evidence before the Depart- 
 mental Committee (1912), said that he and the Ratiag Surveyors 
 were of opinion that the incidence of the rates is upon the owners — 
 that they pay nearly all the rates (Ans. 3412, 3439). " At present 
 most of the occupiers think not only that they pay the rates, but 
 that the incidence is on them. Personally I do not think it is " 
 (Ans. 3441). 
 
 Mr. Harper said to Mr. Eve : " You and I are practically at 
 one that the incidence of the rates, in the long run, tends to fall on 
 the owner " (3459). 
 
 Economic Friction and Diffusion 
 
 Mr. Sidney Webb, as a witness before the Select Committee on 
 Town Holdings (1890), said : 
 
 My view generally is that if actual life were as the theoretical 
 economists suppose it to be, if every one were omniscient, if there 
 were absolute freedom of capital and labour, and if there were 
 perfectly frictionless mobility, then the incidence of taxation would be, 
 as owners of property assert it is, including, therefore, the inhabited 
 house duty and the water-rate ; but I shall show you that is not the 
 economic view. The deductions from that theory are so large as to 
 make it absolutely fallacious. 
 
 He said that the real incidence is very different from the 
 apparent. The man who appears to pay and thinks that he pays 
 does not really pay. 
 
 I beUeve the rate on buildings falls in the same way as the rate on 
 land (and I think that is now the orthodox opinion) falls, that is, upon 
 
346 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 the owner, or would, conditionally in the absence of economic friction. 
 The argument which proves that the rate on buildings would fall on 
 the consumer assumes that there is no other shoulder on whom the 
 builder can shift it : that he must get his normal interest : that he is 
 between the fixed point of the ground landlord and the shifting price 
 of the consumer, but, as a matter of fact, the ground landlord is not 
 a fixed point, and in the passage of agricultural land into building 
 land there is, in my experience, always a large jump in value. . . . 
 Accordingly, if the builder finds that by taxation his return on his 
 buildings is diminished, he has the alternative not merely of increasing 
 the rent to the consumer, but of offering a lower ground rent to the 
 freeholder, and the freeholder getting, in any case, a much larger than 
 the agricultural value, has no fixed point of resistance. 
 
 Mr. Webb went on to say that in his opinion the theory was 
 sound, but that it was eaten away by economic friction. With 
 regard to this theory of economic friction, and Mr. Webb's sugges- 
 tion that it " eats away " otherwise sound economic theory and 
 renders it " absolutely fallacious," this seems to me to manifest a 
 considerable lack of a sense of proportion. No doubt it is true that 
 generally with new or increased taxes or rates of moderate amount, 
 there is considerable friction in passing on the charge to its ultimate 
 destination, and at first some part of the new burden is borne by 
 those upon whom it primarily falls ; but I agree with Dr. Cannan, 
 who says that " nothing is more ludicrous than the argument that 
 because a drop makes no perceptible diEEerence in a big bucket, it 
 has produced no effect." The little changes which occur obviously 
 have just the same effect in kind, though not in degree, as the 
 great changes, the effect of which no one would dispute. 
 
 Of course, there is " economic friction " ; but that only means 
 that the ultimate result is longer in being reacted. For this reason 
 some authorities prefer to say that the burden of rates " tends " to 
 fall on certain persons. But this puts it too mildly. There is more 
 than a mere tendency. In the long run and ultimately, taking 
 property as a whole, the result is certain. It may be and indeed is 
 delayed, and while the delay continues it may suffice to speak of a 
 tendency, but ultimately that tendency crystallises into a definite 
 result. I agree with Mr. Storey that 
 
 The incidence of rates, although certain enough in the long run, 
 does not admit of clumsy dogmatism in any selected case at a particular 
 moment. Economic adjustments do not take place with the mechanical 
 precision and punctuality of clockwork. They are more analogous to 
 the complex and deliberate processes of nature, liable at times to be 
 
CH. IV OPINIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS 347 
 
 set back and delayed or to assume unfamiliar disguises, subject to infinite 
 variations, responding to innumerable influences. But economic forces, 
 like the forces of nature, invariably assert themselves sooner or later 
 and in one manner or another, and proceed at last to their predicted 
 and necessary consequences.^ 
 
 Referring to the give and take which there often is between 
 farmers and landlords in good and bad times without any change 
 of nominal rent, Professor Marsball says : " Such adjustments 
 obscure tbe incidence of agricultural rates, as the eddies of a wind 
 rushing past a bouse will often carry snowflakes upwards, over-bear- 
 ing but not destroying, the tendency of gravitation." But this 
 is only very temporary. Eventually the snowflakes reach the 
 ground either as snow or rain and the law of gravitation asserts 
 itself. 
 
 If theories of " economic friction," " line of least resistance," 
 etc., be pursued to their ultimate conclusion we shall be led to the 
 comforting decision of the American economist who said that 
 " taxes equate and diffuse themselves, and if levied with certainty 
 and imiformity they will, by a diffusion and repercussion, reach and 
 burden all property with unerring certainty and equality." Clearly 
 when we reach that state of mind we need not trouble any more 
 about incidence. It will not matter who pays taxes or how we 
 levy them, all will be right in the end ! 
 
 Views of Taxers of Land Values 
 
 It is interesting to note here that it is the opinion of the most 
 prominent of the advocates of the taxation of land values that the 
 bulk of the rates fall upon the land-owners now. Indeed, some of 
 them contend that all rates and all taxes really ultimately fall upon 
 land values. 
 
 Mr. John Orr in Taxation of Land Values says : " Rent is reduced 
 by the full amount of the taxes paid by the tenants in any form " 
 (p. 2) ; and " The proposal to substitute a tax on land values for 
 all the present taxes is simply a proposal to substitute a direct tax 
 on land values for indirect taxes on land values " (p. 16). 
 
 Mr. Harold Storey in The Economics of Land Value says : 
 " The present rates are a charge on land value." 
 
 Mr. Edwin Adam in Land Values and Taxation says : " The 
 imperial taxes which a man pays fall as deductions from the sum he 
 can afford to pay in rent to the owner of the land " (p. 173). 
 1 Economics of Land Value, p. 50. 
 
348 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 Mr. Josiah Wedgwood, M.P., has more than once expressed the 
 same opinion. In his evidence before the Departmental Committee 
 on Local Taxation, 1912, he held that all rates now come out of the 
 landlord's pocket (Ans. 1865-70). 
 
 Mr. C. L. Davies, the Secretary of the United Committee for the 
 Taxation of Land Values, and the representative, before the Depart- 
 mental Committee, of the Land Values Group of Members of ParHa- 
 ment, repeatedly stated in his evidence that the relief of rates would 
 be a gift to land-owners, and that " these local burdens now fall on 
 landed property " (Ans. 1167). 
 
 Mr. C. H. Smithson, of Halifax, stated that the whole of the 
 existing rates fall upon the owners of the land, except where they 
 amount to more than 20s. in the £ on the economic rent, and that 
 if they were abolished the rent would rise by the amount of them. 
 " The ratepayers are misguided in thinking that they are paying 
 them " (Ans. 2143, 2191-5). 
 
 The Memorandum submitted to the Departmental Committee 
 (1912) by the Land Values Group of Members of Parliament said : 
 " It is agreed that to a very large extent the burden falls on the 
 owner as distinct from the occupier " (Report, vol. ii. p. 19). 
 
 Mr. Dundas White, M.P., said that if the rates were paid by the 
 landlord, the tenant would pay more rent (Ans. 1712-13, 1846). 
 
 Mr. W. R. Lester, the Treasurer of the United Committee for 
 the Taxation of Land Values, in an article in Land Values,^ said : 
 
 Rent of land is whatever has to be paid to secure the right of occu- 
 pancy. It matters not whether the payment is made in the name 
 of rent or of rates. Under present fiscal arrangements, no land, how- 
 ever poor, can be occupied without payment of rates in addition to 
 rent, which means that rates are part of the payment made to secure 
 the use of land, and must therefore be considered as part of rent. To 
 arrive at the real amount of land value we must add rates to rent, because 
 were no rates payable rent would rise by the amount of the remitted 
 rates. 
 
 Another View 
 
 Some writers, however, contend that because urban land has 
 increased largely in value without any expenditure or effort on the 
 part of the owners, and while it was increasing in value the occupiers 
 were paying increased rents and also high rates, the burden of the 
 rates is really upon the occupiers, and is borne by them. Mr. Chiozza 
 Money, M.P., puts this view thus : 
 
 1 July 1907. 
 
CH. IV OPINIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS 349 
 
 Let us consider the matter concretely. A certain land-owner in 
 1769, the year in which. James Watt took out his steam-engine patent, 
 owned a tract of poor agricultural land of little value. Owing to a 
 fortunate discovery of coal near his land, the poor land-owner suddenly 
 became wealthy, and a mining town sprang into existence. Houses 
 were rapidly bmlt and their occupiers as rapidly rated, in order to carry 
 on the local government of the new town. The land-owner thus came 
 to draw high rents from ground which, a few years before, had returned 
 him next to nothing. How, then, can it be alleged that he bore the 
 rates paid in addition to high rents by his tenants, and how can it be 
 alleged of his successors to-day, whether they are successors by inherit- 
 ance or by purchase 1 
 
 The fact is that the man in the street, who has a firm belief that 
 when he pays money to the local rate collector he is the actual payer 
 of the rates, is right in the main, and, I repeat, the true view of a local 
 rate (in so far as it is not " beneficial ") is that it is a local income tax 
 roughly graded by the size of the tax-payer's dwelling It is a very 
 rough-and-ready method, and, especially in the case of small traders, 
 needs some revision.^ 
 
 Clearly this is fallacious. The circumstances under which the 
 land acquired its value, and whether the owner did or did not do 
 anything to create the value, has nothing whatever to do with the 
 point under consideration. These details merely confuse the issue. 
 The real point is, does the tenant pay the " onerous " rates in 
 addition to a rent which represents the full value of the property, 
 or do those rates diminish the value and reduce the rent which can 
 be obtained, so that the rent and those rates combined represent 
 the full market value of the property ? The " beneficial " rates 
 are not a burden. As Mr. Money puts it, they " are not taxes of 
 any kind, but simply tradesmen's bills presented by the local 
 authority for services rendered." 
 
 It is perfectly certain that the onerous and differential rates 
 do come off the rent which woidd be obtainable by the landlord if 
 they were not payable. That is common ground : Mr. Money does 
 not dispute it. It is clear, therefore, that the full value of the 
 property is not the rent which the occupier pays, but the rent plus 
 these rates which reduce the rent to what it is. That being so, all 
 considerations of how the property acquired its present value are 
 wide of the mark, and have no bearing whatever upon this particular 
 point. The property as it stands belongs to the owner. The rent 
 he gets for it is less than its full value to the occupier by the amount 
 which the occupier pays in rates other than those which are " bene- 
 
 1 Westminster Gazette, October 30, 1912. 
 
350 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vn 
 
 ficial." Consequently, the burden of those rates falls on the owner 
 and not on the occupier. That is demonstrated by the fact that 
 if they were abolished the landlord would get a corresponding 
 addition to the rent. 
 
 The occupier really pays the rental value of the premises in 
 rent and rates. To contend that he pays the rates because they 
 come out of the total rental value which he pays is no more sound 
 than it would be to say that the tenant pays for the landlord's food 
 because the rent which the tenant pays provides the owner with 
 food. How the owner came by his property, to what circumstances 
 its value is due, whether he ought to have that value or not, and 
 whether or not it is just that the burden of the rates in question 
 should fall upon him, are not the points at issue. The sole point is. 
 Do these rates, as a matter of fact, fall upon the owner as a deduc- 
 tion from the rent which is the fuU market value of the property, 
 and would be obtainable for it if these rates were not levied in respect 
 of it ? To that question there is only one answer, and it is that, ia 
 this sense, those rates fall on the owner and not on the occupier. 
 
 On the Land or the Owner of the Land 
 
 We have spoken of the greater part of the rates falling upon the 
 owner of the land. That is a statement which requires some modifi- 
 cation and further explanation. In the discussion as to whether 
 the rates fall upon the occupier, or the owner of the building, or the 
 owner of the land, it is a convenient expression, and is sufficiently 
 accurate ; but it does not quite precisely cover the ground. 
 
 That the rates in question come off the value of the land and 
 reduce the amount of rent, and consequently the selling price which 
 the owner can get for it, is true ; but it does not follow from this that 
 they can always be called a burden on the present owner in the 
 ordinary sense of the term. In so far as they were in existence 
 when he purchased or came into possession of the property, he 
 purchased or came into possession practically of that portion of 
 the total value of the property that was avaDable after these rates 
 had been paid. The rates were, therefore, of the nature of a prior 
 charge on the property, and might more correctly be described as 
 a burden on the land rather than a burden on the owner. This, 
 however, only applies to those rates which were levied or were 
 anticipated when the present owner acquired or came into posses- 
 sion of the property. Any increase in the rates beyond that amount 
 is a burden upon him. 
 
CH..V OPINIONS OF POLITICAL ECONOMISTS 351 
 
 Further, in connection with the point we have been discussing 
 it is not very material whether we speak of the rates falling on the 
 land or on the land-owner. What we have been endeavouring to 
 ascertain is what, if any, proportion of the rates falls upon the 
 builder, the owner of the house, and the occupier, and what propor- 
 tion conies out of the value of the land. This was necessary in 
 order that we might find out whether land bears its fair share of 
 rates and taxes, and also that we might discover what would be 
 the effect on the various parties of any change that might be made 
 in the method of assessing and levying rates and taxes. What is 
 clear is that the rates in question fall upon the land of which the 
 land-owner is the proprietor, and if they were removed he would 
 get a higher rent. 
 
 In this connection it is sometimes held, and many land taxers 
 hold the view, that all other taxes also come off the value of the 
 land, and are really, in the long run, a burden on it. This is, however, 
 an error, just as is the contention that aU material progress con- 
 centrates on the value of land and increases it. General taxation 
 diminishes the ability of the tax-payer to expend his income in other 
 directions. To that extent it affects the community as a whole. 
 It does not specially affect the demand for houses more than it 
 affects the demand for other things. But rates and taxes which 
 are levied specially and exclusively on land and premises according 
 to there value and because they are where they are, are a distinct 
 charge on that property, and are therefore a deduction from its 
 value, and, as we have shown, that deduction must and does for the 
 most part come off the value of the land. It is not a payment by 
 the occupier that is additional to the payment he would have to 
 make if those rates were not levied. Any decrease in those rates 
 benefits, and any increase burdens the person who is the owner of 
 the beneficial interest in the land at the time the change is made. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 SPECIAL POINTS AND EXCEPTIONAL CASES 
 
 It may be convenient if reference be made here to one or two 
 special points and exceptional cases which sometimes create diffi- 
 culty and cause confusion of thought when this subject of rates 
 and their incidence is being discussed. 
 
 The Value of Buildings 
 
 Speaking generally, a building, considered apart from the value 
 of the site, wiU not be worth more than the price at which it could 
 be replaced, and any increase in value that takes place beyond that 
 will be due to an increase in the value of the site. On the other hand, 
 the total value of a property may fall without any decrease in the 
 value of the site. 
 
 A building may be worth much less than the cost of re-erecting 
 it because it has deteriorated through age and by wear and tear, 
 or it is out of date and inconvenient. In such a case there may be a 
 fall in the value of the property as a whole without any fall in the site 
 value, or the value of the property as a whole may remain the same 
 whilst the value of the site has increased, but the increase has been 
 balanced by the depreciation of the building. 
 
 Buildings may be erected in excess of the demand for them, or 
 the demand for them may seriously diminish after they have been 
 built some time. They may be almost unsaleable, and can only be 
 let at a rent which will tempt people to go a long way to them and 
 live in an inconvenient place. In such cases the fall in value is not 
 necessarily wholly a fall in the value of the land. It is quite possible 
 for it to be almost entirely a fall in the value of the building. 
 
 Cottages built in the vicinity of a coal mine are often never worth 
 more than the cost of building them plus the agricultural value of the 
 
 352 
 
CH.V SPECIAL POINTS 353 
 
 land. If the coal mine is permanently closed, the cottages become 
 worth very little. The land on which they stand is worth as much 
 as it was when they were built, and would fetch the same rent if the 
 houses were cleared ofE it. It is the buildings which have gone 
 down in value. They are where they are not wanted. 
 
 When a site has gone down to its agricultural value it will not 
 fall below that value, and any burden of the rates beyond those 
 which have sent it down to that level will fall upon the occupier. 
 
 The Principles expounded apply to Average Buildings 
 
 Eates fall upon the land up to the amount of the differential 
 rates which are payable on such property as would usually be erected 
 on land in that vicinity. If a larger and more expensive, and there- 
 fore more highly rated building in proportion to the area covered 
 than is usual be erected, the additional rates beyond the normal will 
 not fall on the land but on the building. No owner of land would 
 let or sell his land for less than he could get for it as a site for the 
 ordinary buildings of the locality, because a larger and more ex- 
 pensive building was to be erected on it. So an owner could not get 
 more for his land because on that particular site a building was to 
 be erected — e.g. a church or chapel — on which no rates would be 
 payable. 
 
 Shops in Bond Street and Regent Street 
 
 Some authorities think that in special localities — like Regent 
 Street and Bond Street — a portion of the rates on business premises 
 is passed on to the consumer of the goods in the form of an addition 
 to the price of them. I should say that the rents are high because 
 large profits can be made rather than that higher prices are charged 
 because rents are high. Shops in the midst of wealthy people sell 
 special and better-class goods which give a large turnover and show 
 a good profit. Shopkeepers will pay a good rent to get into those 
 districts. The extra rent so paid is site value. The extra rates are 
 " difEerential " rates. They fall on the gross value of site and are a 
 deduction from it. The case of the Bond Street shops is similar to 
 that of farms which are let at a high rent because of their favourable 
 climate and the excellent quaUty of the soil, and to market gardens 
 and milk farms near large towns. The purchasers of the produce 
 of these farms and market gardens do not pay more for the wheat, 
 meat, poultry, milk, and vegetables produced there than for similar 
 articles grown 100 miles away, except in so far as some of it may be 
 
 2a 
 
354 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vn 
 
 fresher and be more conveniently offered and delivered. The pro- 
 ducers find these lands more convenient, productive, and profitable. 
 Therefore, they pay more for them. They do not get more produce 
 or better prices because they pay more rent. They pay more rent 
 because they can get a better return. The larger amount they have 
 to pay in rates is a set-ofE against that advantage. Were the rates 
 no more than on cheaper land, the land-owner would get a still 
 higher rent. 
 
 Incidence of Rates when Property is sold or let 
 
 To what extent, if any, are rates which were being levied or were 
 anticipated when a property was bought or acquired, or when a 
 lease was taken or a tenancy was entered upon or renewed, a real 
 burden or tax upon those who pay them ; or, if they be shifted, 
 upon whom do they ultimately fall ? 
 
 We have seen that onerous rates on land, the value of which is 
 not more than its agricultural value, and, in the case of land and 
 premises where the land is of more than agricultural value, differ- 
 ential rates also really and ultimately fall upon the land value. 
 They are charges which cannot be shifted. In so far as the expendi- 
 ture of those differential rates increases the value of the property, 
 they are " beneficial " rates, and are not really a burden and a tax. 
 In so far as the rates which fall on the land are " onerous " and 
 differential, whether they be difierential or not, they are realty of 
 the nature of a permanent charge on the land, and from the moment 
 they are levied (if they are hkely to continue, as in practice they 
 almost invariably do) they reduce the capital value of the land by 
 an amount which corresponds to the reduction which they make 
 in the net income derivable from it. 
 
 When a property is bought, the fact that certain rates are payable 
 in respect of it is taken into account. They represent a definite 
 permanent reduction in the income from it, and the purchase price 
 is less by an amount which represents the capital value of that re- 
 duction. Consequently, when a man has bought a property, the 
 rates which were levied or anticipated when he bought it are not in 
 any real and proper sense a burden or loss to him. He bought the 
 expectation of rental value, the amount of which was arrived at 
 after allowing for the payment of rates. Thus when the gross annual 
 value of the property is reduced to that extent by the rates which 
 he has to pay out of it, if he is the occupier, or the rent which he 
 receives, if he lets it, is less by the amount of the rates than it would 
 
CH.V SPECIAL POINTS 355 
 
 have been if there had not been any rates, he still receives the net 
 value or rent which he purchased. 
 
 The position is similar with regard to the tenant. When he 
 takes a house the rent is less by the amount of the differential rates 
 than it would have been if there had not been any such rates. The 
 owner, in fact, makes him that allowance because he (the tenant) has 
 to pay those rates. That is to say the landlord pays them through 
 the tenant, inasmuch as he reimburses the tenant for the payment 
 by accepting a correspondingly reduced rent. 
 
 Existing Rates fully allowed for when a Bargain is made 
 
 So far as the owner of the property is concerned, he acquired 
 the surplus or balance of the value or racome which remained after 
 the then expected rates were paid. Those rates were a prior charge 
 to his interest, and he acquired the property subject to that prior 
 charge. His position is similar to that of the purchaser of shares in 
 a company which has issued debentures. Those debentures are not 
 a burden on his interest in the concern. They are distinct and 
 separate. His interest does not comomence, does not exist, until 
 their claim has been met. He bought his interest with that know- 
 ledge and subject to that prior claim. To say that he pays the 
 debenture interest out of his income would.be inaccurate. That 
 interest is paid out of the earnings of the undertaking, and there is 
 no interest due to the shareholder, out of which he can pay anything, 
 nntil there is a surplus beyond the amount payable on the debentures. 
 
 To wipe out or reduce the rates on the property or the interest 
 on the debentures would be a clear gift to the landlord or shareholder. 
 It would enable him to receive an increase of rent or dividend which 
 he had not anticipated when he acquired the property or shares. 
 
 So with the tenant. When he took the premises or renewed his 
 tenancy he knew what the rates were and that he would have to pay 
 them. The rent was fixed with that knowledge. If that payment 
 had not to be made the rent would have been correspondingly higher 
 and his total payment would have been the same as it is now. To 
 cancel or reduce those rates would be a clear gift to him, but it 
 would only continue until the term of the tenancy expired. When 
 the tenancy had to be renewed the rent would be increased by the 
 amount of the rates of which the property had been reUeved. EeUef 
 of rates out of national funds benefits the land-owner in the long 
 Tun, and it does it largely at the expense of the occupier. 
 
 In the debate on the Budget of 1887 Mr. Gladstone said that 
 
356 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vi. 
 
 Government grants in aid of local rates might give inmiediate 
 relief to the occupier, but not an enduring relief. Whether rents 
 were risiug or falling, on the next adjustment the grants would be 
 taken into account, and the landlord would get so much more rent. 
 Professor Sidgwick — ^in his contribution to the Memorandum 
 on the Classification and Incidence of Imperial and Local Taxes, 
 said: 
 
 Of course if the occupier, being a leaseholder, had undertaken to 
 pay the rate, and were allowed to deduct it from the rent which the 
 landlord was not allowed to increase, he would gain the whole rate 
 during the period of the lease. But this cannot be contemplated. On 
 the other hand, if the house is let from year to year, I do not see how 
 the occupier can gain by the power of deduction — except on the assump- 
 tion that by a strange want of foresight he does not adequately take 
 the rate into account in bargaining about the rent — ^unless the rate 
 varies materially from year to year (p. 108). 
 
 With regard to the land-owner, the building-owner, the lease- 
 holder, and the occupier, the general principle which determines 
 the incidence of the rates is the same. All rates which are levied 
 or anticipated at the time an interest in the property is acquired 
 are taken into accoimt and allowed for in fixing the price, or value 
 or rent of the property. 
 
 Incidence of Changes in Rates during Current Tenancies 
 
 Another question is, What happens when new rates are levied 
 or old ones are iacreased or decreased ? 
 
 New rates or changes in old ones fall upon the occupier in the first 
 instance, and remain with him until the tenancy terminates or is 
 revised. Then they fall upon his immediate landlord. If the pro- 
 perty be leasehold they are in turn transferred by that leaseholder 
 to his immediate landlord (if there be one) when his tenancy or lease 
 expires or is renewed, and so on until they fall upon the owner of the 
 land when the property reverts to him and the tenancy or lease 
 from him comes to be revised. 
 
 The person who at a given time enjoys the beneficial interest 
 in the property is at that time, so far as the problem we are now 
 discussing is concerned, the owner. An occupier, whether he be an 
 annual tenant or a leaseholder, may be said to have acquired — 
 purchased — the annual value of the property, including the site, for 
 the term of his agreement or lease. Upon him — as temporary 
 owner — for the time being falls the burden or the relief resulting 
 
CH. V SPECIAL POINTS 357 
 
 from any increase or decrease in the rates during the term of 
 his agreement. He also for the time beiag enjoys any benefit or 
 increase in value which accrues as the result of additional public 
 expenditure, growth of population, or any other cause. 
 
 Incidence of Changes in Rates when Tenancies commence or 
 are renewed 
 
 When new leases or tenancies are arranged or old ones are being 
 revised or renewed, or are being continued when they might have 
 been terminated, if the rates have been iacreased and the expenditure 
 adds the same amoimt to the value of the premises to occupiers, the 
 tenant will pay that amount more for them in rates and the landlord's 
 rent wiU remain as before. If the expenditure of the extra rate adds 
 more to the value of the premises than the amount of that rate, the 
 landlord will be able to increase his rent by the amount by which 
 the increased value exceeds the extra rates, and the occupier will 
 pay the increased value partly in rates and partly in rent. On the 
 other hand, if the increase in the rate be more than the increased 
 value which the expenditure of the higher rate gives to the property, 
 the owner's rent will be reduced by the amount by which the extra 
 rate exceeds the added value. 
 
 If the differential rates and taxes which the occupier pays be 
 reduced without altering the value of the premises by decreasing 
 the services or benefits which attach to them — ^for instance, if the 
 payments of the occupier be reduced by transferring them to the 
 owner — ^the value of the premises will remain as before. The factors 
 which fixed the value before wiU be unaltered. The market value 
 to an occupier will be what it was, and the occupier will have to pay 
 as much as before, neither more nor less. As he will pay less in 
 rates and taxes, he will be able to pay, and he will have to pay, 
 because the landlord will be able to get a corresponding amount more 
 in rent. If the amoimt of the differential rates which is taken off 
 the" occupier be levied on the owner — ^whether he be the land-owner, 
 the building-owner, or the owner of both land and buQding is 
 immaterial so far as this point is concerned— the net result to both 
 owner and occupier will be the same as before. If the differential 
 rates now paid by the occupier are reduced by contributions levied 
 elsewhere than on the owner of the property — say by subventions 
 from the National Exchequer — ^the reduction will be a clear gift 
 to the owner, and the occupier wUl not benefit at all. 
 
 All improvements and growth of population which increase the 
 
358 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 value of the property beyond the charges on the property which 
 they involve, add to the site value, and correspondingly all charges 
 on the property which do not increase its value to the occupier 
 diminish the site value. 
 
 The expenditure of beneficial rates does not benefit the landlord 
 unless the benefit received by the tenant therefrom is of greater 
 pecuniary value than the rates which he pays. If the benefit be 
 greater than the payment in rates the landlord will get the balance 
 of benefit in rent, and iE the benefit be less than the payment in rates, 
 the difference will come off the rent. 
 
 Improvements and Rates 
 
 Reference may now be made to one or two misconceptions which 
 exist in some quarters with regard to land-owners and improve- 
 ments and rates. 
 
 It is customary for some people to talk very freely and confidently 
 about the high value of land in great cities being due to municipal 
 expenditure, and we are asked to regard this high value as a gift 
 to the landholder which has been and is being paid for by the rate- 
 payers.^ Dr. Cannan describes this idea as a " grotesque notion." 
 It seems as though it was either never realised or it is very con- 
 veniently ignored that the corresponding cost in rates of these 
 beneficial services is a set-off against the advantage and increased 
 value, and, in so far as the two balance each other, prevents the 
 land-owner from obtaining any extra price or rent as the result of 
 them. Dr. Cannan puts the point thus : 
 
 While it is perfectly true that the service tends to raise the value 
 of the property, the fact that the rates have to be paid by the occupier 
 tends to reduce the rent that can be charged for it. So if, as is usually 
 the case owiag to the competition of localities, the service adds, to the 
 value of the property no more than its cost, the rent cannot be raised. 
 No one would suppose rent would be raised by the occupier receiving 
 and paying for his groceries : no one seems to suppose it is raised by his 
 paying a gas company or a water company for the commodities they 
 supply, nor even by his paying his local authority for water supplied 
 by it : why then should it be raised by his paying his local authority 
 for taldng that water away in drains when he has done with it ? 
 
 ^ " In any progressive town, whether manufacturing centre or health resort, 
 it will be found that where money has been freely spent, the rates are high in con- 
 sequence, and the value of land is high. It is obvious that where the ratepayers 
 have sown the land-owners have reaped. It is now time that they should contribute 
 in proportion to the rich harvest they have reaped " (Memorandum submitted 
 by Land Values Group of M.P.'s to Departmental Committee, 1912). 
 
CH. V SPECIAL POINTS 359 
 
 The idea that occupiers pay for public improvements tvdce over, 
 once in rates and again in increased rent, is based on a misappre- 
 hension. If the improvement has taken place during the currency 
 of a lease and the benefit is equivalent to the addition to the rates, 
 the lessee gets what he paid for — the benefit and the extra rates 
 balance each other. When the lease comes to be renewed no increase 
 in rent on account of the improvement will be paid because it is 
 balanced by the increase in the rates. 
 
 If the benefit exceeds the burden, the rent, on readjustment, 
 will be increased by the amount of the excess. The tenant will pay 
 in rates and extra rent the value of the benefit he receives, and no 
 more. 
 
 The Idea that Land-owners get all the Benefit of Pvhlic 
 Expenditure is an Error 
 
 The idea that the land-owner derives all the benefit which 
 results from the expenditure of rates and the growth of the com- 
 munity and at the same time bears none of the burdens is unsoimd 
 and erroneous. 
 
 In the first place, the whole value of the advantage which results 
 in a locality from public expenditure and the growth of population 
 is not absorbed by the owners of land. It is true that public im- 
 provements, wise local expenditure, and increase in population in 
 a locality do tend to increase the value of the land there. It is also 
 the fact that the same conditions which cause local developments, 
 improvements, and advantages to increase the value of land cause 
 local charges and disadvantages to diminish the value of land. 
 Rates are a disadvantage — they diminish the value of land. The 
 wise expenditure of those rates is an advantage — ^it increases the 
 value of land. The two largely balance each other. 
 
 In the second place, it is not correct to say that the ground-rent 
 owner receives aU the benefit which results from public expenditure, 
 and does not contribute to that expenditure. When he lets his land 
 on a building lease he gets a much lower ground rent than he would 
 have done if there had not been any rates. The full amount of all 
 rates then levied or anticipated is taken into account when the 
 groimd rent is fixed.^ The fact, therefore, is that in place of it 
 being true that the ground landlord does not pay any rates, he pays 
 
 1 Mr. Harper, Chief Government Valuer, examining Mr. Trustram Eve on this 
 point before the Departmental Committee, 1912, said, " I agree that to a consider- 
 able extent the future increase of rates is foreseen and provided for ? " Mr. Eve 
 replied, " Quite so " (3476). 
 
36o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 throughout the currency of the lease, by the reduced ground rent 
 which he receives, all the differential rates which were levied or 
 anticipated when the lease was granted. 
 
 What happens while a Lease runs and when it expires 
 
 Nor is it true that during the currency of the lease he reaps the 
 benefit of all increase in the value of the property which results 
 from public expenditure and improvements and the growth of 
 population. At the time of granting the lease he was in possession 
 of any increase in value which had then taken place, and that in- 
 crease was reduced and counterbalanced by the rates and charges 
 levied and anticipated in connection with the property. At that 
 time he both received the benefits and bore the differential rates 
 and charges. 
 
 After the lease was granted he continued to receive the benefit 
 of the increase in value which had accrued up to the time of granting 
 the lease, and he also continued to bear the differential rate and 
 charges which had then accrued or were anticipated. The ground 
 rent payable to him represented the annual value of the lease at 
 that time, after taking into account all the factors which made up 
 the value of the property and deducting from them all the rates 
 and charges which reduced that value. 
 
 During the currency of the lease he does not pay any increase 
 in the rates that fall on the property. Nor, on the other hand, does 
 he derive any benefit from any increase in annual value which 
 accrues from any cause whatever. Those who are the beneficial 
 owners of the property during the continuance of Hhe lease pay the 
 increase in the rates and receive the benefit of the whole of the 
 increase in the annual value of the property which accrues during 
 that time. 
 
 When the lease expires, the ground landlord comes into possession 
 of the property again, receives its full value, and pays all extra rates 
 and charges. If he then re-leases it he will do so at a rent which will 
 be arrived at after deducting the whole of the differential rates 
 which, it is anticipated, the lessee will have to pay ; and thus 
 throughout the whole of the period of the new lease he will pay, 
 in the correspondingly reduced rent he will receive, the whole of 
 the differential rates which are levied or anticipated when it is 
 granted. 
 
 The truth, therefore, is that the ground landlord throughout 
 the lease receives the benefit of any increase in value which had 
 
cH.v SPECIAL POINTS 361 
 
 accrued up to the time the lease was granted, and he bears the burden 
 of the rates and charges which were levied or anticipated at the 
 same time. The benefit of any further increase in the value of the 
 property during the currency of the lease is enjoyed by the lease- 
 holders or occupiers, and any increase in rates is also borne by them. 
 If the immediate landlord is not the freeholder, he took those 
 rates into account when he made his contract with his superior in 
 title, and the differential rates then in force or anticipated were and 
 still are borne by his superior. 
 
 An Illustration 
 
 The annual value of a property is £75 a year, the occupier being 
 liable to pay rates which are or are estimated to be £25 a year, of 
 which £18 would be differential rates. The cost of the property 
 to the occupier — ^the total amount which he is willing to pay for it 
 — in other words its market value — ^is therefore £100 a year. 
 
 If there were no differential rates (and other conditions remained 
 the same) the market value of the property to an occupier would 
 be the same, and the landlord would be able to get £100 a year for 
 the property. 
 
 On the other hand, if the rate were increased to £30 a year and 
 the extra £5 represented onerous differential rates for which no 
 extra services or value was received by the occupier and other 
 conditions were unaltered, the market value of the property, including 
 rates, would still be £100, and as that is all that a tenant would pay 
 and £30 of it had to go for rates, the landlord would have to be con- 
 tent with £70 instead of £75 in rent whenever a new contract was 
 made. 
 
 That is to say, the landlord would bear the burden of the differ- 
 ential rates levied or anticipated when the new contract was made. 
 
 Shifting of Rates and Taxes on Agricultural Land 
 
 There are one or two points of importance with reference to the 
 shifting and capitalisation of rates and taxes to which brief reference 
 has already been made which may, with advantage, be discussed 
 rather more fully. 
 
 With regard to the possibiUty of a tax on land being shifted : and 
 first, as to agricultural land in this country. It is practically 
 universally agreed that a tax on land levied according to its economic 
 rent will fall entirely on the land-owner. Land on the margin of 
 cultivation does not pay any economic rent. It is the cost of 
 
362 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vi. 
 
 production on the no-rent land that fixes the price of agricultural 
 produce in the long run. As a tax on economic rent would mean 
 that there was no tax on the land to the produce of which the 
 price adjusts itself, such a tax could not affect the price of the pro- 
 duce, and must come ofE the economic rent of the more favourable 
 land. It would fall on the land-owner and could not be shifted. 
 
 The greater part of the rent paid for agricultural land is not 
 economic rent, but a return for — ^interest or profits on — capital 
 expended on the land. A special tax on this portion of the rent 
 would, according to Ricardo's view, be like an exclusive tax on the 
 ordinary profits of a particular trade, and would fall on the con- 
 sumers. 
 
 Taxes which are levied on selected commodities or on persons 
 engaged in particular occupations tend to be shifted on to the 
 consumers and to become diffused over the whole commimity. It 
 is only, however, as the taxation is special and unequal that this is 
 so, and the reason for it is that a tax which diminishes the profit 
 on a particular article, or bears exceptionally upon a particular 
 class of producers or traders, tends to diminish the amoimt of capital 
 employed in this branch of production and, therefore, the quantity 
 of the commodities produced, until the price of them rises sufficiently 
 to make that trade or occupation as profitable as other ordinary 
 businesses. 
 
 But a general tax on profits from all trades and investments 
 will not be shifted to the consumer, because capital and labour cannot 
 with advantage be transferred to some other occupation if all other 
 profits and property are equally taxed. 
 
 As a matter of fact, however, under the conditions which now 
 prevail, even an exclusive tax on that portion of the rent of agri- 
 cultural land which represents return on capital invested on it will 
 not be shifted to the consumer. If it were a tax levied on all agri- 
 cultural land all over the world, or this country were a completely 
 isolated community in which the price of its agricultural produce 
 was not affected by the price at which supplies could be obtained 
 from other countries, then such a tax would slowly and in the long 
 run tend to be transferred to the consumer. But, under existing 
 conditions, the price of agricultural produce is fixed by the conditions 
 of demand and supply in all the countries of the world. The price 
 of wheat here is fixed by the conditions of production thousands of 
 miles away and the supply available at any given time from lands 
 scattered all over the globe. A tax levied on a farmer or land-owner 
 
CH. V SPECIAL POINTS ^^^ 
 
 here cannot affect the price of the produce in the world's market. 
 As Professor Sehgman puts it : 
 
 The Western farmer (of the United States), the price of whose 
 wheat is fixed ia Liverpool by the conditions of production ia countries 
 thousands of nules distant, wiU not get a whit more for his products 
 it his taxes are doubled. 
 
 It is sometimes suggested that in so far as the farmer's rent in 
 this country represents iaterest on the capital expenditure of the 
 landlord on reclamation, improvements and maintenance, taxes on 
 that rent, even if at first they fall on the landlord, must eventually 
 be transferred to some extent to the tenant, because the reduction in 
 the return to the owner on his outlay will lead him to restrict that 
 outlay and curtail his expenditure on maintenance and improve- 
 ments, and turn his capital into other channels, and that the farmer 
 will suffer thereby. 
 
 There is considerable force in this contention, although the 
 tendency which is here indicated, and which, in ordinary circum- 
 stances, would be the dominating one, will, to a considerable extent, 
 be counteracted, because, if the farm is thus rendered worthless 
 to the farmer, the rent will have to be correspondingly reduced. 
 That is to say, the expenditure will probably be necessary to 
 enable the owner to obtain the best possible return on the capital 
 which has already been sunk in the property. In these ways the 
 current expenditure on maintenance and improvements is likely to 
 be quite remunerative. It is really in reduction of the capital value 
 of the property at the time the extra taxes were imposed that the 
 effect of those taxes will be most clearly seen. At the same time, 
 increased taxes on land values, which included the results of the 
 capital expenditure which had developed the land from prairie 
 value, and maintained it in a thoroughly good cultivatable condition, 
 would deter owners from expending further capital ia developing 
 land which is not at aU or only very partially developed now. 
 
 The position therefore with regard to agricultural land is this : 
 
 1. Onerous taxes or rates assessed on the economic rent of land 
 must fall on the land-owner. 
 
 2. Onerous taxes or rates assessed on the market value of land 
 (and therefore on its improved value) will also fall on the land- 
 owner because outside competition forbids a corresponding increase 
 in the price of produce. 
 
364 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND vr. vn 
 
 Shifting of Rates and Taxes on Building Land 
 
 Next, as to urban building land. The view that a tax on building 
 land cannot be shifted rests on the opinion that the value of the land 
 is determiaed by supply and demand/ and that the tax does not 
 diminish either the supply or the demand. The value of the land- 
 being fixed by the higgle of the market, the amount to be paid in 
 rent will be the gross value, less the tax or rate. The tenant or 
 leaseholder will pay the value of the land in rent and rates. The 
 amount of the rates will not affect his total payment, it wiU only 
 decrease or increase the amount he wiU pay in rent as the rates are 
 increased or decreased : it will only determine how the total amount 
 he pays is to be distributed. 
 
 The theory that the tenant pays the rates means that the land- 
 owner gets the full gross value of his land as rent, whatever the rates 
 are, and that the rates are an extra cost which the tenant or lease- 
 holder has to bear. This again means that the value and rent of the 
 land are fixed by considerations which are altogether apart from 
 and independent of the amount of the rates on it, and that the owner 
 is able to get that rent or value, whatever the rates may be. That 
 is to say, he is always able to throw the rates on to the tenant or 
 leaseholder. 
 
 If that were correct, it would involve the conclusion that the 
 owner would still be able to throw the rates on to the tenant or lease- 
 holder, even if they were in the first instance levied direct upon him. 
 If the tenant can and does now pay the fuU value of the land and 
 also the rates, and is unable to get the land at a lower rent when 
 rates are high than when they are low, the land-owner would be 
 able to add the rates to the rent if they were levied direct upon him, 
 inasmuch as the tenant would then only pay as much as he does now 
 — that is, rent and rates — and the landlord would be able to exact 
 that amount from him. 
 
 The contention being that the land-owner is in the stronger 
 position, and in towns is able to and does exact the highest rent or 
 price the leaseholder or purchaser can pay, it follows that any onerous 
 rate or tax that is imposed on the owner or tenant in respect of the 
 
 ^ According to Seligman the value of a town site " is fixed in agreement with 
 the general principles of economic rent, according to which the price paid is measured 
 by the superiority of situation. It would be still more exact to make the assertion 
 that the value of a city lot is determined by the general law of price which governs 
 all those commodities which are not susceptible of an indefinite increase in their 
 supply." — Shifting and Incidence, p. 278. 
 
cH. V SPECIAL POINTS 365 
 
 property must fall on the owner or be shifted to him, on the general 
 theory of the taxation of monopoly profits. According to the 
 assumption, the owner has already exacted the uttermost farthing 
 from the tenant. Could the tenant pay an increased rent — that 
 is, the old rent plus the new tax — ^the landlord would have exacted 
 this before the imposition of the tax. 
 
 The truth is that the reason why the onerous and differential 
 rates on urban land fall on the land-owner now is the same as the 
 reason why, if such rates be levied on him now, he cannot shift them. 
 It is that he is able to obtain as net rent the full value of the land 
 less the onerous and differential charges that are levied on the pro- 
 perty. If the tenant pays those charges in the first instance, the 
 rent will be that amount less than the fuU value of the site. If the 
 same charges be levied direct on the land-owner, his rent will be 
 the fuU value and he wiU pay the charges out of it, with the result 
 that the position of both tenant and owner will be the same in both 
 cases. 
 
 Some unseen Effects of relieving Rates on Agricultural Land 
 
 If the value of all land according to its quality were the same 
 everywhere in the kingdom, and the rates levied everywhere were 
 the same, the burden of those rates on land and buildings in so far 
 as they exceeded the rates that were or would be levied on the land 
 if there were no buildings on it, woidd fall on the occupiers ; and in 
 so far as those rates now are the same everywhere they fall on the 
 occupiers now. Where and when they are more than they would 
 be on a similar building or site elsewhere — ^that is to say, when they 
 are differential — ^to the extent of that excess or difference they fall 
 on the owners of the land. The amoimt of that excess or difference 
 varies much. Consequently the proportion of the total rates which 
 falls upon the land-owner also varies considerably. In highly 
 rated districts and in locaUties where the land value is high the 
 proportion of the rates which falls upon the land-owners is much 
 greater than in localities where land values are comparatively low 
 and rates are moderate. This is only another way of saying that 
 the more nearly the conditions as to the value of land and the 
 amount in the £ of the rates approximate to those of low-rated rural 
 areas the smaller is the proportion of the rates that falls upon the 
 land-owners. 
 
 From this two interesting considerations arise : one is that the 
 reductions which have been made in the amount of the onerous 
 
366 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vn 
 
 rates payable in respect of agricultural land in proportion to its 
 annual value have had the effect of increasing the proportion of 
 the onerous rates which falls upon the occupiers of buildings and 
 of diminishing the proportion which falls upon the owners of the 
 sites of those buildings. In other words, one result of relieving 
 agricultural land of a considerable portion of the burden of onerous 
 rates has been to increase what we have denominated " constant " 
 and to thereby decrease the proportion of the rates which are 
 differential. I doubt that this result was foreseen or intended, and 
 it is probable that it is an effect which has been little noticed, 
 although it extends to all houses and buildings, urban or rural. It 
 would only make itself felt gradually and slowly, and it will very 
 seldom be attributed to the true cause. The ultimate effect of 
 relieving agricultural land of part of the rates by making contribu- 
 tions in respect thereof from the National Exchequer must, however, 
 be to increase the burdens on occupiers, as distinguished from 
 owners, in two ways, first, as general tax-payers, and second, as 
 payers of the " constant " rates. 
 
 The second consideration is that the amount of relief that 
 could be given to occupiers of buildings in the matter of rates 
 by levying a rate upon land values, being limited to the amount 
 of the " constant rates," the extent to which occupiers could be 
 reUeved by a rate on land values has been increased by the addition 
 to the amount of the " constant " rates, which has been made by 
 the relief which has been given to agricidtural land in the matter 
 of rates. 
 
 These considerations illustrate the difficulties and complications 
 of rating problems, and the widespread ramifications and effects of 
 what seem to be simple changes. 
 
 Cckfitalisation of Rates and Taxes 
 
 Another point of interest, to which reference has already been 
 made, is the way in which certain rates and taxes are at once capital- 
 ised. Under certain conditions, the whole burden of a permanent 
 tax levied in respect of a commodity or property may fall in such a 
 way that the owner of it, at the time the tax is first levied or antici- 
 pated, will have placed upon him the burden of the capitalised 
 amount of that tax for all time. This will be the case if a special 
 tax be imposed on one class of property and not on others. 
 The capital value of that property will at once be reduced by the 
 capitalised value of the tax. A future purchaser will discoimt 
 
CH.V SPECIAL POINTS 367 
 
 the tax and give a correspondingly less price for the property. 
 Professor Seligman puts the point thus : 
 
 For instance, if the ordinary return on investments is 5 per cent, 
 and if a tax of 1 per cent is imposed on all railway bonds, the price of 
 these bonds will fall from par to 80. The new purchaser will really not 
 bear the weight of the tax ; for although his net return on each bond 
 of 100 dollars wiQ be only 4 dollars, he will stiU make 5 per cent 
 on his investment. Four per cent of 100 is the same as 5 per cent 
 of 80.1 
 
 This capitalisation of the tax occurs when the tax is an unequal 
 and exclusive one, that is, is levied on some classes of property and 
 not on others. It must also be a permanent tax, and it must be 
 levied on a property or commodity which has a capital value based 
 on its annual value. It must further be a tax which rests on the 
 owner of the property or commodity and cannot be shifted to a 
 user or consumer. 
 
 A special and exclusive permanent tax on land — if it be a tax 
 which cannot be shifted — ^reduces the capital value of the land by 
 the amount of the capitalised value of the tax. A purchaser will 
 give that amount less for the land than he would have done if that 
 tax had not existed. The reduction in the capital value of the land 
 takes place immediately the tax is first levied. In those cases the 
 original owner — the person who owned the property before the tax 
 was imposed — ^if he remain the owner, pays the tax and suffers the 
 diminution in his income. If he sells the property, the purchaser 
 pays the tax, but does not really bear the burden of it. The tax is 
 paid by him in respect of the property he has bought, but as he had 
 already deducted from the purchase price a sum equal to all the 
 future taxes which he anticipated he would have to pay, the payment 
 of the tax is no real burden on him. Unless the value of the pro- 
 perty and the income from it are altered owing to other reasons, 
 he receives, after deducting the tax he pays, the return upon his 
 investment which he expected and for which he paid when he bought 
 the property. 
 
 When such a tax as this is imposed the present value of it for 
 all time falls on the then owner. The capital value of his property 
 is at once reduced- — confiscated — to that extent. The tax is said 
 to be " absorbed " in the lower capital value of the property. Con- 
 versely, if a special exclusive permanent tax of the kind we have 
 been considering be reduced or repealed, the result is a clear gift 
 
 ^ Shifting and Incidence, p. 221. 
 
368 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 to the then owner of a capital sum equal to the capitalised value 
 of the reduced or abolished tax. 
 
 Professor Seligman truly says of this capitalisation or absorption 
 of taxation : "Its cause is inequality : its result is confiscation or 
 gratuity." " When urban land changes hands frequently, the tax 
 virtually disappears and becomes a charge on no one. In the 
 meantime, however, it is the original owner, or his heir, who suffers." 
 
 Incidence of Rates levied on Land Values 
 
 What would be the effect, so far as the incidence of the burden 
 is concerned, of taking rates off buildings and levying them on land 
 values ? We have seen that a large part of the rates fall on the 
 land-owner now. In so far as rates fall on the occupier they are 
 either " constant " or " beneficial " rates. The " constant " rates 
 remain on the occupier, because he cannot shift them. 
 
 So far as " beneficial " rates are borne by the occupier now he gets 
 direct value for them. If he were relieved of those rates, and the 
 services which they provide continued to attach to the premises as 
 now, the house would continue to be worth to him the rent he had 
 previously paid, plus the value of the service, and the landlord 
 would be able to obtain an increase in his rent equivalent to th& 
 rehef in those rates. 
 
 The Effect on the Occupier 
 
 Would the transfer of the " constant " rates to the site-owner 
 really, or only apparently, reHeve the occupier of them ? If the 
 land value rate were levied on all land of every description, whether 
 it had a building value or not, and the rates which are now levied 
 on buildings were correspondingly reduced, so that the erection of 
 a house on a piece of land, the value of which was no more than its 
 agricultural value, did not increase the onerous rates payable in 
 respect of the property at all or so much as they now do, then the 
 transfer of all or part of the " constant " onerous rates now borne 
 by the tenant to the owner of the land would relieve the tenant of 
 them to that extent and be a clear gain to him. The principle 
 which is behind the fact that there are certain onerous rates which 
 stick to the occupier, while he is able to shift others, is that he must 
 pay those rates everywhere, which he cannot escape, go where he 
 will. If he takes or builds a house on land of little value in a low- 
 rated district in the country, he must pay such part of the onerous 
 rates which are levied on that property when the land is built on 
 
CH. V SPECIAL POINTS 369 
 
 as are in excess of the rates levied on the land when it is not built 
 on. That is the bedrock position, and that amount of rates will 
 stick to him wherever he goes. 
 
 What we have to ascertain, therefore, so far as the occupier is 
 concerned, is what onerous rates in excess of the then existing rates 
 on the land would be levied upon the property under the new method 
 when a house was bmlt on land of agricultural value only in what is 
 now a low-rated district. If all the rates were levied on land values, 
 no extra rates would be levied when the house was built. If part 
 of the rates were levied on land values and part on the value of 
 the property as a whole there would be some increase in the rates 
 when the house was built, but that increase would be less than it is 
 under present conditions. So far as the extra rates now charged, 
 when a house is built on such land in such districts, were aboUshed 
 or reduced by the new method of levying rates on land values, to 
 that extent would what we have termed " constant " rates, that is, 
 the rates which a man must pay go where he will, be diminished. 
 To that extent the position of occupiers everywhere would be 
 improved, and instead of occupiers bearing, as they now do, about 
 one-third or one-half of the onerous rates they would bear a still 
 smaller proportion. 
 
 Effect of a Limited Rate 
 
 On the other hand, if the site value rate were limited to land 
 which was either built on or had acquired a building value in excess 
 of its agricultural value, then the occupier would have to bear so 
 much of that rate as would be the equivalent of the additional site 
 rate which would become payable on the site of a similar house if it 
 were built on land the value of which was no higher than its agri- 
 cultural value. This would be so because, if the rate were not 
 payable so long as the land had no more than an agricultural value, 
 and was not built on, and the building of a house on it woidd render 
 the site value rate payable by the owner of the land, it is obvious 
 that he would not let the land for building purposed, unless he could 
 get a price for it which would be equivalent to the agricultural rent 
 which he could get in any case, plus the extra rate which he would 
 have to pay when it was built on. The occupier would have to 
 bear that rate for precisely the same reasons that he has to bear now 
 that portion of the onerous rates, which he cannot escape go where 
 he will. The amount of that rate on that class of land would become 
 a " constant " rate which would really fall upon all occupiers every- 
 
 2b 
 
370 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 where, in spite of the fact that the rate was levied, in the first 
 instance, on the land-owner. Whether occupiers would gain or lose 
 by the change would depend on whether the present rates were 
 or were not reduced and to what extent. 
 
 The Effect on Land-owners 
 
 So far as the owners are concerned there would be a great differ- 
 ence in the effect of the change as between individual land-owners. 
 The rate levied in respect of land value on properties, the site value 
 of which is a small proportion of the total value, would be much 
 less than the amount of the rates levied on the whole value of the 
 property now ; while the amount levied where the site value is 
 a large proportion of the total value would be much more than the 
 rates on the whole property now are. 
 
 Suppose we have three properties — A, B, and C— the rateable 
 value of which is £100 each, but the annual site value of A is £75 ; 
 B, £50 ; C, £25, the building values respectively will be £25, £50, 
 £75. Thus: 
 
 A. 
 
 Structure . . . £25 
 
 Site . . . .75 
 
 If £7 : 10 be the amount required to be raised on these properties, 
 a rate of 6d. in the £ on the present system would provide it, and the 
 amount paid in respect of each house would be £2 : 10. If the 
 rate were levied on the site value alone, the rate would have to be 
 Is. in the £, and the distribution of it would be — 
 
 B. 
 
 C. 
 
 £50 
 
 £75 
 
 50 
 
 25 
 
 A . 
 B . 
 C . 
 
 . £3 15 
 . 2 10 
 .15 
 
 
 £7 10 
 
 These examples show that on two properties of equal total value 
 in the same rating area the site value of one may be three times as 
 much as that of the other. Now the rates on both are the same : 
 under the plan we are considering the rates on one would be reduced 
 by one-half, and on the other they would be increased by 50 per cent, 
 with the result that one would pay three times as much as the other. 
 As Dr. Cannan puts it : Levjdng all rates on site value " would be 
 a transference of wealth from the owners of property of which the 
 site value constitutes more than the average proportion of the whole 
 value, to owners of property in which the site forms less than the 
 
CH.V SPECIAL POINTS 371 
 
 average proportion. The owners of typical property in the middle 
 ring of a town would be unaffected." 
 
 In other words, one class of landlords would be penalised for 
 the relief and benefit of another class of landlords. The owners 
 of sites of high value would suffer loss, and the owners of sites of low 
 value would gain what the others lost by this particular arrange- 
 ment. 
 
PABT vm 
 
 THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM 
 
 373 
 
" There is another bit of homely advice I wiU venture to give to thoae who 
 really desire to reform the Land Laws — ^Don't begin by ballyragging the land- 
 owners. You will only set their backs up and defeat your object." — Sir William 
 Haboohrt. 
 
 374 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM 
 
 There is much to be said for and against the leasehold system. It 
 has its advantages and its disadvantages. 
 
 Against it, it is urged that it is an obstacle to improvements, and 
 prevents the making of alterations that are necessary to adapt the 
 property to changed conditions and modem requirements : that 
 when it would be desirable to transform or rebuild the premises it 
 cannot be done during the currency of the lease, because the lessee's 
 term is too short for it to be worth his while to expend any consider- 
 able sum on them, and the lessor is not in possession and, therefore, 
 cannot or will not do it. In this way a street or a locality becomes 
 out of date, and deteriorates in value, and the whole neighbourhood 
 suffers in consequence. Another objection is that leasehold premises 
 are a wasting property : the value of the leasehold interest is gradu- 
 ally running off, and at the end the lessee who has bought the equity 
 and maintained the property has to walk out and hand it over to 
 the land-owner, probably together with a substantial payment for 
 dilapidations, and a sense of unfairness and injustice— often quite 
 unreasonable but very real — is created. A further complaint is that 
 if the property be business premises, and the lessee has built up a 
 connection and created a goodwill in them, it is a great hardship, 
 and involves him in serious loss if advantage be taken of that to 
 exact excessive terms for a new lease. Lastly, cases occur in which 
 heavy fees for licences, surveyors, and solicitors are charged for 
 permission to make alterations and improvements which the lessee 
 is willing to imdertake at his own cost. The existence of these 
 conditions and powers make it very difficult for lessees to dispose 
 of or deal with their interest in the property as the end of the lease 
 approaches : and this is a disadvantage to everybody concerned. 
 
 In favour of the leasehold system, it is urged that as a rule it 
 
 375 
 
376 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh 
 
 leads to estates being much better laid out, and more uniformly 
 maintained. The numerous London squares with their gardens 
 and open spaces were due to the leasehold and not to the freehold 
 system. Some well-known leasehold modern towns have roads and 
 houses and amenities much superior to freehold ones. The system 
 facilitates and encourages building. It enables the builder either 
 to make a better profit or to sell on more favourable terms to a 
 purchaser. As a rule, both results are obtained by dividing the 
 advantage between the builder and the purchaser. The builder 
 and the purchaser require less capital. Consequently, the number 
 of men who can build and the number who can buy is increased. 
 Thus, building is encouraged, more land is bmlt on, the supply of 
 houses is increased, and employment is stimulated. 
 
 Groimd rents enable trustees, charities, insurance and iavest- 
 ment companies, and corporations and private individuals to invest 
 in property without undertaking the risks and trouble of managing 
 it. This encourages building by bringing a large amount of money 
 into the property market, which would not otherwise be available. 
 
 Leasehold Enfranchisement 
 
 So much of the complaints against the leasehold system as are 
 substantial could easUy be overcome. A measure which gave to 
 leaseholders power to acquire the freehold of their premises on 
 equitable terms, and subject to reasonable conditions, would be just 
 to the land-owner, and would enable a lessee who had built up a 
 valuable connection to protect himself agaiast being penalised on the 
 expiration of his lease. If it also provided that consent to alteration 
 of and additions to the premises or to their use for any other 
 purpose than the one mentioned in the lease should not be unreason- 
 ably withheld, and that no fine or payment should be required for 
 such consent other than any reasonable expense incurred in connec- 
 tion therewith, a great step would be taken towards removing all 
 real objection to the system. 
 
 In this connection it should be observed that practical experience 
 shows that very few people are really willing to enfranchise their 
 leasehold property by purchasing the ground rent when the oppor- 
 tunity is afforded them of doing so. What most people expect, when 
 they talk about enfranchising leaseholds, is that they would be able 
 to purchase the freehold interest at much less than its market value. 
 When they learn what the market value is, their desire to enfranchise 
 usually evaporates, unless the reasons why they wish to acquire the 
 
CH. I THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM 377 
 
 freehold are very strong and very special. All the same, the oppor- 
 tunity of doing so, under equitable conditions, should be given. 
 
 What Ground Rents really are 
 
 No correct opinion on the leasehold system can be formed unless 
 it is clearly understood, as has already been pointed out, that very 
 frequently what is for convenience called the ground rent does not 
 represent, and often bears no relation to, the value of the land. In 
 many, if not indeed in most cases, it is a purely arbitrary figure fixed 
 as a matter of convenience by the vendor of the property. Some- 
 times a land-owner lets his land on building leases and fixes a groimd 
 rent for each plot. If he makes the roads and puts in the sewers, 
 these ground rents will represent not only the value of the land which 
 is let for building purposes, but a proportion of the land which has 
 been given up for roads, and also the cost of making and sewering 
 those roads. In most cases, the cost of the preparation of the 
 land for building will be as much as, and in many cases more than, 
 the cost of the land ; and such ground rents will, therefore, represent 
 double, or more than double, the value of the land before the roads, 
 etc., were made. When the builder has erected his houses, he may, 
 and frequently does, create what is known as an improved or lease- 
 hold ground rent, which is an addition to the previous ground rent, 
 and may increase it by 50 per cent. In that case we get a ground 
 rent of three times the value of the land before the roads were 
 made, and that ground rent thus built up will be the ground rent 
 which the person who buys the lease of the property or the builder 
 will have to pay. In all probabihty the buyer will not know that the 
 ground rent which he pays is made up of two portions. Nor does it 
 matter to him that it is so divided ; but if he, or any one else, 
 imagines that the ground rent which he pays represents the unim- 
 proved value, or even the improved value of the land, he is under a 
 great misconception. It is really only a fixed first charge on the 
 property. 
 
 Often they bear little or no Relation to the Value of the Site 
 Another very common case is that where the builder purchases 
 the land freehold, and makes his roads, puts in his sewers, and builds 
 the houses. There is then no ground rent : but he proceeds to 
 create ground rents, and he creates them for amounts which are quite 
 arbitrary. Not infrequently he creates them to meet the convenience 
 of his customers. He may have a whole road of houses all ahke. 
 
378 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.vh. 
 
 He will sell them freehold out and out if a buyer wishes : and there 
 will not be any ground rent. Or, he will sell them at varying ground 
 rents as the amount of cash the various purchasers are prepared to 
 pay varies. If he creates a ground rent of £5 per house, the pur- 
 chaser will pay him some £125 to £140 less for the leasehold than 
 he would have done for the freehold. If he makes the groimd rent 
 £8, the purchaser will pay some £200 to £220 less than if it had been 
 freehold, and £75 less than if the ground rent had been £5. If he 
 makes the groimd rent £10, the purchaser will pay some £250 to 
 £275 less than if it had been freehold, and correspondingly less than 
 if the ground rent had been £5. That is to say, within limits, the 
 ground rent is fixed according to the amount the purchaser is pre- 
 pared to pay for the leasehold interest. In such a case, the value 
 of the land before the roads were made would possibly represent a 
 ground rent of £2 : 10 : per house ; and after the roads and sewers 
 were made, but before the house was built, it would probably repre- 
 sent a ground rent of £5 per house. There are many other ways in 
 which ground rents are arranged, with the result that they often 
 vary very much on adjoining properties, in the same street, the sites 
 of which, and the houses on which are precisely similar. The ground 
 rent on one house will sometimes be five or six times as much as 
 the groimd rent on the next and precisely similar house. A case 
 was quoted before the Town Holdings Committee in which two 
 houses in Warwick Square built upon land of exactly the same value, 
 which had been leased by Mr. Cubitt from the then Marquis of 
 Westminster, were leased by Mr. Cubitt, one at a ground rent of 
 £26 a year, and the other at a ground rent of Is. a year. It is clear, 
 therefore, that a ground rent is no criterion of the value of the land, 
 nor does it all represent what the owner or the builder has got or 
 is getting for the land. It is often a first charge, a permanent 
 mortgage, so to speak, on the whole property, land and buildings, 
 the amount of which is fixed to suit the financial convenience of the 
 vendor and the purchaser at the time the charge is created, and the 
 leasehold interest is sold. Consequently, when writers and speakers, 
 as they sometimes do, work out the amount of such ground rents 
 per acre, and compare the total thus arrived at with the value of 
 the land before it was developed for building, and assume that the 
 difference represents the increase in the value of the land, apart 
 from the expenditure on it for roads, sewers, and buildings, they are 
 under a complete misapprehension, and are entirely misrepresenting 
 the facts. 
 
CH. I THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM 379 
 
 Tlie Price of Leasehold Property allows for giving it up 
 at the End, of the Term 
 
 Another phase of the leasehold question about which there is 
 much misconception, and consequently unfounded prejudice, is 
 the idea that the purchaser of a leasehold property at the end of the 
 lease has to give up to the land-owner the building which he bought 
 and paid for, without any allowance being made to him for so doing. 
 That is not so. The purchaser of a leasehold property pays less for 
 it, in proportion to the income he derives from it, than he would for 
 a freehold property yielding the same income, and one reason why 
 he gets that property at that lower price is that his ownership of it 
 wiU cease at the end of the lease. No one will give the same number 
 of years' purchase for a leasehold property as for a freehold one, 
 other things being equal. He pays a lower price, and consequently 
 gets a higher return because he has a lease and not a freehold. The 
 price he pays allows for the fact that he has to surrender the property 
 at the end of the term. When he has paid the lower price, and had 
 the higher return on his money, because he had to give up the pro- 
 perty at the end of the lease, it is absurd for him to turn round then 
 and claim that he ought to retain the property as though he had paid 
 the freehold ownership price for it, and consequently had had the 
 correspondingly smaller return on his money. 
 
 The following illustration will show how the thing works. On 
 a site, the unimproved land value of which is £100, a house is built 
 which sells freehold (land and building) for £1050, and lets at £60 
 on lease. That will show a return to a purchaser of £5 : 14 : 3 per 
 cent. On the next site, a precisely similar house is built, but iu 
 this instance the builder creates a groimd rent of £10 a year, which 
 he sells for £250, and he sells the leasehold interest for 99 years for 
 £800. The builder thus obtains as much for this property as for 
 the previous one ; but in this case he gets his £1050 from two people 
 — £250 for the ground rent, after allowing for the expenses connected 
 with its creation and sale, and £800 for the leasehold interest. As 
 the purchaser of the leasehold will have to pay the ground rent of 
 £10 out of the total rent of £60, the net rent he will receive as his 
 return upon his £800 will be £50 a year. Now £50 a year on £800 is 
 £6 : 5s. per cent, whereas the purchaser of the freehold house only 
 gets £5 : 14 : 3 per cent on his purchase money. The difference 
 of 10s. 9d. per cent represents the lower price that was paid for the 
 leasehold property, because it was leasehold. If the purchaser of 
 
38o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND ft.vih 
 
 the leasehold puts aside each year Ss. 4|d. per cent on the purchase 
 money— that is to say £1:7:2 on the £800— and allows it to 
 accumulate at 3 per cent, he or his successors will have in hand at 
 the end of the 99 years' lease, the whole of the £800 which they paid 
 for it. As the rate of interest which the rent showed on the pur- 
 chase price was 10s. 9d. per cent more than it showed on the purchase 
 price of the freehold house, the owner of the leasehold house would be 
 able to set aside the 3s. 4|d. per cent for a sinking fund, which 
 would return him the whole of his purchase money at the end of the 
 lease, and still have 7s. 4Jd. per cent better return on his investment 
 than the purchaser of the freehold house would get. 
 
 It is usual for a leasehold house to sell for about two years' 
 purchase of the rental value, less the ground rent, less than the 
 number of years' piu-chase that would be given for the same net 
 rental if it were freehold. 
 
 The truth is that the purchaser of leasehold property, or his 
 successor, forgets or ignores the fact that he bought it at a price 
 which yields a higher return because it was leasehold ; and also that 
 he either does not know how small a sum set aside every year would 
 redeem the whole of his purchase money at the end of the lease, 
 or he does not set up the sinking fund because he prefers to use the 
 money in other ways. Be that as it may, it is perfectly clear that 
 he has no grievance. He has had what he paid for — ^namely, the 
 use of the property for 99 years, and the price he paid for that use 
 was based on the fact that he would have to give it up at the end 
 of the term. During the currency of the lease, he takes all the 
 increase there may be in the value of the property. If the site 
 increases in value he has the use of it at a rent below its value. 
 
 The Land-oumer's Position 
 
 On the other hand, what is the land-owner's position ? He does 
 not get cash for his land which he could invest elsewhere with a 
 prospect of increase in value. He gives up all right to any increase 
 of value for 99 years. He has not even a mortgage which he could 
 call in. He gets a well-secured income, but he is bound hand and 
 foot for 99 years, unless he sells his interest, and then his successor 
 is bound just as he was. 
 
 It is interesting to note that when it is pointed out that the 
 leaseholder gets all the increase in the value of the property which 
 occurs during the 99 years of the lease, and that the land-owner 
 forfeits all that until the lease ends, land taxers at once begin to 
 
cH.i THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM.; 381 
 
 talk about decreases in value, and the possibility, if not indeed the 
 probability of that ; although their usual contention, when it suits 
 their argument, is that land, especially in towns, is always steadily 
 rising in value. 
 
 The present discounted value of all the fixed money payments 
 under, say, a 99 years' building lease, tends to be equal to the present 
 capital value of the land, after allowing for the obligation to return 
 the land with the buildings on it at the end of the lease, and the 
 inconvenience of restrictions on the use of the land. 
 
 Most people overlook the remarkable results which the cumula- 
 tive power of compound interest gives. Professor Marshall points 
 out that the discoimted value of a very distant rise in the value of 
 land is much less than is commonly supposed. Taking interest 
 at 5 per cent (and it was much higher during the Middle Ages), £1 
 at compoimd interest would amount to about £17,000 in 200 years, 
 and £40,000,000,000 in 500 years. " Therefore, an expenditure by 
 the State of £1 in securing to itself the reversion of a rise in the value 
 of land which came iuto operation now for the first time, would have 
 been a, bad investment unless the value of that rise now exceed 
 £17,000, if the payment was made 200 years ago ; if 500 years ago, 
 to £40,000,000,000." 1 
 
 The Gorringe Case 
 
 As an illustration of what the facts really are, and of the mis- 
 leading interpretations which are put upon them, we may take 
 the celebrated Gorringe case. Concerning that, Mr. Lloyd George, 
 speaking at Limehouse on July 30, 1909, said : 
 
 There is the famous Gorringe case. In that case advantage was 
 taken of the fact that a man had buUt up a great business, and they say, 
 " Here you are, you have buUt up a great business here ; you cannot 
 take it away ; you cannot move to other premises because your trade 
 and goodwill are here ; your lease is coming to an end, and we decline 
 to renew it except on the most oppressive terms." The Gorringe case 
 is a very familiar case. It was the case of the Duke of Westminster. 
 Oh ! these dukes, how they harass us. Mr. Gorringe had got a lease 
 of the premises at a few hundred pounds a year ground rent. He built 
 up a great business there. He was a very able business man, and when 
 the end of the lease came he went to the Duke of Westminster, and he 
 said, " Will you renew my lease ? I want to carry on my business 
 here." He said, " Oh, yes, I will, but I will do it on condition that 
 the few hundreds a year you pay for ground rent shall in future be 
 £4000 a year. In addition to that he had to pay a fine — a fine, mind 
 
 ^ Marshall, Principles of Economics, p. 446. 
 
382 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND PT.yni 
 
 you ! — of £50,000, and he had to build up huge premises at enormous 
 expense according to plans submitted to the Duke of Westminster. 
 All I can say is this — ^if it is confiscation and robbery for us to say to 
 that duke that, being in need of money for public purposes, we will 
 take 10 per cent after all you have got for that purpose, what would you 
 call his taking nine-tenths ? These are the cases we have got to deal 
 with. Look at aU this leasehold system. A case like that is not busi- 
 ness ; it is blackmail. 
 
 The Facts 
 
 What were the facts ? Was the price which Mr. Gorringe was 
 asked to pay an excessive one ? Was advantage taken of the fact 
 that he had built up a business there, and could not move to exact 
 " most oppressive terms " ? Was it " blackmail " ? The area of 
 the site was 48,634 feet, and the price arranged for it, including what 
 is called the fine, worked out at 2s. 6d. per super foot per annum, 
 or the equivalent of about £6000 a year. Every one who knows 
 anything of the value of land in that and sinoilar districts in London, 
 knows that 2s. 6d. per super foot per annum was a very fair and 
 reasonable price for that site. It was not excessive, and there was 
 no oppression or blackmail about it. Indeed, when Mr. Gorringe 
 shortly afterwards floated his concern — ^business and premises— 
 as a company, the prospectus referred to the fact that this lease had 
 been obtained as one of the favourable features of the undertaking. 
 
 Nor was it correct to say that Mr. Gorringe had a lease of the 
 premises at a few hundreds a" year ground rent, and was increased 
 from that to £4000 a year and a fine. Before this new lease was 
 arranged, Mr. Gorringe was paying £3665 a year. The original lease 
 from the Duke of Westminster may have been one for a few htmdreds 
 a year, but that was not what Mr. Gorringe was paying. He was 
 paying £3665 a year, and the difference between that sum and the 
 amount which the Duke was receiving under his lease went into the 
 pocket of some intermediate person. 
 
 What then was the position ? During the term of the lease, the 
 Duke received " a few hundred pounds a year ground rent," for a 
 property which was gradually increasing in value until at the end 
 of the term it was worth £6000 a year. That is, the owner of a 
 property which steadily increased in value from a few hundreds a 
 year to £6000 a year got no benefit whatever from that increase 
 during the whole term of the lease. The lessors among them pocketed 
 the whole of that increase year by year. Those from whom Mr. 
 Gorringe leased the property got a good share of it, and Mr. Gorringe 
 himself did very well, inasmuch as the property for which he was 
 
CH. I THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM 383 
 
 paying £3665 a year had, by the end of his term, got to be worth 
 £6000 a year for the site alone. 
 
 If the Duke had originally let the property subject to an adjust- 
 ment in the annual payment to be made according to ascertained 
 value, say every 20 years, as he might easily have done, he would 
 have reaped the increment all along, and might have allowed the 
 old lease to run out now, and still have received the value of his 
 property. As it was, others, including Mr. Gorringe, got the in- 
 creased value year by year. When the lease expired, the Duke 
 naturally and properly relet the property at its then value, and 
 Mr. Gorringe evidently thought he had made a good bargain. Yet 
 this was described as " oppression " and " blackmail " ! The view 
 taken of the transaction by Sir Edward Grey when, speaking at 
 Leeds on August 11, 1909, he said, " I see no occasion for praising 
 or blaming, or for regarding it as anything but an ordinary business 
 transaction," is undoubtedly the sound and reasonable one. 
 
 Would the Government or any one else have acted differently ? 
 
 Would any one else, would the Government themselves have 
 acted any difEerently if they had occupied the Duke's position with 
 regard to this site ? If the land of the country had been nationalised, 
 would Mr. Gorringe have done any better ? Every one knows very 
 well that he wovdd have found the Government as difficult and 
 probably far more difficult to deal with than the Duke was. In 
 connection with the discussion of this case, several instances of the 
 methods of the Government under similar circumstances were 
 made public. Here are two or three of them. The Union Club 
 in Trafalgar Square had a lease of the site of their property from the 
 Government at £400 a year, which had 20 years to run. They 
 arranged a new lease for 60 years ; that is 40 years beyond their 
 unexpired term. The Government increased their ground rent 
 from £400 to £2000 a year, and imposed a fine of £25,000, part of 
 which was spent on the building. In 1907, No. 142 Piccadilly, 
 and 2 Hamilton Mews, which had been held at a ground rent and a 
 fine of £123 each, were relet on a new lease at £950 a year, and a 
 fine of £6600. Similarly in 1908, 143 Piccadilly, and 1 Hamilton 
 Mews, which had been held at a rental and fine of £125 each, were 
 relet, on a new lease, at £900 a year, and £10,000 fine. A Club in 
 Pall Mall had its ground rent increased from £600 to £2500 a year, 
 and a fine of £10,000 was exacted. No. 144 Piccadilly was leased 
 at £104 a year ground rent. In 1881 that lease was surrendered 
 
384 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vh 
 
 and on a fine of £5938 being paid a new lease for 40 years was granted 
 at £1112 a year. In 1912 that lease was surrendered, and an agree- 
 ment entered into to spend money on the premises and pay £1650 
 a year. Premises in St. James's Street which were leased for £695 
 a year, and a fine of £695 were re-leased in 1912 to Lloyd's Bank for 
 £3000 on condition that they erected new buildings on the site. No. 
 98 Portland Place, which had been let at a ground rent of £9, and a 
 fine of £9, was relet in 1912 for £420 a year and expenditure on the 
 premises. Two houses in Osnaburgh Street were similarly increased 
 from £10 to £180 a year with the condition that new premises must 
 be erected. Nos. 114, 116, 118, and 120 Kegent Street, which had 
 been let at £1011, were increased to £3700 a year, the lessees to erect ' 
 new premises. 
 
 Are the Government " oppressors " and " blackmailers " ? It 
 is sometimes said that the difference is that in one case the money 
 was paid to a private individual and the other to the nation. That 
 does not affect the matter at all. In both cases, it was paid to the 
 owner of the property. In both cases the leaseholders had to pay. 
 It did not matter to them to whom they paid ; the important thing 
 was that they had to pay. If it was oppression and blackmail to 
 charge Mr. Gorringe the market value for his site, would it have been 
 any less so for the Government to have done it ? The result would 
 have been the same to Mr. Gorringe. Some one had to have the 
 increased value of the site. Ought it to be the owner or some one 
 who was not the owner ? 
 
 An Interesting Case 
 
 Some time ago the following particulars were published about a 
 piece of land belonging to the Governors of the Bishopsgate Founda- 
 tion. The area of the land is 147,500 feet. Its history may be 
 stated thus : 
 
 A.D. 
 
 £220 
 20 10 per annum. 
 1816. „ 21 years' lease 
 
 1664. Purchased for 
 
 1754. Let on 60 years' lease 
 
 1816. „ 21 years' lease 
 
 1837. „ 60 years' building lease 
 
 1898. „ 91 years' building lease 
 
 500 
 
 490 
 
 3500 
 
 Clearly this is a case where an increment tax would have been just 
 and equitable ; but when and upon whom should it have been 
 levied ? Who got the increased value at given periods ? Presum- 
 ably when it was let for £20 : 10s. a year in 1754, that was the value 
 of the land only ; and again, when it was let in 1837 and 1898 on 
 
cH.i THE LEASEHOLX) SYSTEM 385 
 
 building leases, we may take it that the rents of £490 and £3500 
 respectively represented the value of the land only. Confining 
 ourselves to the term from 1837 to 1898 during which the value of 
 the land increased from £490 to £3500 — ^who got that increased 
 value ? If the increase in value was steady and regular throughout 
 the term, it was an increase of £50 a year each year. Who got that 
 extra £50 in value each year until in the last year the increase in 
 value was £3000 a year ? Clearly the leaseholder, and not the 
 land-owners got it. The land-owners had let the land for £490, and 
 they had to see it go up in value at the rate of £50 a year every year, 
 until it became worth £3500 a year, and they had to be content to 
 receive £490 a year for it during the whole of the 60 years. Who 
 ought to pay the increment duty during that time in a case like 
 that ? Clearly the person who was getting it — the leaseholder — 
 ought to pay it. But the contention of the land taxers is that the 
 ground landlord who was not getting the benefit of the increase in 
 value ought to be taxed on the increased value. When the property 
 fell in to the land- owner at the end of the lease, and he was able to 
 relet it at £3500 a year, I quite agree that he ought to pay a sub- 
 stantial amoimt as increment duty ; but until he did come into that 
 extra rent, the duty should be levied on the leaseholder as the person 
 who, for the time being, was receiving the whole of the benefit of the 
 increased value. 
 
 When much is attempted to be made of the fact that at the end 
 of the lease the buUdings, which he did not erect, fall into the posses- 
 sion of the land-owner, it should be remembered, not only that this 
 fact is taken into consideration when the terms of the lease are 
 settled, and that the price at which a purchaser buys a leasehold 
 property allows for it, but also that most buildings are really worth 
 very little at the end of 99 years. They usually have either to be 
 puUed down or to have a large sum expended on them in reconstruc- 
 tion. If they are not completely worn out, they are almost invariably 
 quite out of date or otherwise unsuitable for their position. 
 
 The Effect of specially taxing Ground Rents 
 
 With regard to the effect which the taxation of land values 
 would have upon the leasehold system and the buildiag and sale 
 of leasehold property, it may be pointed out that ground rents have 
 usually sold at high prices in proportion to the income to be derived 
 from them. They have done so because they yielded a fixed income 
 which was thoroughly well secured. But if they wore to be rated 
 
 2c 
 
386 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. vm 
 
 and taxed directly, and the rates and taxes on them might be varied, 
 they would cease to yield a fixed income, and would consequently 
 fall considerably in capital value. That would mean that a builder 
 who was creating ground rents on his properties, and selling the 
 leasehold interest separately, would get less for his ground rents, 
 and consequently would require a higher price for the leasehold 
 interest in order to make up the difference. This would check the 
 sale of leasehold premises, and to that extent tend to discourage 
 building. If a ground rent be £10 and it can be sold at 25 years' 
 purchase, the builder gets £250 ; if it can be sold at 27J years' 
 purchase, he gets £275 ; but if he has to seU at 20 years' purchase, 
 he will only get £200. If the price fell to 18 years' purchase, as 
 would be possible if the income were made uncertain, he would only 
 get £180. On the other hand, were there no uncertainty as to the 
 income, the price of such ground rents would usually range about 
 27J years' purchase, as it did a few years ago. The difference 
 between getting say £200 or £250 for his ground rent would mean 
 that in the former case he would require £50 more for the leasehold 
 interest of the property. That is to say, in the case we assumed 
 a few pages back, the price he would require for the leasehold interest 
 in that particular house would be £850 instead of £800. The 
 difference would be sufficient to prevent the sale. So far as leasehold 
 houses are concerned, the effect of taxing land values directly would 
 be to make leasehold property dearer. 
 
 Note 
 Commenting upon proposals for the separate rating of ground values 
 which were submitted to the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, Mr. 
 (now Mr. Justice) Sargant ^ said they appeared to him to be open to 
 several fatal objections. Among them he stated the following : 
 
 They would rate owners of fixed rents in respect of an expenditure, the 
 benefit of which accrues primarily to the owners of marginal rents, or, in other 
 words, to the persons having the right to the actual beneficial occupation and 
 enjojrment of the property rated. They would in fact rate the wrong man. 
 
 They would prevent secured interests in houses from being ajranged so as 
 to 3deld a fixed income, and so would drive cheap or trust capital out of house 
 property and raise rents. 
 
 As applied to future contracts, they would fail of their purpose and hamper 
 building, inasmuch as they would impose on developers of land for building 
 purposes, and builders and the persons claiming under them, a prospective 
 liability in respect of the rents forming the reward for development and 
 building, with the result that such rents would rise and the rate be ultimately 
 thrown on the occupier, if (as I presume will be the case) the rate is to be a 
 constant one, i.e. applying to the whole kingdom. 
 
 As applied to existing contracts, they are nlarkedly confiscatory. 
 
 ' Local Taxation Commission, Memoranda, etc., p. 216. 
 
PAET IX 
 
 THE TAXATION OF LAND VALUES 
 
 VAEIOUS PEOPOSALS : 
 
 WHAT IS CLAIMED FOR THEM 
 
 AND 
 
 WHAT THEY WOULD ACCOMPLISH 
 SOME CONTENTIONS AND ILLUSTRATIONS EXAMINED 
 
 387 
 
" It is unworthy of a civilised government to pursue a certain class of owners 
 with covert hostility, to burthen them with overwhelming taxes, or to deny them 
 effectual protection, in order to make their property worthless, and then to buy it 
 at so many years' purchase of zero." — Palgbavb's Dictionary of Political Economy. 
 
 " The fundamental sin of the single tax on land is that it is unjust." — 
 Professor Semoman. 
 
 " Honesty, after aU, is the best policy in this as in all things. The attempt 
 to get either the land or its value without recognising the legitimate interests 
 which the State has allowed to take root and establish themselves is foredoomed 
 to ignominious failure. It is as unfair in its intention as it is likely to prove futile 
 in its operation. It is the broad and easy road that leads to disappointment and 
 destruction." — Joseph Hydbb, Secretary to the Land NationaUsation Society. 
 
 " Seeing how great and manifold are the inevitable sufEeriugs of men ; how 
 profoundly important it is that all should give their best will and devote their 
 best intelligence to the alleviation of those sufferings which can be diminished, 
 by seeking out, and, as far as Ues within human power, removing their causes ; 
 it is surely lamentable that they should be drawn away by speculative chimsaras 
 from the attempt to find that narrow path which for nations, as for individual 
 men, is the sole road to permanent well-being." — Htjxley. 
 
 " It seems necessary to repeat what I have said already in the House of Com- 
 mons, that, whatever the proposals of the Government may be, they will not 
 embrace what is called the policy of the single tax — which, to my knowledge, has 
 not a single supporter in the present Cabinet — and which, in my opinion, and, I 
 believe, in the unanimous opinion of my colleagues, also, by singling out for the 
 purpose of bearing the whole burden of taxation the land to the exclusion and 
 relief of all other forms of property, is consistent neither with justice nor with 
 expediency." — ^The Right Hon. H. H. Asquith at Ladybank, 5th October, 1911. 
 
 " Many an assembly of ratepayers which would pass with acclamation a simple 
 resolution in favour of the relief of rates would melt away in depression if this 
 resolution were coupled with another, stating exactly the new taxation which 
 would in fact be caused by the necessity of providing for the relief." — Dr. Cannan. 
 
 388 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 SOME PROPOSALS FOR TAXING LAND VALUES 
 
 We have seen that the evolution of the principles of taxation has 
 been steadily on the line of devising more and more accurate ways 
 of requiriag persons to contribute to the public revenue of the 
 community in proportion to their ability to pay, and of estimating 
 their ability to pay by the amount of their income. The followers 
 of Henry George and land-taxers generally repudiate the theory 
 that taxation should be according to ability to pay, and contend 
 that it should be entirely according to benefit received. They then 
 proceed to assert that all the benefit of expansion, expenditure, 
 enterprise, invention, and increase of population accrues to the 
 owners of land, and therefore they ought to bear all, or nearly all, 
 the burden of public expenditure. They propose to abolish aU 
 thought of contribution according to ability to pay, and levy the 
 whole, or most, of the cost of National and local government and 
 services upon one class in the community. 
 
 The Idea of a Single Tax not New 
 
 The idea that the requirements of the nation could and should 
 be supplied by levying a single and exclusive tax on some one class of 
 things or on one particular kind of property is by no means a new 
 one. From the time of Charles II. to the end of the eighteenth 
 century, there were several proposals for levying a siagle tax on all 
 luxuries, and several of the enthusiastic fiscal reformers of those 
 days promised, as the result of the adoption of their scheme, benefits 
 for the whole community almost as great and as far reaching as 
 those which, we are assured, would follow the adoption of the single 
 tax nostrum of the present day. 
 
 Sir William Decker (1743), Postlethwayt (1757), and others in 
 the eighteenth century strongly urged a single tax on houses. 
 John Locke advocated a single tax on land in 1692. Vanderlint 
 
 389 
 
390 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 emphasised and supported the same view in 1734. In France the 
 Physiocrats— notably Guesnay, Mirabeau, and Turgot— urged that 
 a single tax should be levied on land, on the grounds, first, that land 
 was the source of all wealth, and second that however, and on what- 
 ever, taxes, direct or indirect, were levied, they must always ulti- 
 mately fall on land, and therefore it would save trouble and cost to 
 levy them there at the outset. Henry George has in our day re- 
 vived, furbished up, and in some particulars recast these old views. 
 There has always been in this country the theory that we should 
 make the rates payable bear some approximation to the services 
 rendered and the benefit received, but the application of that theory 
 has hitherto run out in precisely the opposite direction to that 
 suggested by Henry George and his friends. Thus the Lighting and 
 Watching Act of 1833 provided that buildings and their sites should 
 pay three times as large a rate for the purposes of the Act as agri- 
 cultural land. The Public Health Act of 1848 provides that railway 
 lines and canals shall be assessed at one-fourth their annual value. 
 This arrangement applies to the greater part of the rates of English 
 towns. The Agricultural Rates Act applies to the remainder of the 
 urban rates and all the rural rates, and provides that agricultural 
 land (but not farm-houses) shall be assessed at half its annual 
 value for all ordinary rates except those for which it is, under previous 
 Acts, assessed at a quarter. 
 
 What the Supporters of the Proposal have to prove 
 
 In order to justify their proposals, the advocates of the special 
 taxation of land values have to prove : 
 
 (1) If they advocate the raising of all taxes and rates, or of all 
 rates only, by levies on land values, that the owners of land are 
 the only persons who ought to be taxed, and that they ought to 
 be taxed according to and only according to the land they own ; 
 or, 
 
 (2) If they advocate the levying of special additional rates 
 or taxes on the owners of land in order to relieve the payers of 
 other rates or taxes, that owners of land do not now pay their 
 fair share. 
 
 Henry George and his followers, the United Committee for the 
 Taxation of Land Values, attempt to sustain the first of these 
 propositions by contending that land is different from all other 
 commodities in that it is a gift of nature, limited in quantity. 
 
CH. I TAXING LAND VALUES 391 
 
 necessary for our existence ; it does not owe its existence to man, 
 its value is due to the presence and activity and expenditure of the 
 community ; it cannot be carried away or concealed. It is alleged 
 that land ought not to be and cannot rightly be private property ; 
 that it is the possession of the human race, and each individual on 
 being born into the world is there and then seized with a right to a 
 share of it — a right which is inalienable by any one living or dead ; 
 that to tax it to its full value, apart from the improvements which 
 have been made on it, is but to restore to the people their own 
 property of which they have been robbed by force and fraud. 
 
 We have already dealt with and, we submit, disposed of most 
 of these contentions, and it is imnecessary to traverse the same 
 ground again. We will only refer to them now so far as is needed 
 in order to maintain the completeness and harmony of the argument. 
 
 " Land Different from Other Commodities " 
 
 That land is difEerent from other commodities in important 
 particulars is true and obvious ; but the difference is not quite so 
 great or so important as it is represented to be ; nor does that 
 difference justify depriving other people of it by force and without 
 compensation when it has come into their possession. It is true that 
 everything comes from the land in the last resort. The raw material 
 of everything we have comes from the land. Does that give to 
 every person a right to a share of so much of the value of everything 
 as is the value of the raw material in it that came from the land ? 
 If not, why not, if the contention that every one is entitled to a share 
 in the land be sound and that no one past or present had or has a 
 right to alienate that share ? If the expenditure of time, labour, 
 and capital upon the elements of the earth gives a right to possession 
 of those elements, why does not the expenditure of time, labour, and 
 capital upon the land itself give the same right of possession ? 
 
 If you may cut down trees and make them into planks, doors, 
 windows, or furniture ; or you may dig up clay and make it into 
 bricks, drain-pipes, or pottery ; or you may quarry stone and cart 
 away sand, gravel, and lime, and with them build houses, construct 
 pavements, piers, locks, and breakwaters ; or you may mine and 
 extract coal, iron, lead, or tin, and all these things are properly 
 and legitimately absolutely your own property, why in the name of 
 all that is reasonable, if you expend time, labour, and capital in 
 clearing, repairing, draining and fencing, equipping, and cultivating 
 the soil on the spot, are you not entitled to own it as completely as 
 
392 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 if you cart it away? Though land itself is not the product of 
 industry, most of its value and more of the qualities which give 
 it value are so. Labour and capital and skill and knowledge are 
 not only requisite for using it, but are almost equally necessary 
 for making it usable. In many cases, even when cleared, its pro- 
 ductiveness is wholly the result of labour, capital, and skill. 
 
 " Land Necessary to our Existence " 
 
 It is true that land, as are several other things, is necessary to 
 our existence ; but ownership of it is not. What is necessary is a 
 foothold, a habitation and power to obtain sufficient of the produce 
 of the earth to enable us to sustain life. It is not a necessity of 
 existence that land should not be appropriated as private property, 
 nor that it should be taxed to its full value exclusive of improve- 
 ments. If private property in land be wrong and every human 
 being has an indefeasible natural right to a place on it and a share 
 of it, the adoption of the single tax proposals would not remedy the 
 wrong or give him his place and share. For all practical purposes 
 his position as regards the land would be the same as it is to-day. 
 All that would happen would be that the taxes he now pays woidd 
 be shifted to some one else, which means that the poorest, who are 
 the smallest tax-payers, would get the least relief and the rich, who 
 are the largest tax-payers, would get the most. 
 
 The True Principle of Property 
 
 It has been shown that soimd public, economic, and historical 
 reasons exist for land being appropriated as private property. Of 
 course, it is held as all property is, whether it be the result of personal 
 labour and effort or not, subject to the paramount interest of the 
 general well-being. 
 
 The raw material of the earth being a gift of nature, being limited 
 in quantity and access to it, or its products being necessary for our 
 existence, it does follow that private property in it is specially and 
 peculiarly altogether subordinate to the general policy of the State 
 whose duty it is to promote and safeguard the common good. This 
 does not mean that if it be thought desirable that the State should 
 own all or any particular part of the land of the country or should, 
 beyond and in addition to exacting an equitable amount of taxation 
 from its owners, annex the whole or a defined portion of its annual 
 value, it would be right for it to do so without recouping its owners 
 for such land or income as it desired to acquire. What sound policy 
 
CH. 1 TAXING LAND VALUES 393 
 
 and the true principle of property gives to owners of land is not a 
 right to do as they like with their land, not a right to demand that 
 the State shall not take any part of it or require its use in any particu- 
 lar way — what it does give is a right to compensation for whatever 
 portion of their interest in land it may seem desirable for the State 
 to deprive land-owners of. To that their claim is indefeasible and 
 irresistible. To this extent and to this extent only property in land, 
 as in anything else, is sacred. 
 
 That land is a gift of nature and does not owe its existence to 
 man is no reason why, after it has been the policy of aU civilised 
 nations in all ages in all parts of the world to adopt and maintain 
 the principle of private property in land under the most solemn and 
 binding sanctions which law and custom could devise, the State 
 should suddenly turn round, reverse the policy of centuries, rip up 
 contracts, and confiscate that property which it had hitherto 
 treated as so inviolable that it was, next to and co-equal with its 
 own bonds, the seciirity in which is required trustees for the weak 
 and helpless to invest their funds. 
 
 New and Old Countries 
 
 We are not now discussing the wisdom or otherwise of adopting 
 the policy of the single tax or some near approach to it in a new 
 country where there is comparatively little else of value than the 
 land, and where almost every one is a land-owner, and where those 
 who, as the virgin soil is settled on and the new towns are founded, 
 acquire their holdings with a knowledge of what the special system 
 of taxation is. For such a system of obtaining a revenue in such 
 countries under such conditions there is much to be said. 
 
 In an old country like our own with rights, interests and ex- 
 pectations which are the growth of centuries, " the fundamental 
 sin," as Professor Seligman weU expresses it, of the single tax on 
 land is that it is unjust. That being so, no apparently plausible 
 exposition of the advantages and benefits that would accrue to the 
 rest of the conmiunity from the unjust treatment of a section of 
 their feUow-citizens can render the policy of so treating them a 
 possible one for honourable men. The fundamental sin of the 
 scheme is that it singles out one class of persons — a small minority 
 of the whole community — one section of property owners, for 
 taxation, and proposes to penalise them enormously in order to 
 entirely relieve others, without pajong any regard whatever to the 
 capacity of the persons penalised to bear the burden as compared 
 
394 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 vdth those who are to be reheved. The comment of Professor W. 
 Smart on this scheme is as just as it is caustic : 
 
 One class, the landowners of the country, are arraigned before him 
 (Henry George), and pronounced guilty of having in their possession 
 something which they should not have : and he proposes to pay for the 
 government services as courts of justice might conceivably pay their 
 judges and officers — by fines. The Single Tax, in short, is a proposal 
 to kill three birds with one stone — ^to abolish private property in land, 
 to lay violent hands on the revenues of one class without compensation, 
 and to make taxation unnecessary by using these revenues. It is not 
 a system of taxation, but a method of confiscation.-*- 
 
 John Stuart Mill's Opinion 
 
 John Stuart Mill ^ uses the following language respecting the 
 suggestion of an exclusive tax on what is called realised property. 
 He especially referred to an exclusive tax on " land, public funds 
 and money lent on mortgage." The language applies -with even 
 greater force to a proposition to put a special additional tax on one 
 class only of such property, viz. ground values. 
 
 Except the proposal of applying a sponge to the national debt, no 
 such palpable -violation of common honesty has found sufficient support 
 in this country during the present generation to be regarded as within 
 the domain of discussion. The burthen thus thrown on the owners of 
 the smaller portion of the wealth of the community, would not even be 
 a burthen on that class of persons in perpetual succession, but would 
 fall exclusively upon those who happened to compose it when the tax 
 was laid on. (That is to say, the present owners of ground-rents 
 would be the only sufEerers.) As land and those particular securities 
 would yield a smaller net income, relatively to the general interest of 
 capital and to the profits of trade, the balance would rectify itself by 
 a permanent depreciation of those kinds of property. Future buyers 
 would acquire land and securities at a reduction of price, equivalent 
 to the peculiar tax, which tax they woxdd therefore escape from paying ; 
 while the original possessors would remain burthened with it even after 
 parting with the property, since they would have sold their land or 
 securities at a loss of value equivalent to the fee-simple of the tax. Its 
 imposition would thus be tantamount to the confiscation for public 
 uses of a percentage of their property, equal to the percentage laid on 
 their income by the tax. That such a proposition should find any 
 favour is a striking instance of the want of conscience in matters of 
 taxation, resultiag from the absence of any fixed principles in the 
 public mind, and of any indication of a sense of justice on the subject 
 
 I The Single Tax, p. 13. 
 ' Principles of Political Economy, book v. chap. ii. sect. 3. 
 
CH. I TAXING LAND VALUES 395 
 
 in the general conduct of governments. Stould the scheme ever enlist 
 a large party in its support, the fact would indicate a laxity of pecuniary 
 integrity in national affairs, scarcely inferior to American repudiation. 
 
 The point upon which Mr. Mill dwells in connection with such 
 a tax as we are now considering is an important one. It is a peculi- 
 arity that all permanent taxes on fixed secured incomes fall entirely 
 upon the person who happens at the time the tax is imposed to own 
 the security from whicL the income is derived. The capital value 
 of their property is reduced at one stroke by the full capital value of 
 the permanent reduction in income. That very much accentuates 
 and aggravates the injustice of the proposal. 
 
 " Rent is Robbery," but it would continue 
 
 Henry George's scheme of taxation is not only unjust — which 
 alone should be sufficient to banish it from the sphere of practical 
 politics — the arguments by which he supports it and the plan by 
 which he proposes to give effect to it are inconsistent and contra- 
 dictory. He says, " All men have an equal right to the use of the 
 earth." Then why tax them for exercising that right ? 
 
 According to his theory and contention rent is robbery, it con- 
 demns the worker to helpless and degraded slavery ; it prevents 
 any increase in wages ; it swallows up all the results of progress 
 and of increase in productive power ; it is the great evil of our time ; 
 it fills our prisons and our workhouses, and is the chief cause of 
 misery, sin, disease, suffering and brutality. Yet he does not pro- 
 pose to abolish it. Under his scheme it would have to be paid as 
 now. It would be paid to private owners as now, with this difference, 
 that they would be compelled to extract from the occupier the utmost 
 rack rent that was possible because the State would tax them to that 
 extent. If rent keeps the worker in slavery, he would remain there. 
 If rent be the cause of so much terrible misery, want, crime and 
 wrong-doing, the horror and the sorrow would continue. 
 
 The only difference under his scheme would be that the owner 
 would be taxed to the full amount of the economic rent he received ; 
 but the occupier would have to pay it as he does now. The only 
 benefit the occupier would get would be that he would be relieved 
 of such taxes as he now pays as were abolished as the result of the 
 State receiving the rent tax. As the bulk of the taxes are paid by 
 the middle and well-to-do classes, the amount of relief that would 
 be given to each working class household, though very acceptable, 
 would not be great. Certainly it would not be sufficient to in- 
 
396 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 augurate the millennium which Mr. George portrays in such glowing 
 colours. The humour of the thing is that Mr. George tells us that 
 it is rent that is the cause of all our troubles, and his remedy is to 
 continue rent in its most extreme form and abolish taxes !' If rent 
 is robbery by individuals, single tax is robbery by the State. Yet 
 the one is the curse of mankind and the other is the panacea for the 
 woes of the world ! If rent be robbery it should be put an end to 
 and the plunder should be restored to those who have been robbed. 
 Instead of this, Mr. George proposes to keep and continue it and 
 expend it for the benefit of the pubhc at large ! 
 
 Mr. George says that rent is a tax upon labour and that all that 
 a man produces is his own, as against all the world, and to take any 
 part of it from him is robbery. He says that " rent is a portion of 
 the wealth created by producers," and that " when non-producers 
 can claim as rent a portion of the wealth created by producers, the 
 right of the producers to the fruits of their labour is to that extent 
 denied." If this be so and it is unjust, it is clear that for the State 
 to allow that rent to continue and to take it for itself in the form of 
 the single tax is to acquiesce in robbery of the producer. Obviously, 
 then, either rent is not a tax upon labour and a robbery of the worker 
 or the single tax would be a hypocritical fraud, a mere substitution 
 of State theft for individual robbery. 
 
 The hopeless confusion of mind in which Mr. George lived and 
 wrote is illustrated by the fact that he also said " economic rent 
 which is in no part made up from labour and capital, but is the crea- 
 tion of the community, necessarily belongs to the whole community." 
 If it be true that economic rent is in no part made up from labour 
 and capital, why does he talk elsewhere of rent being a tax on labour, 
 " a toll levied upon labour constantly and continuously," and how 
 can it be rent that makes the labourer a slave 1 
 
 Mr. George is an argumentative weathercock. He changes his 
 position and contention at any moment to suit the view he wishes 
 to enforce, no matter how inconsistent it may be with the opinion 
 and principle he was expounding a few minutes before. "When he 
 is denouncing the present land system as robbery he asserts that 
 rent is part of the " fruit of men's labour." When he desires to 
 confiscate it and seize it for the State, it is no longer the product of 
 labour, it springs into existence " without the exertion of any known 
 factor of production." It is the residt of the aggregation of a number 
 of persons, in a. word, of the growth of the community ! 
 
 When people talk thus about the " fruit of men's labour " and 
 
CH. . TAXING LAND VALUES 397 
 
 a " tax upon labour," and others speak of everything being due to 
 labour and suggest that landlords, employers and capitalists are 
 a burden upon industry depriving " the workers " of the legitimate 
 result of their efforts, which they appear to conceive to be practically 
 the whole value of the commodity produced, it is clear that they have 
 not really thought out the facts of the position. 
 
 The Foundations of Society 
 
 What a man calls the value of his own work is usually an aggregate 
 value of numerous sources of contribution of which his was only one 
 and probably quite a minor one. Usually the raw materials were not 
 his. Often the tools he used and almost invariably the machinery 
 with which he worked were not his. The building in which he 
 worked and the engines which drove the machinery were not his. 
 Other workers, some more ingenious and skilful than he, made con- 
 tributions to the production without which his would have been 
 valueless. And the whole depended on the knowledge, mental 
 calculations, anticipations and foresight and courage of his em- 
 ployers. The conceptions which create the business and set the 
 workers agoing, and rvm the risks, and provide the ingenuity which 
 meets an existing demand, or creates a new demand, are far more 
 important than the mere manual work done by the employees. 
 As the Duke of Argyll so forcibly pointed out in The Unseen Founda- 
 tions of Society, the value of these higher quahties and the possibility 
 of successfully making effective use of them depend on the existence 
 of a settled and stable society, and a sound and just system of juris- 
 prudence under which the reign of law is paramount and rights 
 are maintained, contracts enforced and possession secured. One 
 reason why the proposals and teaching of Henry George and of others 
 who follow on his lines, though they may not go so far, are to be 
 deprecated so strongly, is that they imdermine " the unseen founda- 
 tions of Society," and put in peril the stability of that structure of 
 settled law and justice, public honour and confidence, which has 
 evolved from centuries of travail and experience. 
 
 " The very greatness of the public interests concerned," says 
 Professor Alfred Marshall, " makes it specially necessary to bear in 
 mind, when discussing the equities of the public value of land, that 
 a sudden appropriation by the State of any incomes from property, 
 the private ownership of which had once been recognised by it, 
 would destroy security and shake the foundations of society." ^ 
 
 1 Principles of Economics, p. 803. 
 
398 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 Some other Proposals 
 
 We may now pass on to consider the arguments and position of 
 those whose advocacy of the taxation of land values falls short, for one 
 reason or another, temporarily or permanently, of the full-blooded 
 doctrine of the " Prophet of San Francisco " and his followers in 
 this country. These proposals for the taxation of land values vary 
 much in character, objects, and the principles upon which they are 
 based. Some of them are just and equitable, perfectly reasonable, 
 and quite practical. Others are in principle, though not in the 
 extent to which they are carried, as unjust and indefensible as Henry 
 George's single tax scheme, and are intended by many of those who 
 support them to be a first step, and that a considerable one, 
 towards the adoption of his policy of confiscation. 
 
 These various proposals may be summarised and considered in 
 the following categories : 
 
 (1) Those who desire that a special additional rate should be 
 levied on the capital amoimt of land values only, the money obtained 
 thereby to be used to relieve the ordinary local rates. Opinions 
 amongst the supporters of this proposal vary as to the amount of 
 this rate on land values and whether it should be entirely levied and 
 allocated locally, or should be levied at a uniform rate all over the 
 country and then be allocated to localities, not in proportion to the 
 amount of the land values in their area but in proportion to their 
 population. 
 
 (2) Those who desire that local authorities should levy all local 
 rates on the capital value of land only and thereby remove all 
 houses, buildings and improvements from assessment and reUeve 
 them of rates. ^ 
 
 (3) Those who agree with the second group and desire that in 
 addition a national or budget tax should also be levied on land 
 values, the proceeds to be allocated towards the local cost of such 
 services as education, poor relief, main roads, and police, and in sub- 
 stitution for the duties on tea, sugar, cocoa and other articles of food. 
 
 1 Sir G. L. Gomme, Clerk to the London County Council, in reply to questions 
 from the Royal Commission on Local Taxation, said : 
 
 " I do not think that local rates should be divided between owners and occupiers 
 of real property, but that the whole of local expenditure should be charged upon 
 the owners of site values. I think that ground values should be rated directly for 
 all local services, and for this purpose the valuation hsts should contain only the 
 site value of each property, together with the names of the owners of such site value 
 and the amount held by each owner, so that the taxation should fall upon each 
 owner in proportion to the amount held by him." —Memoranda, p. 242. 
 
cH.i TAXING LAND VALUES 399 
 
 The proposals embodied in (2) and (3) are those which were 
 contained in the Memorial which was signed by 143 (since said to 
 have been increased to 176) members of Parliament, and presented 
 to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 
 August 1910.1 
 
 Some Elementary Considerations 
 
 Many of the advocates of these proposals appear to think that 
 they have made out their case if they show or even assert that some 
 people would be better ofE than they now are if effect were given to 
 them. Of course, if rates were taken off a large class of property 
 and placed entirely upon a much more limited class, or to express 
 it more accurately, if the great majority of the occupiers of land and 
 buildings were relieved of all rates by charging them entirely upon 
 a comparatively small section of the community, the change would 
 be a financial advantage to those who were thus relieved. Similarly, 
 if all taxes be taken off tea, sugar, cocoa and other articles of food, 
 purchasers of those commodities in proportion to the extent of their 
 purchases wiU benefit thereby. Equally obviously if you can " free " 
 industry of all kinds — agriculture, mining, forestry, building, manu- 
 facturing, engineering, public works, transport, distribution — from 
 " burdens," it will be a great gain to those who are thus relieved. In 
 the same way it would be a great boon, at any rate temporarily, to 
 the great majority of the people if they could be altogether relieved 
 of all rates and taxes by placing those burdens entirely upon the 
 shoulders of the rich : the boon would be increased, for a time, if 
 it were decreed that in future no more rent should be paid and that 
 every one should live rent free. Many other advantages of a similar 
 sort could be obtaitied by similar methods ; but all this kind of 
 emotional rhodomontade, with which the publications and speeches 
 of the advocates of policies of pubhc plunder abound, evades 
 
 ' That Memorial asked : 
 
 1. That Local Authorities should be empowered to levy rates on the basis of 
 the valuation provided for in the Budget of 1909-10. 
 
 2. That a Budget Tax should be levied on all Land Values and be appUed : 
 (a) In providing a national fund to be allocated toward the cost of such services 
 
 as Education, Poor Relief, Main Roads, Asylums, and Police, thereby 
 reducing the local rates ; and 
 (6) In substitution of the duties on Tea, Sugar, Cocoa, and other articles of 
 
 food. 
 In expounding this policy before the Departmental Committee, 1912, as the 
 representative of the Land Values Group of M.P.S, Mr. C. L. Davies said that 
 " in no case should the value of bricks and mortar be brought into the assessment," 
 and " the whole of local expenditure should be charged upon the owner of site 
 values " {Am. 1049 and 1519). 
 
400 OWNERSHIP Sc TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 and ignores the really important and practical questions which at 
 once present themselves to the minds of sensible and honest people 
 when these pictures of the coming millennium are portrayed. To 
 whom are the burdens, charges and responsibilities, of which the 
 great mass of the people are to be reUeved, to be transferred, and by 
 what process of reasoning and under what code of morals is this 
 transfer — ^this robbing of Peter in order to relieve Paul — ^justified and 
 defended ? 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 TO WHAT EXTENT DO LAND-OWlfERS PAY RATES AND TAXES 
 
 NOW ? 
 
 What the advocates of any scheme for the exceptional taxation of 
 land values have to prove is that there is in our midst some class of 
 persons who, in respect of some kind of property — land-owners and 
 land values to wit — are escaping the payment of their full and fair 
 share of rates and taxes. In so far as that can be done, there is a 
 case for adjustment and reform : but if and where that cannot be 
 done, the suggestion that a particular class of persons should be 
 penalised, and that so doing will be justified because a large number 
 of other people will be benefited, is simply the policy of the brigand 
 and the highwayman condoned by wholesale pubhc bribery in the 
 form of a wide-spread sharing of the plunder. In this connection, 
 also, we must always remember that : 
 
 We never have to deal with taxation in the abstract, and equity 
 cannot be attained without regard to present circumstances. A 
 system of taxation, when it has once come into operation and remained 
 in operation long enough to become accepted as something on the 
 continuance of which men may depend in making contracts with one 
 another, becomes part and parcel of the general scheme of the dis- 
 tribution of wealth, and it is considered that expectations founded on 
 it are legitimate, expectations which it is imjust to disappoint.^ 
 
 What Rates and Taxes they ought to fay 
 
 What then are the facts and equities of the matter ? What 
 rates and taxes ought the owners of land to pay, as such, and what 
 rates and taxes do they pay ? 
 
 (1) Clearly, they ought to pay all the ordinary rates and taxes 
 which other people pay. 
 
 (2) They ought to pay all rates which are necessitated by ex- 
 
 1 Cannan, History of Local Rates, p. 169. 
 
 401 2 D 
 
402 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 penditure which specifically and specially maintaias and benefits 
 their property as distinct from expenditure which is for the general 
 advantage and safety. They ought also to bear the cost of those 
 ser\dces which are required because the property is where it is and 
 those which are more costly than they would be elsewhere. Services 
 are required in great cities which are not necessary in rural villages, 
 and services similar in character to those which are required in all 
 areas are much more costly in populous centres. The cost of street 
 paving, cleaning, and lighting, education, police, drainage, and the 
 like is vastly greater per head in large towns than in rural districts. 
 The conditions which increase these charges are the same as those 
 which increase the value of the land in thickly populated urban 
 areas. Each is inseparable from the other. The extra cost is 
 necessary to enable the land to be used for the purposes for and under 
 the conditions which it is used, and it is the possibility of the land 
 being thus used that gives it its special value. Most of the services 
 mentioned are, under modern conditions, regarded as essential, and, 
 with the exception of education and police, would have to be pro- 
 vided by the property owners if they were not provided by the local 
 authorities. They are part of the value of the property to the 
 occupier, and the cost of them should, therefore, come out of that 
 value. 
 
 (3) In addition to the foregoing, there are certain general or 
 national services, such as poor relief, police, education, and main 
 roads, the cost of which is wholly or partially borne locally. The 
 local rates levied in connection with the expenditure on these services 
 are onerous rates. They do not add to the value of the property : 
 they are a burden on it ; and in so far as in each locality they exceed 
 the amount that would be payable for the same class of services in 
 respect of similar premises in a low-rated rural area, they are a 
 burden on the land-owner. Whether they are charges which ought 
 to be laid upon one class of the community need not now be discussed. 
 As a matter of fact they have been so laid, probably not deliberately 
 and intentionally, and with a clear view that the burden would fall 
 precisely where it does. It is quite probable, if not indeed certain, 
 that when the more recent of these charges were levied as local rates 
 it was supposed that they would really be borne by those upon 
 whom they were primarily levied, and that as the value of the 
 premises occupied was in the majority of instances a rough indica- 
 tion of the financial postion of the ratepayers, the charge would fall 
 upon them approximately in proportion to their ability to pay. We 
 
CH. II LAND-OWNERS' RATES AND TAXES 403 
 
 know that originally the old charges for poor relief were intended to 
 be levied according to ability to pay. Nevertheless these charges 
 have become permanent, and, so to speak, of the nature of hereditary 
 burdens on land. Those who now own land have for the most part 
 acquired it subject to these charges, and if they have purchased it 
 they have done so with a knowledge that these charges existed, and 
 consequently at a price which allowed for them. That being so, 
 we need not now discuss whether they should or should not have 
 been so levied. To remove them would be to make a free gift of their 
 capital value to all who have purchased land since they were imposed. 
 Rightly or wrongly they must now remain. 
 
 (4) Lastly, the opinion has for some time been widely held, 
 and recent legislation has given effect to it, that some part of the 
 future unearned increment in the value of land should be appro- 
 priated by the State for pubhc purposes. It appears to be sound and 
 just that, subject to values which had accrued at the time the legisla- 
 tion enacting the new taxation was passed being held exempt, the 
 future value added to land by circumstances altogether apart from 
 and independent of any effort or sacrifice on the part of the owners 
 should be subject to some measure of special taxation for the benefit 
 of the commimity to whose combined growth and enterprise that 
 added value is largely due. 
 
 In this connection it is well that we should remember that 
 whilst it is true that a site in a city is worth more than one in a 
 village, and one in a village is worth more than one on a desolate 
 moor, the site is not the only thing that is worth more under these 
 conditions. The practice of a lawyer and a doctor, a newspaper, 
 a singer, an actor, and any tradesman's business, are worth vastly 
 more in a city than in a village, apart altogether from any question 
 of the ability of the individual. In abnost every business and 
 profession large and increasing profits depend upon the growth, 
 enterprise, and corresponding expenditure of the community, which 
 means an increased demand for their goods or services. Land 
 increases in value because more people want to occupy it. The 
 profits of tradesmen and professional men increase because more 
 people want their products or their advice. In both cases the people, 
 and consequently the demand for land and for goods and for pro- 
 fessional services, have been gathered together there by the natural 
 advantages of the locality and the enterprise and expenditure of 
 the local community and of those who have built up great 
 industries there. 
 
404 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 On the other hand, there is an important difference between the 
 increment which arises in connection with land and that which arises 
 in connection with a business or profession, in the fact that the 
 latter is open to all members of the community for them to take 
 advantage of, if they have the ability so to do, and the other is 
 confined to the owners of the particular land which is benefited. 
 
 In connection with the increment in the value of urban property 
 it should be remembered that the local authorities take a toll of a 
 very considerable portion of that increment for local purposes in 
 the form of ordinary rates and taxes. Sir G. L. Gomme, in his 
 evidence before the Royal Commission on Local Taxation gave 
 some details of the increase in the rateable value of property in 
 London which had not been rebuilt. The rateable value of this 
 property in 1871-72 was £19,650,743. In 1897-98 the rateable 
 value of the same property^ — all of which was built before 1871 — 
 was £25,131,840. Here we have, apparently, £5,481,097 of pure 
 increment in annual value. If the rates averaged 6s. 8d. in the £ the 
 local authorities would in 1897-98 be taking a toU of £1,827,032, 
 in respect of that increment. In the form of income-tax and house 
 duty the Government would be taking, in that year, a further sum 
 of about £320,000, in respect of that increment alone — making a 
 total of rates and taxes on the increment only, of some £2,147,000 a 
 year. I am not for a moment suggesting that there was any in- 
 justice in levying those rates and taxes on that increment — and at 
 the present time the levies on it are much greater. All I desire to 
 record is the fact that very substantial portions of the increment 
 in the value of property are and for generations have been annexed 
 for public purposes. 
 
 • What Rates and, Taxes Land'Owners do pay 
 
 Having thus stated and classified the rates and taxes which 
 it appears just and reasonable land-owners, as such, should pay, 
 we may now proceed to inquire whether they do really pay them. 
 We, of course, include in the term " land-owners " all owners of all 
 land, whether it be built on or not and whether the owner of the land 
 also owns the buildings or not. So far as the rates and taxes which 
 we have placed in the first category — ^the ordinary rates and taxes 
 which other people pay — are concerned, land-owners pay their full 
 share of all the taxes that other people pay, and they are also rated 
 as other people are for the premises they occupy. In these respects 
 they pay everything that any one else of similar position, occupation. 
 
CH. II LAND-OWNERS' RATES AND TAXES 405 
 
 and habits pays. Indeed, they pay more than others pay, as the 
 following list of the Imperial taxes which fall specially on land shows : 
 
 1. The old Land Tax 
 
 2. Local Rates 
 
 3. The Increment Duty 
 
 4. Undeveloped Land Duty 
 
 5. Leasehold Reversion Duty 
 
 6. Mineral Rights Duty 
 
 7. Stamp Duties on Leases, Mortgages, and Conveyances 
 
 by sale or gift. 
 
 With regard to the rates which we have placed in the second 
 category, those which directly maintain or increase the value of the 
 property, as distinct from expenditure which maintains and benefits 
 all property of all kinds and all members of the community, and 
 those which are larger in amount than they would be in low-rated 
 rural districts, are now very largely borne by the land-owners. In so 
 far as those rates are onerous they are very largely borne by the 
 land-owner. In so far even as they are beneficial but differential 
 they are also borne by the land-owner now. In so far as they are 
 purely beneficial and not differential, the tenant obtains the full 
 benefit of them and receives fuU value for them. Therefore they 
 fall, as they should, upon him, and no device of transferring the 
 primary payment of them to the landlord will enable the tenant to 
 avoid paying for the benefit he receives, in the form of either rates 
 or rent. 
 
 It has been shown in a previous chapter that the statement that 
 land-owners escape the payment of rates is quite incorrect. A very 
 large proportion of the burden of rates falls upon them and is not and 
 cannot be shifted by them. As they also pay their full share of all 
 the rates and taxes that other people pay, they are, in proportion to 
 their possessions and means, by far the most heavily taxed portion 
 of the commimity at the present time. 
 
 It is not here suggested that it is unjust or unreasonable that 
 this should be so. All that we are concerned to do at the present 
 moment is to state and enforce the fact. The cost of poor relief, 
 the local cost of education, and police, the cost of main roads, 
 drainage, and parks, are charges which fall very largely upon the 
 land-owner, and in towns so much of the rates for other purposes 
 as is in excess of the amount that would be paid for a similar house 
 in a rural district also falls upon him. 
 
4o6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 Fevdal Burdens and Local Bates 
 
 When feudal burdens are spoken of it must be remembered that 
 they did not fall upon land-owners only. They affected every one 
 according to his status and possessions. The other taxes which 
 accompanied them, and were gradually substituted for them, were 
 not taxes upon land-owners as such. They were, as the feudal 
 burdens were, burdens upon the whole community levied proportion- 
 ately to the possessions and means of the persons taxed. They were 
 largely levied according to the extent or value of the land and 
 premises occupied, because wealth in those days consisted very 
 largely of houses and land, and the value of the land and houses 
 occupied was taken as an indication of the means and tax-paying 
 capacity of the persons assessed. From the very outset, however, 
 of these taxes, many centuries ago, they were levied also upon stock- 
 in-trade, personal possessions and salaries, and, as has abeady been 
 conclusively demonstrated, in place of it being the fact, as so 
 commonly supposed and stated, that land-owners shuffled ofE their 
 responsibilities, the truth is, that it always was persons other than 
 land-owners who evaded and escaped from their liability. In early 
 times, there was no poor rate. When one was instituted some 
 300 years ago, it was a charge, not upon the annual value of land 
 and houses only, but upon stock-in-trade, and personal possessions. 
 Now it is borne entirely by real property, and its incidence is largely 
 upon the land-owner. From being a charge intended to be levied 
 on all citizens according to their ability to pay, it has come to be a 
 burden upon one comparatively smaU section of these only — the 
 owners of land. So with the local cost of education, it falls almost 
 entirely upon that one class and upon that one class alone. The 
 explanation of this is simple. Land and houses cannot be carried 
 away or concealed : other possessions and income could and were, 
 and in any case were, continually varying, and consequently trouble- 
 some and difficult to discover and assess. The result has been that 
 so far as local expenditure is concerned, the whole burden of it has 
 settled upon land and buildings, and, as we have already shown, 
 by far the greater part of the burdens thus imposed ultimately fall 
 entirely upon the owner of the land. Any suggestion, therefore, 
 for levying special and additional rates or taxes upon land-owners 
 on the ground that occupied land now escapes taxation, is based on 
 an entire misconception of the actual facts of the case. 
 
CH. 11 LAND-OWNERS' RATES AND TAXES 407 
 
 An Anomaly 
 
 While it is undoubtedly the fact that land-owners as a body pay 
 their full share of ordinary rates and taxes, and in addition bear a 
 large proportion of the burden of local rates which are collected 
 from occupiers or paid by them in their rent, it is also indisputable 
 that there are anomalies, inequalities, and injustices in special classes 
 of cases which require consideration and adjustment. 
 
 One is put forward very prominently and made great play of by 
 advocates of the taxation of land values. It is that under the 
 present system of assessment for local rates, such properties as large 
 town and country mansions and unbuilt-on land in or in the vicinity 
 of towns are assessed at their letting value, and that this letting value 
 bears no adequate relation to their capital or selling value. Town 
 mansions with large grounds and country mansions and parks 
 which are worth and would sell for scores of thousands of pounds, 
 are often assessed at a very few hundreds, because that is all they 
 would let for. Land in or in the vicinity of towns which would sell 
 at prices ranging from £250 to £1000 an acre is often let as accom- 
 modation land or for market-gardens at from £3 to £6 or £8 an acre, 
 and is assessed for rating purpose on that basis. This is, of coiirse, 
 an anomaly, and an absurdity. In the great majority of cases, the 
 rental value of property fairly represents and bears a recognised 
 relation to its capital value, and as it is usually much easier to ascer- 
 tain and assess rental value than capital value, rental value has been 
 adopted as the basis of assessment. But in those exceptional cases 
 where the rental value bears no adequate relation to the capital 
 value, it would be quite just, and, indeed, it is desirable and necessary, 
 that some method of bringing the assessment more into accord with 
 the actual value of the property should be adopted. This could 
 easily be done. There is no need whatever to revolutionise our 
 whole system of rating and assessment, and base it on capital instead 
 of annual values, in order to accomplish that. All that is required 
 could be secured by enacting that wherever the rental value of a 
 property, land, or buildings represents less than, say, 3 or 3 J per cent 
 on its capital value, then the assessable value of that property shall 
 be taken to be 3 or 3J per cent, as the case may be, on its capital 
 value. That would at once cause the rates on land, which had a 
 higher value than its agricultural value, and country mansions to be 
 paid on something like a fair representation of the real value of such 
 properties. Such taxation at its real value of property which is 
 
4o8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 bringing in an income which bears no true relation to its capital 
 value would be quite justified, because, in the case of undeveloped 
 land, the owner expects to obtain in the future value of the land a 
 return sufficient to repay him the present loss of interest and profit. 
 He is really prospectively earning an annual revenue from the pro- 
 perty in the added capital value which is gradually accruing. In the 
 case of his mansion and grounds he is now deriving an advantage which 
 he considers equivalent to the price for which the property would sell. 
 
 A Fallacious Argument based thereon 
 
 In this connection, reference may be made to a class of argument 
 and illustration which the advocates of specially and penally taxing 
 land values are very fond of using. They carefully collect particulars 
 of cases where public authorities have paid some land-owner (a duke 
 for preference) a price for land which the rent at which it was let or 
 the annual value at which it was assessed for rating purposes would, 
 alone, never justify. They then proceed to denounce and pillory 
 these transactions as " extortion," and declare that this is the way 
 in which localities are hampered in their expansion, and have to pay 
 for their development. Two illustrations will suffice. The Duke of 
 Northumberland was pilloried by question in the House of Commons 
 and in the publications of the land taxers because the price of a 
 portion of a farm which was rated at £2 an acre was fixed by arbitra- 
 tion at a price which was equal to £931 : 14s. an acre. This, as 
 was proclaimed far and wide, was 465 years' purchase. With 
 reference to some land which the Glasgow Corporation acquired from 
 the Duke of Montrose, the price of which was fixed by arbitration, 
 a leaflet of the Taxation of Land Values Committee says, " The 
 people of Glasgow had to pay him 2000 years' purchase of the assess- 
 ment on which he paid rates to the County Council. Forty years' 
 purchase would be a Uberal price, but the law gives him fifty times 
 this sum." 
 
 This fa'nd of " ballyragging," as Sir WilUam Harcourt called it, 
 is obviously unfair and absurd. The first question that a reasonable 
 person will ask is — was the price paid for the land a fair one ? If it 
 was a fair one, surely the owner, even though he was a duke, was 
 entitled to it. If it was not a fair one, whose fault was it ? Certainly 
 it was not the owner's. He did not fix it. In both of these cases, 
 and indeed, in nearly all others, the price was fixed by arbitration. 
 Can a fairer or more reasonable method be suggested ? If so, let 
 us hear what it is. If it is not forthcoming, and if the present 
 
CH. II LAND-OWNERS' RATES AND TAXES 409 
 
 method of fixing the price is not the right one, whose fault is it ? 
 Surely it is the fault of Parliament which- devised and enacted it. 
 If any one should be attacked and denounced — ^that is if any one 
 deserves attack and denunciation — it is Parliament, and especially 
 the House of Commons and those who elect it, who should bear the 
 blame and be put in the pillory. But if the method of fixing the 
 price to be paid for the land be a fair and reasonable one — -and until a 
 better method can be suggested we must assume that it is — then we 
 are entitled to take it that the price paid was a just price. Doubtless 
 the method of arriving at the price might be simplified and cheapened 
 with advantage to all concerned ; but that would not affect the price 
 arrived at, and it is the price that is attacked and denotmced. 
 
 "What bearing on the question of price has the fact, if it be a fact, 
 that in one case it was 465 and in the other 2000 years' purchase of 
 the annual value at which it was assessed for rating purposes ? If 
 the assessment is an absurd or anomalous one, that is no reason why 
 the price paid for the land should also be absurd, anomalous, and 
 unjust. It is simply childish to talk of forty years' purchase of the 
 assessment value being "a liberal price," and then to say, with a great 
 show of righteous indignation, " but the law gives him fifty times this 
 sum." If the assessment be a ridiculous one, it cannot be any guide 
 to the purchase value, and it is absurd to treat it as though it were. 
 
 The pamphleteers and propagandists attack the price paid with- 
 out attempting either to adduce the sHghtest evidence that it is 
 unreasonable, or to suggest a fairer method of arriving at it. What 
 is open to adverse comment and requires reform is the fact, to which 
 we have already referred, that, in exceptional cases, the annual 
 letting value bears no adequate relation to the capital value. We 
 have suggested a simple method of rectifying that. Here again it is 
 not the fault of the land-owner that the assessment was too small, 
 and the rates payable on it were infinitesimal. The property was 
 assessed as the law directs, and the rates paid were those which 
 the law requires to be paid. Is it expected that land-owners will 
 ask that the assessment of their property should be increased beyond 
 the requirements of the law, and that they should voluntarily offer 
 to pay more than Parhament has decided they ought ? When some 
 others, and especially theic assailants, have attained this special 
 state of grace, it wiH be time enough to expect in land-owners an 
 abnormal anxiety to pay rates. The law and those who made it, and 
 permit its continuance, may be open to criticism and censure, but 
 those who have simply obeyed it are certainly not open to anim- 
 
4IO OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 adversion for so doing. Even so, that would not affect the price 
 to be paid for the property, which should be based on its real value, 
 and not on any vagaries in its assessment for rating purposes. 
 
 Rates on Improvements 
 
 It is said that rates as now levied are a tax on improvements 
 and extensions, and that they are a tax on industry and production, 
 and check building and expansion. Taxes have to be levied on 
 somebody. They are a burden on those on whom they fall. If they 
 could be thrown on some one else, those who were relieved of them 
 would gain. That is all as clear as it is elementary. 
 
 How are we to raise local rates ? To specially tax one class— 
 land-owners — except in so far as they derive special benefit from' the 
 expenditure, would be unjust. A local income-tax is not practicable. 
 The value of the property occupied is a rough test of benefit received, 
 and of ability to pay. If a man enlarges or improves his works or 
 business premises, presumably he will do more business, employ more 
 persons, cause more wear and tear of streets, necessitate more police 
 and schools, and more drainage and street cleaning and lighting. It 
 is likely also that he possesses or has access to more capital and will 
 make more profit than others who are in smaller premises. That he 
 should pay more is clearly, therefore, not altogether unjust. The 
 alternative is, that others whose business is not expanding, who are 
 not emplojdng more people, and necessitating more pubUc expendi- 
 ture, should have their taxation increased, in so far as the burden 
 really falls on occupiers, in order that he may be correspondingly re- 
 heved. It means that if two men of equal means live in houses of 
 equal value on adjoining plots of ground, and then one of them is 
 successfid in business, and pulls down his house and builds one of 
 three or four times the value of the old one, he is not to pay any 
 more rates than before, because it would be a penalty on expansion 
 and improvement. That would in reaUty mean that his less 
 successful neighbours would be penalised for his benefit. If, instead 
 of enlarging his old premises, he moves into larger existing ones, his 
 rates will be increased. But no one would then say he was penaKsed 
 for going into better premises. 
 
 " Taxes on buildings are taxes on improvements." It might 
 be sufficient to reply that so often would be taxes on land. If a 
 man develops his estate — erects works on it, or builds houses or 
 secures the construction of a railway through it — ^the value of the 
 whole of the land in the immediate vicinity is increased because a 
 
cH.ii LAND-OWNERS' RATES AND TAXES 411 
 
 community is gathered together. His own land becomes more 
 valuable, and his taxes upon it would be increased. 
 
 In so far as taxes fall on buildings, they are taxes on increased 
 wealth and increased income. A site that is built on represents 
 more wealth and a larger income than when it is not built on. There- 
 fore, the tax on it is greater. If this is a tax on enterprise and 
 improvement, so is the income tax. The more energy a man puts 
 into his business, the more skill and enterprise he displays, the more 
 he launches out, and the more money he makes, the more he is 
 taxed. If he sits still and does nothing, if he decliaes to exercise 
 his ability and put forth his energy, he will not make the income 
 he might have made, and he will escape the tax which he would have 
 had to pay if he had been industrious, enterprising, and successful, 
 It would, therefore, be as accurate and as reasonable to say that the 
 income tax and the death duties penalise enterprise, industry, and 
 improvements, as it is to say that the levjdng of rates in proportion 
 to the value of the premises occupied does so. 
 
 On whom the Rates really fall 
 
 When we further remember that the bulk of the rates do not in 
 reaHty fall upon the builder or the occupier of the premises, but upon 
 the owner of the land upon which they stand ; and that of those 
 which do fall upon the occupiers, part represent services which are 
 of corresponding value and which he would have to provide, possibly 
 at greater cost, if they were not supplied by the local authority, we 
 shall begin to realise that there is not quite so much in this argument 
 as at the first glance there appears to be. 
 
 As has previously been pointed out, the value of the site — the 
 price paid for it — ^is reduced by the amount of the difierential rates 
 that will be levied on the buildings which are to be erected on it. 
 If those rates were not to be levied on the property when the build- 
 ings were erected, the price obtained for the land would be corre- 
 spondingly higher. They are, therefore, not really a charge on an 
 average building when it is erected : they have been allowed for in 
 the price of the land. Consequently they are not a tax on improve- 
 ments, industry, and expansion. It is true that the increased rates 
 become payable when a building has been erected and is occupied, 
 and therefore they appear to be a tax on the building ; but in so 
 far as they are differential rates they are not, because they have 
 already come out of the price of the site. It is also true that if an 
 existing building be improved, or an old building be pulled down 
 
412 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 and a larger and more valuable one be erected, the rates will be in- 
 creased, and this may appear to be a definite tax on improvement. 
 But again the fact is that the amount of the rates payable on an 
 average building has abeady been allowed for in the price of the site, 
 although, if the previous building was below the average in value, 
 the full amount which had thus been allowed for only became 
 payable to the authorities when the building was brought up to 
 the average value. 
 
 When the building erected upon a site is more valuable and more 
 highly assessed than the average buildings of the locality, the extra 
 rates payable on that extra assessment are a burden on the occupier, 
 and to that extent rates may be said to be a tax on improvements. 
 The effect of reUeving buildings of rates would, therefore, be to 
 benefit the occupiers of these exceptional premises to the extent 
 of the limited amount of the extra rates which they now pay ; but 
 that would be comparatively a small matter. 
 
 If there were far more substance in this contention than there 
 is ; if there were a serious burden on buildings and improvements — 
 if it were not, as has been shown, partial and strictly Hmited — ^it 
 would not be sufficient, in order to justify transferring it to land- 
 owners, to show that it is a disadvantage where it is, and that 
 building and extensions would be facilitated if the charges were 
 removed. That might be an argument, if a strong enough case were 
 made out, for removing the charges, but it would be no justification 
 for placing them on land-owners, any more than it would be for 
 lev3ang them on lawyers, ship-owners, or people with red hair. If it 
 is considered desirable in the public interest that buildings should be 
 relieved of rates, that may be a reason for transferring those charges 
 to the general tax-payer so that the burden might be borne by the 
 community as a whole. To justify transferring them to one small 
 section of the community — ^land-owners — very special, precise, and 
 definite reasons for so doing must be adduced, and hitherto none, 
 except those which are identical in character and principle with the 
 proposals and contentions of Henry George, which have been shown 
 to be untenable, have been forthcoming. Clearly the reason that 
 " land cannot be carried away and cannot be concealed " savours 
 too much of the attitude of the highwayman and the footpad to 
 their helpless victims to commend itself to fair-minded people. 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LOCAL TAXATION 
 
 The separate rating of land values was very fully considered and 
 reported upon by the Royal Commission on Taxation which reported 
 in 1901. The Majority Report said : 
 
 Neither in respect of their abUity to pay, nor of the benefits which 
 they receive, does it appear to us that the owners of land values, using 
 the term in its widest sense, contribute inequitably to local expenditure 
 at the present time, as compared with the owners of other classes of 
 ratable property. . . . The advocates of what would be in effect a 
 new land tax, to be applied in aid of local expenditure, have failed to 
 convince us that it would be equitable to select a particular class of 
 ratable property for the imposition of a new and special burden. No 
 new tax on land appears to us to be required to meet any special expendi- 
 ture incurred by Local Authorities for its benefit, nor does land diSer 
 so essentially from other property, as regards the alteration of its value 
 from time to time, as to justify it being rated exceptionally. (P. 44.) 
 
 The Separate Report on rating Site Valves 
 
 A Separate Minority Report, signed by the Chairman and four 
 other Commissioners, dealt exclusively and exhaustively with the 
 question of rating urban site values. The conclusions at which they 
 arrived are summarised in the following extracts : 
 
 There is a widespread beUef that there is, in connection with site 
 values, a considerable source of wealth, in respect of which persons are 
 either not taxed, or insufficiently taxed, for local purposes. We believe 
 that about this question there is a great deal of misconception, giving 
 rise to unfounded and exaggerated statements. 
 
 We feel bound, for the reasons which we have explained, to condemn 
 unhesitatingly all the schemes which' have been put before us in con- 
 nection with the rating of site values. And we think that we have shown 
 — following in this respect the finding of the Town Holdings Committee 
 
 413 
 
414 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 — that the agitation on the subject has to a great extent proceeded on 
 a mistaken basis. Starting from a popular misconception of the effect 
 of our existing system of local taxation, the movement has ended in 
 a deadlock, due to the rivaby between several abortive schemes which 
 are alike im workable and are mutually destructive. 
 
 It is certain that site value is included (except in the case of un- 
 covered land) in the value upon which rates are at present assessed : 
 and it is generally probable that every party coimected with the property 
 bears indirectly some part of the burden : or at least that the rent which 
 a lessor can obtain, when he makes a new bargain, is diminished on 
 account of the liability to rates which attaches to the occupation of 
 the premises. 
 
 We agree with the Town Holdings Committee that a system of 
 direct charge upon owners is desirable, at any rate on political and 
 sentimental grounds, however little effect such a change may have upon 
 the real incidence of taxation. But we go further than that Committee 
 in considering that it is also eminently desirable that the charge which 
 now falls indirectly sind irregularly on site value should, if possible, 
 be made more direct and visible, as well as more accurately and 
 evenly apportioned. It is, no doubt, a fallacy to suppose that there 
 are huge imtapped sources of revenue in connection with urban land, 
 but it is not a fallacy to think that urban site value is a form of pro- 
 perty which from its nature is peculiarly fit to bear a direct and special 
 burden in connection with " beneficial " local expenditure. 
 
 Legislation enabling occupiers to violate the contracts which they 
 have deliberately made, and to escape the obligations which they have 
 solemnly undertaken, would be, in our opinion, indefensible. We 
 could admit no compromise on this matter of principle. 
 
 We do not forget that almost any change in the incidence of taxa- 
 tion causes some disappointment of legitimate expectations, and we 
 recognise that, since sites have been and are continually bought, sold, 
 and leased for good consideration in the open market, it is out of the 
 question to impose taxation of a confiscatory character. But there 
 is a special circumstance which appears to us to make the present 
 moment especially fitted for the imposition of the proposed rate — a 
 circumstance which, indeed, makes the imposition of such a rate indis- 
 pensable to avoid injustice. Under the proposals which we have 
 severally made, the burden upon ratepayers in connection with onerous 
 expenditure on national services would be permanently lightened in 
 urban as well as in rural districts. 
 
 We admit, and indeed contend, that a large part of the present rates 
 falls on the owners of site value in towns. But the more the burden of 
 rates actually falls upon them now (and some eminent authorities 
 maintain that the entire burden falls on them) the greater will be the 
 ultimate relief which will accrue to them from the increase of State aid. 
 Accordingly, unless the owners of urban ground values are to be re- 
 lieved at the expense of the tax-payer (a course which probably no one 
 
cH.ni ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION 415 
 
 would advocate), it seems most necessary to accompany the increase 
 of subventions in urban districts by the imposition of a site value rate. 
 
 If proper regard be had to equitable considerations, the amoimt 
 capable of being raised by a special site value rate will not be large ; 
 and the proceeds of it, whatever the amount may be, should go in relief 
 of local, not Imperial, taxation. 
 
 They were therefore of opinion that urban places, having a popida- 
 tion in excess of a given number, and of a given density, should have 
 the " option " of levying a special site value rate. The purposes for 
 which the site value rate might be raised should in the first place be 
 defined by Statute. One-half of the site value rate should be deducted 
 from the rents payable to owners under aU future contracts, and the 
 remaining moiety should be finally charged upon occupiers. The rate 
 in the £ of the new impost should be strictly limited by Parliament. 
 The new site value rate should be charged in respect of the site value 
 of all unoccupied, as well as all occupied, property and of all uncovered 
 land which is intended to be let, or could be let, with a covenant for 
 immediate building. 
 
 The Outstanding Features 
 
 The outstanding features of this separate Minority Eeport, 
 which, with Mr. Arthur O'Connor's personal Report, alone gave any 
 countenance to the principle of specially and separately taxing land 
 values, are first, that after hearing the proposals of Mr. Moulton (now 
 Lord Moulton) and Mr. Harper, then the Statistical Officer of the 
 L.C.C. and now Chief Valuer of the Inland Revenue Department, 
 the late Mr. B. F. C. Costelloe, and others, they reported that, " We 
 feel bound to condemn unhesitatingly all the schemes which have 
 been put before us in connection with the rating of site values " ; 
 and second, that their recommendation of a small tax on land values 
 was part of, was based on, and would only be justified by, the adop- 
 tion of their accompanying proposal of a large grant from the 
 Imperial Exchequer in aid of local taxation. The two proposals 
 were strictly interdependent and consequential. 
 
 They were based on the opinion that the burden of local rates 
 falls mainly upon the owner of the land ; that an Exchequer grant 
 in relief of rates would benefit him ; and that, therefore, some special 
 tax might fairly be placed on him, especially as it would have the 
 advantage of making it evident that a portion of the burden of rates 
 does really fall upon him. They advised that the imposition of such 
 a tax on land values should be carefuUy safeguarded by (1) strictly 
 limiting it in amount ; (2) allowing its proceeds to be applied only 
 towards expenditure which added to the value of land; (3) dividing it 
 equally between occupier and owner in the case of future contracts ; 
 
41 6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 (4) in the case of existing contracts making the present occupier 
 liable for the whole of the new rate. 
 
 There are two things, and substantially only two, which such 
 a rate as is suggested would do. In the first place it would slightly 
 readjust the burden of the rates as between different properties and 
 different districts in the same rating area. As it would be levied 
 according to land value only, it would fall more heavily upon those 
 properties, such as central city ones, where the proportion which the 
 site value bears to the total value of the property is high, and more 
 lightly upon those the site value of which is a small proportion of the 
 total value. As it would ultimately all fall upon the land-owner, 
 whether it was originally payable half by the occupier and half by 
 the owner or not, it would really amount to a slight readjustment 
 of the burden of the rates as between land-owners only. Land- 
 owners in central districts in towns would have the value of their 
 land somewhat diminished, land-owners in the outskirts and the 
 less valuable districts would have the value of their land increased, 
 while the owners of land in intermediate areas would experience no 
 difference. 
 
 Dividing the Rates between Onmer and Occupier 
 
 The second effect of the proposal would be that by making half 
 the new rate payable by the occupier and half by the owner, part 
 of the burden would visibly fall on those who have interests superior 
 to those of the occupier. This is the old question of dividing the 
 rates between the owner and the occupier. There are two argu- 
 ments in favour of so doing, and they are stated thus by the Com- 
 missioners : 
 
 1. As regards rates existing when any contract is made, the present 
 system obscures the shifting and diffusion of the burden which without 
 doubt really take place : and the apparent inequaUty is made a popular 
 grievance. As a matter of sentiment — and sentiment undoubtedly 
 plays a part in taxation — a system of direct charge on lessors would 
 help to remove the erroneous impression that the lessor pays nothing 
 in the way of rates. 
 
 2. As regards increase of rates, and especially increase during the 
 currency of any contract, it unduly narrows the reservoir of taxable 
 capacity which can be readily and immediately drawn upon, and thus 
 causes chronic friction. 
 
 These are plausible reasons for dividing all the rates equally 
 between owners and occupiers, but the Commissioners rejected that 
 suggestion because, although they considered it very desirable, 
 
cH.i.i ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION 417 
 
 they thought if it were adopted owners should be specially repre- 
 sented on the spending authority — ^Mr. Goschen's Committee in 1870 
 and the Town Holdings Committee ia 1892 expressed the same 
 opinion — ^and they felt that this would not " be considered com- 
 patible with the increasingly democratic character of local self- 
 government." It seems to us, however, that so long as half the rates 
 fell directly upon the occupiers at the outset there would be a sub- 
 stantial check on any tendency towards extravagant and reckless 
 expenditure on the part of any spending authority which was elected 
 by them. Certainly that is the experience of Scotland, where the 
 burden of the rates is divided by a system of charging part upon the 
 owner and part upon the occupier. It is further interesting to note 
 that this division of the charge has altogether failed to convince the 
 Scottish rate-payer that the landlord bears his share of the burden 
 of the rates, and it is doubtful whether any division of a rate specific- 
 ally levied on site values, especially if it were of small amount, as 
 suggested by the Commissioners, would have the effect of removing 
 misconceptions which are widespread and deep-rooted. Anyway 
 it seems desirable that if rates are to be so divided, and there is much 
 to be said for it on groimds of sentiment, the division should apply 
 to all local rates and not only to a smaU portion of them. Even 
 then the real effect of the alteration, so far as the actual incidence of 
 the rates goes, would be infinitesimal, inasmuch as the Commissioners 
 were undoubtedly quite right when they said : 
 
 Such a change of system could only be introduced when new con- 
 tracts are made, and we do not think that, when contracts are revised, 
 it makes much difference to the ultimate incidence whether rates are 
 charged upon lessor or upon lessee, because each party will in either 
 case take full account of the way in which the burden is distributed. 
 
 Dr. Cannan puts the same point thus : 
 
 It is usually simpler to collect the rate from the occupier than to 
 take it, so to speak, at second hand from the landlord. Of course, it 
 could be put upon the landlord without any inconvenience by the 
 simple process of allowing the tenant to deduct it from his rent, and, 
 as we have seen, this course was often followed. But so long as rates 
 remain stationary — and, after all, changes are the exception rather 
 than the rule — ^it can make no difference whether they are deductable 
 from rent or not. . . . We are not really " mostly fools." Who will 
 
 stand up and confess that he took 76 Street at £100 a year, 
 
 and subject to £20 of rates, when an exactly similar house next door, 
 
 but in another parish, was to let at £100 a year, and only £12 of rates ? ^ 
 
 • History of Local Rates, p. 134. 
 
41 8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 An Irdensting Opinion of 70 Years ago 
 
 In this connection it is very interesting to note that the ex- 
 tremely able and valuable Eeport of the Poor Law Commissioners 
 for 1843 recommended that, subject to the maintenance of then 
 existing contracts as to payment of rates, local rates should be levied 
 directly upon the owners of property, on the grounds, amongst 
 others : 
 
 1. That the legal character of the rates is not made accordant with 
 the real and essential character. " These rates are essentially taxes 
 on the rent of the landlord, not taxes upon the occupier's profits ; no 
 legal declarations, no limitations of legal remedies to the person and 
 goods of the occupier, however much they may disguise the aspect of 
 the tax or make its burden operate unequally on rent, can make it fall 
 permanently on anything but rent." 
 
 2. It would lessen dissatisfaction with the tax, and consequently 
 diminish litigation. 
 
 3. It " would also produce the beneficial efiect of diminishing 
 much of the agitation and dispute in vestries, arising from the unfounded 
 belief of the occupiers that they are afiected when, in fact, they are not 
 affected." 
 
 4. The proposal to rate the landlords does not involve the imposi- 
 tion of any new burden on them as an entire class. 
 
 This recommendation is noteworthy not only on account of the 
 proposal which it makes, but also because of the opinion expressed^ — 
 and expressed very clearly and emphatically — as the ground upon 
 which it is based, viz. that " rates are essentially taxes on the rent of 
 the landlord." These gentlemen had devoted much time and 
 thought to the study of this question at a time when the whole matter 
 had been in the melting pot, and had attracted the closest attention 
 of the ablest minds of the period, and their conclusion as to the 
 real incidence of the rates of their time was extremely definite and 
 unequivocal. 
 
 Should Existing Contracts be violated ? 
 
 No discussion of the taxation of land values can proceed far 
 without the question of existing contracts cropping up. A large 
 quantity of land in this country has been let on building leases, 
 and on a large quantity more ground rents have been created after 
 the buildings on the land had been erected. An immense number 
 of houses and other premises, freehold and leasehold, have been let 
 to occupiers on lease for various terms. A great number more have 
 
CH. Ill ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION 419 
 
 been let on ordinary tenancy agreements for shorter terms. Under 
 the whole of some classes of these leases, and in a large proportion 
 of the other leases and agreements, the lessees and tenants contract 
 to pay all rat«s and taxes, income tax only excepted. 
 
 When a special tax on land values to be paid by land-owners is 
 advocated, the question of these contracts and undertakings at once 
 arises. Are they to be respected or are they to be violated ? We 
 have already seen that Henry George left no doubt as to his attitude 
 on the point. He respected no such agreement or undertaking, and 
 was prepared to rip up any such contract without a moment's 
 hesitation. Many of his followers have vacillated on the question. 
 The desire of most of them has been plain enough, but when they 
 have been brought face to face with the obvious dishonesty of the 
 proposal some of them have shrunk from avowing their approval of 
 it, and have talked about " expediency " and practicability. They 
 usually avoid the point as long as possible. The Memorial to the 
 Prime Minister, which is said to have been signed by 173 Members of 
 Parliament, carefully ignored it. 
 
 It is not surprising that the policy of danghng before tens of 
 thousands of electors the bait of the legalisation of the breach by 
 them of their contracts and of the repudiation of liabihties solemnly 
 undertaken, when such breach and repudiation might put millions 
 of pounds a year into their pockets, has resulted in some very strong 
 and weighty expressions of opinion on a matter on which no honest 
 man ought to entertain a moment's doubt. In view of the fact that 
 there is undoubtedly truth in Henry George's cjniical remark, that 
 " Even the most prejudiced can be rehed on to listen with patience 
 to an argument in favour of making some one else pay what they are 
 now paying," ^ it may be well to put some of those opinions on 
 record here. 
 
 Some Weighty Opinions 
 
 The Royal Commission on Local Taxation, which reported in 
 1901, was unanimous in the opinion that no interference with 
 existing contracts is justifiable. 
 
 The Majority Report said : 
 
 We see no justification for allowiag existing contracts to be broken 
 for the benefit of occupiers who have not shown that, as between them- 
 selves and the owners, those contracts are unjust (p. 44). 
 
 ' The Irish Land Question, p. 41. 
 
420 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 The Separate Report of the Minority on Urban Rating and Site 
 Values said : 
 
 We entirely agree in what they [the Majority] say as to the 
 impossibility of allowing existing contracts to be broken (p. 153) ; 
 
 and 
 
 The general question of existing contracts was thoroughly discussed 
 by the Town Holdings Committee, with whose conclusions we agree. 
 Legislation enabling occupiers to violate the contracts which they have 
 deliberately made, and to escape the obligations which they have 
 solemnly undertaken, would be, in our opinion, indefensible. We 
 could admit no compromise on this matter of principle (p. 163). 
 
 The only other Commissioner not included in these two groups, 
 Mr. Arthur O'Coimor, K.C., M.P., who, more strongly than any other 
 Commissioner, advocated the taxation of Land Values, said : 
 
 It is manifest that equity requires that all existing contracts shoidd 
 be absolutely respected. It may be that many of them will have to 
 run, not for years only, but for lives and longer. No matter, for although 
 there would appear to be, accordiug to the view taken in this Report, 
 much that is inequitable in the present arrangements, and much that 
 calls for change in the interests of the pubhc, yet a disregard of con- 
 tractual relations would be a more serious injury to the public than 
 even the existing system of rating (p. 183). 
 
 Lord Farrer said : 
 
 The case of quit rents or fixed rents with no reversion, or a reversion 
 so small as to be of no value, held imder existing contracts, requires 
 special consideration. When such rents have been bought and sold as 
 investments returniag a fixed income, there would be great and well- 
 founded objections to any plan of making deductions from them in order 
 to relieve persons who have acquired and hold the property which is 
 subject to these rents.^ 
 
 Sir Robert GifEen said : 
 
 An occupier could not be empowered to deduct the whole or portion 
 of a rate he has hitherto paid under agreement or custom from the 
 owner without injustice. Contracts must ia all cases be kept.^ 
 
 Professor Sidgwick said : 
 
 Of course, if the occupier, being a leaseholder, had undertaken to 
 pay the rate, and were allowed to deduct it from the rent, which the 
 landlord was not allowed to increase, he would gain the whole rate 
 during the period of the lease. But this cannot be contemplated.^ 
 
 ^ Memoranda on Classification and, Incidence, p. 85. 
 ^ Ibid, p, 98. » Ibid. p. 108. 
 
cH.iii ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION 421 
 
 Mr. C. H. Sargant — ^now Mr. Justice Sargant — expressed the 
 opinion that the class of persons who invest in ground rents are the 
 last people who should have their contracts broken against them. 
 
 " They are the most prudent class of investors, such as insurance 
 companies and trustees, who invest largely ia them. They are persons 
 who have sacrificed getting a large iaoome in order to get an absolutely 
 secure income, and a perfectly fixed income." ^ 
 
 He also said, with reference to proposals for rating ground values, 
 that " as appUed to existing contracts, they are markedly confis- 
 catory." ^ 
 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Mr. Asquith, and Mr. Lloyd George 
 
 Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, M.P., in reply to a deputation 
 from Scotland which waited upon him as Prime Minister, said : 
 
 Your sole object, as I understand, iu co min g here is to know 
 whether the Government contemplate going back upon existing con- 
 tracts. In one sentence, that is the whole question, and to that 
 question I can answer, I think, in the most condensed form in which 
 we are accustomed to answer questions in the House of Commons, 
 by the words, " No, sic." My friend, the Lord Advocate, who knows 
 a vast deal more on this subject than I do in its details, made a speech 
 last year, the greater part of which I have before me here, and it has 
 been quoted by Mr. Paul ; but there is one sentence which seems to me 
 to be the crucial sentence : " He desired to associate this great and 
 salutary reform with no violence whatever to existing contracts, and 
 with no invasion of rights sanctioned by the State." That is oiu? 
 attitude in the matter, and I really think that having said that — 
 solventae tabulae — I do not think I need detain you by attempting 
 any elaboration of the subject, with which those who have spoken 
 are much better entitled to deal than I am. But I can assure you 
 that we have no idea of going back upon existing contracts, and there- 
 fore all the alarms, so far as they have existed in Scotland and 
 elsewhere, may be allowed safely and healthily to subside. 
 
 The present Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer, speaking at the opening of the new offices of the United 
 Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution on 
 July 10, 1907, said : 
 
 What I want to refer to, and what I know is of special interest to you, 
 is that insurance companies are largely interested, both here and in 
 Scotland, as investors in groimd values, feu duties — ^what we call in 
 England ground rents — and securities of that kind, and I imagine that 
 
 ' Evidence — Question 22,230. " Memoranda, etc., p. 216. 
 
422 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 there is a certain amount of apprehension — ^this from what I hear — a 
 certain amount of apprehension among investors in and holders of that 
 class of security as to the possible effect on the value of these invest- 
 ments in prospective legislation. I think they need be under no 
 apprehensions whatever in that respect, for so far as I am acquainted — 
 and I suppose I ought to know — so far as I am acquainted with any- 
 thing that is likely to be proposed in matters of this kind, you may be 
 perfectly certain of this, that existing contracts will be religiously re- 
 spected as sacred ; no pubhc poUcy will rip up obligations which have 
 been incurred in good faith and for value, and all legislation of that 
 kind will proceed with that as its starting-point and as its underlying 
 principle. 
 
 The Land Values Assessment and Eating Bills of 1904 and 1905, 
 upon the back of which, with others, were the names of Mr. Lloyd 
 George, the present Chairman of Committees (Mr. J. H. Whitley), 
 and Mr. C. P. Trevelyan, specifically provided that there was to be 
 " no interference with existing contracts between landlord and 
 tenant." 
 
 Referring to a cognate phase of this subject, Mr. Lloyd George, 
 speaking at HoUoway, November 29, 1913, said : 
 
 Where legal rights have been already acquired, although under a 
 law which we regard as vicious and unjust, we cannot sweep them away 
 with a stroke of the pen. Not heaven itself upon the past has power. 
 Eeversions to buildings erected on leasehold property have been 
 advertised, bought, sold, and paid for. They have been settled and 
 dealt with by will. They have paid death duties. Moreover, leaseholds 
 have been bought and sold with the knowledge that the buildings would 
 pass to the landlord at the end of the lease. 
 
 Mr. Vre and some other M.P.'s 
 
 When the " Land Values Taxation, etc. (Scotland) Bill " was 
 read a second time in the House of Commons on March 23, 1906, 
 the then Lord Advocate (now Lord Shaw) expressly stated on behalf 
 of the Government that existing contracts would be untouched, and 
 that the clause in the Bill which provided for taxing them would 
 be struck out in Committee. 
 
 It should be stated, however, that when this Bill had been sent 
 to a Select Committee of the House of Commons, that Committee, 
 in its Report, expressed an opinion directly opposed to the view of 
 the Government as stated by the Lord Advocate. The sophistical 
 and hair-splitting technical reasoning by which they attempted to 
 justify this departure from the principles of ordinary honesty and 
 
cH.in ROYAL COMMISSION ON TAXATION 423 
 
 honour should be rescued from the oblivion of the Blue Book in 
 which they are buried. 
 
 A clause by which the feuar binds himself to reUeve the superior of 
 pubUc burdens present and future is not of unlimited appUcation. It 
 is in law confined to burdens the same in nature and in incidence as 
 those in existence at the date of the contract, and which are, therefore, 
 held to have been ia contemplation of the parties at the date of the feu 
 contract. Such a clause affords no reUef from burdens created for the 
 first time by supervenient laws. . . . Now an assessment on the basis 
 of the yearly value of land, apart from buildings, and levied from the 
 owners of land, including the owners of feu duties, would, in the opinion 
 of your Conmiittee, be a new burden difiering materially in its character 
 and incidence from any existing burden on land just as an assessment 
 for the support of roads in a county levied on real rent is a burden, 
 different in character and incidence from an assessment to be devoted 
 to the same purpose but levied on the valued rent. No contract now 
 extant, so far as the evidence laid before your Committee goes, refers 
 to such a burden or contemplates its imposition. Existing contracts 
 would, therefore, be left untouched if the new standard of rating were 
 appUed in the case of owners of feu duties created prior to the date when 
 the enactment first takes efiect.-"^ 
 
 It is interesting to note that the decision to repudiate the opinion 
 of the Government of the day on this point was only arrived at by 
 the casting vote of the Chairman, Mr. Ure, M.P., then Solicitor- 
 General for Scotland and now Lord Strathclyde. The other 
 members of Parliament who voted with him were Mr. A. Dewar, Mr. 
 Findlay, Mr. O'Hare, M. T. F. Richards, Mr. Dundas White, and Mr. 
 M'Kinnon Wood. 
 
 Lax Views of Land, Taxers 
 
 How lax are the views of some of those who are prominently 
 identified with the policy which was embodied in the Memorial 
 which was presented to the Prime Minister in May 1911, may be 
 gathered from the following extracts from Land Reform in Theory 
 and Practice, by Mr. J. Dimdas White, LL.D., M.P. : 
 
 There would be no need to deal with the incidence of rating as 
 between the parties where the existing leases had not long to run ; 
 but the longer leases should be specially provided for. Twenty-one 
 years would be a convenient time Hmit, and the legislature shoidd hold 
 itself free to re-adjust the incidence of rating as between the parties, 
 to suit the altered valuations, wherever the leases made before the 
 change remained ia operation more than twenty-one years afterwards. 
 
 1 379 of 1906, pp. 11, 12. 
 
424 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 This twenty-one years' time limit is proposed simply as part of a 
 working arrangement for the period of transition. 
 
 It is necessary to allow an ample period for the transition, but it 
 woiJd be contrary to principle to exempt for all time from the payment 
 of the land-value rate the very person who is receiving the principal 
 part of the land value of the property in the shape of rent. 
 
 What has been said of leases applies equally to mortgages. So 
 far as existing mortgages were concerned, the rates should remain 
 payable by the same persons as at present. Future mortgages would 
 be made in view of the new. 
 
 What would be unjust and indefensible now would be equally 
 unjust and indefensible 21 years hence. It would only be injustice 
 deferred for 21 years. It is not a question of " transition " but of 
 equity. The change from justice to confiscation and the tearing-up 
 of contracts is not a transition : it is an entire reversal. Deferring 
 the doing of an injustice 21 years cannot make it just. It would 
 only make it less immediate. But the fact that it was to take full 
 effect in 21 years would immediately diminish the capital value of 
 the ground rent and increase the capital value of the lease. 
 
 Mr. Harold Storey says : 
 
 The only objection to taking the whole of the " unimproved land 
 value " for public uses is that we did not take it early enough. Custom 
 and law have sanctioned private profit from land value, and it is still 
 being constantly acquired under the existing legal conditions. This 
 is a very strong objection, indeed a final and conclusive obstacle, to a 
 sudden or even a rapid appropriation of it by the State. But the slowly 
 graduated tax meets this objection. . . . No complaint would lie 
 against the State on the point of equity if a graduated tax, slowly 
 accumulating through several generations, should finally divert the 
 whole of it for public purposes.^ 
 
 The same criticism applies to this suggestion as to Mr. White's. 
 A heavy loss would be immediately inflicted on the present owners. 
 The whole of the future tax would be at once discounted and the 
 capital value of there land would be correspondingly depreciated. 
 None of the burden would fall upon future purchasers. They would 
 buy at a price which would allow for taxation gradually increasing 
 until the whole value was taken. They would buy a " wasting 
 security " at a wasting security price. 
 
 There is, of course, only one honest and equitable way of dealing 
 with existing contracts, and that is to leave them to run off as 
 originally intended. It is also perfectly clear that if contracts were 
 to be reopened on one point they must be reopened generally. 
 ^ Economics of Land Values, p. 80. 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD TAXING LAND VALUES BRING LAND 
 INTO THE MARKET ? 
 
 One of the most important and interesting phases of the discussion 
 of the question of the taxation of land values is the stress which 
 many of the advocates of the proposal lay upon their opinion that 
 it would bring land much more fully and profitably into use than is 
 the case now. It is contended that it would make it much more 
 expensive, and therefore difficult, for men to hold great parks, 
 game preserves, grouse moors, and deer forests for pleasure and sport, 
 and would induce them to let or sell the land for purposes of cultiva- 
 tion or grazing, and thereby extend and increase employment and 
 add to the productive output, and therefore to the wealth of the 
 coimtry. Similarly with regard to urban areas it is urged that such 
 taxation would force land into the market, reduce its price, compel 
 biulding upon it, and thereby increase the supply of houses, encourage 
 the building trade, and extend employment. It is added that the 
 present system of taxing or rating land unduly favours its non-pro- 
 ductive use, and facihtates, and indeed puts a premium on " holding 
 it up," in town and country, contrary to the best interests of the 
 community. 
 
 The solution of the problem which these contentions propound 
 requires that some preliminary questions should be put and answered, 
 such as : 
 
 1. Is the alleged evil a real and widespread one ? 
 
 2. In so far as it is, is the proposed remedy the best way of dealing 
 with it, and would it be effective ? 
 
 3. Is the proposal just, equitable, and politic ? 
 
 Agricultural Land 
 
 The first question may be considered most conveniently, first as 
 a rural one, and then as an urban one. That there is a considerable 
 
 425 
 
426 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 quantity of land now kept as parks attached to country mansions 
 or devoted to sport, which might be cultivated and more productively 
 used, is beyond dispute. There is a good deal of this land that 
 could be profitably cultivated. Certainly, nearly the whole of the 
 land now kept as gentlemen's parks would pay for cultivation. 
 Much land which is now devoted to sport would repay cultivation. 
 On the other hand there is a large area of land that is either 
 barren or waste mountain and moor or is of very poor quaUty. Un- 
 doubtedly it would be possible to cultivate some of it, and by so 
 doing we could produce more from the soil of these islands than is 
 now obtained. The practical question, however, with regard to 
 much of this land is, — Would it pay to do it ? Would it cost more 
 to produce these additional crops than we can obtain the same 
 commodities for from other lands in exchange for other articles 
 which we can produce more efficiently and more profitably ? If 
 it would cost more, who will do it ? It would not be a businessUke 
 investment either for the present owners, or for any purchaser, 
 or for the community, if it owned this land. 
 
 In this connection we must always remember two things. One 
 is that the owner of land here has no monopoly of the supply of food. 
 He competes with the owners of land all over the world. Practically 
 the rent of agricultural land ia England is fixed by the price of corn 
 in Chicago, Winnipeg, and Odessa. The other thing is that the cost 
 of preparing for cultivation much of the now uncultivated land of 
 this country would be more than the land would be worth when 
 it had been so prepared. Mr. W. A. Haveland, of Brighthng, 
 Sussex, recently stated, in a public discussion on the subject, that 
 there is a large amount of woodland in Sussex which would cost £10 
 to £15 an acre to grub the useless underwood. When cleared it 
 would not be worth more than £15 an acre — ^that is the valuation of 
 grass land in the district — and the valuation of the woodland now 
 is £5 an acre. Obviously, it would not be a profitable investment 
 to clear that land. 
 
 A Grievance cmd Disadvantage 
 
 In so far, however, as land could be profitably cultivated, it is 
 undoubtedly desirable, broadly speaking, that it should be so used. 
 It would provide legitimate and useful employment for a consider- 
 able number of people, and it would add to the wealth of the country 
 by increasing its output, and thereby it would again promote 
 employment. It is a distinct grievance and a public disadvantage 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 427 
 
 if in any district there is a real and genuine demand, on sound 
 economic lines, for land for cultivation, and there is land which 
 would satisfy that demand, but it cannot be had, because it is 
 reserved for private pleasure or sport. That men should be driven 
 away from any part of the country because they cannot secure a 
 livelihood and a home there, although there is land in the vicinity 
 upon which both could be obtained, were it not that the owner 
 prefers to reserve it for pleasure or sport rather than let it for cultiva- 
 tion, is a real evil and a public injury. That such conditions do 
 exist is beyond question. There are localities where men cannot 
 obtain holdings, not because there is not land suitable and available 
 which is not being otherwise cultivated, but because the owner will 
 not let it for cultivation. 
 
 Some Practical Considerations 
 
 The extent to which suitable land is thus withheld from cultiva- 
 tion is a matter of conjecture. Opinions will vary much as to what 
 land could and would be cultivated if it were available at the rent 
 which is otherwise obtainable, or would be required to show a com- 
 mercial return upon the capital that would have to be expended 
 upon it before it could be let for successful cultivation. For the 
 last thirty years or more agriculture has not been such a profitable 
 enterprise that people have been anxious to expend money in ex- 
 tending it; and bringing into cultivation much of the land in 
 question would require the outlay of a large amount of money. 
 Conditions, in this respect, have, however, improved recently. As 
 the resTilt of the great growth in the population of the United States 
 and the consequent increased consumption of their own produce, 
 together with the growth in population and prosperity, and corre- 
 spondingly in the consumption of food of this country and Germany, 
 the prices of agricultural produce have risen, and there has been a 
 recovery from the worst effects on British farming of the great 
 inrush of food from the virgin lands of America. 
 
 It is not many years since farms were a drug in the market, 
 satisfactory tenants were difficult to find, and the rents obtainable 
 did not show an adequate return on the capital invested, even when 
 the unimproved value of the land was left entirely out of account. 
 It would have been altogether useless at that time for any owner of 
 a very large proportion indeed of the land which we are now con- 
 sidering to think of expending capital on it to prepare and equip 
 it for cultivation in ordinary farms. As a business investment it 
 
428 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 would have been most imprudent. Even now, when the conditions 
 are better and the outlook is more favourable, some cautious people 
 may wonder whether the enormous development which is taking 
 place in Canada and the Argentine, and the many milUons of acres 
 of extremely fertile virgin soil and valuable grazing land, which are 
 being opened up to settlers and ranchers by the construction of 
 many thousands of miles of new railways ia those vast territories, 
 may not again flood the markets of the old world with agricultural 
 produce at prices which, while they will be a great boon to the 
 masses of our industrial population, may for a time again spell ruin 
 and disaster to agriculture here on land, the soil of which is not 
 particularly good, and the situation of which, as regards access 
 to markets, is not specially favourable. 
 
 When, in addition to all this, we remember that very consider- 
 able rents are obtained for these lands, as they now are, as sporting 
 properties it is not altogether surprising that, especially as regards 
 those the soil and situation of which are by no means very favourable, 
 no great wilhngness has been manifested to invest large amounts 
 of capital in adapting them for uses which at best promised a some- 
 what doubtful and extremely modest return, and at worst might 
 easily prove disastrous to all concerned. 
 
 If an owner who at present keeps his land as moor or game 
 preserve is to be induced by the pressure of taxation to bring it into 
 cultivation, it wiU have to be made very clear to him that the 
 financial results will be considerably better, or he will not do it. 
 Are such better financial results at all certain with regard to large 
 quantities of land ? If not, the mere taxation of land values will, 
 in such cases, fail to secure the desired result. 
 
 Urban Land 
 
 With regard to the urban phase of this branch of the question, it 
 is alleged that land is withheld from building, sometimes because the 
 owner desires to maintain the amenities of his residence, his grounds, 
 and his estate, but more frequently in order that he may obtain an 
 enhanced price at a later date when the demand for the land has 
 become greater and more urgent. It is said that this prevails to 
 such an extent that it prevents the expansion of businesses and 
 communities, cripples industry, checks enterprises, makes land 
 and houses dear, causes unemployment and overcrowding, and 
 creates slums. In Land Values : Points for Speakers we read : 
 " Land is held out of use in London, land for which builders would 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 429 
 
 gladly pay a high price, and on which thousands of men could get 
 employment in the erection of buildings." This is the cause of un- 
 employment.^ 
 
 In a leaflet issued by the United Committee for the Taxation 
 of Land Values, the question is asked : " Why is the Building Trade 
 so stagnant and so many men in the trade unemployed ? " and the 
 first answer given is : " Because the builder cannot get land on 
 which to build on terms that wiU allow him to offer his buildings 
 at a price that will tempt buyers and lessees, and at the same time 
 leave a reasonable margin of profit." 
 
 Exceptional Cases 
 
 That there are cases in which urban land which could be used 
 for building purposes is kept out of the market is true ; but 
 the instances are not very numerous. There are cases in which 
 this occurs when the land-owner or land-owners control so much, 
 or such an important section, of the land surrounding or adjoining 
 a town, that the withholding of the land, or the stringent conditions 
 on which alone it can be obtained, do seriously restrict the growth 
 of the place and prevent its expansion. Such cases are rare ; but 
 where they do exist they are an evil and constitute a pubHc grievance. 
 Where these cases occur there are sometimes special reasons for it 
 - — family reasons, the conditions under which the estate is held, and 
 others — treasons which do not at aU diminish the grievance of the 
 public. Probably, however, the most usual, particularly if only one 
 part of the town or its vicinity is affected by the policy, is the pre- 
 servation of the amenities of the estate, which may be quite as much 
 in the interest of the neighbourhood as of the owner. 
 
 Far more Land offered than can be sold 
 
 Land which is ripe for building and could be sold for that purpose 
 is seldom kept out of the market for the purpose of enhancing the 
 price. On the other hand, a vast amount of land which is scarcely 
 ripe for building is put upon the market long before there is any 
 demand for it, and not infrequently remains there a lifetime before 
 it is sold. Most persons of real knowledge and practical experience 
 of the matter will agree that, speaking generally, there is, and always 
 has been, abundance of building land in the market and competition 
 to sell it is pretty keen. The difficulty is not to find sellers but 
 buyers ; and such buyers as there are often require so much outlay 
 
 • Page 3. 
 
430 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 to be made on the land before they begin, and so much financing of 
 them when they do begin, that business can only be done with them 
 by an owner who is a very substantial capitalist in addition to being 
 the owner of the land he wishes to dispose of. 
 
 Sir John EoUeston, M.P., a past President of the Surveyor's 
 Institute, in a letter published in February 1905, said : 
 
 I venture to say that, almost without exception, building land is 
 built upon when it becomes ripe — -i.e. when the space fringing towns 
 comes into demand for the erection of works or the housing of increasing 
 population. Few people can afEord to hold such land back, and if 
 they do they usually outstand their market, the demand, which is 
 irrepressible, being satisfied elsewhere. . . . 
 
 I have known land purchased 35 years ago on which streets and 
 sewers were immediately constructed, but on which there are no build- 
 ings to-day. . . . 
 
 I doubt if land can be forced into the market for which there is no 
 natural demand. Certainly no economic force can provide money for 
 putting up buildings, or create people to live in them, any more than 
 physical force can make a horse drink. 
 
 The reason why building land is seldom kept out of the market 
 for the purpose of raising the price is that it would not pay the owner 
 to do it ; the certain loss in interest would usually more than counter- 
 balance the problematical gain in price. Very erroneous and ex- 
 aggerated notions prevail as to the actual demand there is for land 
 with the intention of building on it. Almost everywhere where land 
 has a building value, there is far more on the market than there is 
 a demand for. In and about most towns there is at any time ten 
 times as much land for sale for building purposes as will be built on 
 during the next ten years ; and from fifty to a hundred times as 
 much land as could be built upon immediately. The amount of 
 land used for building each year is not large. It is stated that in a 
 great city like Glasgow it is 60 acres, and in Edinburgh 15 acres. 
 Between 1901 and 1911 the average number of additional buildings 
 erected or in course of erection per annum in England and Wales 
 was about 82,000. If we assume twelve buildings to the acre, 
 they would require 6833 acres a year for building purposes. The 
 Inland Kevenue authorities return the amount of land hable to 
 undeveloped land duty in England and Wales at 617,000 acres. 
 That means that there is land which is now regarded as building 
 land, and is unbuilt on, sufficient to meet the requirements of the next 
 90 years, on the basis of the quantity built on during the ten years 
 1901-11. Nor is it the fact that overcrowding is usually due to 
 
cH.iv TAXING LAND VALUES 431 
 
 scarcity of houses. It is only ia very exceptional cases or circum- 
 stances that it is so. Overcrowding prevails badly in Glasgow and 
 Edinburgh. At the same time, the supply of houses is much in 
 excess of the demand. In Glasgow in 1909 there were 17,037 empty 
 houses, and 11,039 were under £10 in annual rent. 
 
 The " Monopoly " in Building Land 
 
 Many people talk loosely about a monopoly in building land. 
 It is only in very rare cases where all the land in or about a town 
 is owned by one man, or by two or three who act together, that there 
 is anything of the kind. In ordinary cases, in these days, there is 
 no such thing as a strict monopoly in building sites. As Professor 
 Seligman puts it : 
 
 The ground rent of even the dearest plot in a crowded city exceeds 
 the ground rents of other plots only by the value of its relative superiority. 
 Monopoly impHes absolute control of supply. Where building lots 
 shade into each other by imperceptible gradations, with an abundant 
 supply of the lower grade lots, we cannot speak of an absolute control 
 of the total supply, but only of a control of a part of the supply. This 
 is not monopoly, but only the ownership of a better grade, possession 
 of which gives a higher price, but not a monopoly price. 
 
 The fundamental difference that distinguishes monopoly from 
 competition is that under monopoly price is not determined by the 
 price at which any marginal supply can be obtained. Monopohsts 
 fix the price at the figure that will yield the largest net return on the 
 whole turnover. They can only do this when they control the whole 
 supply and act together. There is no such general monopoly in 
 land. 
 
 " The essence of monopoly is not limitation, but the absence of 
 competition." The sites and properties in the inner and middle 
 and outer rings of towns, are and always will be in keen competition. 
 The rents and prices obtained for them will always be determined, 
 as they are now, by the business or residential convenience and 
 advantage of the sites. 
 
 The pressure, the inducement, to sell valuableunbuilt-on building 
 land is great. If land is let at £3 an acre, and could be sold for 
 £500 an acre, that sum invested at 4 per cent would bring in £20 
 a year or £17 an acre per annum more than is now received. If land 
 would sell for £1000 an acre, which is now let at £5 an acre, it would, 
 if sold, yield £40 a year or £35 an acre more than is obtained now. 
 That is a great inducement to sell. The probability that money will 
 
432 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 be lost by refusing to sell at a fair market price is so great that few 
 who can sell will decline to do so if a genuine opportunity of selling 
 at a fair price presents itself. Take the case of the land which could 
 be sold for £500 an acre, and is therefore being held at a loss of £17 
 a year : £17 a year at 4 per cent compound interest means in 5 
 years £92 ; 10 years £204 ; 15 years £340 ; 20 years £506. This 
 means that unless he can get more than £592 in 5 years, £704 iu 
 10 years, £840 in 15 years, or £1006 ia 20 years for land which he 
 declines to sell for £500 now, the owner will lose money by keeping it. 
 
 What woiM the Effect of the Taxes be ? — On Rural Land 
 
 In so far as there is, for any reason, holding up of land which it is 
 desirable in the interests of the commimity should be cultivated 
 or used as building land, would the proposed remedy of levying all 
 rates or part of the rates solely on land values be an effective way, 
 and the best practicable way of dealing with the problem ? 
 
 If increased rates were levied on land which is now kept as park, 
 or game preserve, or grouse moor, or deer forest, obviously they 
 would add to the cost of so keeping such land, and the inducement 
 to devote it to more remunerative purposes would be increased. 
 The extent of this inducement, the strength of the pressure that 
 would be brought to bear, would depend on the amount of the 
 increase in the rates levied. This land is rated now ; the rating is 
 low, but rates have to be paid. One object of levying rates on land 
 values is to reduce or abolish altogether other rates. Clearly, there- 
 fore, in so far as the proceeds of the land value rate levied on this 
 land went to reduce the rates already paid on it, no difference would 
 be made. Further, the rate in any case would probably be small. 
 The proposal is that it shoidd be levied on the unimproved capital 
 value of this land. The unimproved value of a vast proportion of 
 the land which is not now under cultivation would be small. 
 
 In addition to this the proposal of the out and out group of land 
 taxers is that the land values levy should be a national one in order 
 that the revenue derived by it from lands in towns and cities 
 might be diverted to keep down the levy on land in agri- 
 cultural districts.^ Indeed, their teaching in agricultural districts 
 is that under their scheme the levies on occupied land in the shape 
 of rates and taxes would be less then than they are now. Where 
 
 ^ Mr. Outhwaite, M.P., speaking at the Farmers' Club on February 3, 1913, 
 said : " It is only just that rural parishes should participate in the land values of 
 the cities, for the people of the countryside help to create these values." 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 433 
 
 then would be the pressure on the owners of the particular lands 
 which we are now considering ? The increase in the rates or taxes 
 would not be much, if anything, except in a Umited number of 
 cases. 
 
 So far as there was pressure, what would it induce the owner 
 to do ? Suppose he is the owner of a mansion and park and game 
 preserves. In such a case the charges upon it would probably be 
 increased. This might or might not induce him to curtail his park 
 and his game preserves, and let the greater part of the land ofE for 
 cultivation. Unless the pressure of the extra charges was con- 
 siderable, it is doubtful whether it would do much to divert this 
 particular class of land to cultivation. So far as grouse moors and 
 deer forests are concerned, would the charge upon them be materi- 
 ally increased ? Is it not probable that in the large majority of cases 
 their rental and capital value for sporting purposes is as great as it 
 would be for any other purpose, and consequently that, even if the 
 charges upon them in respect of rates and taxes were increased, 
 no substantial addition to their present rental value could be 
 obtained by their owners, beyond interest on the capital expenditure 
 that would be necessary, if they were to try to let them for purposes 
 of cultivation ? 
 
 Speaking with great diffidence, and without any expert know- 
 ledge whatever, it appears to me that nothing material would 
 be accomplished in the direction we have been considering by 
 all or the greater part of the rates on the unimproved capital value 
 of land in rural districts that could not, far more effectively and 
 easUy and with far less general disturbance, be secured by the 
 simple expedient of enacting that where the assessed rental value 
 of any property did not represent 3, 3|, or 4 per cent, as might be 
 decided, on its capital value, then the assessable value for rates 
 should be that percentage on the capital value. 
 
 On Urban Land 
 
 Coming now to urban areas, we may consider — If a land value 
 rate were levied on the capital value of land, whether it was occupied 
 or not, and whether it was built on or not, would land which is now 
 said to be " held up " be forced into the market, and would building 
 thereby be facilitated and encouraged ? 
 
 The contention of land taxers is that " It would bring unused 
 land into the market and, by increasing the available supply, would 
 reduce the rents and prices of land to their natural level. It would 
 
 2f 
 
434 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 make land more easily and more cheaply available." ^ Or, as 
 another puts it, " Land will come into industrial and productive 
 use at an earlier stage of the demand for it, and, therefore, at a stage 
 when the rent or price which the users are prepared to pay has not 
 been so far forced up by scarcity and monopoly." ^ 
 
 As in the case of land in rural districts, so with land in urban 
 areas, if increased rates were levied on land which is now let and 
 assessed at a rental which does not represent its capital or selling 
 value, the inducement to sell or use that land for the purpose for 
 which its capital value is higher than for the purpose for which it is 
 now used, would be greater than it is now. That is obvious ; but 
 the practical consideration is, What would that inducement really 
 amoimt to, and what would be the actual effect it would have upon 
 the action of the owner of the land and upon the use which would 
 really be made of it ? Take the case we have already given of a 
 man who has land let at £3 or £5 an acre which he could sell for 
 £500 or £1000 an acre. He is now losing in one case £17, and in the 
 other £35 a year per acre rather than sell at £500 in the one case 
 and at £1000 in the other. A land values tax of Id. or 2d. in the 
 pound is suggested. That would be equivalent to 2s. Id. or 4s. 2d. 
 in the pound on the annual value. The penny tax ' would, there- 
 fore, increase the loss in one case from £17 to £19 a year, in the other 
 from £35 to £39 a year. Would such an increase in the loss really 
 make the inducement to sell so very much greater ? 
 
 An Illustration 
 
 In his evidence before the Departmental Committee, 1912, 
 Sir Albert Spicer, M.P., referred to a piece of land behind Ludgate 
 Station, for which he said £30,000 was asked. It was vacant for 
 some 15 or 20 years. He thought that if it had been rated it would 
 have been sold earlier, and he added, "As itwas they were practically 
 sajdng to somebody, ' You shall not work.' " The first comment 
 that may be made on this statement is that if this land could have 
 been sold earher for say £25,000, that means that the owners were 
 losing £1000 a year — 4 per cent on £25,000 — every year they declined 
 to accept that price. That was pretty strong pressure. A tax of 
 Id. in the £ on £25,000 would have been £104, 3s. 4d. a year. We are 
 
 1 J. D. White, M.P., The A.B.G. of the Land Question, p. 7. 
 ' Harold Storey, Economics of Land Value, p. 65. 
 
 ' Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., M.P., aays that land taxers would be quite satisfied 
 with a tax of Id. in the £ on capital value. 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 435 
 
 asked to think that what a loss of £1000 a year failed to do, an addi- 
 tional payment of £104 a year more would have accomplished. 
 It might or it might not. We have not sufficient information as to 
 all the details of the case to be able to say. The second comment is 
 that if this land for which £30,000 was asked could have been sold 
 for £20,000, and remained imsold for 20 years because that price 
 was not accepted, the loss in compound interest at 4 per cent on 
 that simi in that time was £23,822. If £25,000 could have been got 
 and was refused, the loss was £29,778. The proposed tax would 
 have been negligible as compared with that loss. The third com- 
 ment is, that if this land had been rated on an annual value, really 
 representative of its capital value, as we have already suggested, 
 the levy and the inducement to sell would have been greater than the 
 land taxers suggest, and such results as could be obtained by that 
 means would be obtained without reconstructing the whole rating 
 system of the country. Lastly, the suggestion that some one was 
 prevented from working because this land was not sold earlier is 
 clearly very fanciful and far-fetched. Who was prevented from 
 working ? Was this the only available site in London ? Was any one 
 prevented from building premises or carrying on his trade because he 
 could not obtain this site at his own price ? Certainly not. Whether 
 any one really wanted this site — which, judging from the description 
 of it, was anything but a very desirable one — I do not know ; but it 
 may be taken as certain that those who would have erected a 
 building there, obtained premises elsewhere, which they would not 
 have acquired if they had got this particular site. It may be taken 
 as certain that no one was deprived of work, and that, at most, all 
 that happened was that some other site was used instead of this one, 
 and the owners of this site lost the interest they might have obtained 
 on its purchase price, if they had a reasonable chance of selling it 
 earlier than they did. 
 
 Who would buy ? 
 
 In some cases, no doubt, a tax on building land might induce 
 owners to sell where they will not now do so. But by whom, and 
 for what purpose would the land be bought ? Are there really 
 many buyers at market rates who are prepared to build and cannot 
 get land to bmld on ? There may be cases where they cannot get 
 the precise piece of land that they would like best ; but they, or 
 others can, as a rule, get land that wiU answer the purpose, and they 
 do get it and build when and where there is a genuine demand for 
 
436 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 houses. If they could get the other pieces of land that they would 
 prefer, it does not follow that more houses would be built in the 
 country or the district as a whole. More houses might be built in 
 that immediate locality, but correspondingly fewer houses would 
 be built elsewhere. There would not be any increase in the 
 total number of householders. 
 
 Of course, land can be sold if it be offered at much less than its 
 market value. So can anything else. A draper or a tailor or a 
 shoemaker coidd each sell aU his stock of sheets, clothes, and boots 
 immediately if he woidd sell them at sufficiently less than they could 
 be got for elsewhere. But all the drapers, tailors, and shoemakers in 
 the country could not clear out the whole of their stocks in that 
 way if it were known that the reduction in price was a permanent 
 one. That is to say, there would be but Httle extra buying by the 
 community as a whole, the total demand for these goods would only 
 be shghtly increased. The single draper, tailor, or shoemaker 
 would do a big trade at slaughter prices, as long as they lasted, but 
 he would do it almost entirely at the expense of the trade of his 
 competitors, and the moment they came down to his prices the trade 
 done by each would not be much more than before. 
 
 So with land. If building land were offered at substantially less 
 prices than had been paid for other land on which houses similar to 
 those which would be erected there had been built, some would be 
 sold to builders who would be able to put up houses and let them at 
 less than corresponding houses are now being let for. In the vast 
 majority of places this would not increase the number of occupied 
 houses. In most towns there are more houses than tenants, and 
 empty houses are fairly numerous. What would happen would be 
 that tenants of existing houses would move into the new cheaper 
 ones. But that would soon be counteracted. The owners of the 
 existing houses would reduce the rents in order to keep their tenants, 
 and building would again stop because the number of empty houses 
 would have been increased, and people would decline to invest ia 
 house property. 
 
 In those circumstances builders would not buy land even if it 
 were offered at less than present market rates. It could only be 
 sold to capitalists or speculators who would pay a price for it which 
 would allow for the extra taxation on it, and they would hold it 
 until the price recovered ; or, when it was seen that this was the 
 position, the present owners might come to the conclusion that 
 they might as well continue to hold it themselves, and pay the 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 437 
 
 taxes, as sell it at a price which really allowed for the purchaser 
 paying them.^ 
 
 The net result would be httle or no iacrease in building, little or 
 no encouragement of it. In so far as the number of empty houses 
 was increased by building new houses which were occupied by former 
 tenants of existing ones, property-owning would be rendered pre- 
 carious and unprofitable, lenders of money on mortgage would 
 become very shy, the rate of interest on mortgages would rise, and 
 purchasers would be few and far between. The state of the building 
 trade might easily become worse than before. Indeed, this would 
 certainly be the result of over-building ; and ia so far as the forcing 
 of land into the market stimulated the buildirig of houses which 
 were not really required, but were only occupied at the expense of 
 emptying others, there would be over-building. The fundamental 
 error of those who hold the views we have been consideriag is that 
 they assume that there is an unlimited demand for houses, and they 
 ignore the fact that in London and all our large towns there are 
 thousands of empty houses and other buildings. 
 
 An Interesting Experience 
 
 An interestiag illustration of the difficulty there is in disposing 
 of building land, and of the impossibility of forcing building beyond 
 the demand for premises, is furnished by the experience of the London 
 County Council in connection with the sites fronting on the Kingsway 
 and Aldwych and Strand roadways, which were cleared to make that 
 improvement. Here there was a great area of very ehgible sites 
 fronting on splendid wide thoroughfares in the heart of the greatest 
 city in the world. The improvement was commenced in 1897. 
 Sites on the Strand portion were offered to the public by public 
 auction in 1902 and in Aldwych in 1903. Half the sites stood 
 vacant ten years after they were first offered to the public. 
 How the land taxers would have made the welkin ring with 
 their indignation and denunciation if this land had belonged to a 
 
 1 " While the change from the present system to the new would certainly reduce 
 the net yield of the property to the owner who does not sell it, the fact that it would 
 also reduce the capital value or selling price in just the same proportion, would 
 make the continued holding of the land exactly as good an investment as before. 
 If I hold prospective building land worth at present £1000, and a change in methods 
 of rating reduces the value to £800, why should I sell any more than before ? And 
 if I am frightened into selling by the talk of the promoters of the scheme, why 
 should the braver person who buys at £800 proceed to sell immediately at a loss 1 " 
 (Dr. Cannan, p. 190.) 
 
438 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 Duke ! Wliat cartoons and placards of land " held up " we should 
 have had ! What talk about men kept out of employment, and the 
 local authorities deprived of rates ! 
 
 This land belongs to a pubUe authority which has every induce- 
 ment to dispose of it and none to " hold it up." During the time 
 it has stood, a drug in the market, both parties in the Council have 
 been in power, and both have made great efforts to dispose of the 
 sites. The pressure on them to do so has been great. The cost of 
 the scheme was, I beUeve, something like £6,000,000 to £7,000,000, 
 and the interest accumulating all these years on the undisposed-of 
 part must have run the total cost to an enormous figure. The loss of 
 rates that would have been received if buildings had been erected 
 and occupied has been very great. All this vast financial loss has 
 been pressure to sell or lease far more potent than any such land tax 
 as is usually talked about could possibly have been. Yet there 
 the sites have stood and many still stand vacant. 
 
 The explanation is obvious. Occupants for such buildings as 
 can alone be erected on those sites to pay cannot readily be found. 
 The of&ce accommodation in that vicinity has been largely increased 
 in recent years. Many of the offices — new and eligible — in existing 
 buildings are unoccupied. It is not surprising, therefore, that 
 builders and investors have been slow to sink their money in adding 
 to the number. In time the sites will be occupied ; but it will take 
 time. In such cases neither taxation nor anything else can force 
 the pace of building beyond the legitimate demand for premises ; 
 and it would be disastrous if it could be forced. 
 
 Some Illustrations and Calculations 
 
 In the exceptional cases where land is really being held up, 
 where owners absolutely refuse to sell, and no other suitable land is 
 available, and there is a demand for houses or buildings which would 
 be erected if land were available at the market price of such land, 
 building would be legitimately facihtated where that land was 
 brought into the market by the levjTug of a rate or tax. 
 
 But in the majority of cases owners are only too willing to sell 
 their land for building purposes at the market price. Taxation 
 might induce them to sell at a lower price. It would only be lower 
 to the extent of the estimated present value of the extra taxation for 
 the number of years for which it was likely to be paid before the 
 land would be built upon in the ordinary course. The difference in 
 price would be small : 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 439 
 
 On land valued at £500 an acre a tax of Id. in £ would amount to £2 : 1 : 8 
 
 a year. 
 On land valued at £1000 an acre it would be £4 : 3 : 4 a year. 
 The present value of £2 : 1 : 8 a year for 10 years is £16 : 17 : 11 ; for 
 
 20 years it is £28 : 6 : 2. 
 The present value of £4 : 3 : 4 a year for 10 years is £33 : 15 : 10 ; for 
 
 20 years it is £56 : 12 : 4. 
 
 If 25 houses to one acre were put on the land a reduction in price 
 like this would mean a decrease in the cost of the site of each house, 
 if the present price of the land is £500 an acre, of from 13s. 6d. to 
 22s. 6d., or, say, of from 6|d. to lid. a year in the rent. If the 
 present price of the land is £1000 an acre, a reduction of from £33 
 to £56 in the price per acre would only represent a reduction of from 
 Is. Id. to Is. lOd. ia the annual rent of each house built on it ! 
 Reductions in rent ranging from ^d. to ^. per week would not 
 be hkely to revolutionise anything or anybody, anywhere ! 
 
 That is a case where land is dear for small houses — ^£1000 an acre 
 — and consequently where they are built pretty closely together. 
 We may take another case where the land is much lower in price — 
 £150 an acre — and where more land can be allowed per house. 
 Take a 20-acre plot of land at £150 an acre with 18 houses to the 
 acre. Mr. George Cadbury, Jimr., gives the following figures in 
 The Economic Review for July 1913 : 
 
 Total number of houses 
 
 Total area of roads, in acres 
 
 Average area of plot, per house, in yards 
 
 Total cost of land 
 
 Total cost of roads . 
 
 Cost of land and roads per gross acre 
 
 Cost of land and roads per house . 
 
 Equivalent ground rent 
 
 Equivalent ground rent per week . 
 
 The land alone represents less than one-third of the ground 
 rent ; the roads represent more than two-thirds of it. Consequently, 
 the cost of the land represents only l|d. a week of the rent, and if 
 the price of the land were reduced by one-half it would only reduce 
 the rent |d. a week, and if the land were obtained for nothing it 
 would only reduce the rent l^d. a week ! 
 
 The Effect would be SUght 
 It is clear, therefore, that even if the price of the land were re- 
 duced by much more than the equivalent of the tax, the effect 
 on the rent of a house would be inappreciable. The price of the 
 
 
 360 
 
 
 3-7 
 
 
 219 
 
 £3,000 
 
 
 
 £6,215 
 
 
 
 . £460 
 
 15 3 
 
 . £25 
 
 11 11 
 
 . £1 
 
 6 
 
 . £0 
 
 4| 
 
440 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 land is a much smaller item in the rent of ordinary houses than 
 most people imagine. They are apt to think of the ground rent as 
 the cost of the land, whereas it is usually nothing of the Mnd. It 
 is mostly simply a first charge on the whole property, and is fre- 
 quently three or more times as much as the cost of the land to the 
 builder, before it was developed, would represent. It is frequently 
 an entirely arbitrary and artificial figure, and represents not only 
 the price of the land, but the cost of roads and drains, legal expenses, 
 interest, and a portion of the value of the building. Ordinarily, 
 it has very little relation to the value of the land, and sometimes 
 it has no relation whatever. 
 
 If land be sold for building purposes at £500 an acre, and 25 
 houses per acre be erected on it, the cost of the land is £20 per house, 
 or, at 4 per cent, 1 6s. a year. That is to say, if the price of the land 
 were reduced by 20 per cent, or £100 an acre, it would only make 
 about 3s. 3d. a year difference in the rent of the house. If the price 
 were reduced by one-half, it would only make a difference of 8s. a 
 year ; and if the land were given away for nothing the rent would 
 only be 16s. a year or less than 4d. a week lower. If the price of the 
 land be £250 an acre, it would only reduce the rent of houses on it 
 2d. a week if it were given away ! 
 
 View of the Surveyors' Institute 
 If land is taxed as suggested, it does not necessarily follow that it 
 wiU be cheapened. No doubt, as indicated in the Report of the Select 
 Committee, the small man might be forced to reaUse and thus be a 
 heavy loser, but it is a fallacy to suppose that development of land is 
 a mere matter of willingness on the part of the owner. No manipula- 
 tion of taxation can increase that demand, and consequently land taxa- 
 tion cannot encourage building enterprise, for builders wiU not buy or 
 take more land than, when covered, wiQ meet what they consider likely 
 to be the immediate demand for houses. Generally speaking, the supply 
 of houses in urban districts has hitherto been ahead of the demand, 
 but under the proposed system the evidence before the Select Committee 
 shows that the demand might be expected to be slightly ahead of the 
 supply, and the tendency, therefore, would be for rents to increase.^ 
 
 Rate of Interest more Important than the Price of Land 
 
 Another important point which must not be overlooked is that 
 
 for ordinary housing purposes the rate of interest at which capital 
 
 can be obtained for buildings is far more important than the price 
 
 of the land. If by putting a tax on land values the price of building 
 
 ^ Memorandum by the Council of the Surveyors' Institute, July 1912. 
 
cH.iv TAXING LAND VALUES 441 
 
 land whicli is now selling at £250 an acre were reduced by one-half, 
 or the price of that which is selling at £400 an acre were reduced 
 by one-third — and the most enthusiastic land taxer does not an- 
 ticipate any such result as that — ^the difference which it would make 
 in the rent of the houses (25 to the acre) erected on it would only 
 be one penny per week. But if through the disturbance of the 
 confidence of investors in land and buildings as a security the rate 
 of interest which purchasers require such property to yield be in- 
 creased by only 1 per cent, the difference which that would make 
 in the rent of a house which cost £260 would be one shilling per 
 week, or twelve times as much as the difference which a large drop 
 in the price of the land would make. 
 
 The Council of the Surveyors' Institute, who speak with know- 
 ledge and authority, very truly observe : 
 
 The fact is often overlooked that the erection of moderate sized and 
 small houses is undertaken almost entirely by the speculative builder, 
 a person not uncommonly held up to odium, but one who in reaHty is 
 an important and useful, agent in the housing problem. Before the 
 supply of houses runs short, the speculative builder buys land and pro- 
 ceeds to cover it with houses, an undertaking necessitating the employ- 
 ment of considerable capital, which up till recently he has hadnodifficulty 
 in commanding on payment of reasonable interest. It is clear that 
 anything tending to destroy the confidence of investors in land and 
 buildings as a security must have the efiect of making it more difficult 
 for the builder to borrow, and of raising the rate of interest which he 
 would be called upon to pay. His operations would thus be severely 
 hampered, and in time the trade, through lack of inducement, would 
 cease to be carried on. Such a result would necessarily have a pre- 
 judicial effect upon the number of houses erected and the rents at which 
 they could be let.-*^ 
 
 Concliision 
 
 The result of our consideration of this phase of our problem is 
 that, speaking generally, the alleged " holding up " of land in urban 
 districts, in the sense of withholding it from cultivation or declining 
 to sell it or let it for building purposes at its market value, is not a 
 widespread evil, and that in so far as it does exist to a limited extent, 
 the suggested tax on land values would not be an effective rernedy, 
 nor would it be the best way of dealing with the exceptional cases 
 which at present occur. Probably an alteration of the basis of 
 assessment of such special properties on the lines we have suggested 
 would accomplish all that is necessary in that particular direction. 
 
 ' Memorandum by the Council of the Surveyors' Institute, July 1912. 
 
442 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND vr. ix 
 
 The Equity of the Matter 
 
 If exceptional taxation of land would cheapen it, the question 
 remains, Shall we be justified in specially taxing all owners of land 
 in order to compel some of them to sell their land at a lower price 
 than they otherwise would ? Legitimate reasons for taxing people 
 are their abihty to pay and that they benefit from the expenditure. 
 In so far as taxation can be defended on the ground of ability to 
 pay or of benefit received, well and good. Two things are clearly 
 inequitable. One is that any one in respect of any class of property 
 should be allowed to escape a fair share of taxation according to his 
 means and the benefits he receives. If such under-taxation assisted 
 him in withholding property — ^land in particular — ^from use, it 
 would be pecuUarly objectionable and unfair. The other thing that 
 is clearly inequitable is that any one who is already taxed as others 
 are according to ability and to benefit received should be addition- 
 ally taxed and therefore penalised in order to make him part with 
 his property — land for example — ^at a lower price than he otherwise 
 would. That is in reality a process of confiscation. Land taxers 
 ask that part of the value of the land-owner's property should be 
 confiscated in order that it may be given to some one else. 
 
 The contention that the taxation of land values is desirable, 
 because it would reduce the rent of land and thus benefit other people, 
 is clearly inadmissible. It offends against justice and honesty. If 
 it is to be defended at all, it must be on altogether different and 
 sounder grounds. If the proposed taxation is equitable and just, 
 then and then only can the suggestion that its indirect effects will 
 be beneficial to the community be entertained by honourable men. 
 
 So far as the equity of the matter goes, the State will be justified 
 in taking such steps as are necessary to ensure that the land shall 
 be used in the best interests of all, subject to the condition that if 
 and when in so doing they interfere with the rights and property 
 of individuals compensation must be paid. The appropriation by 
 individuals of " original and indestructible natural forces " has its 
 basis not so much in justice as in the general good, and the State has 
 always considered itself entitled to attach to the ownership of land 
 limitations and conditions imposed in the interest of the common 
 good. It is not only equitable, but equity requires that all owners 
 of land should bear their share of taxation in proportion to the 
 value of the land they possess ; and if, as is the case, owing to the 
 method of assessment, the owners of some land do not bear their 
 
CH.IV TAXING LAND VALUES 443 
 
 fair quota in proportion to the value of their property, it is not only 
 fair but necessary that they should be made to do so. It is quite 
 another thing to suggest, as many land taxers practically do, that 
 all owners of land should be penaHsed for the dehnquencies of a 
 few. It would not only be unjust, but, as has been shown, it is 
 unnecessary. It would be using a steam-hammer to crack a nut. 
 
 While it is undoubtedly bad poUcy to so frame your method 
 of levying taxes on land as to facilitate withholding it from its most 
 profitable and beneficial use, to specially and penally tax land in 
 order to compel its use suggests a revival of the old idea of taxing 
 men in order to make them work. 
 
 Slums 
 
 Eating of site values will not prevent or reheve slums. Slum 
 dwellings in central districts are not overcrowded because of the 
 rates. The sites are not high in price because the rates are heavy. 
 So far as the sites are high in price, they are so because they are valu- 
 able owing to their central position and the consequent demand for 
 them. The rates are high because the sites are valuable. The high 
 rates detract from the renting value of the site. If there were no 
 rates the site would fetch its present price plus the rates. If all the 
 differential rates were charged on the site owner, the total cost of the 
 site to the builder would be its present price plus those rates, and 
 houses would not be cheaper. 
 
 It is said that if the rates were heavier on the sites in central 
 slum areas than they now are on the whole property, the owners 
 would not be able to afford to allow the slum dwellings to remain, 
 and would have to pull them down in order to put the sites to more 
 remunerative use. That means they would have to erect buildings 
 that would bring in more rent, and if the new buildings were re- 
 sidences for poor people, it would mean taller buildings but not lower 
 rents. Indeed, it is obvious that placing aU rates on land values 
 woidd subsidise the largest buildings the most, and the smallest 
 buildings the least. It would subsidise big buildings most where 
 land is dearest, because it is there that buildings are valuable, and 
 consequently rates on them now are heavy. It would thus en- 
 courage overcrowding of big buildings on central and already con- 
 gested sites. Dr. Cannan ^ has pointed out very truly and very 
 forcibly that in so far as rates were levied on the value of the site 
 and taken ofi the value of the buildings, the effect would be to cause 
 ^ History of Local Bates, p. 191. 
 
444 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 people to pile as much building on as little land as possible. Further, 
 in so far as taking rates ofE buildings encouraged building, it would 
 do this most where the rates are now the highest and where the relief 
 would consequently be the greatest. Rates are the highest in 
 thickly populated urban districts. Such stimulus to building as 
 was the result of the scheme would, therefore, be most effective 
 where there is now most crowding, and there would be a distinct 
 incentive to erect higher buildings and occupy as little land as 
 possible. 
 
 It is obvious that placing all the rates on land values only must 
 tend to crowd buildiags on the smallest practicable area of land. 
 Yet land taxers appear to be unable to perceive this. At the 
 Annual Meeting of the Garden City Association, January 31, 1908, 
 Mr. Justice Neville, referring to the rating of land values, said : 
 
 So far as he could see no conceivable device could be hit upon more 
 certain to make the overcrowding of the present time as nothing com- 
 pared with the overcrowding of the future. . . . One man put up 
 fifty buildings and the next man no more than twenty-five buildings 
 to the acre, the population of the fifty houses would be twice as great 
 as the twenty-five, though the rates paid by the occupiers of the latter 
 would equal those of the former. 
 
 In an article in the Westminster Gazette three weeks later, Mr 
 Crompton Llewelyn Davies refers to this as an " extraordinary 
 view," and contends that it is so because levying rates on land 
 values would reduce the total rates on such properties and relieve 
 the buildings of rates, and therefore relieve the largest building the 
 most. 
 
 Clearly, this does not confute, or in any way disturb Mr. Justice 
 Neville's contention. When the rates were reduced they would 
 be no larger on the large building than on the small one. The 
 inducement would, therefore, be to put the larger building on the 
 site, because if the same housing accommodation were spread over 
 a larger site more rates would have to be paid. 
 
 Further, slums and unhealthy conditions in old central areas 
 will not be got rid of by pulling down the old houses and erecting 
 new ones in their place, unless, when rebuilding occurs, narrow 
 courts, blind alleys, and dwellings in yards are abolished and more 
 air space and light are provided for.^ That means that the building 
 
 1 The Report of the Housing Committee of the London County Council on the 
 Tabard Street' Area, which is about to be cleared and reconstructed, said : " The 
 characteristic feature of the area is the narrowness of the streets and the bad 
 arrangement of both streets and houses. George Court is in parts only 3 ft. wide ; 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 445 
 
 area would be much reduced, and that, even if the new buildings were 
 carried much higher, there would be little, if any, additional accom- 
 modation. Consequently, the rents of the new tenements would 
 have to be much higher than the rents of the present houses, or it 
 would not pay the owners to pull down the old buildings and erect 
 new ones. That means that ia so far as it is contended that over- 
 crowded slum areas are slums and are overcrowded because rents are 
 so high that the occupants cannot afford to take sufficient room 
 to enable them to live decently and healthily, heavy taxation of 
 central slum sites would not improve and might aggravate the 
 position. 
 
 Slum Houses are Cheap because Overcrowding is allowed 
 
 To a far larger extent than people thiak, slums 'exist ia central 
 areas because they are cheap to live ia, after allowing for saving in 
 train or rail-fares, etc. The rent of a slum house as a whole is high 
 for such houses as they are ; the rent per room is high for their 
 size ; but as overcrowding is allowed, the rent per person is low. 
 
 From particulars given in a Blue Book — British and, Foreign 
 Trade and, Ir^dustry, issued ia 1903 (p. 217) — we learn that in London 
 the average weekly rent of one room tenements was 3s. 5Jd. per 
 room ; 2 room tenements, 2s. lOd. per room ; 3 room tenements, 
 2s. 4|d. per room. In the slums the charges per room are much 
 higher. Before the Royal Commission on Housing, some years ago, 
 it was stated that " At 10 Prospect Terrace, South St. Pancras, 
 4s. a week was paid for one room 10 ft. by 7 ft. At 22 Wood Street, 
 5s. was paid for a single room. At 8 Stephen Street, 5s. was paid 
 for a single room in a state of great decay. In Spitalfields the 
 average rental for one room was from 4s. 6d. to 6s. a week." The 
 fewer rooms there are per tenancy the higher is the rent per room. 
 The reason why these rents were paid is to be found in the further 
 particulars which the Report of the Commission gave of the over- 
 crowding that was permitted : 
 
 In Clerkenwell, at 15 St. Helena Place, a house was described con- 
 taining six rooms, which were occupied at that time by six families, 
 anfl as many as eight persons inhabited one room. At 1 Wilmington 
 Place there were eleven families in eleven rooms, seven persons occupy- 
 
 liittle Britain, 5 ft. ; Wiokham Court, 7J ft. ; and several other streets do not 
 exceed 10 ft. in width including the footways. Out of the 32 streets in the area, 
 no less than 13 are cul de sac." 
 
446 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 ing one room. At 30 Noble Street five families of twenty-six persons 
 were found inhabiting six rooms. At 36 Bowling Green Lane there 
 were six persons in an underground kitchen. At 7 New Court there 
 were eleven persons in two rooms, in which fowls also were kept. In 
 St. Pancras, at 10 Prospect Terrace, eight persons inhabited one room, 
 10 ft. by 7 ft. At 3 Derry Street a room, 13 ft. by 12 ft., was inhabited 
 by a family of nine who had only one bed. In Spitalfields, 35 Hanbuiy 
 Street, is a house with nine rooms, and there was an average of seven 
 persons in each room, and in no room was there more than one bed. 
 
 The medical officer of Kensington said he knew a case where 
 there were five women occupying one room — three sleeping on the 
 bed and two under the bed. A member of St. James's Vestry said 
 he knew of a case where one room was let for £1 a week, and twelve 
 people lived and slept in that one room. In Camberwell no fewer 
 than seventeen persons had been found living and sleeping in one 
 room ; and in some cases two families in one room, a sack being used 
 as a partition between them. In the East end there were many 
 very worse cases, because in many parts beds were let out on the 
 eight-hour system, — one person occupying a bed by day and another 
 person occupying the same bed by night. 
 
 The Rev. Hugh Price Hughes once said that near where he was 
 preaching (St. James's Hall) there was a house occupied by 43 
 persons. In one room was a man, his wife, and eight children ; in 
 another, a man, his wife, and seven children, the eldest son being 
 married and living with his parents. 
 
 Similar conditions exist now in London, where they are not 
 prevented by the enforcement of the law, in spite of the fact that 
 there are thousands of houses to let at rents much lower than those 
 slum houses are let at : 
 
 On June 21, 1912, at Marylebone Police Court, diiring the hearing 
 of a prosecution by the Paddington Borough Council, under the Housing 
 and Town Planning Act, 1909, it appeared that there were 35 children 
 and 12 adults occupying a nine-room house at 17 Desborough Street, 
 off the Harrow Road. 
 
 The house was described by Dr. R. Dudfield, the Medical Ofiicer of 
 Health, as being unfit for human habitation, and five of the tenants 
 were summoned for failing to quit after a closing order had been made. 
 These five stated that between them they had 29 children, and Mr. 
 Wingfield, sanitary inspector, pointed out that another tenant had now 
 gone there with sis children. This made a total, with the parents of 
 the children, of 47 persons, occupying nine rooms, three of which were 
 said to be little box-rooms. 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 447 
 
 Mr. Paul Taylor made an order on the defendants to quit the house 
 within 14 days. 
 
 The Permission of Overcrowding 
 
 The owners of these houses allow this condition of things because 
 it pays them : they get high rents. In the case just mentioned, 
 when there were already 37 persons in this nine-roomed house, 
 the landlord took in another tenant — a man and his wife and six 
 children ! The occupants put up with the overcrowding and the 
 dilapidated condition of the houses because the cost to them per 
 person is low. The cost to them is low per person, though usually 
 high per room, because they are permitted to overcrowd. If the 
 occupants of these slumswent to houses in better condition elsewhere 
 the rent per house and per room would often be less, but as they 
 would not be allowed to overcrowd as they do now, and would there- 
 fore have to take more rooms than they now have, the total cost to 
 them would be greater. Another feature is that there are a large 
 number of people whose character, habits, and mode of life are such 
 that owners of decent property will not have them as tenants at any 
 price. They can only get into slums where they can scarcely make 
 the property worse than it is, and where the neighbours cannot 
 efEectually complain. The erection of better dwellings on the sites 
 of present slum areas would not house this section of the slum popula- 
 tion. They would not go into them and they would not be admitted. 
 They will herd together in the lowest priced rooms in which they are 
 allowed so to crowd that the cost per person will be small. The 
 result is that they house themselves at a cost per family which cannot 
 be competed with in much cheaper houses, if overcrowding is not 
 permitted. If the land were to be had for nothing the houses built 
 on it, if decently occupied, could not compete, in cost to the occu- 
 pants, with these overcrowded slum houses. The permission of 
 overcrowding is the cause of the trouble, and the stern repression 
 of it, and the enforcement of soimd and sanitary conditions in the 
 houses, in addition to the provision of adequate facilities for transit 
 to the outer ring, is the key to the solution of the problem. 
 
 Houses Available 
 
 In most urban centres the overcrowding is not caused by lack 
 of houses. There are some cases of towns in which there is a shortage 
 of houses, but they are exceptional. The four towns in which there 
 is the most overcrowding in England are Gateshead, South Shields, 
 Sunderland, and Newcastle-on-Tjrne. In those towns the numbers 
 
448 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 of uninhabited separate dwellings when the census was taken in 
 1911 was : 
 
 Uninhabited. 
 Gateshead . 3780 
 
 South Shields . 793 
 
 Sunderland . . 1510 
 
 Newcastle .... 3749 
 
 Newcastle and Gateshead are practically one residential area — 
 only the river separates them. One-third of their population lives 
 more than two in a room, and yet there were 7529 uniahabited 
 dwellings in 1911. 
 
 In Glasgow, where overcrowding is notorious, there were 25,753 
 uninhabited dwellings in 1911. In Edinburgh and Leith there were 
 7991 iminhabited dwellings. In London there were 52,431 unin- 
 habited dwellings ; in Birmingham, 11,313 ; in Liverpool, 10,498 ; 
 and in Manchester and Salford, 11,128.^ 
 
 The London County Coxmcil found that in the vicinity of the 
 Tabard Street slum area, which it was about to clear and in which 
 4552 persons lived, there were 5977 empty rooms to let. These 
 rooms were better and in better conditions than those which were 
 occupied in the slum area. It was clear, therefore, that the reason 
 why people were in the slums was not that there were not other and 
 better dwellings available in the neighbourhood. 
 
 Municipal Dwellings 
 
 There are few subjects about which more uninformed nonsense 
 is talked and more pubHc money has been wasted than the clearing 
 of slums and the erection of dwellings on the sites by municipal 
 authorities. In connection with the construction of the Blackwall 
 Tunnel by the London County Council, 1210 persons were displaced. 
 Housing accommodation close by was provided for 1104 persons. 
 Only 9 of the original occupants went into the new dwellings. 
 In the great clearing and building scheme of the same authority 
 in the Boundary Street area, only 11 out of 5719, and in the Falcon 
 Court Scheme only 40 out of 800 of the original inhabitants went 
 into the new dwellings. The slum dwellers went elsewhere and 
 created other slums. That is the almost invariable experience. If 
 taxing land values did encourage building in outside districts, slum 
 dwellers would still not go there for the same reasons that they do 
 not go there now. Kents outside are less now than they are in the 
 slums. If suburban areas were covered with houses that would not 
 1 Cd. 6955 of 1913, p. 320, etc. 
 
cH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 449 
 
 take the slum dweller out there. Either he will not go or he cannot 
 go, because he cannot easily get backwards and forwards, or the 
 house-owner will not have him. None of these conditions would be 
 altered by the taxation of land values. 
 
 Access to Land 
 
 Nor does the theory that slums and overcrowding are due to a 
 lack of access to the land in agricultural districts really supply a 
 sound explanation and a correct diagnosis of the slum problem. 
 Twenty-five years ago in the United States, when the Homestead 
 Laws were in force, and any one could have a free gift of 160 acres 
 of land if he would settle on it and cultivate it, the deplorable over- 
 crowding and insanitary conditions of the industrial towns of New 
 England were thus described by Mr. George Gunton, the economist : 
 
 The pest breeding and moraUy degradLag conditions of the homes, 
 and the social hfe of the great mass of labouring population ia our 
 industrial centres almost beggars description. 
 
 My vocabulary is whoUy inadequate to describe the condition of 
 the tenement houses I have seen ia the factory centres in New England. 
 
 In a single building in the town of W thirty-two feet long, 
 
 twenty feet wide, three stories high, with attics, there habitually exists 
 tliirty-nine people of aU ages. For their use there is one pump, and 
 one privy within twenty feet of each other, with the several sink spouts 
 discharging upon the ground near by. 
 
 Slum houses pay the owner (1) because he gets a fuU rent, (2) 
 because he spends little in repairs and decorations, (3) because he 
 buys them at a comparatively low price, as few people care to manage 
 or be identified with them. Apart from, and in addition to the 
 improvement of the social, moral, and economic condition of the 
 people, far more will be done in the direction of abohshing slums by 
 compelling the owners to keep them in sound repair, and in decently 
 clean and sanitary condition, and in strictly prohibiting and sternly 
 preventing overcrowding, and taking advantage of every oppor- 
 timity for increasing the facilities for travelling cheaply to and 
 from outlying districts, so as to make it easier for the people to live 
 elsewhere, than by any system of taxing land values. When all 
 that can be done has been done in these directions there wiU remain 
 the crux of a large portion of the problem— namely that there are, 
 on the one hand, a number of people so unfortunately circumstanced 
 that they cannot pay a commercial rent for a decent dweUing ; and, 
 on the other, there are those who will not pay such a rent so long 
 
 2g 
 
450 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.ix 
 
 as they can avoid it by herding in places which cost them less. 
 Taxing land values would do nothing whatever to solve that part 
 of the problem. 
 
 The Price of Building Land 
 
 Reference has already been made to the small extent to which 
 the price of land bears upon the housing question, and the extremely 
 small difference it would make if land were reduced somewhat in 
 price by levying a special tax upon it. A further illustration of this 
 may be given. The London Coimty Coimcil bought 225 acres of 
 land at Tottenham for a housing scheme at £400 an acre. It was 
 proposed to house 42,500 people at an estimated cost of £1,530,858, 
 of which the cost of the land was £90,000. The annual cost of the 
 land at 4 per cent would be £3600, which would be equal to Is. 8d. 
 per year or 0-385d. per week per person housed. That would be 
 equivalent to If d. per week per family. That is to say, the difference 
 it would have made in the rent of the houses per family, if the land 
 had been obtained for nothing, would have been, say, 2d. per week. 
 
 Last year (August 1912) Sir Arthur Boscawen, M.P., who is 
 also a member of the London County Council, writing to the Times, 
 said : 
 
 The London Ooimty Coiuicil have lately been engaged ia developing 
 four large suburban estates at Totterdown Fields, Norbmry, Tottenham, 
 and Old Oak Common. The rents of the cottages vary according to 
 their size, situation, etc. ; but in the case of Totterdown Fields the 
 average weekly rent of rooms is 2s. 6d., of which only Ifd. represents 
 the costs of the land — i.e. the interest on the money borrowed to buy 
 the land, and the sinking fund. In the case of Norbury land represents 
 just over Id. per room per week, and in the case of Tottenham a little 
 under IJd. The Old Oak Common case is even more remarkable : it 
 is proposed to let a number of three-room cottages at 7s. a week, of 
 which the cost of the land only accounts for 2Jd., or 2-67 per cent ! 
 In other words, if the land cost nothing at all, and no land-taxer surely 
 can promise more than that — ^the rents could only be reduced by 2Jd. 
 a week. 
 
 It will be noticed that the weekly payment here attributed to the 
 cost of the land includes the provision of a sinking fund to pay off 
 the capital outlay. 
 
 We may therefore dismiss the idea that any contribution 
 whatever would be made towards the solution of the slum or the 
 housing problem by taxing land values with a view to making land 
 cheaper for building purposes. In the first place, it is doubtful 
 
CH. IV TAXING LAND VALUES 451 
 
 whether the result would be a lowering of the price of building land to 
 any appreciable extent ; and in the second place even a far greater 
 lowering of price than could possibly take place — ^indeed the wiping 
 out of the price altogether — would make only an infinitesimal 
 difierence, if any, in the rent of the houses. 
 
CHAPTER V 
 
 SOME AKGUMENTS AND ILLUSTBATIONS EXAMINED 
 
 The next contention is that it is the levying of the rates upon the 
 building that makes houses dear, depresses the building trade, 
 creates the housing problem and causes overcrowding and unem- 
 ployment. 
 
 A leaflet of the United Committee for the Taxation of Land 
 Values gives as one answer to the question, " Why is the building 
 trade so stagnant and so many men in the trade unemployed ? " 
 the statement — " Because our systems of rating and taxation tend 
 to minimise his chance of profit by penalising him in proportion as 
 he is industrious and enterprising." 
 
 Another publication of the same Committee, entitled " Land 
 Values — Points for Speakers," says : " Land is withheld from use 
 because rates are only levied when it is occupied by buildings. 
 Vacant land pays no rates. Its owner loses nothing by keeping it 
 idle, however high its value may be." 
 
 Do Rates increase the Cost of Houses ? 
 
 Mr. C. P. Trevelyan, M.P., in an article entitled " Land Value 
 Taxation and the Use of Land," in the Economic Journal, March 
 1907, said : 
 
 An enterprising builder wants to put up a new row of houses by the 
 new tram-line ; he has to calculate that, besides recoupiag himself for 
 the cost of labour, of material and of the land, he wUl have to consider 
 whether there will be tenants who can afford to pay half the whole 
 annual value of the house in rates every year. So, necessarily, he 
 decides to erect houses of half the value and comfort which he would 
 otherwise build, in order that the wage and salary of the tenant may 
 cover the rate. 
 
 We tax houses at the rate of half their aimual value. Houses, 
 therefore, become more expensive : good houses are out of the reach 
 
 452 
 
CH. V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 453 
 
 of more people ; the poorest are starved in house-room — ^that is to say, 
 they are overcrowded. 
 
 Dealing with the statement that there are thousands of empty 
 houses in most cities, he says, " The chief reason is in our blimdering 
 rating system. The rents asked are out of the reach of the popula- 
 tion who need the houses, because of the excessive local burdens 
 upon all buildings." 
 
 Let us see how much substance there is in this contention and 
 what the effect would really be of taking the rates off buildings and 
 putting them on land. » 
 
 First, as to the assertion that rates penalise the builder in pro- 
 portion as he is industrious and enterprising. They do not. He 
 does not pay the rates. The burden of them does not fall upon him. 
 He only builds houses when they show a commercial return upon his 
 " industry and enterprise." Wherever the burden of the rates falls 
 it does not fall on him. 
 
 Second, as to Mr. Trevelyan's idea that the rates increase the 
 cost of houses by one-half and that, consequently, houses are only 
 half as good for the money as they otherwise would be. Passing 
 by the confusion in this calculation, it is certainly incorrect to assume 
 that houses are increased in cost by one-half by the rates. As we 
 have already shown, the whole of the differential rates come off the 
 price paid for the land. If they were abolished, the house and land 
 would fetch the same rent as they do now. The only difference 
 would be that the land would be increased in value and price by that 
 amount. Those rates are a burden on the land-owner and not on 
 the builder or the occupier, and the idea that because of them 
 " houses become more expensive ; good houses are out of the reach 
 of more of the people ; the poorest are starved in house-room " is 
 an error and a delusion. With regard to those rates which are 
 beneficial, those for which the occupier gets full value for what he 
 pays, they are not a burden : they are a commercial transaction : 
 they represent the supply to him of services which would cost him 
 as much and probably more if he had to provide them for himself. 
 If those rates were transferred to something or some one else he would 
 gain nothing. The house and the services would be worth to him 
 as much as they are now, and he would have to pay the same amount 
 for them. Now he pays it partly in rent and partly in rates. So 
 far as those rates were reduced, he would pay it in extra rent. That 
 extra rent would represent an increase in the value of the land, and 
 the land-owner would reap the benefit. In so far as that was counter- 
 
454 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 balanced by levying a special rate on the value of the land, the 
 transaction would be equivalent to, and no more profitable to any- 
 body than, giving change for a shilling. 
 
 The Fundamental Misapprehension 
 
 The cause of all this error and confusion of thought — super- 
 ficially plausible as it is — ^is failure to appreciate and understand 
 the fundamental conditions which determine the price of land and 
 the rent of houses. The price of land — ^its rent or its selling value — 
 Uke the price of everything, depends on supply and demand. It 
 represents the point at which two converging interests meet. There 
 the desire and will of the seller or landlord concur with the desire 
 and will of the buyer or tenant. The one wishes to give as little as 
 possible : the other wishes to get as much as he can. The higgle 
 of the market brings these desires to a balance. 
 
 The mere wish of one of the parties to get more, or of the other 
 to give less will not affect the price. Nothing will do that but a 
 decrease or an increase in the supply or demand. An increase or 
 decrease in the rates will not affect the supply of land or houses, nor 
 will it increase or decrease the demand for them. It will not affect 
 the total price the occupier will have to pay in rent and rates com- 
 bined. It will only affect the proportion of that total price that 
 will go to the community and to the landlord respectively. 
 
 The value of a piece of land — ^the price to which demand is 
 prepared to go — depends on the net result that can be obtained from 
 the use of it. If it be agricultural land, its value will depend on the 
 price that can be obtained for the produce, and the cost that will 
 have to be incurred in order to obtain that produce. If it be building- 
 land, the position is precisely the same. The value of the land will 
 depend on the rent that can be obtained for the property, less the 
 cost of obtaining that rent. If building be cheaper or rates be lower, 
 other things being equal, the price of the land will be higher and vice 
 versa. 
 
 The value of land — the price paid for it to rent or purchase — 
 does not rise or fall as the community takes a larger or smaller portion 
 of it in rates or taxes, any more than it is affected by the fact that 
 there are mortgages or other charges upon it. The total value of 
 the land is the same whatever the rates or other charges upon it are. 
 What those rates or other charges do is to diminish the net amount 
 of the total value that will remain to the owner, and consequently 
 they affect the price which a purchaser will pay for it, because its 
 
cH.v ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 455 
 
 total value is subject to those deductions ; but they do not diminish 
 or increase that total value. 
 
 Two Interesting Cases 
 
 The truth of this was curiously illustrated some years ago by 
 Mr. B. F. C. Costelloe, who was one of the ablest advocates of the 
 taxation of site values, when the London County Council was much 
 more obsessed with that idea than it is now. In a pamphlet which 
 he wrote on The Incidence of Taxation, there was a passage in which 
 he was showing how public improvements benefit site-owners. 
 Eeferring to the construction of the Tower Bridge and the creation 
 of another great thoroughfare in connection with it, on the south side 
 of the river, which was then in progress, he said that it would open 
 up an improved and cheaper traffic route from certain great goods 
 stations where there were large depots of building materials, and he 
 added, " The result is, as the experts in the matter teU us, that the 
 opening of the new street wiU, in fact, cheapen new houses, and by 
 so much increase the value of building sites in many parts of London 
 north of the River." 
 
 Clearly, this contention that cheapening buildings increases the 
 value of the site involves the admission that it does not lower the 
 rent of the house, and that the price of the house is determined by 
 considerations other than the cost of the building. If you reduce 
 the cost of building houses site values go up. The same result 
 follows if you reduce rates. In 1878 the |d. toll over Waterloo 
 Bridge was abolished. A number of people employed on the north 
 side of the river at Covent Garden, the Strand theatres, etc., lived in 
 the small houses across the bridge. When the toll was abohshed 
 the rents of these houses were raised. The increased rent meant 
 increased site value. The value of the houses to occupiers was 
 settled by other considerations, and they remained unaltered. 
 Prior to the abolition of the toll. part of the value of the houses to 
 the occupiers was paid in rent to the owners and part in toll to cross 
 the bridge to get to them. When the toll was abohshed the owners 
 were able to annex that part of the value of their houses. 
 
 The Offered Gift of Land at Edmonton 
 
 An interesting case, which is supposed by some people to 
 demonstrate the effect of rates on housing, was given by Mr. Edgar 
 Harper, then of the London Covmty Council, now Chief Valuer at 
 Somerset House, in his evidence before the Committee of the House 
 
456 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 of Commons on the Taxation of Land Values (Scotland) Bill, 1906. 
 He said : 
 
 In 1901 Sii Samuel Montagu, Bart., M.P., offered to the London 
 County Council, as a free gift, an estate of about twenty-five acres at 
 Edmonton, to be devoted to the erection of dwellings for the working 
 class. The Council's Standing Orders prohibit the carrying-out of 
 building schemes unless there is a reasonable prospect that the rent 
 received will cover all expenses, iucludiug interest and siakiag fund, 
 to liquidate the capital outlay. The poUcy of the Council has always 
 been to avoid throwing any charge upon the rates in connection with 
 their dwellings. After very careful calculations the Council were most 
 reluctantly compelled to decline the gift, because the development of the 
 estate, notwithstanding the exclusion of land value from the question, 
 would have thrown upon the London rates a charge of over £700 per 
 annum. The largest estimated item of outgoing was one of £2000 in 
 respect of rates. Had these been calculated according to land value 
 oidy, this item would have been reduced by more than one-half, and 
 the estimated deficiency would have been converted into a surplus. 
 But imder the existing system houses could not be erected upon this 
 land on a remunerative basis. 
 
 The first point to be noted about this incident is the striking 
 confirmation which it gives to our contention that the price of the 
 land is comparatively a small matter. Here the land was to be 
 given : it was to cost the Council nothing ; but that did not suffice 
 to make the housing scheme a practicable one. 
 
 The contention about the rates involves the same old fallacy 
 that we have already disposed of more than once. If this land had 
 been such that houses on it would be free from rates, it would have 
 fetched a much higher price when it was sold, a price increased 
 by the capital value of the rates of which it was relieved. The 
 fact that in this case the land was given makes the instance a 
 special one and deprives it of all value as an illustration of general 
 application. 
 
 Mr. Hemmerde, M.P., and the Hanley Case 
 
 Here is another instance of which a good deal was heard last 
 year (1912). It is stated thus by Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., M.P. : 
 
 In a recent by-election, the following facts caused considerable 
 comment. In a quarter of the town of Hanley forty cottages were 
 built to the acre upon land valued at £1000 per acre. To each cottage 
 there was thus assigned £25 land value, and upon each plot was erected 
 a cottage costing, roughly, £175. The value of land and cottage was 
 £200. The rents were fixed at £12 a year. The rateable value was £10. 
 
CH. V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 457 
 
 The rates were lis. 3d. in the £. The rates on each cottage were thus 
 £5 : 12 : 6 a year, or more than 2s. a week. The occupants of these 
 cottages often had little more than £1 a week. The burden of rates 
 thus became an income tax of more than 2s. in the £ upon the poorest 
 of the people. If the third part of these rates were removed by means 
 of a land values tax, for rates of £1 : 17 : 6 would be substituted a 
 tax of 2s. Id. If the whole rates were levied upon a land value basis, 
 the rates upon these cottages would be 6s. 3d., instead of £5 : 17 : 6. 
 This is a very common case.^ 
 
 The fallacy is the same as before. Taking these figures as they 
 stand — their accuracy or otherwise is immaterial to the argument — 
 they show that the occupants of these houses pay £17 : 12 : 6 a year 
 for them. They pay that sum because the higgle of the market, 
 adjusting demand and supply, fixes that amount as their value. It 
 is worth the occupier's while to pay it ; the owner is unwilling to 
 take less, and the conditions of the demand for and the supply of 
 houses do not compel him to do so. The total cost of £17 : 12 : 6 
 a year is the point at which the two pressures meet and become 
 equal. We have seen that the rates, representing £5 : 12 : 6, have 
 nothing to do with the fixing of the total value. They only concern 
 and affect the disposition of the total value when it has been arrived 
 at. The total amount that can be got and is got for the occupation 
 of the houses is £17 : 12 : 6. If the rates were divided by one- 
 half, or if there were no rates at all, the total value of these houses 
 to the occupiers would be the same as it is now ; the conditions of 
 demand and supply would remain the same ; consequently, the 
 total amount obtained and paid for their occupation would be the 
 same as it now is. That is to say, the occupiers would have to pay 
 £17 : 12 : 6 for them and the owners would not take less, because 
 they would be able to get that sum. 
 
 Why do not the occupiers of these cottages go farther afield, 
 where land could be got at say £250 an acre — one-fourth of the 
 price — and where the rates would probably be 6s. or 7s. in the £ ? 
 If there were a permanent remunerative demand for such cottages, 
 in such districts, they would speedily be provided. They do not 
 go because there would be difficulties, loss of time and expenditure 
 of energy or money in transit, in connection therewith, as well as the 
 loss of the attractions of town life. In a word, they remain where 
 they are and pay £17 : 12 : 6 for their houses because it is worth their 
 while and they conceive it to be the best they can do. Those 
 considerations would remain precisely the same, and would have 
 1 Letter to TU Nation, Nov. 16, 1912. 
 
458 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 exactly the same force if there were no rates and the whole of the 
 £17 : 12 : 6 had to be paid to the landlord instead of being paid, 
 as now, part to the landlord and part to the rate-collector. The 
 removal of those rates, or any part of them, would be a clean gift 
 to the land-owner, less the special new land tax which was levied 
 upon him in respect of the property. The greater part of those 
 rates which are onerous and the whole of those which are differential 
 fall upon him now and reduce the price he would otherwise get for 
 his land. The beneficial rates fall upon the occupier now. If they 
 were reduced or removed, the landlord would be able to exact an 
 equivalent amount more in rent because the services which they 
 provide, and which are worth the money to the tenant, would 
 continue. The taxation of land values would be an utter fiasco 
 as a device for reducing the cost of their houses to the people of 
 Hanley. 
 
 Another View 
 
 In fact, Mr. Hemmerde realises at times what the true position 
 is. What he fails to perceive is that the true position, as he some- 
 times sees and states it, completely demolishes the house of cards 
 which at other times he laboriously builds up, in such passages as the 
 one which we have quoted above, when he tries to make out that the 
 transfer of a large portion of the rates from the whole premises to 
 the land value only woidd relieve the occupier of the amount so 
 transferred. 
 
 Here is a passage from a letter of his which appeared in The 
 Nation, October 26, 1912, only three weeks before the one from 
 which we have just quoted : 
 
 AH economists are agreed that grants from the Exchequer in 
 relief of rates are nothing but a bonus to the land-owners. They fix 
 their rent in the full knowledge that certain burdens called rates fall 
 upon the tenants. Remove these rates and the rent wiU be raised. 
 This is not only economic theory ; in the case of the Agricultural 
 Rating Act it is abeady an accomplished fact. The only way to prevent 
 this is, when you have removed the rates, or a portion of them, 
 to pay for the services originally charged upon; these' Tates out of a 
 tax on land values. It being clear that any payment by the Exchequer 
 in relief of rates must be a bonus to land-owners, the only wayto counter- 
 act this further endowment of landlordism is to follow and reappropriate 
 the bonus by means of a tax. It is obvious that a scheme which would 
 take away about one-third of the rates and tax the ground landlords, 
 who have hitherto escaped, would be not only a great relief to ratepayers, 
 but an act of moderate and even-handed justice. A system by which 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 459 
 
 the present rates, in their ultimate incidence admittedly a burden upon 
 land in that their existence restrains the landlord from exacting the 
 rent which their non-existence would render possible, should be paid 
 for out of the pockets of the general tax-payers means simply the 
 further endowment of landlordism. 
 
 Here he asserts that the rates come off the rent : they prevent 
 the landlord from getting the rent he otherwise would. " Eemove 
 these rates and rent will be raised." " The ultimate incidence of 
 the present rates is admittedly a bmrden upon land." " Eelief of 
 rates must be a bonus to land-owners." It " means simply the 
 further endowment of landlordism," or as he put it in the previous 
 letter from which we quoted : " The existence of rates reduces 
 rent." He makes this fact his plea for putting a special tax on 
 land values — " The only way to coimteract this further endowment 
 of landlordism is to follow and reappropriate the bonus by means 
 of a tax." This, he says, would be " but an act of moderate and 
 even-handed justice." 
 
 Put plainly, what this amounts to is this. The rates come off 
 the rent. The rent would be that amount higher were the rates 
 removed. The ultimate incidence of the rates is on the land-owner : 
 they are a burden on the land. Therefore rates are now borne by 
 the land-owner. Consequently, any relief of the rates, any reduction 
 of them win benefit the land-owner and be a bonus to and an en- 
 dowment of him. Justice, therefore, requires that this bonus 
 should be counteracted and reappropriated by levying upon the 
 land-owners a tax equivalent to the reduction in the rates. 
 
 Hopeless Inconsistency 
 
 This being so, it is perfectly clear that all the rigmarole about 
 " the facts " which " caused considerable comment " at the Hanley 
 election was the purest political fustian. As Mr. Hemmerde pointed 
 out on October 26, 1912, that the removal or a reduction of the 
 rates would be a bonus to the landlord, it was useless and hopeless 
 for him to contend on November 16 of the same year that it would 
 be a relief to the tenant. On the one date he contends that if the 
 rates are reduced the rent will go up. On the other, his view is that 
 the rent would not go up but the rates would go down. Both 
 contentions cannot be sound. Either the bait dangled before the 
 electors of Hanley, that the reduction in the rates would go into 
 their pockets, was a piece of electioneering deception, or the con- 
 tention that the tax should be put on the land-owner, because the 
 
46o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. .x 
 
 reduction in the rates would go into his pocket as a bonus to him, 
 was fallacious. We have already shown which is the accurate 
 view. 
 
 Nor does the inconsistency end there. It will doubtless have 
 been noticed that in his letter of October 26, 1912, Mr. Hemmerde 
 puts forward two entirely contradictory and diametrically opposed 
 contentions. On the one hand, he says, " Remove these rates and 
 the rent will be raised," and that the rates are " admittedly a burden 
 upon land," and then a few lines farther on he speaks of taxing 
 " the ground landlords who have hitherto escaped " ! How do 
 they " escape " if the rates are " admittedly a burden upon land " 
 and " relief of rates must be a bonus to land-owners " ? 
 
 Is Land to be Cheaper or Dearer or what ? 
 
 It will be remembered that one of the contentions of land taxers, 
 upon which they lay great stress, is that these taxes will make land 
 cheaper. Indeed, it is upon this result of their proposal that they 
 base most of their anticipations of benefit to the community. It is, 
 therefore, interesting to note that some of the abler advocates of 
 the proposal who have endeavoured to support and justify it by 
 substantial and sustained argument thrown into the form of a book, 
 while laying stress on the cheaper land phase in one part of their 
 volumes, are found arguing in other parts that the real and ultimate 
 effect of the taxes will be to increase the price of land ! Here is 
 what they say : 
 
 As the present taxes upon industry are one by one repealed, the 
 benefit would soon show itself in increased value of the land. — Edwin 
 Adam, Land Values and Taxation, p. 166. 
 
 The repeal of the unjust tax will add to the value of land out of 
 which the new tax is to be demanded. Only such owners as are refusing 
 to use their land fully wiU suffer from the change. The new rate will 
 bear more Ughtly than the old on aU land at present put to its average 
 market use. — Edwin Adam, Land Values and Taxation, p. 168. 
 
 The proposal to substitute a tax on land values for all the present 
 taxes is simply a proposal to substitute a direct tax on land values 
 for indirect taxes on land values, and in doing so to avoid the indefinite 
 loss incurred by every class through the indirect method.— John Orr, 
 Taxation of Land Values, p. 16. 
 
 With the repeal of all existing rates and taxes, and with the sub- 
 stitution of one rate and one tax directly on land values, economic 
 rent will rise. — John Orr, Taxation of Land Values, p. 101. 
 
 In Wellington, New Zealand, the rates on improvements were 
 
cH.v ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 461 
 
 repealed in 1901, and a rate on land values alone was substituted. The 
 general expectation was that such a sweeping measure would certainly 
 reduce the value of land, particularly in the centre of the city. Three 
 or four years afterwards reports to the contrary effect came home. — 
 John Orr, Taxation of Land Values, p. 19. 
 
 These Colonial experiments have been thorough enough to furnish 
 tests of theories which have been widely held. It was generally assumed 
 that a direct tax on what is caUed land value would diminish this value. 
 This has never happened. Those who held this view overlooked the 
 effect of remitting the existing indirect taxes on land value. The 
 remission of the latter has been the cause of an increase greater than 
 the reduction due to the imposition of the former. — John Orr, Taxation 
 oj Land Values, p. 24. 
 
 The new method of rating will not deduct anything from land value. 
 The present rates are a charge on land value, and the new rates wiU be 
 a substitution for the present charge. In point of fact, the new rate 
 wiU be a smaller charge than the old one, so that, strictly speaking, the 
 change in the method of laying rates wiU add something to the value 
 of the land. — Harold Storey, The Economics of Land Value, p. 74. 
 
 Thus far we have three methods before us : the small constant 
 tax ; the small tax remaining unchanged on present values, with the 
 whole of future increments claimed for the State ; and a gradually 
 increasing tax that wiU ultimately absorb aU the unimproved value of 
 the land. . . . What I want to bring into the acutest possible 
 emphasis is the fact that in all three cases alike . . . there wiU be a 
 continuous and progressive rise of land values after the Short Period 
 is passed. ... In the Long Period, even though the tax may absorb 
 the whole of the land value, the prices and rents of land will rise. — 
 Harold Storey, The Economics of Land Value, p. 78. 
 
 Plain men will be tempted to ask these gentlemen — " What is 
 it, you think, would really happen ? Would land be cheaper or 
 dearer, or would there be no difference ? Should we be relieved 
 of rates, or should we still pay them in the form of increased rent ? 
 By what legerdemain are houses to be cheaper and occupiers' rents 
 reduced, and at the same time the value of land to be increased ? " 
 
 Further Confusion and Contradiction 
 
 The extraordinary confusion of thought and inconsistency of 
 statement and argument in which many advocates of taxes on land 
 values involve themselves is also amusingly illustrated in a series 
 of articles which appeared in the Daily Chronicle in the closing 
 months of 1908 and the early part of 1909, and were afterwards 
 reprinted in a pamphlet entitled, A Penny Tax on Land Values. 
 The following comparison of extracts will furnish an example : 
 
462 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 And this brings uB to another 
 argument in support of the tax. 
 So far from being a " special " 
 tax, it will reach aU members of 
 the community. All must make 
 use of land for their existence, 
 and for the production and ex- 
 change of wealth. . . . Now, by 
 taxing a value which aU assist 
 in producing, we secure some 
 contribution from everybody ; 
 and this contribution will, " ex 
 hypothesi," be proportionate to 
 the value of land used or enjoyed 
 by each. Could there be a fairer 
 basis of taxation ? (p. 8). 
 
 Values which are produced and 
 maintained by the presence, 
 activity, and expenditure of the 
 whole population are without 
 doubt the most suitable subjects 
 for taxation ; and of such values 
 that of land is by far the most 
 important. A tax upon land 
 values must, for this reason, 
 reach every member of the com- 
 munity (p. 12). 
 
 Here we have a writer — not a reckless speaker on a platform — 
 calmly and deliberately enunciating — ^not in a hurried newspaper 
 article, but in a carefully revised and selected reprint — ^the most 
 diametrically opposed theories and statements. On the one hand, 
 he tells us that a tax on land values would " secure a contribution 
 from every citizen," and on the other, he assures us that " the land- 
 owner will be unable to shift any part of the burden," and " has to 
 bear the burden of the tax himself." 
 
 All economists of repute — from 
 Adam Smith to Professor Alfred 
 Marshall — are unanimous in the 
 opinion that a tax on rent — ^the 
 value of land — must fall wholly 
 on the receiver of rent — ^viz. the 
 land-owner, and that he will be 
 unable to shift any part of the 
 burden on to any class of con- 
 sumers (p. 15). 
 
 The land-owner has to bear the 
 burden of the tax himself (p. 15). 
 
 The plain fact is that owners 
 cannot raise rents at will. They 
 can only do so when the actual 
 rent paid is less than the full 
 value — and then only when the 
 tenancy or lease runs out. Eent 
 is fixed according to the law of 
 supply and demand, not by the 
 will of the owner (p. 15). 
 
 Another Instance 
 
 Mr. Harold Storey, in his Economics of Land Value, is similarly 
 inconsistent and contradictory, as the following extracts show : 
 
 There is an element of rent 
 in everything that a man purchases 
 and consumes. The industry of 
 the community produces a 
 certain mass of wealth or goods ; 
 
 Food, clothing, and machines 
 are supplied at a minimum charge ; 
 the producer receives the minimum 
 advantage out of the transaction. 
 Thus a tax on these articles can- 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 463 
 
 the final price at which the goods not be borne by the producer, 
 are purchased includes the rent and must needs be paid by the 
 of aU the lands that have been consumer who has been reaping 
 occupied in producing them and the maximum advantage. On the 
 bringing them to market ; and other hand, land is supplied at 
 therefore under this system of a maximum charge. It is the 
 taxation some fraction of every owner who obtains the maximum 
 unit in the mass of material wealth advantage. In this case, there- 
 would pass into the national fore, the tax cannot fall on the 
 exchequer in the form of land user of the land, who is receiving 
 value. Thus in every purchase the minimum advantage out of 
 that a man made, no less than the transaction. It will faU on the 
 in the specific rent for his own owner, who has already gained aU 
 occupation of land, he would be that can be won in the bargain 
 paying his tax to the State (p. 91). (p. 45). 
 
 It is certain that a tax on land 
 value will draw some contribution 
 from everybody (p. 91). 
 
 An Ingenious but Specious Argument 
 
 In a statement of " Our Principles and Policy " by Mr. Crompton 
 Llewelyn Davies, Joint Secretary of the United Committee for the 
 Taxation of Land Values, an argument is put forward which deserves 
 notice. It is that as the rent of land is the difference in productive- 
 ness between any given piece of land and the least productive land 
 in use, and as the return for individual exertions depends on the 
 result that could be obtained if those exertions were applied on the 
 margin of cultivation, anything which lowers that margia and 
 compels people to have recourse to the less productive pieces of 
 land decreases the return for individual exertions there and con- 
 sequently generally. AU the more productive land is not now 
 used to the full. People are therefore driven to use the less pro- 
 ductive and " rent — ^the difference in productiveness between any 
 given piece of land and the least productive land in use — is in 
 general increased beyond what is necessary or right, and the return 
 to the individual's exertions is in general decreased correspondingly." 
 " The Taxation of Land Values would discourage such unproductive 
 retention, and if applied universally so as to absorb the whole of 
 economic rent, would make it impossible." Under present con- 
 ditions, the necessary and unjust lowering of the margin of cultiva- 
 tion vmduly increases the rent and purchase price of land, and 
 diminishes the legitimate reward of industry. 
 
 This apparently plausible contention is fallacious because it 
 
464 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 assumes that recourse is had to the inferior land in this country 
 which is now cultivated because full use is not made of the better 
 land, and people are therefore driven to the least productive pieces. 
 That means that if the better land were fully cultivated it would 
 not be necessary to use, and we should not use, the most inferior 
 land, and that the margin of cultivation would thereby be raised, 
 with the result that the rent of land would be lowered and the reward 
 of industry would be increased. But is it the fact that the inferior 
 land here which is now cultivated would cease to be cultivated ? 
 At other times it is the contention of the land taxers that the result 
 of the adoption of their policy would be that vast areas of land 
 which is now largely moor and waste — ^and is certainly not land of 
 good quality — would be brought into cultivation. If that were so, 
 the margin of cultivation would be lowered rather than raised, and 
 if so, according to the argument we are considering, rents would be 
 raised and the reward of industry diminished. According to Mr. 
 Davies, the good that is to be obtained is to be secured by reducing 
 the amount of land imder cultivation and thereby raising the margin 
 of cultivation. The two positions are inconsistent and contra- 
 dictory, and it will no doubt be admitted that if all the good land in 
 this country which is not now cultivated were turned into farms, 
 and if the most were made of all the most productive land that is 
 already cultivated, none of the less productive land which is now 
 under cultivation would cease to be cultivated. 
 
 There would be force in Mr. Davies' contention if the soil of this 
 country now supplied the whole of the produce our people require, 
 and there were no such thing as competitive suppHes of agricultural 
 produce of all kinds coming to our shores from all quarters of the 
 globe. Neither of these conditions obtains. Economic laws are 
 not limited by political boundaries, and this country is not an iso- 
 lated economic entity. The margin of cultivation for us is not in 
 these islands at all ; but in the least favourable regions which are 
 cultivated on the boundless prairies of distant newly developed 
 lands. Whether or not, land here can be profitably cultivated, 
 and the rent which can be obtained for it and the reward in cash 
 which its cultivation will yield are determined by the price at which 
 sufficient produce to supply our requirements can be deUvered here 
 from Canada, the United States, the Argentine, Denmark, and else- 
 where. No increase or diminution in our produce here, no addition 
 to or reduction in our cultivated area, nothing that a tax on land 
 values could do in that direction would have anv effect whatever 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 465 
 
 either in reducing the rent of agricultural land or in increasing the 
 reward of industry. The rent of land and the reward of industry 
 depend too much on what is done elsewhere, and are regulated by 
 the price of produce in the world's markets. CurtaU the world's 
 supply of agricultural produce and the price of it will go up, rents 
 here will rise, and the area of cultivation here will be increased. 
 Largely and rapidly increase the world's supply, and prices will 
 go down, rents here will fall, and the area of cultivation will be 
 curtailed. 
 
 Are Rural Parishes to be relieved at the Cost of the Towns ? 
 
 An interesting point in connection with proposals for the taxa- 
 tion of land values is — Should the levies be made locally and be 
 devoted to meeting the expenditure of the locality in which they 
 were raised, or should they be levied nationally and then be allocated 
 to locaUties, not in proportion to the amount levied in each, but in 
 proportion, say, to population ? On this point a further question 
 arises — Do land values belong to the Nation, or to the MunicipaUty 
 — the local community ? What precisely is the contention ? Is it 
 the theory that the presence of the people on the spot and their 
 energy, enterprise, and expenditure have created the value ? Then 
 what have people elsewhere to do with it ? Are people in districts 
 100, 200, or 300 miles away to share the increased value given to 
 land in London, Manchester, and Glasgow by the private and public 
 expenditure and enterprise of the people there ? Are farmers in 
 Wiltshire, Sufiolk, and Lincolnshire to be reheved of the cost of 
 local expenditure by appropriating part of the values resulting in 
 London from the expenditure and enterprise of Londoners ? Are 
 municipaUties to be deprived of the results of their efforts and 
 expenditure ? This seemed to be the view of Mr. Outhwaite, M.P., 
 and Mr. Ure, M.P. Mr. Ure at Armadale (June 2, 1909) said that 
 it was a sound and safe principle of far-reaching application " that 
 the land of the country, the land as distinct from the improvements 
 made upon it — in truth belonged to the Nation. And i£ this were 
 so, that the Nation was entitled, as in the case of the hcences 
 (publicans' licences) to appropriate for public purposes a portion of 
 the value of the land." ^ This means, not that municipalities are 
 
 1 It may be noted here that the difference between the ownership of land and 
 the holding of a public house licence is great and fundamental. Prior to the 
 Licensing Act of 1904 pubHo house licences had for himdreds of years been granted 
 for one year only and had been renewed year by year for another year only at the 
 absolute discretion of the licensing authority. The licence-holder held his licence 
 
 2h 
 
466 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 entitled to tax land values because they have improved and largely 
 created them ; but that the land belongs to the Nation, and there- 
 fore the Nation is entitled to appropriate for national purposes 
 such portion of the value of the land as it requires. 
 
 Mr. Outhwaite arrives at the same conclusions; but by a different 
 method. He says : 
 
 It is only just that rural parishes should participate in the land 
 values of the cities, for the people of the countryside help to create 
 these values. Take London, for example. The people on the land 
 contribute to the maintenance of the railways, the concentration of 
 which at London creates land values. When the farmers send goods 
 over the railways for sale or receive other goods in return, they pay on 
 each occasion. In the first instance, the cost of freight is deducted 
 from the price they get, and in the second it is added to the price they 
 pay. But the ground landlords of London, as such, contribute nothing 
 to the maintenance of the railway system, and the people who maintain 
 the railways and create and maintain the value of city land have a 
 right to share in that value.^ 
 
 It would be interesting to hear the opinion of Londoners as to 
 who pays railway fares and rates. Practical experience does not 
 confirm Mr. Outhwaite's theory. It is too much like the kind of 
 thing we are accustomed to hear from Tariff Reformers. We shall, 
 however, be led far afield if we yield to the temptation to discuss this 
 development of land tax economics. Our immediate interest in the 
 extract lies in the proposal that rural districts should share in the 
 proceeds of the land tax on city land values. 
 
 Taxes on Land Values in Rural Areas 
 
 In localities where land values are small, and in some parts, if 
 the value of reclamation and improvement be properly allowed for, 
 they will be absolutely or nearly nothing, a tax on pure land value 
 would be altogether inadequate to meet local, let alone national, 
 charges, even if the whole unimproved value of that land value were 
 confiscated. In districts where the pure land value is sufficient to 
 meet local and national taxation, it would be found that making 
 
 with full knowledge that it was an annual grant and an annual tenure only, and 
 he was formally and forcibly reminded of this by the fact that he had to apply 
 each year for a renewal. That renewal could be and frequently was refused, 
 and when it was refused no compensation was paid or payable, until the Act of 
 1904 introduced an arrangement whereby the holders of Ucenoes themselves 
 provided funds to compensate those of their number who lost their Ucences for 
 reasons other than misconduct. 
 
 ' Paper read at The Fanner's Club, February 3, 1913. 
 
cH.v ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 467 
 
 the levies on land values alone would largely increase the rates on 
 agricultural land and reduce it on the towns and villages. 
 
 Certainly L£ the value on which the land tax is assessed is the 
 value of the land as it now is cleared of buildings, but not deducting 
 the cost of reclaiming, draining, fencing, and road-making, then the 
 rates on farms will be heavier than they are now. Speaking gener- 
 ally, levying all the rates on land values would mean that those 
 properties where the land was a small portion of the total value would 
 gain, and those where the land was the greater part of the total 
 value would lose. Clearly, in the case of farms, the land forms the 
 greater part of the total value of the property. 
 
 The single taxers have an inkling that this would be so, and 
 therefore, when they are in agricultural and poor districts, they 
 advocate relieving the rates of those districts by making the levies 
 national and thereby increasing them in cities and large towns. 
 What London and other large cities would say to a suggestion that 
 their rates should be increased in order that the rates elsewhere 
 might be reduced may easily be imagined. Now the outcry against 
 the rates is loudest in the largest cities, and nothing woidd induce 
 the people there to consent to extra levies being made on them to 
 help other places where the rates are for the most part already lower. 
 As a matter of practical politics, each county, city, and local govern- 
 ment area would have to stand on its own feet and bear its own 
 burdens. Under the single tax, that would mean a reduced revenue 
 in poor districts, precisely where more rather than less is needed. 
 
 FauUy Economics 
 
 A further illustration of the weakness of Land Tax economics is 
 furnished in another extract from the paper which Mr. Outhwaite 
 read at the Farmer's Club : 
 
 It wiU be said that as the rent of the land is fixed on the basis of 
 the tenant paying the rates, that on the transference of the cost'of these 
 services to the land value owner he will recoup himself when the rent 
 is fixed again. Let us see how far this argument holds good. A farm 
 is rented by A, the tenant, from B, the land-owner. A contracts to 
 pay £100 a year and £20 in rates. The rent of £100 is £50 for use of 
 landlord's improvements and £50 for use of the land. Land value and 
 improvement value are equal in this instance. In such case it may be 
 said that the £20 payable in rates falls half on annual land value and 
 half on improvement value. In consequence, if A had not contracted 
 to pay the rates he would have paid £10 a year more for the use of the 
 land, the true annual land value being £60. Consequently, were the 
 
468 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 £20 transferred from A to B, then A would be in possession of £10 a 
 year of annual land value, lie would be paying that amount a year 
 less than the true economic rent of the land. As a result, on transference 
 of £20 of rates to the landlord, £10 would be recoverable by him from 
 the tenant by economic force. The other £10 would be paid by the 
 land-owner, for he would not be able to get more than £60, the true 
 economic rent of the land, nor more than £50, the annual value of the 
 improvements, the buildings, etc. 
 
 The obvious fallacy in this argument is that it is assumed that 
 the farm is only worth £110 to A, although he pays £120 for it — 
 £100 in rent and £20 in rates. The fact is the value of the farm 
 and the services which attach to it is £120. That is what it is worth 
 to A, and it is the sum he has to pay and does pay for it. Of that 
 £120 the landlord can only get £100 as rent, because another £20 
 has to be paid in rates. If the rates were abolished, or charged 
 direct to the landlord, the farm would still be worth £120, as it is 
 now, and the tenant would still have that amoxmt to pay for it as 
 he has now ; only, there being no rates to pay out of it, he would 
 have to pay it all to the landlord, who would be able to exact the 
 full value of the property. Mr. Outhwaite's idea that only that part 
 of the rates which, he assumes, falls on the land value comes out of 
 the total value, and that the part of the rates which, he thinks, falls 
 on the buildings, etc., does not come out of the total value, is fallacious 
 and unsound. The rates as a whole are levied on the property as 
 a whole, and they are part of the cost of the farm to the tenant, 
 and unless the farm were worth that total cost (£120) to him he 
 would not take it. That £120 being the value of the farm, the land- 
 lord would get that rent for it if the tenant had no rates to pay. 
 The position would be precisely the same as if the landlord now let 
 it free of rates and paid them himself. He would then require and 
 get £120 as the rent, including rates. Farmers regard the sums 
 which they pay in rent to land-owners and in rates to the local 
 authority as one payment for the farm. The total amount which 
 they have to pay and are willing to pay in one form to-day, they 
 would have to pay and would pay under the suggested arrangement 
 to-morrow. 
 
 The Land Taxer's Dilemma 
 
 We have already shown that it is the opinion of the logical and 
 orthodox land taxers that all rates and taxes fall upon land now, 
 that the amount of rent which the owner can obtain for land, either 
 for agricultural or building purposes, is less by the amount of the 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 469 
 
 rates and taxes payable by those who occupy it than it would be 
 if there were no rates and taxes. Indeed, if they are logical and 
 consistent they must hold that -view, although some of their followers 
 appear to fail to perceive it. It is also true that those who do hold 
 this view appear to hold it intermittiagly, because when it is 
 obviously fatal to their main argument they are apt to forget or 
 ignore it entirely. However, whether they do or do not take this 
 particular view of the ultimate incidence of all rates and taxes, the 
 position in which their assertions and contentions inevitably place 
 them is perfectly plain. 
 
 Their contention is that all the results of industry, enterprise, 
 and invention in the use of the gifts of nature, after so much as is 
 necessary to maintain labour and procure capital has been deducted, 
 must go to increase rent ; that is to say, must and will be and are 
 appropriated by the owners of land. The following extracts will 
 show that this view, with them, is not a mere rhetorical phrase : 
 it is one of the fundamental propositions of their creed. 
 
 In Progress and Poverty, Henry George says : 
 
 Where land is entirely appropriated, as in England, the ultimate 
 efiect of labour-saving machinery or improvements is to increase rent 
 without increasing wages or interest (p. 173). 
 
 All I wish to make clear is that, without any increase in population, 
 the progress of invention constantly tends to give a larger and larger 
 proportion of the produce to the owners of land, and a smaller and 
 smaller proportion to labour and capital (p. 178). 
 
 Whatever be the increase of productive power, rent steadily tends 
 to swallow up the gain, and more than the gain (p. 250). 
 
 In order that there may be no mistake about it, he further says : 
 
 From the produce of the labour and capital of England are now 
 supported the burden of an immense debt, an established Church, an 
 expensive royal family, a large number of sinecurists, a great army 
 and great navy. Suppose the debt repudiated, the Church disestab- 
 Ushed, the royal family set adrift to make a living for themselves, the 
 sinecurist cut off, the army disbanded, the officers and men of the navy 
 discharged and the ships sold. An enormous reduction in taxation 
 would thus become possible. There would be a great addition to the 
 net produce which remains to be distributed among the parties to pro- 
 duction. But it would only be such an addition as improvement in 
 the arts has been for a long time constantly making, and not so great 
 an addition as steam and machinery have made within the last twenty 
 or thirty years. And as these additions have not alleviated pauperism, 
 but have only increased rent, so would this. EngUsh land-owners would 
 reap the whole benefit. — Progress mid Poverty, p. 213. 
 
470 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 Free trade has enormously increased the wealth of Great Britain, 
 without lessening pauperism. It has simply increased rent. And if 
 the corrupt governments of our great American cities were to be made 
 models of purity and economy, the effect would simply be to increase 
 the value of real estate, not to raise either wages or interest (p. 180). 
 
 Mr. Harold Storey, in The Economics of Land, Values, says : 
 
 Eent is a maximum charge upon the production of wealth. The 
 amoimt of it depends upon what people have left when they have met 
 the other necessary costs of life at the accepted standard. The land- 
 owner gets all the surplus. If the surplus grows with the development 
 and improvement of industry, he gets the new surplus also — unless 
 some means can be f oimd to force up the level of the accepted standard 
 at which people are content to live (p. 41). 
 
 If the people were content to create no less wealth, but to live on 
 half the produce at present consumed, the balance would certainly go 
 in rent (p. 83). 
 
 If the wages of all workers were increased by twenty per cent the 
 cost would ultimately fall on rent (p. 87). 
 
 Once labour and capital have received the minimum that will sufi&ce 
 to keep them afloat, there is no limit to the amount that land can 
 appropriate — except the limit of the wealth produced. It takes all 
 the rest, however much that may be (p. 40). 
 
 I am not concerned, at this point, to discuss the accuracy and 
 soundness of these assertions and contentions. I have dealt with 
 the substance of them in another part of this book. All I desire 
 to do here and now is to establish the fact that the contention of these 
 gentlemen is that all the available surplus production of the country, 
 after labour has been maintained and interest on capital has been 
 paid, must and does go to the land-owners as rent ; that competition 
 and the operation of the laws of supply and demand tend to drive 
 the remuneration of labour and capital down to the lowest point 
 at which they can possibly be obtained ; and that all improvements 
 in production, all reductions in taxation, and all material progress 
 do but increase rent and add to the value of land. 
 
 If that were true, and in so far as it is true, it must follow that 
 aU taxes and rates, all charges which diminish the surplus — ^and all 
 rates and taxes must diminish that surplus — must reduce the amount 
 which these gentlemen contend goes to the landlord, and conse- 
 quently must come out of the rent which he would receive were 
 these rates and taxes abolished or reduced. The same law of 
 economics which gives to the land-owners all the surplus benefits 
 and profits of increased production must necessarily deprive them 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 471 
 
 of so much of those surplus benefits and profits as are intercepted 
 and taken in the form of rates and taxes. This is so obvious that it 
 may seem unnecessary to pursue it farther ; but it is so important 
 and far-reaching that it is desirable that its full import should be 
 made perfectly plain. 
 
 Do all Taxes and Rates fall on Land-owners now ? 
 
 I have said that some of the foremost and most logical advocates 
 of the taxation of land values realise that their contention that 
 land-owners appropriate all increase in benefits and profits, which 
 the community and its individual members produce, involves the 
 conclusion that all burdens, charges, and disadvantages which reduce 
 those benefits and profits must also fall upon the land and diminish 
 its value, and, therefore, be borne by the land-owner. Very few, 
 if indeed any, of them, have however, until recently, openly ad- 
 mitted this. We have seen that Henry George says that all the 
 benefit of reducing taxes goes to the land-owners. That is only 
 another way of saying — although he carefully avoids saying it — 
 that so long as the taxes are on they come off the value of the land. 
 Mr. Hemmerde says that " relief of rates must be a bonus to land- 
 owners." That can only mean that the burden of the rates is on the 
 land-owners now. It is no " bonus " to any one to " relieve " him 
 of a burden which he is not carrying. 
 
 Mr. John Orr, who has for many years been prominently identi- 
 fied with the agitation for the taxation of land values, in Taxation 
 of Land Values, which has a preface by Mrs. Fels, says : 
 
 Kent is reduced by the full amovmt of the taxes paid by the 
 tenants in any form (p. 2). 
 
 The proposal to substitute a tax on land values for all the present 
 taxes is simply a proposal to substitute a direct tax on land values for 
 indirect taxes on land values, and in doing so to avoid the indefinite 
 loss incurred by every class through the indirect method (p. 16). 
 
 Speaking of Colonial experiments, he says : "It was generally 
 assumed that a direct tax on what is called land value would diminish 
 this value. This has never happened. Those who held this view 
 overlooked the effect of remitting the existing indirect taxes on land 
 value. The remission of the latter has always been the cause of an 
 increase greater than the reduction due to the imposition of the former " 
 (p. 24). 
 
 He is of opinion that a tax on tea comes out of rent, and that a 
 reduction in a tax on tea increases rent (p. 68). 
 
 The exact incidence of such floating charges as customs, excise, and 
 stamp duties cannot be traced in every case, but their repeal would find 
 
472 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 expression in an increased value of land generally. A similar increase 
 would take place with tte repeal of the income tax under Schedules 
 D and E, on incomes from trades and professions (p. 106). 
 
 Mr. Edwin Adam, in Land Values and Taxation, says : 
 
 By whatever mode the State may raise its revenue the burden must 
 ultimately fall as a deduction from the rent which would be exacted 
 by the land-owners of the country, if the circumstances of the land, 
 that is, the benefits it derives from the presence and work of the com- 
 munity, remained the same, but the taxes were not exacted (p. 172). 
 
 The Imperial taxes which a man pays fall as deductions from the 
 sum he can afiord to pay in rent to the owner of the land for the right 
 to use the land. . . . Thus, the Customs and Excise idtimately decrease 
 the fund which monopoly rent would claim for itself (p. 173). 
 
 He considers that the Income Tax also falls ultimately on the 
 land (p. 174). 
 
 Lastly, Mr. Josiah Wedgwood, M.P. : 
 
 Land value, now, to-day, is land value with the amoimt and in- 
 cidence of present rates taken into account. If the same services 
 were rendered by some external millionaire and no rates at aU levied, 
 land value to-day would be higher by the capitalised amount of the 
 rate remitted. 
 
 Just as in the long run all rates may be said to be incident on the 
 landlord, so, too, in the same long run aU taxes are incident upon 
 the landlord also.-' 
 
 Then, What is all the Fuss about ? 
 
 The question that will arise in the minds of most people after 
 reading these quotations will be — If these men have convinced 
 themselves that land-owners bear all the burden of all the rates 
 and taxes now, inasmuch as they reduce the rent which they receive, 
 and if these rates and taxes were abolished the land-owners would 
 be able to obtain at least a corresponding increase in rent. What is 
 all the fuss about ? If all the rates and taxes fall upon the land- 
 owners now, what is the meaning of all the talk about land- 
 owners paying nothing, land-owners escaping theii fair share of 
 taxing, land-owners reaping all the benefit of public improvements 
 and municipal expenditure and contributing nothing to it, and the 
 like ? If the rates and taxes already fall on them, what is the use 
 of talking about the benefits which are to result to the community 
 from taking rates and taxes off the occupiers, who apparently do not 
 pay them now, and putting them on the landlord, who is already 
 
 ^ Economic Journal, September 1912. 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 473 
 
 bearing the burden of them ? What do those members of municipal 
 corporations, who, without really understandiag anything about the 
 proposals, and anxious only to see their way to some new source of 
 revenue that would make their local rate-payers believe that they 
 were paying less, -have from time to time passed resolutions in favour 
 of taxing land values — what do they say now, when they are told 
 that this means " no new tax " and no more revenue, but only a 
 readjustment of the burden, and in fact only levying it directly on 
 the class upon whom it falls indirectly now ? What comes of all 
 the perorations about freeing land, emancipating labour, abolishing 
 unemployment, banishing pauperism, and practically introducing 
 the millermium if you are only going to make landlords as a whole 
 pay directly what they already pay indirectly ? Will not most 
 people say — If what these land taxers say is the fact, and the 
 position now is as they state, the whole agitation and propaganda 
 has been a delusion and a fiasco ? 
 
 Mr. Wedgwood's Explanation 
 
 So far as I am aware, Mr. Josiah Wedgwood, M.P., is the only 
 one of the land tax leaders who has had the courage to face the 
 position, as the quotations I have now made show the more thought- 
 ful and capable men in the movement conceive it to be. His method 
 of dealing with the difficulty is as instructive as it is interesting. 
 In an article in The Economic Journal for September 1912, from 
 which we have already quoted, he says : 
 
 But one may ask, v hat is the meaning of this claim to throw local 
 and national taxatior upon land proprietors, seeing that they already 
 bear the fuU amount of it in the long run ? The obvious reply is that 
 they will not indeed be taxed more, but whereas they now receive in 
 return for their taxes the enslavement of the whole population, under 
 the Single Tax they wiU not find slaves — ^neither they nor other people 
 will find slaves to work for them on the old terms. 
 
 And that is all ! 
 
 What Mr. Wedgwood means by this somewhat cryptic saying 
 is that under the present system the private ownership of land 
 enslaves the people because it compels them to accept any terms they 
 can get, under the penalty of starvation if they do not. His con- 
 tention is that the single tax would what he calls " free the land," 
 so that land which is now " on the margin of cultivation " would 
 not be worth owning by those who do not use it. They would feel 
 obliged to give it up, with the result that there would be " spare 
 
474 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 free land " that could be worked and lived on by any one who wished 
 to do so, without paying rent or taxes. Then any one who was out 
 of work, or who was discontented with his position, would always 
 have the alternative of going on the land and producing his own 
 support. This land would form a reservoir for the overflow of the 
 labour market and a refuge from unsatisfactory conditions, which 
 would enable " the wage slaves of modern industriahsm " to " de- 
 mand at ease and leisure far better terms " than they can get now. 
 
 This is the theory. As to its practical working, Mr. Wedgwood 
 seems to have some doubt. In the first place, he thinks there might 
 be " some difficulty in ousting the present owners by a land values 
 tax." Therefore, he thinks that " probably the simplest, as well 
 as the most honest, way would be to cease to protect by law the 
 private possession of such land, except in so far as it was actually 
 occupied and improved. All marginal land, not actually occupied 
 and improved, should be as free as air for use and occupation by the 
 first settler." 
 
 In the second place, he doubts that the chronic unemployed 
 and the wasters would go on to this land ; but he thinks that 
 " plenty " of " the best of the workers " would. He also thinks 
 that there would be all manner of temporary squatters on still 
 poorer unoccupied land — ex-" casuals " of the workhouse, and men 
 in temporary difficulties. " Consider," says he, " what it would 
 have meant to the miners, the railwaymen, and, above all, the 
 dockers of the last two years' strikes had they been able to secure 
 land where they and their families could have had temporary shelter 
 and carried on a little rough gardening until terms were arrived 
 at." 
 
 An Absurd Suggestion 
 
 It is difficult to believe that a proposal of this kind can be 
 seriously put forward ; but Mr. and Mrs. Josiah Wedgwood, who 
 expound this doctrine in a recently pubhshed volume of 156 pages, 
 entitled The Road to Freedom, are serious and earnest enough, and 
 Mr. Wedgwood is one of the most prominent of the advocates of the 
 taxation of land values in the House of Commons. 
 
 The absurdity of the whole thing is so obvious that it seems 
 unnecessary to do anything more than state the folly and leave it. 
 Two things are outstanding. One is that if you are going to abrogate 
 the law, so far as land on-the margin of cultivation goes, and let any 
 one have it who cares to seize and occupy it, it seems unnecessary 
 to bother about the taxation scheme in order to get it. It would be 
 
CH. V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 475 
 
 simpler, and certainly quite as honest, to confiscate it at once, and 
 allot it to any one who asked for it. The other is that it is simply 
 ludicrous to think that men could be turned on to moors and wastes 
 and moimtain-sides in the intervals of unemployment or of strikes, 
 without capital, without buildiags, and without implements, and, 
 as a rule, without even the rudiments of agricultural knowledge 
 and experience, and expect them, there and then, on the least pro- 
 ductive and most difficult land in the country, to make a Kving 
 right away. They could not wait while they cleared the land, and, 
 if it were cleared, they could not wait while the crops grew. They 
 would need a livelihood for themselves and their families immediately 
 that day or that week, even if they could raise the cost of getting to 
 the place. They could not wait for the harvest, which would be 
 months away ; and if they could, probably the strike would be over 
 or employment would be offered before then. 
 
 It would be a complete waste of time to discuss such a useless 
 and hopeless scheme. I have only referred to it because it is 
 the reply which is given by the only one of those land taxers who 
 believes that the land-owners bear all the rates now who, so far as 
 I am aware, has had the courage to attempt to reply to the obvious 
 question, " Why then bother to take from the land-owners directly 
 what already falls upon them indirectly ? " 
 
 Mr. Dundas White, M.P., seems to have a similar idea floating 
 about in his mind when he says : 
 
 No man need work for another for less than he himself can win 
 from such land as is available for him. This may be called the law of 
 the minimum wage." ^ And again : " Nature's minimum wage is 
 what the worker can make by employing himself on such land as is 
 available, subject to the payment of its rent. He need never work 
 for less." ^ 
 
 This either involves Mr. Wedgwood's hallucination over again, 
 or it merely means that no man need work for another for less than 
 he can get somewhere else : which is simply a platitude and nothing 
 more. 
 
 7s every one to pay, after all ? 
 
 One more illustration of the confusion in which these gentlemen 
 contrive to involve themselves must suffice. Mr. Harper, the Chief 
 Government Valuer, and a member of the Departmental Committee, 
 1912, and Mr. C. L. Davies, the principal witness before that Com- 
 
 ^ Land Reform in Theory and Practice. 
 ' Land Values in a Nutshell. 
 
476 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 mittee on behalf of the Land Values Group of M.P.'s, repeatedly 
 expressed the opinion that the greater part, if not indeed the whole, 
 of the burden of local rates tends to fall upon the owners of the 
 land whether it is built on or not, and that if local rates were 
 levied entirely on land values instead of on the present rateable 
 value the effect would simply be to readjust the burdens which are 
 already on land-owners amongst the individuals who form that class. 
 The amounts paid by individuals would be altered, but the total 
 amount payable by land-owners as a whole would be the same. 
 After this doctrine had been made as plain as repeated statements 
 and reiterated questions and answers by these two gentlemen could 
 possibly make it,^ it is hopelessly bewildering to read the following 
 questions by Mr. Harper, and Mr. Davies' replies to them : 
 
 1276. If you levy all the local taxation according to the value 
 of land, will not every industry contribute through the value of land ia 
 proportion to the use it makes of land ? Yes. 
 
 1277. And, therefore, through the channel of land values you wiU 
 equitably distribute the burden of the rating over the whole ? I think 
 so, between every kind of employment and between every kind of 
 individual : every individual must use land, and according to the 
 advantages of the land which he uses he will pay to the community. 
 
 Here we have the distinct suggestion, to which we have already 
 referred, repeated, that if local rates be levied on land values land- 
 lords as a class will not bear the burden, but every individual in 
 the community, whatever his class or status, wiU bear a share of 
 that burden and pay the community " according to the advantages 
 of the land which he uses." We are told that " every individual 
 must use land," and therefore the burden of rating will be dis- 
 tributed " between every kind of employment and between every 
 kind of individual " ! 
 
 Whai the Electors are told 
 
 In the midst of the inconsistency and contradiction, it is im- 
 possible to avoid wondering whether those who Usten to perorations 
 and read lurid leaflets on this question have ever reaUsed that one 
 phase of the teaching is that the burden of rates which now falls 
 entirely or almost entirely on land-owners is, according to this last 
 version of the scheme, to fall upon every kind of individual in every 
 kind of employment. 
 
 ^ See Seport of Departmental Committee on Local Taxation, vol. i., Questions 
 1036, 1079, 1167, 1177, 1860-1, 2144, 2344, 3459, etc. 
 
CH.V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 477 
 
 What the land taxers really put before the people is illustrated 
 by the statements which Mr. Outhwaite, M.P., made on two hand- 
 bills which were specially issued by him at the Hanley election in 
 July 1912. Those handbills ran thus : 
 
 The Worker and the House Tax 
 
 A Eate on a House is a House Tax paid by the 
 Occupier. In Hanley, with rates at lis. l^d. in the 
 £, when the tenant pays 6s. a week for a cottage, 
 including rates, he pays 4s. 3Jd. for the cottage and 
 Is. 8|d. to the rates. His contribution to the rates 
 is £4 : 9s. a year. This enormous tax goes chiefly to 
 pay for Education, Poor Relief, Police, and other great 
 national services. 
 
 The Land Values Members in the House of Commons 
 want the Government to take these services ofi the rates 
 and find the money by a National Land Values Tax. 
 
 Then the Hanley Worker, even if he owned the site, 
 would pay at most 5s. a year instead of £4 : 9s. This 
 is a saving of Is. T^d. a week, and equal to a rise of 
 wages to that amount. The great land monopolists 
 would find the money instead. 
 
 To THE Cottage-Owner 
 
 A Land Values Tax faUs on the value of the site 
 only. The Rates fall on the site and the Cottage. The 
 ■provisional valuations for Hanley made imder the 
 Finance Act of 1909 show that the average site value 
 of a Cottage is £20. Such a Cottage is assessed at £8 
 for rates and pays £4 : 9s. per annum. The whole of 
 the annual land value of this site is 4 per cent on £20, 
 namely 16s. a year. 
 
 Rates compel the cottage-owner to pay Five and a 
 half times his land value. This is confiscation with a 
 vengeance. Under a Land Values Tax, in place of rates 
 the cottage-owner would not pay more than 5s. a year 
 on his site. 
 
 A Land Values Tax will shift rates on to the great 
 landlords who now escape all contribution. 
 
 Both handbills closed with an appeal to " Vote for Outhwaite." 
 Here we have the working man Occupier told that he pays the 
 rates ; that they cost him Is. 8Jd. a week or £4 : 9s. a year ; and 
 that the land taxers would make the land-owners find the money 
 instead of him and thereby enable him to save what he now pays 
 in rates and thereby practically increase his wages to that extent. 
 
478 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. ix 
 
 At the same time, on another handbill, the Cottage-owner ^&a told 
 that he pays the rates, and that it is " confiscation with a vengeance" 
 that he should do so. The Owner was told that under a Land 
 Values Tax he would only pay 5s. a year instead of the £4 : 9s., 
 or " Five and a half times his land value," which he pays now. 
 
 Thus the occwpier was told that Ae pays the £4 : 9s. and the 
 Land Taxer would reHeve him of the whole of that payment ; and 
 the owner was told that he pays the £4 : 9s. and the Land Taxer 
 would relieve him of £4 : 4s. of that payment ! It is Tonnecessary 
 to point out that two such directly contradictory statements cannot 
 be true. As a matter of fact, neither statement is accurate. 
 
 But that is not all. Mr. Josiah Wedgwood, M.P., who is Mr. 
 Outhwaite's Parliamentary leader and represents the adjoimng 
 constituency to Hanley and was his chief supporter at the election 
 in question, is strongly of opinion that all the rates fall upon the 
 land-owners now.^ 
 
 While Mr. C. L. Davies, secretary of the Committee for the 
 Taxation of Land Values, and the official representative of the Land 
 Values Group of M.P.s before the Departmental Committee, 1912, 
 agrees that local rates " now fall on landed property," ^ and yet is of 
 opinion that Land Taxes would " distribute the burden of the 
 rating " over every industry, so that it would be shared " between 
 every kind of employment and between every kind of individual." * 
 
 The Outcome 
 
 The result is that we have the high priests of the movement 
 at one and the same time declaring : 
 
 1. That the occupier pays all the rates and would be reUeved 
 of all of them, and therefore practically increase his income by that 
 amount, if rates were levied on land values. 
 
 2. That the occupier does not pay the rates at all but the owner 
 of the property does, and taxing land values would relieve him of all 
 but a fractional part of them. 
 
 3. That the occupier as such does not pay the rates, that the 
 owner of the building does not pay them ; but that they all fall 
 upon the owner of the land now, and if they were levied on land 
 values only they would stiU all fall on land-owners as a class as they 
 
 ' Evidence before Departmental Committee, 1912, Answers 1865-9 ; and 
 article in Economic Journal, Sept. 1912. 
 
 " Departmental Committee, Answers 1167, etc. 
 ' Departmental Committee, Answers 1276, 1277. 
 
CH. V ARGUMENTS AND ILLUSTRATIONS 479 
 
 do now, but the distribution of the amounts as between individual 
 owners and land would be altered. 
 
 4. That the result of levying rates upon land values would be, 
 not that either occupiers or owners of houses would be relieved of 
 them, but that " every kind of individual " and " every kind of 
 employment " would bear its share. 
 
 NOTE 
 
 If economists thought that the distinguished single tax leader 
 had solved this problem [the introduction of the social rmllenium], 
 they would enthrone him high on their council seats : they would 
 reverently bend the knee and acknowledge in him a master, a prophet. 
 But when he comes to them with a tale that is as old as the hills ; when 
 he sets forth in his writings doctrines that have long since been refuted ; 
 when in his enthusiasm he seeks to impose a remedy which appears to 
 them as unjust as it is one-sided, as inconsistent as it is inequitable — 
 they have a right to protest. This is not the first time that some 
 enthusiast has supposed that he has discovered a world-saving panacea. 
 The remedy for social maladjustments does not lie in any such lop- 
 sided idea. — Professor Seligman. 
 
PAET X 
 
 SUMMAKY OF CONCLUSIONS 
 
 AND THE 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION AND SOME PROPOSALS 
 FOR REFORM IN RATING CONSIDERED 
 
 481 2 1 
 
" To most people taxation ia a great mystery. To a few it is the most fascinat- 
 ing of subjects. There seems to be no middle course. Either a man has thought 
 so much about it that his utterances are unintelligible to the people, or he cannot 
 discuss it intelligently because he does not know its alphabet." — Professor W. 
 Smart. 
 
 " Whoever hopes a faultless tax to see 
 Hopes what ne'er was, is not, and ne'er shall be.'' 
 
 M'Culloch's adaptation of Pope's lines. 
 
 " Our investigations and deliberations have been prolonged and laborious ; 
 and the longer we have studied the problems involved in the reference to our 
 Commission, the more have we become impressed with the extreme difSculty of 
 finding a practical solution of them. It would be difficult enough to devise an 
 equitable system of raising taxation ' for local purposes ' if we were starting de 
 novo ; but in attempting to revise a system already established, and gradually 
 built up over a long period, in an unavoidably fragmentary fashion, we have found 
 ourselves confronted with difficulties, which it is not easy to exaggerate, and which 
 can hardly be appreciated by those who have not considered the subject from every 
 standpoint." — Sir Ed. Hamilton and Sir Gboege Mtjbeay, Pinal Report of Local 
 Taxation Committee, 1901. 
 
 " In attempting to solve these difficult problems we must take care not to 
 redress any present inequalities by creating fresh inequalities." — Sir Ed ward 
 Hamilton. 
 
 " Just as it is no excuse for new taxation that it is so disguised — like pills in 
 jam — ^that the tax-payers do not know that or what they are paying, so it is no 
 excuse for new taxation that the owners of any particular form of wealth cannot 
 escape, but must pay. This is mere highwayman ethics." — Professor W. Smakt. 
 
 " People can always be relieved for the moment by stealing other people's 
 goods." 
 
 482 
 
CHAPTEE I 
 
 SUMMABY OF CONCLUSIONS 
 
 It will probably be convenient if I now summarise and bring 
 together the results of our survey of the extensive fields of thought, 
 history, and proposals over which we have very rapidly travelled 
 in the preceding chapters. It is submitted that it has been shown : 
 
 1. That some of the proposals which have been considered 
 with regard to the ownership and taxation of land raise questions 
 which go down to the foundations of the social structure and of 
 civilised government. 
 
 2. That the assertion that the private ownership of land is 
 contrary to natural right and justice cannot be maintained. 
 
 3. That the statements that the rich are becoming richer and 
 the poor are becoming poorer while the middle class are being swept 
 away ; and that the ownership of land enables its possessors to 
 secure for themselves aU the benefits of material progress, are con- 
 trary to the plain facts of history and of personal experience. 
 
 4. That the statements that the labourers of olden times were 
 the freeholders of the soil and especially of the commons, and were 
 deprived thereof by the lords of the manor by force and fraud, are 
 incorrect : the truth being that in Anglo-Saxon and early Norman 
 times the labourers were in a position of servitude and serfdom 
 with few rights and few or no possessions of any kind. Certainly 
 they did not own the land, and when they emerged from servitude 
 and serfdom and became personally free and wage-earning labourers 
 they had not as a body or class any ownership of land or rights in 
 it. Such of them as had any such rights had acquired them person- 
 ally by purchase or grant, or enjoyed them as tenants and occupants 
 of particular dwellings or holdings to which such rights happened 
 to be attached. 
 
 5. That the true history of enclosures is widely misconceived 
 
 483 
 
484 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 owing to the dissemination of accounts which omit and ignore 
 vitally important facts and considerations. That, while enclosure 
 was not only desirable but essential, it did often cause serious dis- 
 turbance of many existing interests and brought hardship and loss 
 upon a number of people whose resources were small and whose 
 power to grapple with and adapt themselves to the new conditions 
 was very limited. It is quite clear now, and as time passed during 
 the great enclosiu:e period from 1760 to 1830 it became clear then 
 to the most competent observers, that though the legal rights of 
 the various parties concerned did not require it, it would have been 
 wise and equitable to attach allotments of land to cottages and to 
 have paid more attention to securing for the labourers a more secure, 
 independent, and satisfactory position than they then obtained or 
 have since been able to obtain under the conditions which then 
 were created or have since evolved. As time went on something 
 was done by Parliament in this direction, and much more has been 
 attempted in recent years ; but it has all hitherto proved to be 
 less than the necessities of the case require. 
 
 6. That the theoretical and the historical basis of taxation 
 was not, as is often asserted, that land should bear or provide all 
 the revenues of the state ; but it was that all free citizens should 
 contribute to the requirements of the state according to their ability, 
 ascertained by reference to and assessed upon their possessions, 
 which in early times were almost exclusively land and the stock 
 upon it and the produce of it. 
 
 7. That in place of it being true that the land-owners of the 
 country repeatedly succeeded in evading their liabilities and responsi- 
 bilities in the matter of taxations, national and local, and in trans- 
 ferring the burden to the shoulders of others, the fact is that the 
 history of taxation for several centuries is a record of numerous 
 efforts made to secure from personal property and iucomes equitable 
 contributions to national and local expenditure, and of repeated 
 successful efforts of personalty to evade its responsibility and leave 
 it upon real property. 
 
 8. That the story of the Land Tax as commonly told is a curious 
 travesty of the facts, and in several important particulars the precise 
 opposite of the truth. 
 
 9. That Local Rates were originally levied on all inhabitants and 
 occupiers and were a general property or income tax levied upon 
 each person according to his means and substance, in other words, 
 according to his ability to pay ; and that in course of time personal 
 
CH. , SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS 485 
 
 property — stock-in-trade, etc. — entirely evaded its liability and 
 left the burden practically on land and buildings only. 
 
 10. That the burden of local rates is now largely upon land. 
 That there is much misconception as to their incidence and as to 
 the results to occupiers that would follow any revision of the basis 
 on which they are assessed. 
 
 11. That the proposal to confiscate the whole or the greater part 
 of the present interest of land-owners in pure land values by levying 
 all rates and taxes, or a heavy additional portion of them, upon those 
 values is morally iadefensible ; and in view of the fact that the 
 legislature has for a very long time by repeated enactments com- 
 pelled trustees, institutions, mutual societies, and other bodies and 
 persons who are in a fiduciary position towards a vast multitude 
 of the most dependent and helpless portion of the people, to invest 
 the funds which they hold on their behalf in a limited class of 
 specified securities, of which real property is the most important 
 item, it would be a grave breach of pubUc trust and good faith to 
 so specially tax and penalise that particular class of property as to 
 seriously reduce its value, when and where it cannot be shown that 
 the owners of such property are not, in respect of it, contributing 
 a reasonable, equitable, and full share towards the public revenues 
 of the community, local and national. 
 
 12. That most of the claims which are made with regard to the 
 results which it is alleged would follow the proposed penal taxation 
 of land values are baseless and contradictory. 
 
 13. That to penalise and punish all owners of land because some 
 of their number are sometimes unwise and pursue a policy which 
 is not in the best interest of the community would be imjust. 
 
 14. That to specially tax persons in respect of a particular class 
 of property beyond the proportion of public burdens which they 
 ought otherwise to bear, merely in order to compel some of them 
 to sell their property at less than its market value apart from that 
 special taxation, would be contrary to sound and equitable public 
 policy. 
 
 15. That while much of the political propaganda of the present 
 day is based on a curious mixture of false philosophy, bad law, 
 worse history, and a gay disregard of facts, logic, and pohtical 
 economy, and is, therefore, calculated to raise a prejudice against 
 and place difficulties in the way of genuine reforms, it does not at 
 all follow that the conditions under which land can be acquired and 
 occupied and the laws governing the rating and taxing of land and 
 
486 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 buildings do not need attention and might not, with considerable 
 public advantage, be revised in important particulars. 
 
 As any proposal to place the burden of taxation on some other 
 person is certain to be listened to with attention, the principles of 
 elementary justice render it very desirable that schemes for taxing 
 special classes of people, especially when it is thought that the tax 
 proposed cannot be shifted and diffused over the community, should 
 be carefully investigated. If it can show that there is any class in 
 our midst who, according to the recognised principles on which con- 
 tributions to local and national revenues are or should be required, 
 are not pajdng their fair and full share, then it is undoubtedly our 
 duty to require them to pay more. For iastance, if of two persons 
 in equal circumstances, one is paying less than the other, owing to 
 some flaw in the method of assessing or rating, such a change in the 
 law should certainly be made as will adjust the inequality and 
 rectify the anomaly. 
 
 I shall now, therefore, proceed to consider briefly the broad 
 general principles on which our local and national taxation is based. 
 After that some of the more important and salient facts of our 
 rating system will be stated and discussed, and reference will be 
 made to some of the more reasonable and practical reforms which 
 are proposed. This will be followed by suggestions of changes 
 which, I think, might advantageously be made. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION AND RATING 
 
 The Government — local and national — ^ embracing therein all 
 public authorities, renders certain services to the community. From 
 time to time the number of those services is increased and their 
 scope is extended as civiKsation develops, and the complex condi- 
 tions of modem, and especially of urban life, render it necessary or 
 desirable that the community, as a whole, should imdertake duties 
 and provide services which were either not required before, or were 
 undertaken or supphed by private effort. 
 These services are roughly of two classes : 
 
 (1) Those which are general, including those which national 
 necessities and enlightened self-interest require for the well-being 
 of the community as a whole, and those the cost of which the social 
 conscience considers should be borne by the whole community. 
 Under this head come those services which are regarded as element- 
 ary duties of Government, such as the maintenance of law and order, 
 the defence of the realm, the administration of justice, and the 
 collection of the revenue ; together with such general services of 
 pubHc advantage, convenience, and duty as education, the poor 
 law, old-age pensions, national insurance, the administration of 
 sanitary, factory, workshop, mining, shipping, and railway regula- 
 tions, and the maintenance of main roads and public parks. 
 
 (2) Those which are more or less local and of the nature of 
 services to individuals undertaken on grounds of individual, as well 
 as general, convenience and economy, such as street and footpath 
 maintenance, cleaning and lighting, the removal of house refuse, 
 the supply of gas, water, electric light, public baths and wash-houses, 
 drainage, tramways, harbours, cemeteries, and the postal, telegraph, 
 and telephone services. 
 
 487 
 
488 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND vt.x 
 
 The dividing line between the classes as regards some of these 
 services is not always very clear, and opinions will vary as to the one 
 in which they should be placed : but the broad Unes of distinction 
 are obvious. 
 
 The methods of allocating the cost of these services amongst 
 the pubHc also fall into two main divisions, which do not, however, 
 quite correspond with the classification just made of the services. 
 These are : 
 
 (1) A charge made according to the use made of the service by 
 the individual, as in the case of gas, electric Ught, trams, harbours, 
 and cemeteries ; post, telegraph, and telephone services ; baths 
 and wash-houses, and to a large extent water ; or roughly, as far as 
 practicable, according to the benefit received from the service, as 
 in the case of local rates for street and footpath maintenance, clean- 
 ing and lighting, and drainage and removal of house refuse. 
 
 (2) Charges made roughly according to ability to pay, as in 
 the case of taxes or rates, for the maintenance of law and order, 
 national defence, main roads, poor law, sanitary and industrial 
 legislation, education and Ubraries. 
 
 The cost of the National Insurance Act is borne by charges 
 which combine the principles of both divisions. 
 
 Two somewhat Conflicting Theories 
 
 There has been much controversy between the advocates of 
 the benefit theory of taxation on the one hand, and the ability to 
 pay or equahty of sacrifice theory on the other. The truth is that 
 neither theory alone, to the exclusion of the other, is satisfactory. 
 There is much to be said for both. The benefit theory breaks 
 down in regard to the poor law, old-age pensions, education, and 
 national health insurance. Those who benefit most are least 
 able to pay. It would be impossible to impose the whole of the cost 
 of these services upon them. 
 
 The abihty to pay, or equality of sacrifice theory, is the sound 
 principle on which to base taxation for general services, and also for 
 those more or less individual services which most immediately and 
 directly benefit the less well-to-do, but which the social conscience 
 and enlightened self-interest of the conmiunity recognise should be 
 a charge borne according to ability to pay. This is so, first, because 
 the benefits of government and the services rendered by pubUc 
 authorities, national and local, cannot be measured out to and 
 assessed upon individuals ; and second, because the true and sound 
 
cH. n TAXATION AND RATING 489 
 
 idea of the relation between the citizen and the State is of a character 
 altogether different from that of a trading transaction. 
 
 On the other hand, it is both desirable and largely practicable to 
 apply the benefit received or use made theory ia such cases as the 
 supply of gas, water, and electric light, tramways, harbours, 
 cemeteries, and the postal, telegraph, and telephone services, drainage 
 and the maintenance, cleaning, and Hghting of streets and footpaths. 
 
 There are two methods of levying charges according to use 
 made or benefit received. One is to make a distinct and separate 
 charge according, so to speak, to the quantity used, as in the case 
 of gas, electric light, post, telegraph, and telephone, trams, harbours, 
 and cemeteries, where those who use them pay when and for what 
 they use. The other is to levy a rate on some basis which will 
 make the charge roughly approximate to the use made or benefit 
 received, as in the case of local rates for water, drainage, street 
 maintenance, cleaning and lighting, and the removal of house and 
 street refuse. 
 
 In so far as local rates for the purposes just mentioned are really 
 borne by the occupier of the premises, they to some extent fulfil 
 the conditions of falling upon those who pay them in proportion 
 to the benefit received. 
 
 Most of this expenditure of local authorities is for services which 
 householders, occupiers, and inhabitants would in some way have 
 to provide for themselves if the local authorities did not supply them. 
 Roads, drains, paved footpaths, street lighting, and the removal of 
 house and street refuse are necessities in these days. On the 
 whole they are well worth their cost. The expense of them cannot 
 readily be charged to each person, household, or business firm in 
 proportion to the use made of the services or the precise benefit 
 derived therefrom. The rateable value of the premises occupied 
 is taken as a rough and ready basis for levying the charge for them, 
 and, on the whole, it is probably as fair and as reasonable a method 
 of allocating the expense as is available and would be practicable 
 without incurring more expense than any attainable advantage 
 would be worth. 
 
 So far as the levying of rates to defray the cost of such general 
 services as education, the poor law, and old-age pensions is concerned, 
 it is quite true that taxation in proportion to the rental value of 
 the premises occupied is not necessarily taxation in proportion to 
 ability to pay. Even if rates on residences only be considered, it 
 is well known that the wealthier people are the smaller is the pro- 
 
490 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.x 
 
 portion which the rateable value of their residence bears to their 
 total income. Working people spend a much larger proportion 
 of their income in house rent than the middle and richer classes do. 
 Local rates, therefore, fall upon them, so far as they fall upon them 
 at all, more heavily in proportion to their income than they do 
 upon other classes. On the other hand, if the benefit theory be 
 taken into consideration it may fairly be urged that, in so far as 
 that considerable portion of local expenditure which falls under the 
 heads of education and the poor law is concerned, the working classes 
 receive the lion's share of the benefit from it. 
 
 It is on shops, warehouses, offices, works, and the premises of 
 commercial undertakings where local rates, so far as they really fall 
 upon the occupiers, most markedly represent a tax which is in 
 excess of a due proportion to ability to pay, if abiUty to pay be 
 estimated by net income. The extent and value of the premises 
 occupied bears little or no relation to the profits made from the 
 business carried on there. Some businesses require much larger 
 premises than others, the profits of which are much greater. On 
 the other hand, there is force in the contention that, speaking 
 generally, the concerns which occupy the largest and most valuable 
 premises do necessitate a corresponding expense on the part of the 
 local authority for the maintenance, cleaning, and hghting of streets, 
 and for drainage and police ; and also that, as large employers of 
 labour, they ought to bear a corresponding share of such costs to 
 the community as are involved in the expenditure for education, 
 poor law, and similar purposes, which is specially heavy in districts 
 where large masses of working people reside. Such expenditure is 
 part of the cost of the presence of those industrial undertaldngs in 
 that vicinity, and it is not unreasonable that, in so far as the burden 
 of that expenditure really falls upon the occupiers of premises, a 
 considerable share of it should fall upon those who occupy the 
 premises which bring to that locality the people who necessitate 
 the expenditure. 
 
 A Local Income Tax 
 
 For all general services, the ideal method of obtaining the 
 revenue required would undoubtedly be by means of a universal 
 graduated income tax. Such a method of taxation is, however, 
 impracticable, at any rate at the present time, in this country. No 
 government that attempted to enforce it could remain in power for 
 a single week. 
 
cH.ii TAXATION AND RATING 491 
 
 A local income tax would also present special difficulties. 
 Should the local tax be paid where the man lives or where his business 
 is 1 The two places are frequently in different local government 
 areas. If he has more than one residence, where would the local 
 income tax be payable ? Many wealthy people do not pay any 
 income tax personally. That is to say, no demand note is served 
 upon them and they never draw a cheque for the tax. The tax on 
 their income is all paid at the source and is deducted before they 
 receive the dividends or rents. Would the local tax be levied on 
 them where they Uve or on their income at the source ? If the 
 former, then locaUties in which there are great works of public 
 companies would receive no revenue from them. If the latter, 
 then the localities in which wealthy persons live would receive no 
 revenue from those persons. Such matters as abatement and 
 graduation would also be enormously comphcated. 
 
 For the purpose of raising revenue from the great masses of the 
 people, those who are less well-to-do and the wage-earning classes, 
 from whom the direct collection of taxes would be very difficult, 
 inconvenient, and unpopular, indirect taxation has many advantages. 
 When, as in this coimtry, the indirect taxation is very largely levied 
 on such articles as alcoholic drinks and tobacco, which are not 
 necessaries and are at best superfluities and luxuries, the consump- 
 tion of which is quite volimtary, and the direct taxation omits 
 from its purview practically the whole of the working classes, and 
 is very considerably graduated in its amount in the pound on the 
 income and property of those who are liable to income tax, death 
 duties, etc., we have travelled far in the direction of taxation 
 according to ability to pay. 
 
 A perfect system of taxation is unattainable. Whatever 
 system is adopted it will always be possible to find individual cases 
 of more or less hardship and inconsistency with the theory on which 
 the system is based. In this respect, as in others, " hard cases make 
 bad law." 
 
 Local Expenditure and Local Rates 
 
 The aggregate expenditure of local authorities in England and 
 Wales — other than expenditure paid for out of loans, but including 
 interest on and repayment of loans — ^for the year 1910-11 was 
 £129,416,957. 
 
 The money required to meet this expenditure was received 
 from the following sources : 
 
492 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 £65,152,299 
 21,164,998 
 
 Public rates ...... 
 
 Grants in aid from National Revenue, including 
 licence duties ..... 
 
 Tolls, dues, rents, and receipts for gas, water, elec- 
 tricity, tramways, harbours, markets, cemeteries, 
 etc. ....... 
 
 44,756,950 
 
 Total . . £131,074,247 
 
 Roughly, half of the expenditure was defrayed out of local rates, 
 and one-third was met by payments made in the form of tolls, dues, 
 gas, water, and electricity charges, tram-fares, etc., by persons for 
 services rendered. The remaining one-sixth was received from 
 Government grants and allocated taxes. 
 
 The gross estimated rental value of the property rated was 
 £275,495,953. The rateable value was £221,011,832. 
 
 The average amount of the rates received was 6s. 4'2d. in the £, 
 or 36s. 4'9d. per head of the population. 
 
 The average amounts of the rates in the £ and per head were : 
 
 Per Head. 
 S. d. 
 London ..... 
 County boroughs 
 
 Other boroughs and urban districts . 
 Rural districts .... 
 Rates in London ranged from 6s. 2d. to 12s. 
 Rates in county boroughs ranged from 4s. 2jd. to 10s. 5d. in the £. 
 
 In England and Wales the amounts raised by rates and received 
 from Government grants ; the amount of the rates in the £ ; and the 
 total rateable value, were as follows, in the years named : 
 
 s. d. 
 
 £ s. d. 
 
 . 6 11-3 
 
 3 9 1 
 
 . 7 30 
 
 1 16 1 
 
 . 6 7-9 
 
 1 15 11 
 
 . 4 6-6 
 
 1 8 7 
 
 . Id. in the £. 
 
 
 
 Rates. 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 Parliament 
 Grants, etc. ^ 
 
 Per cent. 
 
 1842-43 
 
 £8,847,000 
 
 97 
 
 £244,000 
 
 3 
 
 1872-73 
 
 18,572,000 
 
 94 
 
 1,146,000 
 
 6 
 
 1891-92 
 
 28,509,000 
 
 79 
 
 7,415,000 
 
 21 
 
 1910-11 
 
 65,152,000 
 
 75 
 
 21,165,000 
 
 25 
 
 
 R 
 
 ATES IN £ 
 
 s. d. 
 
 
 
 1803- 
 
 . 
 
 . 4 5i 
 
 
 
 1817- 
 
 
 
 . 3 lOf 
 
 
 
 1827- 
 
 
 
 . 3 8 
 
 
 
 1842-43 
 
 
 
 2 10 
 
 
 
 1872-73 
 
 
 
 . 3 2 
 
 
 
 1891-92 
 
 
 
 . 3 7 
 
 
 
 1899-1900 
 
 
 
 . 4 llf 
 
 
 
 1904-5 
 
 
 
 5 Hi 
 
 
 
 1910-11 
 
 
 
 • 6 4| 
 
 
TAXATION AND RATING 
 
 
 Rateable Value. 
 
 Expenditure Irom 
 Eates and Granta. 
 
 1813-15 
 
 £40,121,000 
 
 
 1842-43 
 
 62,540,000 
 
 £9,091,000 
 
 1872-73 
 
 112,392,000 
 
 19,718,000 
 
 1891-92 
 
 155,896,000 
 
 36,924,000 
 
 1910-11 
 
 217,180,000 
 
 86,317,000 
 
 1912-13 
 
 221,012,000 
 
 ... 
 
 493 
 
 The Sound, Principle of Local Taxation 
 
 The principle of local taxation which we have propounded as 
 the sound one is that the cost of those services which are local 
 and are directly connected with the occupation of property, and are 
 beneficial to it, should be levied according to the value of the pro- 
 perty ; and that those services which are general and national in 
 character should be levied according to abihty to pay. 
 
 The maintenance, Ughtiiig, and cleaning of streets and footpaths, 
 the removal and disposal of house refuse, the maintenance of a system 
 of drainage, fire brigades and appliances, parks, pleasure grounds 
 and open spaces, are services which are distinctly local, and should, 
 as far as practicable, be charged for according to the benefit derived 
 from them. There is no method by which this can be done with 
 strict accuracy. They cannot be charged for in the same way as 
 gas, electric light, and tram rides are ; that is to say, according to 
 the quantity used. Payment by a rate levied on the value of the 
 premises occupied is a roughly equitable distribution of the cost. 
 It is difficult to see how it could be satisfactorily improved upon. 
 So far as it errs, it does so ia charging those who occupy the best 
 house and the most valuable business premises more than their 
 share in proportion to the use they make of the services and the 
 benefit they derive from them. So far as that is an error it is in the 
 right direction. 
 
 There are certain definite classes of property, the value of which 
 obviously does not at all represent the benefit which the owners or 
 occupiers of it derive from the services in question as compared 
 with the owners and occupiers of other property. For these special 
 classes of property provision has already been made. Agricultural 
 land, woodlands, nurseries, market gardens, etc., are only assessed at 
 one-fourth of their value for the general district rate and for special 
 and sanitary rates in rural districts. Such lands only pay one- 
 
494 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.x 
 
 third of the lighting and public libraries rate and one-half of all other 
 rates, except there be any for the cost of any drainage or embank- 
 ment or other work for the benefit of the land. Tithes, railway lines, 
 canals, and docks are assessed at one-fourth of their annual value 
 for the general district rate and for special and sanitary expenses 
 in rural districts. 
 
 Education, poor relief, asylums and hospitals, police and 
 the administration of justice, and the maintenance of main roads 
 are general public services which are of a national character, and 
 contributions to defray the cost of them should, as far as practicable, 
 be levied according to ability to pay. They are services which in 
 principle cannot be distinguished from such admittedly national 
 services as the army and the navy, the judges, factory, mining, 
 workshop, and railway inspection, old-age pensions, and labour 
 
 exchanges. 
 
 The Weak Point 
 
 It is the weak point in our system of local rating that the cost 
 of general or national services, so far as it is borne locally, is a 
 burden which falls on individuals unequally because rates do 
 not bear an accurate relation to means possessed or ability to pay. 
 This is the real and substantial ground of complaint against the 
 rating system. Efforts have been made from time to time to 
 diminish the grievance by relieving the ratepayer at the cost of the 
 tax-payer through the instrumentality of grants in aid and the 
 allocation of the proceeds of certain taxes to local authorities. 
 The extent to which this has gone is shown by the fact that these 
 aids have increased from £244,000 in 1842-43 to £20,915,000 in 
 1909-10. In the former period these aids were 3 per cent of the 
 total cost ; in the latter period they were 25 per cent of the total 
 cost. 
 
 It is generally agreed that our national taxation falls upon all 
 classes of persons far more equitably as between individual tax- 
 payers, and far more nearly in proportion to abiHty to pay, than our 
 local taxation does. In this respect so much of the cost of services 
 administered locally as are national and general in character as is 
 borne from the National Exchequer may be said to be distributed 
 fairly equitably. The problem and the difficulty and complaint 
 arise with regard to the large and growing portion which is met out 
 of local rates. 
 
 The importance of having a considerable portion of the cost of 
 these services raised locally, and raised at any rate in the first instance 
 
cH.ii TAXATION AND RATING 495 
 
 from the local occupiers who elect the local spending and rating 
 authorities, is very great. If we are to continue local administra- 
 tion of these services, we must have a considerable amount of local 
 payment for them. That is vital and fundamental. Separation 
 of the taxing authority from the spending authority would be fatal 
 to all economy and efficient control. 
 
 The question, therefore, is — How can the constantly growing 
 burden of local rates be relieved or equitably readjusted and still 
 raise a sufficient proportion of the cost locally to ensure economical 
 responsible, and satisfactory administration ? 
 
 Some Suggested Methods of Relief 
 
 Further aid from the National Exchequer is the remedy which 
 has been resorted to in the past, and it is the one upon which the 
 Royal Commission on Local Taxation fell back in their Report in 
 1901. There are two difficulties which at once present themselves. 
 The first is the extent to which our National Expenditure has 
 already grown and the prospect there is that it will grow still further, 
 combined with the probability that when the present boom in trade 
 slackens the revenue will display diminished elasticity. This will 
 make any Chancellor of the Exchequer very unwilling to undertake 
 extensive further responsibilities in the direction suggested. 
 
 The other difficulty arises from the fact that any rehef of existing 
 rates that is given in this way must in the long run be largely, if 
 not indeed entirely, a gift to the land-owners. It would not be 
 a permanent gain to the occupiers. Where they hold leases they 
 would reap the benefit so long as their present tenure ran. Tenants 
 on short agreements would also be relieved for a time, as rents would 
 not be altered immediately and universally. But ultimately the 
 advantage would go to the land-owner in the form of a higher rent 
 than he would otherwise have got. That is not quite what is aimed 
 at and desired. Whether land-owners ought or ought not to have 
 had placed upon them the burdens of rates which now so largely 
 fall on them need not now be discussed. The burden that would 
 be diminished by further grants from the Exchequer is on them 
 now. Many of them have acquired, and all of them hold their 
 property subject to, it. There is no sound and sufficient reason 
 why it should be taken off them now. 
 
 All the same it should be recognised that this increase has been 
 very great. We have seen that during the last forty years local rates 
 have on the average doubled. In 1872-73 they were 3s. 2d. in the 
 
496 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.x 
 
 £, and in 1910-11 they were 6s. 4^d. The total expenditure from 
 rates in England and Wales has in that period increased from 
 £18,572,000 to £65,152,000. No wonder there is an outcry. Those 
 occupiers who pay the rate in the iirst instance — we have seen that 
 in a large proportion of tenancies the landlords pay the rates direct, 
 and the rent paid by the occupier includes the rates — ^have made the 
 most noise. But in the long run the increased burden is not chiefly 
 theirs. At first it falls entirely on them, and then as their leases 
 and agreements run out much of it reverts to the landlord and then 
 to the land-owner. The fact that there has been this great increase 
 in the amount of the rates which falls on the land-owners should be 
 borne in mind when it is suggested that further special levies should 
 be made upon them. 
 
 Another suggestion is that personal property not now rated — 
 such as stock-in-trade, machinery and plant of all kinds, agricultural 
 stock and implements, household furniture and pictures, motor-cars 
 and carriages — should be brought iato the assessment. 
 
 It is urged that this would be to revert to the original intention 
 and practice : that it would widen the area of the levy very con- 
 siderably, and make the contributions more general and equitable. 
 The idea is one which has always had a great attraction for fiscal 
 authorities. Most civilised communities have tried it at one time 
 or another. We tried it for several centuries in this country. 
 Everywhere the experience has been the same as ours was. In- 
 variably personal property gradually slips out of the assessment, 
 and, until it has all got out, the inequaUties and injustices which 
 arise ia connection with so much of it as continues to be assessed 
 speedily become so great and anomalous as to be intolerable and 
 indefensible. The experience of the civihsed world condemns the 
 proposal and forbids any attempt to try it. 
 
 Differential Ratimg 
 
 It has been suggested that the application of the principle of 
 differentiation in taxing and rating property, of which we have 
 examples in the varying rates at which the house duty is levied and 
 in the lower local rates which are levied on agricultural land, railway 
 lines, canals, etc., might be extended. The rate in the £ on residences 
 might vary according to the annual value : that is to say, if the rate 
 were 5s. in the £ on houses under £20 a year, it might be 6s. on houses 
 from £20 to £60 a year, and 7s. on houses above £60 a year. Then 
 the rates on non-residential property might be levied on, say, two- 
 
CH.II TAXATION AND RATING 497 
 
 thirds its full value, and on agricultural land at one-half its 
 value. 
 
 Theoretically this may be attractive, but in practical working 
 it would create difficulties. In some areas where highly rented 
 residences are few, little help would be obtained, and in such of 
 those areas as have large works and business premises in them, as 
 many industrial districts have, the relief of the works, offices, etc., 
 would be obtained at the cost of an increase in the rates on the 
 working-class houses. 
 
 Agricultural land is largely relieved now, and it is difficult to 
 justify all the differentiation that has been made in its favour. 
 The rates which represent beneficial services, such as street main- 
 tenance, cleaning and lighting, sewerage, removal and disposal 
 of house reftise, fire brigades, and parks and open spaces, are either 
 non-existent or are very small in amount in rural areas. In urban 
 areas they are considerable items, but the land there, even for agri- 
 cultural and gardening purposes, is also more valuable. Where 
 these services are a source of considerable expense they are of much 
 less value to agricultural land than to residential and business 
 premises ; but the present system of levying them on one-fourth 
 the annual value of all agricultural land seems very generous to 
 owners of land in urban districts where it increases in value owing to 
 the development of the community which is facilitated by the 
 provision of the services in question. 
 
 With regard to the rates for services which are general and 
 national in character, the method of relief adopted imder the Agri- 
 cultural Eates Act, 1896, is very unsatisfactory. If such relief is 
 to be continued, the method of giving it should be revised. One 
 of the several results of the present relief of the rates on agricultural 
 land is not only to increase the total rates elsewhere, but also to 
 cause a larger portion of the onerous rates everywhere to become 
 " constant " rates, and therefore to fall upon all occuf)iers of houses 
 and other buildings. 
 
 2k 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 THE mOIDENCE OP RATES AND SOME SUGGESTED EATING 
 
 CHANGES 
 
 It may be useftd, at this juncture, if I recapitulate the conclusions at 
 which we arrived as to the incidence of rates, and apply those con- 
 clusions to the figures as to rates for England and Wales for 1909-10. 
 
 The view reached was that such onerous rates as are payable on 
 premises on land of no more than ordinary agricultural value in 
 low-rated rural districts, in so far as those rates exceed the rates 
 that would be levied on the land if it were unbuilt on, fall upon the 
 occupier ; and those are the rates which he cannot escape, go where 
 he may in the United Kingdom. The onerous rates in low-rated 
 rural districts in England and Wales are about 3s. in the £. As 
 the rates that would be levied on a piece of agricultural land that 
 would be the site of an ordinary house would be very small in amount, 
 they may be ignored, and it may be assumed that the onerous rates 
 which must be paid on a house anywhere are about 3s. in the 
 It has already been explained that this is 3s. ia the £ on the cost of 
 the building and the value of the site in that country district, and 
 that this cost and value are very different from the actual 
 cost and value of the site and building in a populous centre. 
 Consequently,'the " onerous " rates which are " constant " and are 
 payable by the occupier are not 3s. in the £ on the value of the pro- 
 perty where it is. They are much less : how much less can only be 
 ascertained in each particular case and cannot be stated in a general 
 figure. 
 
 " Beneficial " rates — rates which provide services which are of 
 corresponding value to the ratepayers — in so far as they are not 
 differential, are, and should be, and always must be — do what 
 you will — paid by the occupier. They are not a burden, they are 
 payment for value received. 
 
 498 
 
CH. Ill THE INCIDENCE OF RATES 499 
 
 AJl other rates levied in respect of the property are difEerential, 
 and ultimately they faU on the land-owner. 
 
 Local Expenditure and Receipts Analysed 
 
 We may now proceed to look at the expenditure of Local 
 Authorities in the light of these conclusions. The total expendi- 
 ture of those Authorities in England and Wales in 1910-11 was 
 £129,400,000. This represented roughly : 
 
 Onerous expenditure for National purposes 
 
 Beneficial expenditure for local purposes 
 
 Expenditure on undertakings which were remunerative — such 
 as gas, water, and electricity works, harbours, tramways, 
 etc. ........ 
 
 Excess of receipts over expenditure .... 
 
 70 
 
 millions. 
 
 244 
 
 ») 
 
 35 
 
 »» 
 
 n 
 
 » 
 
 L31 
 
 jj 
 
 45 
 
 »» 
 
 86 
 
 ,, 
 
 21 
 
 J, 
 
 65 
 
 „ 
 
 24i 
 
 J) 
 
 As the receipts from the remunerative undertakings, etc., were 
 
 The sum which had to be otherwise provided was 
 
 Towards this the Government grants gave 
 
 Leaving to be provided out of local rates 
 
 As the beneficial rates to meet beneficial expenditure were 
 
 The amount of the onerous rates to meet expenditure on 
 
 National services was ..... 40 J „ 
 
 The beneficial rates fall partly on the occupier and partly on the 
 land-owner. They faU on the land-owner in so far as they are 
 difEerential, and as they are very largely, if not indeed entirely, 
 difEerential, they nearly all fall on him. On the other hand, they 
 correspondingly add to, or maintain, the value of his property. 
 The value of the property includes the value of the services which 
 attach to occupation of it. While, therefore, it is true that if those 
 rates were abolished, and the amount were provided in some other 
 way, the land-owner would gain by a corresponding increase in the 
 value of his land, it is also true that if the services were not provided 
 there would be a corresponding reduction in the value of the land. 
 The position is that on whomsoever the incidence of the beneficial 
 rates is, he receives the benefit of services of corresponding value. 
 They are, therefore, not a burden either to the occupier or the 
 land-owner, and may be dismissed. 
 
 The interesting and important point is the incidence of the 
 forty and a half millions of onerous rates which remained to be raised 
 locally after the Government contribution of twenty-one millions 
 had been deducted from the local expenditure on onerous national 
 
500 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 services. The portion of this outlay which was paid by, and re- 
 mained a charge on, the occupiers was ill each case the " constant " 
 rate — that is, the amount that would have had to be paid on similar 
 premises built on cheap land in a low-rated rural district. I estimate 
 that it would average about one-fourth of the whole of the rates 
 which are levied on houses and other buildings. The proportions 
 would, however, vary much in difEerent locahties. Where rates 
 are low the " constant " rate will be a larger proportion of the total 
 rates than where rates are high. So where land values and building 
 costs are high the proportion of the constant rates will be much less 
 than where land and building are comparatively cheap. In other 
 words, the nearer we approach to the conditions of the rural district 
 with cheap land and low rates, the larger is the proportion of the 
 rates that falls upon the occupier. The nearer we approach the 
 conditions of the most valuable areas in the business and banking 
 centres of great cities, the smaller is the proportion of the total rates 
 that falls upon the occupier, and the larger the proportion that falls 
 upon the land-owner. This does not mean that an occupier bears a 
 less amount of the rates in a very valuable area than he would if he 
 occupied a similar building in an area where land was cheap. Accord- 
 ing to my view the occupier would bear about the same amount of 
 rates in both cases, but the proportion which the amount he bore 
 would be of the total amount of the rates on the premises would be 
 less in the more valuable position, because the total amount of the 
 rates payable there would be much larger. 
 
 /Some Suggestions considered 
 
 The next point of interest is. What would be the effect of the 
 adoption of some of the policies which are suggested ? When we 
 have determined that we may consider which, if any, of them might 
 equitably and wisely be adopted. 
 
 Increased grants from the National Exchequer, either in the form 
 of direct money payments or of allocated special or general taxes, 
 would permanently relieve the occupier in so far, and only in so far, 
 as they reduced the onerous rates on premises in low-rated rural 
 districts. At most they would accomplish very little in that direc- 
 tion, and the effect would be produced very gradually and be a long 
 time in making itself felt. So much would this be so that it would be 
 overshadowed by and lost sight of amid other changes and move- 
 ments, and not one person in ten thousand would know anything 
 about it. 
 
cH.iii THE INCIDENCE OF RATES 501 
 
 In so far as such further assistance from the National Exchequer 
 reduced or kept down the rates — other than " constant " rates — 
 in heavily rated areas and where land is valuable, the benefit of 
 the reduction would ultimately go entirely to the land-owner. For 
 a time occupiers, particularly those who had leases and long agree- 
 ments, woidd benefit, but eventually that advantage would be 
 absorbed in the rent. 
 
 Dividing the rates between the owner and the occupier, by either 
 levying part of them directly on the owner or empowering the 
 tenant to deduct part of them from his rent, would not make any 
 difference in their ultimate incidence, if existing contracts were 
 respected. If contracts were violated tenants who have covenanted 
 to pay all rates and taxes, except income tax, would gain temporarily, 
 but when their leases and agreements ran out they would lose that 
 temporary and unjust advantage. 
 
 Levying all the rates on site values, and respecting existing 
 contracts, would make no difference to the occupier as regards 
 beneficial rates ; they would add to or maintain the value of the 
 property as they do now. If the rates were levied on all land values 
 — ^that is, on all agricultural and other land as well as on building 
 land— the rates which I have termed " constant " would disappear, 
 and occupiers would be relieved to that extent. So far as the other 
 onerous rates go, the incidence of them is on the land-owner already. 
 
 As has already been explained, the principal difference that 
 levying all or a substantial portion of the existing rates upon land 
 values would make, would be not, except in the matter of " constant 
 rates," to place an additional burden on land-owners as a class, 
 but to re-allocate the existing burden amongst individual land- 
 owners on a new basis. Where the land value is a large proportion 
 of the total value of the property, the burden on the land-owner 
 would be increased ; where the land value is a small proportion of 
 the total value, the burden would be diminished ; where the land 
 value is an average proportion of the total value, the burden would 
 be unchanged. 
 
 Transfer of Burdens 
 
 Bearing in mind the important consideration that, unless ex- 
 penditure be curtailed, which is not at all probable, rates can only 
 be reduced by levying additional charges upon some one else, the 
 question arises. Is it desirable that all or some portion of the burden 
 of the present rates should be transferred to other shoulders, and if 
 so to whose shoulders, and would it be equitable to do it ? 
 
502 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 We have seen that the beneficial rates, which in England and 
 Wales were about 24^ millions in 1910-11, cannot be shifted. They 
 must be paid either as rates or rent. Any relief of them would be a 
 gift to the land-owner. There is no reason why they should be 
 relieved. They represent necessary and desirable services : value 
 is received for them by those who pay them. There is no more 
 reason why the general pubUc or any limited class should be made 
 to pay in order to reheve those who now pay them, than there is 
 that the public should pay the tailor's, draper's, or butcher's bills 
 of householders or land-owners in general. 
 
 The amount raised for local onerous expenditure of a national 
 character was 71| millions (70 millions expended, and IJ miUion 
 surplus carried forward). Of this 21 millions were obtained from 
 Government grants and allotted taxes, and 10 milhons from profits 
 on undertakings, rents of property, and interest on investments. 
 This left 40| milhons to be raised by rates. I have expressed the 
 opinion that the " constant " onerous rates which fall on the 
 occupiers of buildings are^ taking them as a whole, about equal to 
 one -fourth of the total rates. The position with regard to the 
 incidence of rates on agricultural land is different. Allowing for that, 
 I estimate that of the 40J milhons of onerous rates 15 millions would 
 fall upon the occupier as " constant " rates, and some 25^ milhons 
 upon the land-owners. 
 
 What is the case for rehef here ? The great complaint is the 
 enormous increase which has taken place in recent years in that part 
 of the cost of the national services which is thrown on local rates. 
 Omitting loans and loan charges, and they are heavy items and 
 have grown rapidly, the expenditure from local sources — ^that is, 
 omitting grants from the National Exchequer — on Education, 
 Poor Eehef, Main Roads, and PoUce increased from £12,382,322 
 in 1889-90 to £28,259,743 in 1908-9. An mcrease of 16 milhons 
 a year, or nearly 130 per cent in four items in twenty years, is 
 undoubtedly startling. It is httle wonder that the average local 
 rate increased from 3s. 7d. in the £ in 1891-92 to 6s. 4|d. in 
 1910-11, and that there is a cry for relief. 
 
 In view of the fact that during the same period National taxa- 
 tion doubled, and the annual grants from the National Exchequer 
 in aid of local rates increased from 7 to 21 milhons, it seems as though 
 the general tax-payer has equal groimd for complaint, and has sub- 
 stantial justification for objecting to further heavy demands being 
 made for assistance from him. 
 
cH.in THE INCIDENCE OF RATES 503 
 
 So far as the 15 millions of these onerous rates which I estimate 
 fall on occupiers are concerned, can it be said that taken as a whole 
 it is an inequitable contribution ? It practically falls on everybody. 
 Almost everyone outside our gaols, workhouses, and asylums occupies 
 rateable premises, and directly or indirectly pays rates. Roughly, 
 though by no means accurately, rateable value bears some relation 
 to means and ability to pay. These rates fall more heavily in pro- 
 portion to means upon those whose incomes are small than upon 
 those whose incomes are large. On the other hand, small houses 
 escape the inhabited house duty and people of small means do not 
 pay income tax, while the costly services of education and poor 
 rehef, including asylums, are far more for the benefit of their class 
 than for the well-to-do. The rate of income tax in the £ which the 
 rich pay is also enormously greater than the rate paid by the smaller 
 grades of income-tax incomes. A rich man pays something ranging 
 from Is. 2d. to Is. 8d. in the £, while a man who earns an income 
 of £260 a year pays less than 3^d. in the £, and one who earns £500 
 a year pays less than 6|d. in the £. 
 
 With regard to the 25^ miUions that I estimate faU on the land- 
 owner, it must be remembered that the total burden that might have 
 fallen upon him is 55| millions — 70| milUons, the total of the onerous 
 charges, less 15 millions which as " constant " rates fall on the 
 occupiers. Nearly the whole of the Government grants and of the 
 profits, rents, and interest received by the local authorities go to 
 relieve him, and help to reduce his burden to 25| millions. On 
 the whole, therefore, regarding the class of land-owners as a whole, 
 they have, it seems to me, little ground of complaint in this respect. 
 
 Two Grievances 
 
 One substantial grievance under the present arrangement is 
 that, although the burdens which fall on the occupiers and the 
 land-owners respectively as a whole may not be inequitable, the 
 allocation to individuals in those two groups is unsatisfactory. As 
 the local cost is levied locally, the result is that the burden of that 
 cost falls most heavily where the expenditure is greatest. That 
 means that where there are the most poor, and where the attendance 
 at the pubUc schools is largest in proportion to the population, the 
 rates required to cover the cost of the poor law and of education 
 are the highest. On the other hand, those are precisely the districts 
 where the houses are the smallest and the working and poorer classes 
 are most numerous, and consequently, where the rateable value 
 
504 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 is low. Those two conditions — ^heavy expenditure and low rateable 
 value — necessitate high rates. The result is that the cost of these 
 services falls much more heavily upon these districts in proportion 
 to the value of the property than it does upon well-to-do locaUties. 
 As the burden of these services is admittedly one which should be as 
 far as practicable a general and national one, it is desirable that it 
 should be distributed over the whole country more proportionately 
 to the value of the property on which it falls than is now the case. 
 
 Another point is that the portion of the onerous rates that is a 
 burden on the land-owners falls upon them in individual cases, not 
 only according to the expenditure on onerous services in the locality, 
 which is unfair as between owners in different localities, but also, not 
 according to the value of their land, but according to the value of the 
 whole property, land and buildings combined, which means that 
 the rates which fall upon the land are, in proportion to its value, 
 much higher in districts where the site value is a small proportion 
 of the total value of the property than they are where the site value 
 is a large proportion of the total value. As those districts in which 
 the working classes and poorer people live are frequently those in 
 which the proportion of site value to the total value of the property 
 is smaller than in wealthier districts, both the conditions to which 
 we have referred combine there to make the burden on the land- 
 owner in those areas proportionately much heavier than it is on his 
 fellow-owner in more favourably placed localities. This inequality 
 might be rectified with advantage. 
 
 Some Practicable and Desirable Reforms 
 
 We may now proceed to consider what changes in our system of 
 local taxation and of meeting expenditure which is locally adminis- 
 tered are practicable, equitable, and desirable. 
 
 The assessment of property for rating purposes should be made 
 uniform in basis throughout the country, and should be conducted 
 equitably and fairly. At present it possesses none of these qualities. 
 Assessments are not uniform. The practice in difierent localities 
 varies widely. In some areas the assessments are intentionally low ; 
 and the scale of deductions made to arrive at rateable value is by 
 no means always the same. In this way injustice is often done to 
 other areas where the assessments are on a higher basis, and a correct 
 judgment as to the necessities of a district based on the amount of its 
 rates in the £ is rendered difficult. 
 
 The assessment of individual properties is also often very in- 
 
cH.m THE INCIDENCE OF RATES 505 
 
 equitable. It should be the duty of the assessment authorities to 
 arrive at and maintain a just assessment, and to be equally vigilant 
 in protecting a ratepayer against a too high assessment and in 
 protecting the pubHc by preventing a too low one. This is seldom 
 done. It is not unusual to find houses precisely alike ia the same 
 street assessed at annual values which vary to the extent of 20, 30, 
 and even 40 per cent. All the houses are of the same value, and 
 should be assessed at the same amount. The ratepayers frequently 
 do not know that their neighbours are assessed at much less than they 
 are. The difiSculty of securing a revision of an assessment is con- 
 siderable to the uninitiated. All the weight of official influence, 
 technicality, and red tape is thrown against those who attempt it. 
 The result is that assessments which are known to be unjust are 
 maintained, and ratepayers are defrauded. Officials are the 
 servants of the pubUc, and they should regard it as their duty to 
 remedy obvious anomalies and injustices in assessments without 
 waiting for the ratepayer to discover them and appeal against 
 them. 
 
 The allowance made for repairs should be calculated on the value 
 of the building only, and not, as at present, on the value of the site 
 and building together. The present system gives an excessive 
 allowance in cases where the site value is a large proportion of the 
 total value. 
 
 Property, the annual rental value of which does not fairly repre- 
 sent its capital value, should be assessed at an amount equal to a 
 specified percentage on its capital value. Then the present un- 
 developed land duty should be abolished. 
 
 Charges should he classified and a National Fund established 
 
 Expenditure and Rates should be separated into two divisions 
 representing Local and Beneficial and National and Onerous services. 
 
 Rates to meet the cost of local and beneficial services should be 
 levied on all occupied land and buildings as at present. 
 
 Towards the expenditure of the localities on national and 
 onerous services the National Exchequer should contribute as it 
 does now, but the method of arriving at the amount of the total 
 contribution and of distributing it amongst the various local 
 authorities should be completely revised. 
 
 A National Local Taxation Fund should be formed, and into it 
 should be paid an amount similar to that which would be paid to 
 Local Authorities under the present arrangements. 
 
5o6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 To that fund should be added the present Licence Duties, the 
 Inhabited House Duty, and all the receipts from the new Increment 
 Value and Reversion Duties. 
 
 From that fund contributions should be made towards local 
 expenditure on National Services. The distribution should be so 
 arranged that the cost of Education and the Poor Law would be 
 more evenly distributed than it is now, and would press less heavily 
 on the less well-to-do localities. 
 
 In the case of every service towards the cost of which a contribu- 
 tion was made from this fund, the amount contributed in respect of 
 each service should be specified, and the making of the contribution 
 to each local authority should be made dependent on a certain 
 standard of efficiency in the service being maintained. 
 
 A Limited Rate on Land Vdhies 
 
 There is one further suggestion which should be considered. 
 It is that a limited rate should be levied on land values. As has 
 already been explained, such a rate would make little difference to 
 land-owners as a body. In so far as it reduced the " constant " 
 onerous rates that fall on occupiers it would increase the rates which 
 fall on land : but the effect on those " constant " rates in that way 
 would be very small and may be ignored. The real difference which 
 such a rate would make, as has also already been explained, would 
 be that it would redistribute the burden as between individual land- 
 owners and different districts. Such a redistribution is desirable, 
 and would be equitable if it were made on a moderate scale and in 
 conjunction with the other changes here suggested. 
 
 The value of the land assessed should be the capital value of the 
 cleared site where it is used for purposes other than agriculture, 
 market gardens or nurseries, or is moor, mountain, or waste. In 
 the latter cases a deduction from the capital value of the land 
 cleared of buildings might be made to the extent, say, of half the 
 capital value, up to a value of £25 an acre. That is to say, all 
 agricultural land might be assessed for this tax at half its value up 
 to £25 an acre, and where the value exceeded that amount it might 
 be reduced by £12 : 10s. an acre. 
 
 If the rate were limited by statute to one penny in the £ on the 
 capital value, which would be equivalent to a rate of 2s. Id. in the £ 
 on an annual value calculated at 4 per cent on the capital value, 
 and a rate of that amount were levied, it might produce a yield 
 of from £10,000,000 to £12,000,000 a year for England and Wales. 
 
cH.iii THE INCIDENCE OF RATES 507 
 
 It should be collected locally from the occupier, except, of course, 
 where the rent includes the rates ; and, in the case of all new tenancies 
 and new contracts entered into after the passing of the Act, it 
 should be deducted from the rent. 
 
 It would not be a new burden on land-owners as a class. It 
 would be an old burden readjusted and reassessed. In the total 
 it would correspondingly reduce existing rates, but on properties 
 where the land value is high the total amount of rates would be 
 increased by this rearrangement, on properties where the land 
 value is low the rates would be reduced, and on intermediate pro- 
 perties they would not be altered. 
 
 A sound reason for levying such a rate as is here suggested is 
 that the charge would then fall more directly, immediately, and 
 obviously upon the class of persons upon whom it really does fall 
 now. The popular view is that no charge falls on site-owners now, 
 and that some charge ought to fall on them. This view is a mistaken 
 one, and it would be an advantage to correct it by bringing the 
 obvious payment more into harmony with the actual incidence of 
 the rate. The popular misconception is mischievous, and it is 
 desirable that it should be dispelled. 
 
 A limited rate of the kind now proposed, and under circumstances 
 somewhat similar to those now suggested, was recommended by 
 the Minority Report of the Eoyal Commission on Local Taxation, 
 1901 , which was signed by Lord Balfour of Burleigh (the chairman), 
 Mr. J. B. Balfour, M.P. (afterwards Lord Kinross), Sir Edward 
 Hamilton, Sir George Murray, and Mr. James Stuart, M.P. One 
 difficulty which existed then — ^that of the cost and trouble of making 
 a separate valuation of all the land of the country, and especially 
 of all the built-on sites — ^has been largely removed. Such a valuation 
 is being made for the purposes of the increment and other duties, 
 and all that would be necessary would be to keep it up to date by 
 periodica] revisions. 
 
 Rates to meet the balance of expenditure required to be raised 
 locally for general or onerous services, after the grants from the 
 National Fund and the proceeds of the land values rate had been 
 received, should be levied on all land, buildings, and premises of all 
 Mnds on the basis of their annual value as now, except that where 
 that annual value was less than, say, 3 or 3J per cent on the capital 
 value, the rateable value should be taken to be such an amount as 
 would represent 3 or 3^ per cent on the capital value. 
 
5o8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x 
 
 Effect of the Suggested Changes 
 
 The net result of the changes here suggested would be to increase 
 the total contribution from the National Exchequer by about 2| 
 millions a year now, with the prospect of a further steady increase 
 in the future. The additional amount received in rates from 
 property, the assessment of which would be increased by basing 
 it on capital value where the rental value does not fairly represent 
 the capital value, would be substantial. These additions to the 
 receipts would reduce the average amount of the rate in the £. 
 
 The revised method of distributing the Government grants and 
 allotted taxes would give relief to districts where the cost of educa- 
 tion and the poor law is high in proportion to rateable value. 
 
 The more equitable rating of agricultural land would reduce 
 the rates on houses in agricultural districts, and by so doing also 
 tend to reduce the amount of the " constant " onerous rates borne 
 by the occupiers of houses and buildings everywhere. 
 
 The rating of land values as proposed would reduce the other 
 rates in all rating areas, and especially relieve small and suburban 
 and outljdng properties. 
 
 Altogether the result would be to reduce the additional amount 
 of rates that would become payable when houses or other buildings 
 were erected or improved or extended ; and to reduce the total 
 amount of rates payable in respect of the less valuable property, 
 and on the houses built in the outer zones of towns and large cities. 
 
 Under ordinary conditions, it would be difficult to effect such a 
 readjustment without inflicting hardship and injustice on some 
 classes of owners and occupiers. But in connection with the other 
 changes which have been here suggested, and in view of the further 
 contribution from the receipts from transferred taxes, the reappor- 
 tionment of the burdens could be made without seriously affecting 
 any one adversely. 
 
 The changes here outUned would not be revolutionary, but 
 they would be substantial reforms. They would remove some 
 obvious anomalies and grievances. They would inflict injustice 
 upon no one. Nor would they offend against any of the principles 
 of equity, expediency, and sound economics which have been shown 
 to be the foundations of a stable social structure, and of all real and 
 lasting progress. 
 
PAET XI 
 
 AGRICULTURAL WAGES 
 
 AND 
 
 PROBLEMS OF TENURE AND HOUSING 
 IN TOWN AND COUNTRY 
 
 509 
 
" Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn." — Deuteronomy 
 XXV. 4. 
 
 " While the wages of agricultural labourers are not high enough to allow them 
 to pay a commercial rent for adequate accommodation, no satisfactory solution 
 of the housing problem is possible." 
 
 " We believe the policy of subsidies for housing to be unsound and indefensible." 
 — The Land Enquiry Committee, 1913. 
 
 " A cottager who cannot afford to pay 2s. a week for a cottage only can well 
 afEord to pay 3s. 6d. or 4s., or even more, for the same cottage with an acre of 
 land attached. . . . Although a cottage without land cannot, under present condi- 
 tions, be built to pay, a cottage with land can." — Rev. C. W. Stubbs. 
 
 It is stated that something like half the agricultural land of England is rented 
 at 20 to 25 per cent below its economic value. 
 
 " The turning aside of capital from the cultivation of the land to its purchase 
 is one of the chief vices of our French rural economy." — De Lavbeqtjb. 
 
 " Of all broken reeds Sentimentality is the most broken reed on which righteous- 
 ness can lean." — Thbodobe Roosevelt. 
 
 " Political upheavals only slightly affect the intrinsic lite of nations, while 
 the failure of a social experiment may bring a people face to face with the 
 question of bare existence." — Professor Anton Mengeb. 
 
 510 
 
CHAPTER I 
 
 PROBLEMS OF LAND TENTJBE IN AGBICULTXTRAL DISTRICTS 
 
 Anything like a full and detailed discussion of such important 
 matters as allotments and small holdings, security of tenure, and the 
 wages and housing of agricultural labourers, still more the pro- 
 pounding and elaboration of a complete scheme of land and housing 
 reform, would be beyond the scope of this volume, and would, indeed, 
 require a book to itseK. Some reference to a few practical points, 
 and the teaching of experience with regard to them, and to some 
 of the proposals which are attracting much attention at the present 
 time, will not, however, be out of place. 
 
 There is general agreement that all is not well in rural areas 
 with regard to such matters as the wages and housing of agricultural 
 labourers, the provision of allotments and small holdings, and the 
 conditions under which possession of or access to land can be 
 obtained. In the following pages some suggestions are made 
 which would not conflict with the principles of equity and sound 
 economics which it has been the main purpose of the preceding 
 pages to illustrate, justify, and enforce. 
 
 The Tying-wp of Larid 
 
 It has long been a ground of complaint that land in this country 
 has been largely locked up, and has rarely come into the market 
 in lots and under conditions which made it really available for pur- 
 chase by farmers large and small, or for letting to peasant holders ; 
 and it has been held that this was mainly due to the fact that our 
 laws encourage the keeping together of large estates and the passing 
 of them intact from generation to generation. While it is true that 
 recently, owing chiefly to the fact that it has been saleable at better 
 prices than had been obtainable for many years, very considerable 
 
 5" 
 
512 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 quantities of land have been placed on the market and sold, the 
 gravamen referred to remains and requires attention. 
 
 The law should not do anj^thing to encourage the retention of 
 large quantities of land in the hands of single persons or families. 
 Every facihty that can be given should be afforded for deahng with 
 settled estates. Much has been done in that direction already, and 
 more should be done. The creation of charges upon real property 
 for the lifetime of other persons than the owner should be discouraged 
 by making them expensive. It is well known that the creation of 
 interests of this kind in connection with large businesses has often 
 proved extremely detrimental and sometimes fatal to the successful 
 management and continuance of the concern. They seriously 
 interfere with the business-like dealing with real property. 
 
 The example set by the law whereby the real estate of intestates 
 descends to the eldest son should be abolished. Eeal estate should 
 be divided in such cases as personal estate is. 
 
 The payment of death duties should be the same in every way 
 with regard to real estate as to personal. No more time should be 
 given for payment in one case than in the other. It would be far 
 better for the community that part of the estate should be sold or 
 distributed as personal property usually is than that the whole 
 of it should be held by one individual, subject to charges and pay- 
 ments which cripple him financially for life or for many years, 
 keep the whole estate in a very complicated position and at great 
 cost in the hands of lawyers, and prevent it from being dealt with 
 as freely and as easily as the interests of the community require 
 it should be. The sale and transfer of land and houses and 
 all transactions in connection with them should be made as simple 
 and as inexpensive as possible. Hitherto the attempts to introduce 
 registration of title in this country have not been a success. Thus 
 far they have only increased delay, comphcation, and cost. Every- 
 thing that can be done to simplify titles should be done. Levies 
 by the Government in the form of stamp duties on deeds in connec- 
 tion with the sale, mortgage, leasing, and letting of property should 
 be aboUshed or be reduced to nominal amounts. They are taxes 
 on trade : taxes on the trade in property. They check and hamper 
 and often prevent transactions which should be encouraged. 
 
 An Undesirable System 
 
 The hampering effect of settlements and charges in connection 
 with estates is very far-reaching. They make the disposal of any 
 
cH.i PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 513 
 
 portion of the estate extremely cumbersome and costly. The con- 
 sent of a number of persons has often to be obtained. That involves 
 much cost and delay. The conditions as to the reinvestment of the 
 money and the return which must be obtained on it often render a 
 sale at a reasonable price quite impossible. Stewards, lawyers, 
 architects, and surveyors are a strong garrison of vested interests 
 who are really parasites on the property begotten of the conditions. 
 The owner is largely in their hands. He can seldom or never do 
 as he likes with the property, and much that is charged against him 
 is really the action of his stewards and professional advisers, who in 
 their turn are tied up by the conditions of the settlement and trusts 
 and the law with regard thereto. The whole system is a network 
 of complication, difficulty, and ineptitude so far as the community 
 is concerned. It was devised, has grown up, and is maintained in 
 order to keep estates together, nominally in the hands of the head 
 of the family for the time being, although he is reaUy Httle more 
 than a receiver of the surplus rents which remain after endless 
 charges have been met. The object for which the system exists 
 is an undesirable one. It is good for no one except the parasites 
 who hve upon it and do so much to maintain and perpetuate it ; and 
 it is distinctly opposed to the public interest. Hitherto legislation 
 has encouraged and facilitated it. It does so less than it did. All 
 encouragement of the system should cease ; and, so far as it can be 
 done equitably, discouragement should be aimed at. 
 
 While this is so, it is also desirable that we should keep closely 
 in touch with the facts of the matter in order to be on our guard 
 against exaggeration and misconception. When figures are quoted 
 to show the large amount of land held by a few individuals it should 
 also be remembered that the estates of the largest area are by no 
 means the most valuable. In the New Domesday Book, which was 
 compiled by the Government nearly forty years ago, the rental of 
 the whole of the land in Scotland belonging to the Duke of Suther- 
 land, the largest landholder in the United Kingdom, worked out 
 at an average of 12|d. an acre. The rental of the largest owner in 
 Ireland averaged the same figure. Several hundred thousand acres 
 of the land of the Duke of Sutherland only yielded him a rental of 
 8d. an acre last year. There are several single acres of land in the 
 City of London which are more valuable and yield a larger income 
 than the whole of the 1,326,000 acres which the Duke of Sutherland 
 owned in Scotland. The truth, of course, is that there is a very 
 large amount of land in Scotland and Ireland and to a smaller extent 
 
 21, 
 
514 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 in England which is mountain or waste of extremely little value. 
 There are hundreds of thousands of acres for which twenty shillings 
 an acre would be a very full price to pay ; and there is little doubt 
 that any one who wished to buy it in quantities could have it at that 
 figure or less. The 420 estates in the United Kingdom which ex- 
 ceeded 20,000 acres each had an average rental of only 7s. 5d. an 
 acre. For the most part it is those who are small owners of land 
 in the matter of area who are the owners of the greater part of the 
 valuable land of the country. It is stated that the rental value of 
 the land belonging to owners of less than one acre each is as great as 
 the rental value of all the land belonging to owners who have more 
 than 1000 acres each. There are many single buildings in the City of 
 London, the site alone of which is worth as much as 100,000 acres of 
 land on some of the large estates in Scotland and Ireland. The value 
 of land ia London is very great, but the area owned by any one person 
 is not large. There are 116 square miles in London. No individual 
 owns one square mile. Only one individual, the Duke of Westminster, 
 o\ra.s more than half a square mile. The land on which London 
 stands is owned by some 38,200 persons. The number of persons 
 who own one house only is 14,000 : 700 persons or bodies own five 
 acres or more each. There is, therefore, a very considerable amount 
 of small individual ownership. It would be a great advantage in 
 every way if it were much increased and extended. 
 
 The Rural Exodus 
 
 What is frequently referred to as the depopulation of our rural 
 districts represents a marked movement of our modern life, and 
 suggests a problem which several countries besides ourselves are 
 considering. The movement is a natural and largely an inevitable 
 one. The opening up of vast areas of fertile, virgin soil in new 
 countries where land can be had for nothing or at a very low price, 
 combined with modern facilities for cheap and rapid transit which 
 render it possible to market the produce in almost any part of the 
 world under favourable conditions, has necessarily very materially 
 affected the position of agriculture ia those old countries which, 
 on the one hand, are receiving the benefit and on the other are feeling 
 the competition of these new and fruitful sources of supply.^ The 
 invention and widespread use of agricultural machinery has also 
 tended to reduce the amount of labour required to cultivate a given 
 
 ' Our imports of foodstuffs increased in value from an annual average of 
 £46,000,000 in 1866-72 to £147,000,000 in 1905-11. 
 
CH.I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 515 
 
 area of land. Increased facilities of communication and the spread 
 of education and newspapers and books have rendered it much easier 
 for people to move away to other districts and other countries 
 than was the case a hundred years ago. 
 
 When all the poetry and sentiment that can be imported into 
 descriptions of rural life have been made the most of, the fact re- 
 mains that the great majority of those who are engaged in it find 
 that it involves almost ceaseless toil, under conditions which are 
 often dreary and dull, for a very small return, with but poor prospects 
 of rising in the world. When all that can usefully be suggested 
 has been said and done in the direction of reforming the laws and 
 improving the conditions under which the cultivation of the soil is 
 carried on, many of the problems and difficulties which we are now 
 considering will still confront us. It is easy for superficial observers 
 and thinkers to blame this person and this class and that law and 
 to suggest remedies, and the less practical knowledge they have of 
 what they talk about the more ready they are to produce " pills for 
 earthquakes." There are fundamental problems and facts which 
 they largely ignore. In countries where the conditions which they 
 desire to establish prevail, problems similar to those with which 
 we are faced are still found. 
 
 The Experience of other Countries 
 
 France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland have widespread systems 
 of peasant holdings. The life is excessively hard. The people 
 toil incessantly and deny themselves almost the necessaries of life. 
 Women and children work in the fields almost like slaves, and 
 manifest in their appearance every evidence of the hardness of their 
 lot. The great majority of our working people would regard con- 
 demnation to live the life of most Continental peasants as little 
 better than a sentence of penal servitude. 
 
 Belgium is essentially a country of small holdings. The land is 
 more subdivided than in any other European country. The law 
 practically compels the equal division of all property among the 
 legal heirs. Entail is forbidden and settlements are very strictly 
 limited. They have an excellent and wide-spread system of cheap 
 transit throughout the country. Nevertheless the price of land is 
 higher than it is here ; it is about double for soil not so fertile as ouis. 
 Land hunger is greater there than here. The average wage for 
 agricultural labourers (men) is Is. 7d. a day. The work is exceed- 
 ingly hard and the hours are very long. A much larger proportion of 
 
5i6 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 women work on the land. The wages of artisans in the ordinary 
 industrial trades are from 50 to 100 per cent higher here than there, 
 and our hours are shorter. Notwithstanding the fact that the 
 cheap transit takes a much larger proportion of the working people 
 to Hve outside the towns, housing conditions and overcrowding are 
 much the same there as here. A smaller proportion of the population 
 is adequately fed than is the case with us. Mr. Seebohm Eowntree, 
 in his interesting and valuable book on Land and Labour, Lessons 
 from Belgium, says : " Belgium has been much more successful than 
 England in preventing the rush to the towns." Except in so far 
 as her cheap transit system enables workers in the towns to hve in 
 the country much more generally than is the case here, I doubt the 
 soundness of his conclusion. Belgians do not go into the towns 
 so freely as EngHshmen do because the attractions are not so great. 
 Wages in industrial centres are far lower, and the hours and condi- 
 tions of work are much less satisfactory in Belgium than here. If 
 Belgian towns offered the same opportunities to the famihes of 
 Belgian agriculturists that English towns do to country people, 
 the rush from the terrible drudgery and miserable pay of Belgian 
 agricultural life would be quite as great as it is here. 
 
 French small owners suffered as much from agricultural depres- 
 sion between 1879 and 1900 as EngUsh tenant farmers did. Their land 
 is frequently mortgaged, and they pay rent in the name of interest. 
 Foreclosures and compulsory sales take place at the average rate of 
 about 6000 a year. Mr. Orr tells us that in 1878, before the serious 
 fall in price took place, the number was 6370. This rose steadily 
 until 1887, when it was 13,320, an increase of 110 per cent. Besides 
 these compulsory sales, there were voluntary sales made in court 
 after foreclosure. Until 1880 the average of these had been 775. 
 In 1889 it rose to 2778. In addition to these were voluntary sales 
 on the eve of foreclosure, a still larger number. Between 1882 and 
 1900 the number of proprietors in France was reduced by 410,000, 
 and the number of assessed lots by 717,811.^ 
 
 In the United States of America, agricultural land is plentiful 
 and cheap. The great majority of the occupjdng cultivators of 
 the soil are also the owners. They have security of tenure. There 
 is no overshadowing large-landed proprietor. There is no trouble 
 about game laws, harsh eviction, compensation, and the like. Access 
 to the land is easy ; there is no difficulty about obtaining a holding. 
 An enormous and up to now protected market for their produce 
 * Taxation o/ Land Values, p. 77. 
 
CH.I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 517 
 
 lay within their own borders and a hungry world lay outside. 
 What is their position ? What are their problems and difficulties ? 
 Some of them are indicated in the following extracts from an 
 instructive communication which appeared on June 21, 1913, in 
 the Financial and Commercial Chronicle of New York — ^the leading 
 financial and commercial paper in America : 
 
 All this talk about the higher cost of living hinges right down to 
 one thing. There are not enough farmers and farm workers to produce 
 the supplies needed for our growing population, and the comforts and 
 necessities of Hfe — ^food, clothing, shoes and so on — are getting higher ia 
 cost. No more serious problem, therefore, confronts the American. . . . 
 And the solution of it lies with the farmer. If, then, we can find out 
 what is the matter with the farmer and the farm life of to-day, we will 
 go far toward finding a remedy for the high prices of the necessities of 
 Hfe. . . . 
 
 To put the matter plainly, the farmer is not doing what he set 
 out to do. The farming class are not performing their part, namely 
 that of tilling the soil and producing sufficient therefrom, that the rest 
 of us, whose lives, perchance, are not cast in such pleasant places, may 
 be clothed and fed. There is no other industry that can be recalled, 
 from mining to making shoes, but has improved and perfected its 
 processes and increased its output, especially in the wonderful years of 
 progress since the beginning of the last quarter of the last century. . . . 
 
 The number of farms, the number of farm workers, and the volume 
 of farm products has not been increasing at any such ratio as population. 
 
 That this is the case needs no detailed figures. A year ago we were 
 importing potatoes from Ireland, Scotland, and Sweden. 
 
 The production of apples fell off from 69,000,000 barrels in 1896 to 
 an average of 28,000,000 barrels in 1908 and 1909. 
 
 The same tale is heard in the supply of wool and the number of 
 sheep. . . . 
 
 So one could go on with eggs, beef, potatoes, and many another 
 food supply, at prices that make it a continual struggle for the moderate 
 househ'older to make both ends meet. . . . Much of the abandoned and 
 so-caUed worthless land in New England is as well adapted as any in 
 Scotland for the successful raising of sheep, and, as is well known, 
 sheep add fertility to soil. 
 
 In Central New York land is for sale at a tithe of former prices. 
 The boys have left the farm to be near the amusements and excitements 
 of the towns. Here is a source of much of the trouble that we are 
 discussing, and it must be met at the outset. Farm life cannot be made 
 pleasant or stripped of its loneliness if the workers are to spend their 
 spare hours away from civilisation and social hfe. Under the new 
 farming system the hands will live in centres of population, larger or 
 smaller, but adequate for social needs. 
 
 They will leave their homes in the morning for the distant field in 
 
5i8 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.xi 
 
 automobiles, omnibuses, or other conveyances, returning again at 
 nightfall to the town. It is useless to regret the old ideas, the simple 
 life. It was never- the idyll it was painted, and it never can compete 
 again with city attractions. But we must be clothed and fed and some 
 one must do the work. 
 
 This writer's view is that as the town worker tends to live in 
 the country and travel backwards and forwards to his work, the 
 rural worker will reverse the process and have his home in the 
 town ! 
 
 In Canada where land is to be had for occupying it, and the 
 alleged causes of rural depopulation here — except the real ones — 
 are absent, the trend is strongly to the towns. The urban popula- 
 tion is increasing more rapidly than that in rural areas, the increases 
 between 1901 and 1911 being 62-28 per cent, and 17-20 per cent 
 respectively. Canada has now four cities over 100,000 population 
 —Montreal (470,480), Toronto (376,538), Winnipeg (136,035), and 
 Vancouver (100,401). Of these Vancouver did not exist in 1881, 
 and Winnipeg at that date possessed 7985 inhabitants. Eegina 
 (30,213) and Edmonton (24,900) were not started in 1891. 
 
 The position in the United States is not new. Some little time 
 ago it was reported that there were no fewer than 20,000 farms in 
 New York State for sale. Most of them were unoccupied, and the 
 prices asked were said by the New York Tribune to be sometimes 
 much less than the worth of the buildings on them. So serious did 
 the State consider this question of abandoned farms, with its 
 economic and political ramifications, that the Department of 
 Agriculture maintained a department of information regarding 
 them, in connection with which the Department printed bulletins 
 giving all details in regard to the farms and agricultural condi- 
 tions in the different parts of the State. 
 
 There is no mystery about the desertion of the farms. Accord- 
 ing to the State Commissioner of Agriculture, the expansion of 
 business in the last ten years had drawn the young men and women 
 alike from the farms and semi-rural districts. Many deserted 
 New York State and other States in the East, attracted by the 
 advertisements of the railroad companies telling of the beauties 
 and advantages of the Western States and Canada. 
 
 In Australia the official Year Book of the Commonwealth 
 tells lis that a marked feature is the tendency of the population 
 to accumulate in the capital cities. The Census of 1911 showed 
 that 38 per cent of the total population of the Commonwealth was 
 
CH.I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 519 
 
 in the six capital cities, and 47 per cent was in towns with a 
 population of 3000 and upwards. Yet in Australia unoccupied 
 land is plentiful and is available on very easy conditions. 
 
 What is our Ideal ? 
 
 An important point for consideration is what are we to aim 
 at ? Is the land to be cultivated mainly for the benefit of those 
 who live on it in the agricultural districts or for the benefit of the 
 population as a whole, the bulk of which is of course in urban areas ? 
 Is the ideal to be self-sufficing subsistence agriculture for the 
 cultivator or the supply of food for the nation as a whole ? Is a 
 high financial return to the occupier and the owner of the soil the 
 final criterion of successful agriculture and the highest statesman- 
 ship ? How far are these aims compatible with each other, and, 
 in so far as they are not compatible, which is to be preferred ? I 
 would suggest that the question is not necessarily which method 
 of the tenure and ownership of land will yield the largest amount of 
 produce or income. The comfort and weKare of the community 
 as a whole should be the first consideration. That system of 
 ownership and occupation which will enable the largest number 
 of persons to live in reasonable comfort in the country as a whole 
 is the one which legislation and pubhc opinion should promote. 
 
 "When the English land system and English land-owners are 
 being discussed and criticised, we should remember that with all 
 their faults they have produced that English farming which is largely 
 regarded as a model by other nations, and they enabled the industry 
 to tide over a period of depression which would have ruined it if it 
 had been based on any other system. 
 
 Ownership v. Tenancy 
 
 There is much discussion as to the relative merits of ownership 
 and tenancy in connection with agriculture. The magic of owner- 
 ship is undoubtedly great, and many people wiU make great sacri- 
 fices in order to secure it. There is a sentimental as well as a 
 financial value attached to it. Where a man can afford it, where 
 he has capital enough, it is often a good thing for him to own his 
 farm. If he has to obtain a mortgage on it in order to enable him 
 to acquire or retain it, the advantage is apt to be doubtful. It is 
 true that a man spends money and devotes labour more freely 
 to improving and developing his own property than he does if it 
 belongs to another. If he has a mortgage on it which he may reduce 
 
520 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND vr. xi 
 
 from time to time he has a great iaducement to save. On the 
 other hand, if the mortgage be large, and his capital somewhat 
 meagre, his farm is likely to be more or less starved, and in bad 
 times he may find his position very difficult, and he may be com- 
 pelled to sell or surrender his property at a great sacrifice. If 
 he has no more capital than will enable him to stock and cultivate 
 his farm thoroughly well and leave him a margin to fall back upon 
 in bad times, he had better be a tenant and have all his capital 
 available for his business — ^provided he can have something like 
 permanency of tenure. 
 
 What the tenant reaUy wants is security of tenure, and pro- 
 tection against having his rent raised on his own improvements. 
 Given that, and the advantage which ownership has over tenancy 
 is not very great ; while tenancy leaves the occupier of limited 
 capital with more free money to cultivate and develop his farming 
 efficiently and thoroughly. Security is important, not only because 
 it enables and encourages a man to put his most and his best into 
 the farm by assuring him that he will receive the full benefit of 
 so doing, but also because unless he has security he cannot be 
 thoroughly independent and exercise and enforce the rights which 
 the law gives him. Security for the tenant is also an advantage 
 to the landlord when it induces the tenant to put his own money 
 freely into the farm, and make it successful and profitable. 
 
 Fixity of Tenure and Fair Rents 
 
 In principle there is no substantial objection to setting up an 
 authority to adjust rents : in practice there are difficidties to 
 overcome. If nothing but the bare unimproved land were let : 
 if the buildings and improvements had been made by the occupier, 
 as was usually the case in Ireland, there would be little difficulty. 
 But when, as here, the landlord has erected the buildings and made 
 the improvements, and he also does the repairs and renewals, the 
 position is different and more difficult. Much then depends on 
 mutual respect, consideration, and good feeling. If a purely com- 
 mercial relationship were introduced, the result would not be all 
 gain to either party. Difficulties as to repairs, fair usage, reason- 
 able requirements, and proper cultivation would be unavoidable. 
 The tenant should be protected against needless and unfair eviction, 
 and against having his rent arbitrarily and inequitably raised. On 
 the other hand, if the landlord be deprived of his present remedy 
 of getting rid of an unsatisfactory tenant, he must be protected 
 
CH.I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 521 
 
 against undesirable use of his property and unreasonable demands 
 for expenditure on it, and for reductions in rent by inefficient 
 tenants. Indeed, if a landlord is compelled to keep a tenant whom 
 he does not want, and to accept a rent which he considers inadequate, 
 and is deprived of the ordinary means of protecting himself, those 
 who compel him to submit to these conditions may reasonably be 
 asked to undertake responsibility for them, and to guarantee him 
 against loss resulting from them. In cases where a landlord is 
 compelled to retain a tenant on what appear to him to be inadequate 
 and undesirable conditions, on pain of paying heavy compensation, 
 it would be quite fair that he should be entitled to require that the 
 authority which compelled him to keep the tenant should fix a 
 permanent rent for the property free of any responsibility for 
 repairs and other outgoings, and should guarantee that rent as a 
 perpetual charge upon the land. That would give the tenant a 
 perpetual right of possession, absolute security, and the right to all 
 improvements. The owner would get a certain income, a guaranteed 
 rent charge, free from increment or depreciation. The tenant 
 would be able to sell or otherwise dispose of his rights. This would 
 avoid all dispute as to the value of his improvements ; the market 
 price would settle that. The guaranteeing authority — presumably 
 the Government— would reserve to itself the right of resuming 
 possession in case the occupier failed to fulfil the conditions of the 
 arrangement. 
 
 Security is essential if any business, and especially agriculture, 
 is to be carried on under conditions conducive to enterprise, 
 efficiency, and success. It is difficult to see how security can be 
 obtained unless there be some authority or tribunal to whom 
 appeal can be made in case of failure of the parties to reach an 
 agreement. But if risk of serious injustice is to be avoided, the 
 authority or tribunal must be constituted of exceptionally com- 
 petent, impartial, and confidence-begetting men with instructions 
 that the object of its existence is to secure equity for both parties, 
 and that it is not to be the protector of one only. The less such 
 an authority has to be appealed to the better. The moment 
 either party to the contract has to be coerced into accepting or 
 conceding something which he considers to be inequitable, there is 
 almost certain to be an end to the old relations which have so 
 widely prevailed between landlords and tenants. The strict letter 
 of the bond wiU be substituted for mutual consideration and give 
 and take. 
 
522 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 A great change would be brought about in many phases of 
 the land question if authorities were set up and officials appointed 
 whose business it would be to advise and assist when desired to 
 do so in all cases of difficulty either as to acquiring land for building 
 cottages or for allotments or small-holdings or for places of worship, 
 schools, public halls, burial-grounds, etc., or as to terms of tenure. 
 The cost should be borne by the Government, and there should 
 be no expense to those who invoked their aid. There might be 
 a stafE of preliminary advisers and conciliators, who could readily 
 be called in. They could advise and endeavour to arrange what 
 was desired. Their experience would render their aid very useful 
 to all parties, and settlements would be much faciUtated by the 
 knowledge that behind them was a higher authority before which 
 the matter could be taken, and where there would be power to give 
 decisions and make orders which would be compulsory and binding. 
 I should attach great importance to the services of these authorities 
 and officials being available without expense to those who desired 
 them. Methods of compulsion are often valueless because the 
 cost of making use of them is so great as to make the expense 
 of acquiring what is required prohibitive. Cheap, easy, prompt, 
 effective, and equitable exercise of impartial and authoritative 
 influence and power is what is required. 
 
 Small Holdings 
 
 With regard to allotments and small holdings, there has long 
 been widespread agreement as to the desirability of them. There is 
 also Uttle doubt that some land-owners and many farmers object 
 to them, and have discouraged them, and placed obstacles in the 
 way of providing them. Many efforts have been made to facihtate 
 the provision of them. In 1819 an Act was passed empowering 
 the Churchwardens and Overseers of any parish to purchase or take 
 on lease any suitably portion of land and let it " to any poor and 
 industrious inhabitant of the parish," to occupy and cultivate. 
 Since then numerous Acts have been passed to promote the same 
 object, and many Committees of Parliament and Royal Commissions 
 have made recommendations in the same direction. Still the 
 demand for such holdings much exceeds the supply. 
 
 Speaking broadly,it is in the public interest that small cultivators 
 of the soil should be facihtated and encouraged. The multipUcation 
 of them with allotments and small holdings means increasing the 
 produce of the soil, maintaining more people on it, and redeeming 
 
CH. I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 523 
 
 the country-side from the stagnation and desolation, so far as 
 population goes, which have too long characterised it. Experience 
 has, however, shown that the problem which has to be grappled 
 with is not a simple one. Neither all land nor all those who would 
 undertake its cultivation are suitable for the purpose. 
 
 The Practical Side 
 
 Mr. James Long, in The Practical Side of Small Holdings, 
 says : 
 
 The soil must be sufficiently good for its purpose ; thin chalk, sand, 
 gravel, or brick earth must be left severely alone. Far better leave 
 the land altogether and seek a new vocation than waste money, time, 
 thews, and sinews on an impossible holding. 
 
 Land which needs draining but is undraiaed had better be avoided 
 altogether. 
 
 It must not be too high. It must not be too much exposed. 
 
 Land which lies on a gentle slope facing South is much to be preferred. 
 
 Fruit-trees in particular should not be planted in low-lying soil. 
 
 It is important — ^nay, imperative — that there should be no possi- 
 bility of failure from lack of moisture. 
 
 Thin land is useless, wet land is equally bad. 
 
 The prospects of success upon a small holding depend chiefly upon 
 the occupier : although soil is essential, and although good seed, 
 liberality ia manuiiag, and climate all play a prominent part in the 
 process of production, it is brains that tell in the end. Thus without 
 knowledge and the power to apply it we cannot honestly say that a 
 small holder has much prospect of success. 
 
 There are numbers of men who are thirsting for land ; they are 
 anxious to rent or to buy it, to purchase implements and stock and set 
 to work in good earnest, but they lack experience. 
 
 Farming is a difficult business, and it would be as reasonable to 
 imdertake it without experience as to start business as a watchmaker 
 without the sHghtest knowledge of the trade. 
 
 All this means '' picking and choosing," talring " the pick of the 
 basket " everywhere and leaving some one else with the remainder. 
 Clearly, if success is to be assured, specially selected land and 
 competent and experienced men are required. Is it very surprising 
 that there has not been any great anxiety on the part of land-owners 
 to provide allotments and small holdings ? For the most part, 
 choice pieces of land would have to be taken from other tenants, 
 who would certainly object to having their best taken from 
 them and their worst left. Cost would have to be incurred in 
 creating and preparing the holdings. Then the risk of finding 
 
524 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND rx. xi 
 
 suitable and successful tenants would have to be run. Tbe opposi- 
 tion and complaint of their larger tenants would be incurred, and 
 the trouble of managing the estate would be increased by having 
 a score or two of tenants instead of one for a given area. 
 
 For similar reasons local authorities have been xmwilling to 
 exercise their powers ; the trouble and risk involved have deterred 
 them. The opposition of some of their largest rate-payers and 
 most influential members has been too much for them. Some 
 private individuals who, knowing nothing of land or agriculture, 
 and imagining that they were qualified to teach those who know, 
 have tried their hand at creating small holdiags and have burnt 
 their fingers by so doing. 
 
 Complaints are often made of the high prices charged for land 
 for allotments, and there is evidence to show that some of these 
 complaints are justified. At the same time it should be realised 
 that land cannot be let as cheaply to holders of allotments as to 
 large farmers. Costs, including those of management, are greater. 
 The Royal Commission on Labour, 1894, put some considerations 
 which are frequently overlooked : 
 
 It is a matter of general complaint by labourers that allotments 
 are let at a much higher rate than the rent paid by farmers. Those 
 who complain do not always take into consideration that situation, 
 accessibility from a good road, proximity to a village, enormously 
 enhance the value of land which is at aU suitable for spade cultivation ; 
 that the farmer's rent is generally for a quantity of land varying in 
 quahty and much of it not advantageously situated ; and that it is 
 exclusive of rates, while the allotment rent usually includes all out- 
 goings ; and that letting in small plots, like selling goods by retail, 
 justifies a somewhat higher charge. 
 
 The average price paid by County Councils for land for small 
 holdings has been £33 an acre. On the face of it that does not 
 seem to be excessive. 
 
 The Need for Experience and Sound Judgment 
 
 Too much importance must not be attached to the emigration 
 figures, so far as agricultural labourers are concerned. To a con- 
 siderable extent such emigration is natural and inevitable, and even 
 desirable. Whatever the conditions in rural districts were as to 
 wages, housing, and the tenure of land, the growth of the population 
 there would speedily tend to outrun them. There would be an 
 overflow to go somewhere. Many would also always desire to push 
 
cH.i PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 525 
 
 their fortune elsewhere. Do what you will here, the attractions 
 and advantages which new countries with their free or very cheap 
 land and virgin soil offer will always draw a number from us, 
 especially as in the most attractive and available parts of the world 
 the same language as our own is spoken and large numbers of our 
 people have friends already there. 
 
 The peasant cultivators of the soil hve lives of very great hard- 
 ship and penury. In those countries where they own their holdings, 
 their lot is a hard one, a,nd no surprise whatever can be felt that, 
 especially in coimtries like ours, the attractions of the higher wages 
 and greater possibilities of advancement, combined with the glamour 
 of town life, draw many of the most capable and enterprising away 
 from rural districts. This influence is of course most powerful 
 where the contrast between the wages or earnings in industrial and 
 in rural districts is greatest. As industrial wages and conditions 
 here are much better than they are in other parts of Europe, 
 the attractions of urban life are greater here than there. The 
 problem is as old as it is widespread. In the reign of James I. an 
 Act was passed rendering any person liable to a fine who pulled 
 down a cottage in the country, because of the number of people 
 who were then migrating into the towns. In the unpubhshed 
 portion of the Oglander Memoirs, written during the reign of Charles 
 I., there is an account of Sir John Oglander being fined £10, under 
 the above Act, for pulling down the walls of some ruined cottages 
 which had been destroyed during his father's lifetime. 
 
 Where there is a genuine demand by suitable persons for allot- 
 ments or small holdings, that demand should, as far as is reason- 
 able and practicable, be met. Present arrangements and existing 
 legislation have proved to be insufficient. They should be revised 
 and strengthened. Given adequate provision for obtaining land 
 at its fair market price, it should always be provided that the body 
 or authority which compels the provision of allotments or small 
 holdings should bear the fimancial responsibility. If the provision 
 is jusl^ed by the results it will be financially successful, and no 
 liability will attach to those who compelled it to be made. If the 
 provision is not successful and loss is incurred, those who enforced 
 the making of the unsuccessful venture should bear the cost of it. 
 That is the only way to check imprudent and ill-considered schemes 
 which would bring discredit on the whole movement. 
 
526 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 " Back to the Land " 
 
 Much of the talk about getting people " back to the land " is 
 merely indicative of lack of knowledge of the elementary facts of 
 the problem on the part of many of those who glibly propound its 
 solution. Most of those who have left the land do not wish to return 
 to work upon it. The majority of them are doing better where 
 they are than they would do if they returned to the fields. The 
 energy, effort, and thrift which they would have to display in the 
 country in order to be successful will secure for them better results 
 in the towns. The problem in the towns is, for the most part, not 
 those who come in from rural districts. Mr. Wilson Fox, who 
 made an investigation for the Royal Commission on the Poor Law, 
 found that out of 5657 men in the Metropolitan poHce who were 
 questioned, 66 per cent were country-born and 25 per cent had been 
 accustomed to farm work. Of the Glasgow police 91 per cent 
 were from the country and 47 per cent had worked on farms. Of 
 the work-people employed by sixteen large municipal corporations 
 in England 37 per cent were country-bom and 22 per cent had been 
 farm-labourers. 
 
 Nothing that we could do would place one in a hundred — 
 probably not one in a thousand — of that section of our town popula- 
 tion which is one of the most difficult problems of town life per- 
 manently and satisfactorily upon the land. It is useless to think 
 that the unemployed and casual workers of our large towns, the 
 loafers and the slum dwellers could be dealt with and disposed of 
 in that way. Many of them have not the character, energy, industry, 
 and perseverance which are essential to success. A large section of 
 them have not the mental and physical capacity which the life 
 requires ; and practically none of them have any experience. 
 Nothing is more instructive in this respect than the history of the 
 futile and wasteful experiments which credulous, self-confident, and 
 emotional philanthropists and would-be reformers have made. 
 
 Mr. Fels' Object-Lesson 
 
 One of the most interesting is the adventure of Mr. Joseph Fels 
 at Mayland in Essex. Mr. Fels is an American gentleman who is 
 engaged in the soap trade, and appears to think that it is his mission 
 in Hfe to promulgate the teachings of Henry George and show the 
 nations of the earth how their land systems should be reconstructed. 
 He labours under the delusion that lack of free access to land is the 
 
CH.I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 527 
 
 great trouble from which the world suffers, and that if land were 
 available for any man who wants a plot, every one would become 
 independent. In August 1905 he bought an estate of 630 acres 
 situated on the River Blackwater, at Mayland. He appears to 
 have got it for some £7 or £8 an acre. His object was to produce 
 an object-lesson that would prove by demonstration the soundness 
 of his views. The farm is 50 miles from London and 4 miles from 
 the railway. The soil is heavy clay and difficult to work, but " it 
 is fertile and jdelds very good crops." Believing that there are 
 a large number of men who want but cannot get small holdings, 
 and who would earn a comfortable hvelihood if they had the oppor- 
 tunity they desire, Mr. Fels decided as a commencement to lay out 
 and equip twenty-one small holdings of five acres each. He erected 
 on each a suitable cottage and complete outbuildings, made roads 
 and drains, and fenced, laid out, and manured the land. The rent 
 was to be 4 per cent on the outlay. There were more than 1200 
 applicants for the holdings. It was decided that the selected 
 applicants must have at least £100 available for stocking and work- 
 ing the holdings. That condition proved to be a wholesale dis- 
 qualification, as only nineteen of the applicants possessed anything 
 approaching £100. Two men were selected from the Unemployed 
 Colony at Hollesley Bay and were put on a different footing as regards 
 capital. One of these had to be got rid of. Four per cent on the 
 cost worked out at £30 per holding. The rent was, however, made 
 £24, or rather less than 3 J per cent. Shortly afterwards another acre 
 was added to each holding, ready prepared and planted, and the 
 rent was made £25 : 10s. Capable supervision and advice were 
 provided. 
 
 The selection of the tenants was made in the autumn and winter 
 of 1906-7. The report as to the season of 1907 said : " All began 
 well, though few could be made to reahse the necessity for the 
 continuous effort required to keep garden soil in a clean and friable 
 condition." The summer was an unfavourable one. " The net 
 result was disappointing to aU concerned. Some few managed 
 to make ends meet, but in the majority of cases the small holders 
 were penniless on the approach of winter." Mr. Fels financed them 
 through the winter. " A good start was made in 1908." But 
 squabbles arose about the co-operative marketing and the arrange- 
 ment broke down. The financial result was better than in 1907, 
 but still not good for most of the tenants. Mr. Fels then arranged 
 to defer all the 1907 rent, half of the 1908 rent, and one-fourth of 
 
528 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 the 1909 rent. The year 1909 opened with " a weD-organised 
 system of handling all the produce grown." The most important 
 crops were " an almost absolute failure . . . and almost every 
 holder at the end of the season found himself nearly penniless." 
 Again Mr. Fels financed them through the winter and gave them 
 90 tons of the best manure. Cash was provided to see them through 
 until May 1910. Rent had been allowed to go into arrear, but 
 payment was to be resumed in June. " When rent-day arrived 
 only two were in a position to pay." 
 
 Once more Mr. Fels came to the rescue. He offered : 
 
 1. That those who wished to give up their holdings should be 
 forgiven all they owed for rent or money lent, and be given as a 
 gift haK the amount of their original capital. 
 
 2. That those who remained should be rent free till Lady Day 
 1911, and then it after that they paid their rent for four successive 
 quarters, they would be forgiven all rent and money owing at the 
 time the offer was made. 
 
 At that time there were twelve small holders in occupation on 
 the original conditions. The other holdings were occupied by farm- 
 labourers who had been put into them on an entirely different basis. 
 Of the twelve, six cleared off and left six to continue the struggle. 
 
 Two years later (in the spring of 1912) Mr. Fels annoimced that 
 the experiment was a failure, and the property was offered for sale 
 by auction. The farm and five of the holdings were sold. When 
 I last heard (September 1913), Mr. Fels had the remainder of the 
 holdings stUl in his possession, and nine of them were vacant. Seven 
 original small holders were in occupation and the report concerning 
 them was, " all of whom seem to be making a Uving, although it is 
 probably a very poor one." 
 
 Mr. Fels spent money freely in his attempt to create a model 
 village and show the land-owners whom he abuses " how to do it." 
 He built cottages, post-office, shops, a school, and baths, and a 
 light railway was constructed. The total outlay is said to have 
 approached £50,000. He might as well have thrown nearly the 
 whole of it into the sea. The lesson to be learnt is that good 
 intentions and lavish expenditure are absolutely useless unless 
 they be based on and combined with sound business judgment and 
 practical experience. 
 
 The HoUesley Bay Colony 
 
 The experience of the HoUesley Bay Colony is also instructive. 
 The estate consists of 1300 acres which were offered in 1905 by 
 
CH.I PROBLEMS OF LAND TENURE 529 
 
 Mr. Joseph Fels to the Central Unemployed Committee for London 
 for use as a farm colony. Mr. Fels ofEered to loan the estate to 
 the Committee for three years with the option of purchasing it 
 any time within that period at cost price. The estate was bought 
 by the Committee for about £37,000. In August 1911 the President 
 of the Local Government Board stated in the House of Commons 
 that in six years £143,000 had been spent on the Colony : the sale 
 receipts had been£32,000; and the net cost had been about £110,000. 
 Six thousand men had passed through the Colony, and the cost per 
 man had been about 30s. 7d. per week. The result of the Colony 
 as a training for men to go to work on the land had been that during 
 the six years only nineteen men from the Colony had obtained work 
 on the land in this country. As a means of enabling some un- 
 employed men to tide over a bad time, the experiment jmay have 
 been of some use ; but even from that point of view it was an 
 expensive way of goiag to work. As a means of preparing, qualify- 
 ing, and inducing unemployed men in towns to go on to the land it 
 was a costly fiasco. 
 
 The Lesson 
 
 These instances have been mentioned, not for the purpose of 
 showing that what was attempted there could not be successfully 
 accomplished by any one anywhere, but in order to support the 
 warning that great care, judgment,, and experience are required in 
 making experiments of this nature. Given favourable conditions, 
 suitable soil, easy access to markets, industrious and competent 
 occupiers, and the necessary capital, and much may be done, and 
 in some districts has been done, in developing a form of agriculture 
 which will transform many rural districts, largely increase the 
 produce of the soil, and breathe a spirit of independence and hope 
 into a class of our people who are as deserving as they have been 
 patient and long-suffering through a long period of trying times. 
 There must, however, be no idea that all that is necessary is to 
 acquire land and expend money freely in buildings and equipment, 
 and then put upon it the tens of thousands of men who without 
 any practical experience whatever think that it would be nice to 
 hve in the country and watch a piece of land produce a livelihood 
 for them as the result of a little leisurely attention to it by them. 
 That way lie disappointment, fiasco, and financial disaster. The 
 more easily money is obtained for the purpose the greater the risk 
 of folly and futility. If public money is to be made available for 
 experiments and new departures, the need for common sense, sound 
 
 2m 
 
530 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 judgment, and practical experience is far greater than if private 
 individuals were financing them. Few people are quite so rash and 
 incompetent in such cases as Mr. Fels was, when their own money 
 is at stake, but when the public purse can be dipped into by senti- 
 mental cranks and theorists the risk that the community may be 
 involved in extravagant schemes which are doomed to failure is 
 very considerable. 
 
 NOTES 
 
 In Belgium, where the density of population is similar to that of 
 England, there are more people employed on the land per square mile, 
 and the soil is more highly and intensively cultivated, than in any other 
 European country. Associated with these conditions are high rents 
 for land, low wages, unremitting labour, and a low standard of living. 
 Mr. Rowntree tells us that " Wages vary greatly from district to district ; 
 they are as low as Is. 2d. a day, and even less, in some parts of the 
 north-west of Belgium, rising to 2s. and 2s. 5d. in the south-east. 
 Taking the country as a whole, it may be said that the most common 
 wage varies from Is. 2d. a day with food to Is. 7d., or a little more, with- 
 out food. Very often this is supplemented by perquisites of one Idnd 
 or another." " A certain number of the farm hands ' hve in.' " " As a 
 rule, the men sleep in the stable or cowshed, in a wooden box about 
 5 ft. from the ground." Of a " typical " small holder (of five acres) in 
 Flanders, he tells us that " for four months in the year he worked as 
 a labourer for other people, and earned Is. Id. a day, without food, in 
 summer, and lljd. in winter, his hours beiag from 5.30 a.m. to 8 p.m., 
 with three hours ofi." 
 
 Much of the land which was turned from arable to pasture in 
 England when the price of wheat fell was really better adapted to 
 pasture, and had only been ploughed up and used as arable during 
 the time when prices were high. The increase in the cost of labour 
 was also a determining factor in these cases. 
 
CHAPTER II 
 
 AGRICULTURAL WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 
 
 The wages of agricultural labourers are admittedly low. Except 
 in the vicinity of manufacturing or mining districts or great towns 
 they are deplorably so. It is not easy to obtain exact information 
 as to the total remimeration received, and the conditions and facts 
 vary much from district to district. But if the most favourable 
 statements — of the farmers themselves — be taken as to the extra 
 earnings, the value of cheap cottages and of perquisites, the re- 
 muneration is still low, the hours are long and the lack of holidays 
 and of time for rest and recreation is marked. 
 
 What is the reason for this ? There are several conditions 
 present which should make the industry a well-paid one. Enghsh 
 agriculture has, so to speak, at its door the best market in the world 
 for its produce. The demand is far greater than the supply furnished 
 by this country. The standard of wages and employment in other 
 industries is higher here than in any other part of the Old World. 
 Men are drawn o£E from agricultural districts, and the supply of 
 labour there is reduced by the attractions of those other higher- 
 paid occupations and of town life. In addition there are the 
 inducements offered in new countries where land can be had for 
 nothing, or next to it, and the Enghsh tongue is spoken. These 
 conditions in almost any other industry would make good wages 
 a necessity. Why is it they have not done so ia this instance ? 
 The main reason, I take it, is that for some time agriculture has 
 been a depressed industry. It has suffered severely from the 
 competition of the produce of virgin soil in countries outside our 
 own. The prices of many kinds of produce have faUen heavily. 
 The average prices for the ten years 1866-75 were : wheat, 54:S. 8d. ; 
 barley, 39s. 2d. ; oats, 25s. lOd. per quarter. In 1899 wheat was 
 25s. 8d. ; in 1904 barley was 22s. 4d., and oats were 16s. 4d. per 
 
 531 
 
532 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 quarter. This was ruinous. It is little wonder that the amount 
 of land under arable cultivation in England and Wales fell from 
 14,943,127 acres in 1872 to 11,335,276 acres in 1912, and that the 
 employment of agricultural labourers correspondingly diminished. 
 
 Land-owners, farmers, and labourers had to face an exceed- 
 ingly trying time. Land-owners and farmers suSered severely in 
 diminished income and loss of capital. Many of them were unable 
 to weather the storm, and were ruined. It was anything but a 
 favourable time for securing an increase in wages. That the 
 persistent and long depression did not bring about a more serious 
 reduction in wages than did take place was mainly due to the fact 
 that they could not very well go much lower and retain sufficient 
 effective labour on the farms. Nothing but a very powerful organisa- 
 tion and the possession of the means of obtaining an alternative 
 livelihood elsewhere could enable men to force up even very meagre 
 wages under such circumstances. Neither of these conditions 
 was present. In an occupation where the majority of the men 
 earn less than 18s. a week, the maintenance of a powerful Trades 
 Union with funds sufficient to enable its members to carry through 
 a successful struggle for higher wages in an industry that was 
 suffering badly from depression was out of the question. Leaving 
 the industry and going elsewhere was equally difficult for most 
 of them. Low wages mean inability to accumulate even a small 
 amoimt of capital, and without something in hand a new start 
 elsewhere cannot be made. The men were largely helpless. Im- 
 proved conditions in the markets for agricultural produce have 
 eased the situation somewhat during the last few years ; but the 
 movement has been shght, and the increased cost of Kving has 
 probably more than counterbalanced it. 
 
 A Centv/ry's Experience 
 
 What is to be done ? The experience of the last 100 years 
 indicates that agricultural labourers can do but Uttle in the way 
 of improving their own condition. Their position needed improve- 
 ment more than that of any other class. In 1850 their wages 
 were exceptionally low, and with the general improvement experi- 
 enced between then and now they ought to have advanced a great 
 deal. As a matter of percentage, the increase in agricultural wages 
 between 1850 and 1870 did not compare badly with the increase 
 in wages generally. The increase in agricultural wages in the 
 20 years was 28 per cent, and in general wages 34 per cent. But 
 
CH. II 
 
 WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 
 
 533 
 
 the increase in agricultural wages was on a very low base figure ; 
 so that the increase in general wages, though ia percentage not 
 much more, really meant an increase twice as great in actual amount 
 of extra money. Between 1870 and 1907 agricultural labourers' 
 wages increased 22 per cent, while general wages increased 35 per 
 cent. Or, to put it another way, between 1850 and 1907 agricultural 
 wages increased 56 per cent^ and general wages increased 81 per 
 cent. That is to say, as compared with wage-earners generally 
 agricultural labourers have lost groimd. 
 
 Mr. Rowland Prothero gives a table of average weekly cash 
 wages in five districts into which he divides England. From it 
 we extract the following figures : 
 
 
 1837. 
 
 1850-51. 
 
 1869-70. 
 
 1872. 
 
 1910. 
 
 
 J. d. 
 
 i. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 s. d. 
 
 Eastern and North-Eastem . 
 
 10 4 
 
 9 1 
 
 11 3 
 
 13 2 
 
 14 
 
 South-Eastem and East Mid- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 land 
 
 10 
 
 9 5 
 
 12 5 
 
 14 10 
 
 15 1 
 
 West Midland and South- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 western 
 
 8 10 
 
 7 2 
 
 10 10 
 
 13 1 
 
 13 9 
 
 North and North- West . 
 
 12 1 
 
 11 10 
 
 15 
 
 17 4 
 
 18 
 
 Suffolk 
 
 10 4 
 
 7 10 
 
 10 10 
 
 13 
 
 12 9 
 
 This table brings out two or three important facts. The wages 
 in 1850 were some 10 per cent below those of 1837. After 1870 
 the greater part of the increase took place in the two years 1870-72. 
 Since then the advance has been small. Very little progress has 
 been made in the last forty years. 
 
 That great importance must be attached to the depression 
 through which the industry was passing between 1879 and 1900 
 is shown by the figures which Mr. Wilson Fox published in his 
 Second Report on the Wages of Agricultural Labourers^ He gave 
 there the average cash wages (not including extras and the value 
 of allowances) from 1850 onwards. 
 
 In 1850 the average wage was 9s. 3^d. per week. It gradually 
 increased imtil it reached 13s. 8d. in 1878. Then came one of the 
 most disastrous years (1879) in the history of British agriculture 
 and wages gradually shrank untU they averaged 12s. 9|d. in 1887 
 and 1888. After that they slowly moved upward again until 
 in 1898 they once more reached the figure at which they stood in 
 1878. Since then the improvement has continued : in 1907 they 
 were 158. 2d.,, ajjd in 1911, 15s. 4Jd. 
 
 1 Cd.. ^376 of 1905.. 
 
534 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 The Principle of a Minimum Wage 
 
 Upon the general question of fixing a legal minimum wage below 
 which people may not be employed in specified industries where 
 experience has shown that the rate of remuneration which the 
 employees are able to secure for themselves is not such as should 
 be regarded as permissible, I make no apology for reproducing 
 here the following paragraph from the Keport of the Select Com- 
 mittees on Home Work, 1908. This Committee sat for two Sessions 
 of Parliament inquiring into the rates of pay in what were known 
 as " sweated industries." As Chairman of that Committee I 
 drafted the Report, and this paragraph, which may be said to state 
 the principle upon which the policy of the Trades Boards Act is 
 based, was adopted by the Committee with complete unanimity : 
 
 Upon the question of the general policy of Parliament fixing or 
 providing for the fixing of a minimum rate of payment for work, below 
 which it should be illegal to employ people, your Committee are of 
 opinion that it is quite as legitimate to establish by legislation a minimum 
 standard of remimeration as it is to establish such a standard of sanita- 
 tion, cleanliness, ventilation, air space, and hours of work. If it be said 
 that there may be industries which cannot be carried on if such a 
 standard of payment be enforced, it may be replied that this was said 
 when the enactment of many of the provisions of the Factory and other 
 similar Acts were proposed ; and public opinion supported ParUament 
 in deciding that, if the prognostication were an accurate one, it would 
 be better that any trade which could not exist if such a minimum of 
 decent and humane conditions were insisted upon shoidd cease. Parlia- 
 ment, with the full approval of the nation, has practically so decided 
 again and again, when enactments have been passed forbidding the 
 carrying on of specified industries, unless certain minimum conditions 
 as to health, safety, and comfort are complied with. It is doubtful 
 whether there is any more important condition of individual and general 
 well-being than the possibility of obtaining an income sufficient to enable 
 those who earn it to secure, at any rate, the necessaries of life. If a 
 trade will not yield such an income to average industrious workers 
 engaged in it, it is a parasite industry, and it is contrary to the general 
 well-being that it should continue. Experience, however, teaches that 
 the usual result of legislation of the nature referred to is not to kill the 
 industry, but to reform it. Low-priced labour is a great obstacle to 
 improvement. It discourages invention, and removes or prevents the 
 growth of a great stimulus to progress and efficiency. The direct and 
 early result of prohibiting unsatisfactory conditions in industrial life 
 is almost invariably to direct the attention of the most competent 
 piinds in and about the trade to the production and introduction of 
 
CH.II WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 535 
 
 such improvements in machinery, methods, and processes as will enable 
 the industry to continue under greatly improved conditions, and be 
 carried on with greater success than before. In our judgment there 
 is no reason to doubt that similar beneficial results to all concerned — 
 employers, workpeople, and the general public — ^to those which have 
 followed the establishing of minimum conditions of other kinds in various 
 departments of industrial life, would follow the establishing by law of 
 minimum rates of payment for such classes of workers as experience 
 has shown are unable to secure for themselves rates of payment for 
 work which may reasonably be regarded as even the lowest upon which 
 an average worker can exist. 
 
 If the principle of fixing a minimum wage for a specified industry 
 be accepted, opinions will vary as to the best method of determin- 
 ing what that wage shall be. Should it be fixed locally, and, if so, 
 by whom and over what areas ; or should it be fixed nationally ? 
 As a rule, the local area method is the best ; but, in this particular 
 case, there is much to be said for Parliament fixing a national 
 miniTnum for each country in the United Kingdom. It would avoid 
 much complication and friction. Such a wage would have to be the 
 minimum for men, say, from 25 to 60, with an arrangement under 
 which, in special cases, men who, owing to exceptional circumstances, 
 personal or otherwise, could not earn an average wage might be 
 permitted to accept less. Where payment can be by piece, this 
 difficulty is avoided, as the wage earned is according to the amount 
 of work done ; but where the payment is by the hour, day, or week, 
 it must be arranged for and met. 
 
 If it be deemed undesirable that Parliament should attempt 
 to fix the actual figures of minimum wages — and in connection with 
 the wages of coal-miners the arguments against so doing were 
 unanswerable — the minimum wage for agricultural labourers should 
 certainly in each case be fixed for a large area. 
 
 Wages should also always be paid in money. The provisions 
 of the Truck Acts should apply to agriculture. The housing of 
 the labourer wiU not be put on a satisfactory footing until that is 
 done. Nor will his independence be secured without it. 
 
 Rural Housing 
 
 In rural districts the housing problem is largely a question of 
 wages and ability to pay a commercial rent. Until cottages can 
 be built and let on a business footing, no satisfactory solution of 
 the rural housing problem is possible. Unless cottages are let on 
 commercial lines, they must be subsidised. That is equivalent to 
 
536 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 subsidising wages, and is unsound economically and extremely 
 undesirable socially. To compel local authorities to build cottages, 
 which can only be let at uneconomical rents, which involve a loss 
 to the ratepayers — as nearly aU Urban and Eural housing schemes 
 do — ^is really to compel them to subsidise, and thereby to encourage 
 and perpetuate low wages. Further, if subsidised cottages are 
 provided by giving, say, a 4s. or 58." a week cottage for 2s., 2s. 6d., 
 or 3s. a week, the result must inevitably be to establish non-com- 
 mercial rents, and thereby put an absolute stop to the building of 
 cottages by any one else. That would render constant subsidies 
 and constant building by the community necessary. We should 
 thus gradually return by another route to the miserably disastrous 
 policy of the Poor Law of a century ago. It is satisfactory to note 
 that the Eeport of the Land Enquiry Committee, 1913, says : " We 
 believe a poUcy of subsidies for housing to be unsound and in- 
 defensible." ^ 
 
 Government Cottages 
 
 It is suggested that the Government should embark on a great 
 cottage-building scheme, and it is stated that, by standardising 
 the buildings and giving orders for doors, windows, stoves, etc., in 
 large quantities, a great saving may be effected. It will be interest- 
 ing to see definite figures and binding estimates from responsible 
 contractors ; and it will be more interesting still to see actual 
 results. Personally, I have not much faith in the capacity of any 
 pubHc authority, be it Government, Municipal Corporation, County 
 Council, or District Council, to buUd economically. Nor do I think 
 that cottages scattered all over the country in groups of small 
 numbers in villages here and there can be managed satisfactorily 
 and economically by Government of&cialB. The whole instinct 
 and tradition, and the inevitably cumbersome formality and red 
 tape of a Government department, are always enough to make 
 ordinary business men tear their hair.^ 
 
 » P. 47. 
 
 * It is Titally important that the cottages should be well buUt, and if the cost 
 is to be kept within reasonable limits, and the accommodation that is provided is 
 to be the most and best that can be given for the money, the artistic architect and 
 amateur must be kept at arm's length. Once let him in and the result will be 
 either a shoddy-buUt cottage with cramped accommodation or one the cost of 
 which wiU be prohibitive. Some of the cottages which have recently been erected 
 in what are described as model villages — colliery and other — are really tawdry, 
 sloppy productions, which will be tumbUng to pieces in a few years, in spite of the 
 red and green paint and the fal-de-rals which delight their sentimental and so- 
 called artistic admirers. These cottages are wanted to Uve in and not merely 
 to look at. 
 
CH. II WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 537 
 
 That the assistance of Government credit and funds may be 
 necessary is probable. It would be far better and healthier if 
 resort to them could be avoided. But the conditions are so excep- 
 tional, and the requirements are so extensive and so urgent, that 
 the use of public funds for the purpose seems unavoidable. The 
 best way of rendering assistance of that kind will require careful 
 consideration. 
 
 Sites and Wages 
 
 There are two matters which are important, and, indeed, 
 fundamental, apart from the actual building of the cottages. They 
 are the obtaining of land on which to build, and the capacity of the 
 occupants to pay a commercial rent for the houses when they are 
 built. Be the method of providing the buildings what it may, 
 arrangements must be made for obtaining land on which to erect 
 them at a fair market price, and to obtain it promptly and com- 
 pulsorily if needs be. If that part of the problem be satisfactorily 
 dealt with, and the wages of the labourers be substantially increased 
 in low-wage districts, so that a commercial rent can be paid — and 
 that would not be difficidt if a good garden were attached to each 
 cottage — then it is probable that private enterprise would do much 
 to provide the new cottages. As soon as it pays to build them 
 and land can easily be obtained on which to build them, it is probable 
 they will be built. In this connection a revision of building by- 
 laws on common -sense lines is urgently needed. In matters of 
 building we have been legislated for and regulated on points of 
 unimportant detail — ^whUe really serious phases have been neglected 
 — ^untU enterprise has been crippled and the pubUc have suffered. 
 
 If the Government would then find two-thirds or three-fourths 
 of the cost at a low rate of interest, the provision of the cottages 
 would be greatly facilitated. It would be quite feasible for two 
 or three standard sets of plans to be got out, for which large concerns 
 would be prepared to supply doors, windows, stoves, etc., of the 
 standard sizes at wholesale prices. The Government could then 
 offer to lend a specified sum at 3| per cent on every cottage of a 
 given standard, subject to the condition that it should be let at a 
 rent not exceeding a specified sum so long as any of the loan from 
 the Government remained on it. 
 
 If the cottages can be supplied, it is far better that the Govern- 
 ment should provide loans at a low rate to enable private individuals, 
 societies, etc., to erect them than that a Government department 
 
538 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 should build and own and attempt to manage scores of thousands 
 of cottages scattered all over the country. As the wage of the 
 labourer and the arrangements for obtaining land promptly and 
 cheaply are really the keyto the situation,it might be well to provide 
 those essential conditions and offer cheap loans and see what the 
 result was before embarking on a great scheme of Government 
 building. 
 
 A point in connection with this suggestion of Government 
 ownership of cottages is, What would be the effect politically 1 
 What would be the result — as regards candidates and members of 
 Parliament ? The pressure now brought to bear at elections and 
 at other times by dockyard, Post-office, and telephone employees. 
 Inland Revenue and Customs officials, and elementary school 
 teachers is demoralising and detrimental to the pubUc interest. 
 What would be the effect of adding to this the pressure and in- 
 fluence of 100,000 tenants of Government cottages and the probable 
 pressure of another 100,000 electors who might desire to be similarly 
 favoured ? 
 
 When the wisdom of the erection of houses for the accommodation 
 of the general public by the Government, Municipal Corporations, 
 and other public bodies is questioned, it does not follow that it would 
 be unwise or undesirable that the Government, County Councils, 
 Municipal Corporations, and Police authorities should erect cottages 
 for their employees in rural districts especially where there is any- 
 thing like a shortage of hoiises, and the occupation of the best of the 
 cottages by these employees is depriving the agricultural labourers 
 of houses which would otherwise be available for them, and creating 
 a shortage which renders dealing with dilapidated and insanitary 
 houses difficult. 
 
 " Physician, heal Thyself" 
 
 In connection with the question of the provision of land for the 
 erection of cottages, it may be poiated out that the Government 
 itself is far from blameless in the matter. Indeed, speaking generally, 
 the Government should be the last body in the country to say 
 anything about arbitrary action by any one. Whether as landlords, 
 or tenants, or as taxing departments, their attitude is almost 
 invariably arbitrary and high-handed. They are veritable Shy- 
 locks : they take advantage of every turn and technicality of the 
 law in their own interest. That the head of the departments which 
 are the greatest sinners in this respect desires to take steps to control 
 arbitrary conduct in others has a distinctly humorous side. 
 
CH. II WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 539 
 
 The foUovsdng letter from Sir Walter Peace, Lieutenant-General 
 Sir Henry L. Geary, Vice- Admiral C. Johnstone, and Major-General 
 Dalrymple, with reference to new workmen's cottages at Cam- 
 berley, which appeared in the London papers on January i, 1912, 
 illustrates the position : 
 
 Seeing that workmen in this neighbom-hood complain with justice 
 that they cannot get cottages to live in at rentals which they can afiord 
 to pay while providing reasonable support for their f amUies, we interested 
 oulselves to find a remedy. Our endeavours proved fruitless, from a 
 cause which we think the pubUc should know. 
 
 The little town is nearly surrounded by moorland which is the 
 • property of one landlord, who, on receiving an appUcation for land for 
 workmen's cottages, intimated that he does not propose to sell any of 
 the land, but, subject to a prelimiaary stipulation, would grant a lease 
 of three acres for a period of 99 years. The preUminary stipulation is 
 that the intended lessee shall form, make, metal and sewer roads 
 leading to the land at a cost to be approved by the landlord. (It is 
 estimated that this work would involve an outlay of several hundred 
 pounds.) 
 
 The lessee's obUgations would include the following points : 
 
 To pay the tithe rent (if any). 
 
 To expend £1600 in building eight cottages on each acre of land- 
 such cottages to be built according to plans and designs which the land- 
 lord may approve. 
 
 To pay the landlord's surveyors £12 : 12s. for examining the proposed 
 designs for the eight cottages to be built on each acre. 
 
 To obtain the landlord's approval of the ground rent apportioned 
 to each cottage before any sub-lease is granted to a tenant. 
 
 And to pay to the landlord — after the first year — a ground rent of 
 £14 an acre. 
 
 The landlord is to be under no obUgations ; aU he has to do is to 
 receive the groimd rents, and, at the end of the lease, to receive the 
 cottages as his own. It is well known that the landlord has borrowed 
 large sums of money at 2| per cent interest — ^thus the ground rent 
 demanded for each acre proposed to be leased would provide the 
 interest on £560. 
 
 The landlord referred to is the Government, who gave nothing for 
 the land and never spent a penny on it. Need we add that no work^ 
 men's cottages can be bmlt on the property of such a landlord ? 
 
 The Wages Question is Fundamental 
 
 Whatever the method of supplying the cottages may be, the 
 
 position of the agricultural labourer cannot be placed on a soimd 
 
 and satisfactory footing until he is given a wage that will enable 
 
 him to maintain himself and his family and pay a commercial 
 
540 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 rent for his cottage. No system of doles and grants, no tinkering 
 with rates and taxes, no compulsory or other acquisition of land 
 and building of houses will deal permanently and effectively with 
 the rural housing problem, unless and untU the labourer is placed 
 in a position to pay a proper economic rent for a suitable cottage. 
 As soon as land can be obtained for cottages easily and at a reason- 
 able price and labourers can pay a rent that will show a commercial 
 return on the outlay, the probability is that cottages will speedily 
 be provided by private enterprise. Until those conditions are 
 present any other system of providing cottages will tend to become 
 a mere method of subsidising labour, and thereby making a gift to 
 land-owners. 
 
 It is not to be expected that farmers and land-owners will 
 voluntarily increase the wages of their labourers substantially and 
 all round in those districts where they are at a low level. Any 
 wage that will be regarded as practicable in those districts will be 
 insufficient unless there is also the opportunity of securing a good 
 cottage with from a quarter to half an acre or more of garden at- 
 tached to it. Such cottages and gardens will not be supplied at all 
 unless a remunerative rent can be obtained for them, and even then 
 there are many farmers and landlords who would not encourage and 
 facilitate the provision of them. The farmer is unwilling to pay 
 much higher wages, and indeed many declare that they cannot 
 afford it. The landlord is unwilling to further reduce a rent which 
 has already fallen considerably, and shows a very meagre return 
 on the capital which has been expended on the property. No one 
 will build cottages that cannot show a fair return on the cost of 
 them. The labourer cannot pay a rent that will show such a return. 
 That is the circle in which these affairs have revolved and are 
 revolving. The result is a deadlock. 
 
 The difficulty and urgency of the matter is increased by the 
 fact that as the years pass, the number of cottages which become 
 too old and dilapidated to meet even the most moderate of modern 
 requirements increases, and also that, owing to the long period 
 of depression through which agriculture has passed, and the extent 
 to which the resources of many land-owners have thereby been 
 depleted, the ability of landlords to erect cottages has been seriously 
 diminished. Many of them would like to build cottages, but do 
 not feel they can afford it. Further, more and more of the best of 
 the cottages that remain are occupied by men — ^policemen, postmen, 
 roadmen, railwaymen, and others — who are not engaged in agri- 
 
CH. II . WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 541 
 
 culture. These men can pay a rent which the agricultural labourer 
 cannot. It is no part of a land-owner's duty to provide houses for 
 those who do not work on his land. On the other hand, he is not 
 justified in declining to sell land in order that others may erect 
 houses which are required by the general public. 
 
 Parliamentary Intervention necessary 
 
 This Grordian knot cannot be untied : it must be cut by the 
 intervention of Parliament. A substantially increased wage for 
 agricultural labourers in low-wage districts must be secured. The 
 provision of necessary suitable cottages with an adequate piece 
 of land attached to them must be ensured. Means for obtaining 
 land for these cottages quickly and without expense at a reason- 
 able price must be devised. In some form or other capital must be 
 provided where necessary for erecting these cottages on a business- 
 like footing to be let at commercial rents. In order that cottages 
 may be built and let on a commercial basis it appears to be essential 
 that a good garden should be attached to each of them. It would 
 be a great help to the labourer, and really make the cottage a sound 
 investment for the owner and a remimerative tenancy for the 
 labourer. At present only about one-sixth of the gardens in rural 
 districts exceed one-eighth of an acre. This is an anomaly, and 
 an uneconomical one for everybody concerned. 
 
 The question of the payment of the increased wage will have 
 to be faced, and will require careful consideration. In the long run 
 it will prove remimerative to aU concerned. Better pajmient will 
 produce more efficient laboirr on the one hand, and on the other 
 it will stimulate more scientific and efficient cultivation. In the 
 meantime, however, it may throw increased cost on tenants who have 
 entered into leases and agreements based on existing conditions. 
 It has been suggested that a statutory authority should have power 
 to adjust rents in such cases. That would be a novel and a big 
 departure, and would require very full discussion and careful con- 
 sideration. That somethiQg would have to be done to meet the 
 situation is possible. That this is the best, way of meeting it is not 
 quite so clear. 
 
 The rates of wages vary considerably in different parts of the 
 country. Differences of 4s., 6s., and even 8s. a week are not unusual 
 between one part and another. There is not a similar difference 
 in the price obtained for the produce. Nor have I seen it shown 
 that where the wages are low the rents obtained for the land are 
 
542 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x. 
 
 higher than those obtained for similar land in districts where the 
 wages are higher. That being so, it looks as though either farmers 
 made larger profits in low-wage districts or that low wages led to 
 less efficient and consequently less successful farming, or that low- 
 wage labour was less valuable, and in the long run as costly as when 
 it is better paid. It is by no means certain that the payment of 
 better wages would be all loss to the farmer. It is conceivable 
 that it might be a gain to him. My own impression is that where 
 the total income of the labourer is 20s. a week, he is well worth the 
 extra 5s. more than those who are in districts where the total 
 remuneration only comes to 15s. I have always understood that 
 the experience of farmers in the better-paid districts, when labourers 
 have come to them from poorly-paid districts, has been that the 
 new men were less vigorous and less efficient, and consequently 
 less valuable than their own men, but that after a time the better 
 pay and the resulting better nourishment and better conditions 
 gradually worked an improvement and brought them up to the 
 level of their old hands. There can be no doubt that low-paid 
 labour is dear. When wages are low sustenance is poor. The man 
 or woman is badly fed, badly housed, badly clothed. The result is 
 that strength and endurance are lowered ; spirit and hope vanish ; 
 and the labour becomes ineffective and costly. The deterioration 
 spreads. Children cannot be brought up properly ; they grow 
 up deficient in strength, stamina, and skill. Thus the standard and 
 calibre of the population are lowered. The labourers become worth 
 less as workers ; and their wages tend to remain low because the 
 value of their labour is small. An all-round improvement in their 
 conditions would improve their strength and stamina, raise their 
 spirits, brighten their intelligence, and increase their efficiency, 
 and thereby appreciably add to the quantity and value of their 
 work.^ 
 
 * Writing on this subject in a letter to the Daily News, Deo. 6, 1913, an Essex 
 farmer who farms 500 acies in that county and has had experience in Durham 
 and North Yorkshire said : " I may say that it is aU a question of system and the 
 amount of work done, and I have satisfied myself that the cost per acre for labour 
 in the North, where wages are 22s. to 23s. per week, is no greater, and in some oases 
 less, than in Essex, where the nominal wage is 15s., and the actual cash earning 
 17s. to 18s. 
 
 " I was in the Cleveland district of Yorkshire the first week in October, and found 
 the ploughs everywhere at work until 5 p.m., while my men here had their horses 
 in the stable at 3 p.m., the time for starting work in the morning and the interval 
 for a mid-day meal being the same in both cases. 
 
 " I began farming here twenty-seven years ago, with the firm conviction that it 
 was possible to pay much higher wages than the current rate, but at once found 
 
CH. II WAGES AND RURAL HOUSING 543 
 
 If this view be a sound one, it would not be equitable to com- 
 pulsorily deduct the increase in wages from the landlord's rent as a 
 matter of course. It might also be that such an arrangement would 
 give an advantage to those who had previously been most niggardly 
 in the matter of their men's wages. In other cases the tenant might 
 obtain a reduction in his rent because wages had risen, and then cut 
 down his labour bill by laying down arable land as pasture. Possibly 
 the best plan would be not to make any special and specific arrange- 
 ment by legislation for reducing rents if wages were increased, but 
 to leave the matter to be settled by private agreement wherever 
 possible, with an appeal, where necessary, after a sufficient time had 
 elapsed to provide experience of the actual effect of the new arrange- 
 ment, to a statutory authority empowered to deal with the whole 
 question of rent. Then, of course, any material change in the 
 cost of labour, as well as of any other conditions and considerations, 
 would be submitted and discussed. A great many tenancies are 
 now annual, and with them an opportunity for revision of rent 
 would speedily present itself. "Where there is a lease the prob- 
 abilities are that it was taken when conditions were much less 
 favourable than they now are, and consequently that the rent 
 paid is below the present rental value of the property. 
 
 Rents would speedily adjust themselves to the new conditions, 
 and it will be weU not to introduce more legislative interference 
 than is really necessary. During the last sixty years the prices of 
 grain have fallen much, and yet agricultural wages have risen. 
 Rents have fallen. That is to say, prices, rents, and wages have 
 automatically adjusted themselves to the prevaDing conditions. 
 They will continue to do so. 
 
 myself up against a system that precluded this, owing to the small amount of work 
 done in the day. That both men and horses can do a vast deal more is plain from 
 the way the work is accomplished in the harvest, when as much is done in one 
 month as in two months at the rate usual during the rest of the year. 
 
 " If the same system prevailed here as in North Yorkshire, I should only require 
 six teams to till my land instead of the eight I keep at present, and as the cost of 
 keeping up a team of horses and paying the driver is just about £100 a year, that 
 would mean £200 per annum off the labour bUl, which would be available for paying 
 higher wages to the other hands employed. 
 
 " If and when wages here in the south are levelled up to the northern standard, 
 such a change as this wiU have to come ; and as a practical farmer, I can say that 
 I would far rather be under the northern system than as I am at present." 
 
CHAPTER III 
 
 URBAN PROBLEMS 
 
 Some references have already been made to the urban phase of 
 the housing problem. Where there is any real difficulty in obtain- 
 ing land for building purposes, compulsory powers which could 
 be put into operation promptly, cheaply, and effectively are 
 clearly necessary and should be provided. No one should be 
 allowed to hold up arbitrarily any town or district so as to prevent 
 its legitimate expansion and development. 
 
 Slums and Overcrowding 
 
 So far as slums and overcrowding are concerned, by far the most 
 important thing is to vigorously and sternly prevent and prohibit 
 them. If the authorities will but insist on the houses in slum 
 districts being kept in sound tenantable repair and in good tenant- 
 able condition, and will compel owners to evict occupiers who are 
 overcrowding the premises, that part of the evil can be put an end 
 to. As we have already indicated, for the most part the trouble 
 and difficulty do not arise because there is not other accommodation 
 available, or that it would not speedily be available if there were 
 reputable tenants requiring it.^ That is the difficulty in rural areas, 
 and to some extent it exists in exceptional urban areas, but it is 
 not the ordinary slum and overcrowding problem. 
 
 Speaking broadly and generally, the erection by municipalities 
 either of ordinary cottage houses or of blocks of dwellings for the 
 housing of work - people is unnecessary and undesirable. The 
 clearing away of slums is good ; but the provisions of the law which 
 
 1 The Housing Committee of the London County Council reported, Feb. 12, 
 1913, " There is no evidence that there is any lack of housing accommodation in 
 any district of London at the present time, and in almost all districts there is a 
 considerable margin available." During the year 1912-13, 5i per cent of the 
 Council's own property was empty. 
 
 544 
 
CH. m URBAN PROBLEMS 545 
 
 require local authorities, railway companies, and others to erect 
 great blocks of dwellings on or in the vicinity of slum areas which 
 for one reason or another have been cleared are in most cases a great 
 mistake and an extremely costly blunder. They do not house the 
 people they were intended for. They bring in or retain in the centre 
 of crowded city areas people and families who would be far better 
 outside and, but for this provision of opportunities of living near 
 the centre largely at the public cost, could and would go farther 
 afield for their houses. 
 
 It is the general impression that when they make public im- 
 provements local authorities have to buy out slum properties on the 
 basis of extravagant rents obtained by allowing overcrowding. 
 That is not the intention of the law. The Act of 1875 forbade 
 arbitrators to give any allowance in respect of compulsory purchase 
 in such cases. The Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Act, 1879, 
 provided that where, by reason of overcrowding or otherwise, a 
 house is in a condition to be a nuisance, the compensation is to 
 be limited to what the value of the house would have been if the 
 nuisance had been abated, and is, moreover, to sufier reduction by 
 the estimated cost of abating it. By the Act of 1890, the owner's 
 compensation was expressly limited to " the value of the land and 
 of the materials of the building thereon." This is clearly just, and if 
 the law is in any respect defective on this point, it should be amended. 
 It is interesting to note that between 1851 and 1900 there were 
 20 Acts of Parliament passed deaUng with the housing of the working 
 classes. 
 
 What really takes place may be illustrated from the accounts 
 of the Manchester Corporation of their properties acquired and 
 erected under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1875, and 
 the Housing of the Working Classes Acts, 1890-1903. For the 
 year ending March 31, 1913, the results were as follows : 
 
 i =■ d. 
 Total capital outlay .... 444,080 13 4 
 
 Total receipts for the year . 19,096 2 8 
 
 Total outgoings for the year . . 33,284 6 
 
 Deficiency for the year .... 14,188 3 4 
 
 If we eliminate from these figures the heavy extra cost of b'uyiag 
 up property and take the sites thus acquired at the value at which 
 the Corporation put them, in the cases where this can be done, 
 and again, if we entirely exclude the cost of the land, we get the 
 following results for eight of these properties : 
 
 2n 
 
546 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 £ s. d. 
 Cost of buildings and estimated fair value of the land 219,765 3 3 
 Net revenue for the year, excluding interest and 
 
 sinking funds . . . . . 3,862 19 10 
 Cost of buildings only 200,291 13 3 
 
 That is to say, if the sites of these buildings had cost nothing, 
 the net revenue from them, without charging anything for deprecia- 
 tion, would show a return of less than two per cent on the bare 
 cost of the buildings alone. 
 
 The experience of almost every other city which has gone in for 
 these housing schemes is practically the same. From the financial 
 point of view the expenditure has been ruinous, and in the end, in 
 the great majority of cases, as has been shown in a previous chapter, 
 they have not housed the people for whom the dwellings were really 
 erected. 
 
 The Real Slum Problem 
 
 The case of the real slum dweller has yet to be grappled with. 
 The problem is by no means a simple one. The demolition of 
 slum areas and the erection of municipal dwellings thereon or 
 near-by quite fails to touch it. For the most part that policy 
 merely moves the slum dweller on. He goes elsewhere and immedi- 
 ately overcrowds and creates another slum there. That will never 
 be prevented until overcrowding and the letting of dilapidated, 
 dirty, and insanitary slum houses is strictly prohibited. When 
 that is done there will still remain the slum dweller to be dealt with. 
 Many of them will be without house and home, not because there are 
 no houses or tenements vacant, but some because they are so poor 
 that they cannot afEord to pay the rent of a decent dwelling in which 
 they would have to live under decent conditions ; and others 
 because the owners of decent houses who keep and desire to keep 
 them in decent condition will not have them as tenants. The 
 managers of the municipal dwellings will not have them. Some 
 of these people would demoralise any street or block of dwellings 
 into which they were admitted, and would speedily reduce any house 
 or tenement to such a condition that no self-respecting family would 
 live in it, if they could find accommodation elsewhere. 
 
 The real slum and overcrowding problem — apart from excep- 
 tional cases of actual scarcity of available dwellings, which can easily 
 be dealt with on other lines — is therefore a threefold one. First, that 
 of absolutely preventing overcrowding and the letting of dilapidated, 
 worn-out, insanitary houses. Second, that of housing those who 
 
CH. in URBAN PROBLEMS 547 
 
 would be thus turned out of their present dwellings, and whom no 
 one else, other than owners of similar slums, is willing to receive 
 as tenants. Third, that of providing for a section of this over- 
 crowded, submerged population who are where they are as the result 
 of extreme poverty due to causes over which they have had prob- 
 ably little or no control — sickness, death, or incapacity of the 
 breadwinner, sheer misfortune, genuine inability to earn an adequate 
 hveUhood. This section would go into and would be accepted in 
 decent houses or tenements and blocks of municipal dwellings ; 
 but they cannot pay the rent. They are not drunken, dissolute, 
 lazy, criminal, dirty, objectionable, and destructive. They are 
 simply terribly poor. They need and deserve the most con- 
 siderate and kindly help, and the community will gladly give that 
 help when it is shown how it can be given wisely and effectively. 
 
 This threefold problem largely hangs together. Hitherto, the 
 fringe of it has scarcely been touched. Local authorities will not 
 exercise their powers and close insanitary and tumble-down slum 
 dwellings, and evict overcrowded occupiers, because if they do 
 there are. no other places that will take the people in, and they 
 cannot well be left in the street. The idea that the remedy was to 
 be found in erecting municipal dwellings has been shown to be a 
 mistaken one. These people do not go to those dwelUngs, and 
 the problem of housing them remains just as acute after hundreds 
 of thousands of pounds have been wasted on municipal buildings 
 as it was before a brick was laid. It is useless to erect municipal 
 dwellings unless they are reserved for these very people whom they 
 will not now have or who cannot pay the rent required. 
 
 Thus the problem works round in a circle. There will be slums 
 and overcrowding as long as they are permitted. Local authorities 
 will not prevent them unless there is somewhere else for the people 
 to go. It is useless to turn them out of one slum area if the result 
 will merely be that they will create another elsewhere. Municipal 
 dwellings have entirely failed to touch the problem, and will con- 
 tinue to do so unless and until they are reserved for those who, if 
 they are not thus provided for, will be in slums. Then, and not till 
 then, will it be possible to abolish the slum and repress and prevent 
 overcrowding. 
 
 What Liverpool has done 
 
 So far as my knowledge goes, the city of Liverpool has ap- 
 proached more nearly to a solution of this problem than any other 
 town. Its experience is very interesting and instructive. For 
 
548 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x. 
 
 many years the Corporation cleared slum areas by demolishing 
 insanitary property. They did not build new dwellings. They sold 
 sites to builders at low prices on condition that working-class houses 
 were erected thereon. The Housing Committee state that the 
 result of this policy was first " that not one of the 800 houses erected 
 under these conditions was ever occupied by a dispossessed tenant " ; 
 and, second, that the people who were dishoused " were driven into 
 cellars and other insanitary houses and sub-let houses." 
 
 In 1885 they undertook the erection of working-class dwellings 
 themselves. They cleared a slum area and erected on it tenements 
 for 1278 persons. The result was the same as before. The dis- 
 housed poor were not housed, and they " overflowed into the 
 immediate neighbourhood, where they went into sub-let houses, 
 creating more sub-let houses, insanitary cellars, and adding greatly 
 to the overcrowding in the city." The Committee say, " The 
 result was that up to 1896 about 10,000 insanitary houses had been 
 demolished, both by the Corporation and private enterprise, without 
 any of the persons inhabiting them being rehoused, and it is esti- 
 mated that 40,000 people were in this way imhoused." 
 
 An agitation sprang up against this policy on the ground that it 
 did not house the dispossessed people, that it provided dwellings 
 at the public cost for people who really did not need help — ^in a 
 word, that it housed the wrong persons ; and that it competed un- 
 fairly with and thereby checked the provision of houses for ordinary 
 tenants by private enterprise. The outcome was the decision to 
 continue the demolition of insanitary houses, and to erect new 
 working-class dwellings where necessary, bid to restrict the use of 
 them to the persons actually turned out of insanitary property. 
 
 The result was that up to May 1913 the Corporation had erected 
 2747 dwellings, and there were 9860 persons residing in them. The 
 point of interest is the large proportion of the dishoused people who 
 were rehoused by the Corporation under the new policy. In con- 
 nection with five of the schemes, where 1276 houses were de- 
 molished, 5562 persons were dispossessed, and 4477, or more than 
 80 per cent of them, were rehoused in Corporation dwellings. 
 
 All experience has clearly demonstrated that the mere provision 
 of municipal dwellings or a plentiful supply of houses built by 
 private enterprise will not touch the slum and overcrowding problem. 
 It is not, in 99 cases out of 100, lack of houses that is the cause of 
 the trouble. It is inability or unwillingness to pay a commercial 
 rent for a decent dweUing. Liverpool has shown how a very large 
 
CH. in URBAN PROBLEMS 549 
 
 proportion of these people may be satisfactorily dealt with. Doubt- 
 less there will be found a residuum of the criminal, drunken, and 
 lazy who will be difficult to deal with on satisfactory lines, but the 
 solution of that part of the problem will be much simplified when 
 we have, by making provision for the imf ortunate and the deserving, 
 sorted out and reduced to its real dimensions this most difficult 
 element in the popidation of our towns. 
 
 It is instructive to note that the net charge on the rates of 
 Liverpool for their demolition and housing schemes is 2|d. in the 
 £, and that the net charge on the rates for the restricted dwellings 
 which only rehouse the dispossessed is l|d. in the £. Many other 
 towns, working on the old futile lines, have a much heavier charge 
 on the rates, and have quite failed to house the people for whom 
 their buildings were really intended. 
 
 Two other Phases 
 
 There are two other phases of this housing problem to which 
 reference should be made. One is the use in old towns of large 
 houses, which have at one time been occupied by well-to-do people, 
 as dwellings for the poor. As a rule, no attempt is made to adapt 
 the parts of these houses in which separate families live for use as 
 separate dwellings. No separate sanitation or water-supply or 
 cooking-range or sink or ashbin is provided. The arrangements 
 which were intended for a house occupied by one family have to 
 serve for three, five, seven, and sometimes more, families. It is 
 inevitable that they should become slums, and little better than pest- 
 houses. The conditions are often revolting. Several families in 
 a house of this kind are in far worse position than two families in 
 a two-floored cottage. If, when the time comes that such houses 
 cannot be let as single dwellings, it were insisted upon that proper 
 cooking arrangements, water-supply, and sanitary fittings should be 
 provided for each part of the house that was to be let as a separate 
 tenement before it could be so occupied, not only would such 
 deplorable conditions as now often prevail be prevented, but quite 
 decent and comfortable flats could be created which many people 
 would be glad to occupy until the time came for demolishing the 
 houses altogether. 
 
 The other phase is that which is found in the vicinity of mines 
 and ironworks. These undertakings were often started in more 
 or less out-of-the-way districts. The proprietors had to provide 
 the cottages for their workmen to live in. Very frequently this 
 
550 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt.xi 
 
 was done in a most unsatisfactory manner. The cottages them- 
 selves were " cheap and nasty," with barbarous sanitary arrange- 
 ments and surroundings. As time has passed they have become 
 dilapidated and more and more deplorable in appearance, condition, 
 and surroundings. In some parts, bad as they are, there are too 
 few of them, with the result that there is deplorable overcrowding, 
 and the whole position and condition is a scandal. The local 
 authority does little or nothing. The managers of the pit or works 
 usually dominate it directly or indirectly, and such power as the 
 law gives is not used. The Government ought to step in through 
 the Local Government Board and prohibit the overcrowding, and 
 insist that the cottages should be put into and kept in a decent 
 habitable condition or be closed. This would compel the mine- or 
 works-owners to provide proper houses or lose their men. 
 
 The moral and personal aspect of this housing problem must 
 not be overlooked. We must not forget that as a nation we spend 
 between £160,000,000 and £170,000,000 a year on intoxicating 
 liquors, and that this enormous sum is equal to the rental value of all 
 the dwelling houses in the United Kingdom. The working classes, 
 as a body, spend as much on drink as on house rent. If they would 
 abolish their drink bill they would be in as good a financial position 
 as if they had houses rent free. 
 
 A Fantastic and Ruinous Proposal 
 
 In an article in the Daily Mail Year-Book, 1914, Mr. Chiozza 
 Money, M.P., says that houses costing £300 are now often let at 
 £28 a year, and that the State could buUd an " incomparably better " 
 house for the money. He tells us that — 
 
 The State could let the £300 house for a gross return of 3 per cent, 
 which would cover repairs and management, and yield a small profit 
 besides to be devoted to further building. Three per cent on £300 is, 
 of course, £9 a year, as compared with the £28 now paid for a worse 
 house. . . . The State could let a £600 house for £18 a year or 7s. a 
 week, and for £600 could be given a beautiful detached residence with 
 two good sitting-rooms and four good bedrooms, furnished with beauti- 
 ful and appropriate fitments. 
 
 It is on this kind of inexperienced and impracticable romancing 
 that socialistic theories are built up. Where a rent of £28 is got for 
 a house costing £300, it is almost certainly a house let on a weekly 
 rent which has to be collected in an industrial district, probably of 
 a large town, where the changes of tenants and the risks of empties 
 
cH.in URBAN PROBLEMS 551 
 
 and loss of rent are considerable and the wear and tear great. 
 Ordinary rents are not on that basis. The Grovernment could not 
 build such houses anything Kke so economically as private enter- 
 prise can. Three per cent would be a ridiculous rent for such a 
 house to cover return on capital, a sinking fund to replace the house 
 when worn out, repairs, losses, empties, and cost of collection and 
 management. If the money could be obtained at 3 per cent to 
 build the house, another 3 per cent would have to be added to cover 
 the items we have mentioned. This calculation of Mr. Money's is, 
 however, apparently based on the idea that the Government could 
 obtain the money at 2J per cent. Certainly it could not do so now. 
 It would have to pay at least 3 J or 3| per cent. It has been suggested 
 that the National Insurance Funds could be used. If they were 
 used, it would be unjust to the insured persons to invest them at 
 a lower rate than could be obtained for the money in the open 
 market on suitable securities. Further, if the Government, as a 
 matter of general pohcy, as Mr. Money suggests, began to build 
 houses and let them at 3 per cent on the cost, or any such ridiculous 
 figure, no new houses would be built by any one else. The whole 
 of the problem of the future supply of houses in this country would 
 at once be placed on its back. In addition, and as a consequence, 
 the value of the whole of the existing house property in the country 
 would be reduced by one-half at a blow. This would not only mean 
 a fall of one-half in the rateable value of that property, and con- 
 sequently in the amount that would be receivable from it in rates, 
 income tax, and inhabited house duty, but it would mean the 
 infliction of a loss of something Hke £1,250,000,000 on the owners 
 of property in the United Kingdom by depreciation of its capital 
 value. A large portion of this loss would fall upon Building Societies, 
 Friendly Societies, Insurance Societies, and small investors among 
 the artisan and smaller middle classes sections of the community. 
 
 Leasehold Business Premises 
 
 Reference has already been made to some of the difliculties 
 which arise in connection with leasehold premises. In so far as 
 they are business premises it would be equitable to arrange that 
 except for good and sufficient reason the occupier of business 
 premises, whether they were leasehold or freehold, should not be 
 turned out of them so long as he complied with the conditions of 
 a reasonable agreement and paid the market rental value of the 
 property. It would follow from this that arrangements would have 
 
552 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 to be made for determining the market value of the property in 
 cases where the landlord and the tenant failed to come to an agree- 
 ment. With regard to improvements made by the tenant, subject 
 to equitable conditions and safeguards, it would be fair that the 
 landlord should compensate him for them in so far as they were a 
 permanent and genuine addition to the value of the property. If 
 the expenditure of the tenant, though it had been considerable and 
 had made the premises more suitable for his particular purpose, had 
 not really increased the letting value of the property, no compensa- 
 tion for that expenditure should be payable unless the landlord 
 was terminating the tenancy against the will of the tenant and the 
 tenant was wilUng to pay what had been determined to be a fair 
 rent. The owner should also be protected against being compelled 
 to pay for outlay on his property which he could not afEord by having 
 the option of ofEering to sell the property to the tenant at its fair 
 market value apart from the improvements for which compen- 
 sation was demanded. Much of the business property of the 
 country belongs to comparatively small middle-class people, and to 
 call upon them to provide large sums because it had suited the 
 interest of a tenant to expend a great deal of money in altering 
 and enlarging their premises would often be inequitable, and might 
 impose a charge upon them which they could not meet. The 
 conditions and safeguards attached to the arrangements would 
 have to be very carefully considered. Subject to that, the general 
 principle of the proposal is sound and equitable. 
 
 The restrictions which are found in most ground leases, and 
 the fees and expenses which are charged when permission is desired 
 to do anything in connection with the property for which the sanction 
 of the landlord is required, are often unreasonable and very ex- 
 asperating. A small army of estate stewards, lawyers, surveyors, 
 and architects wax fat out of this kind of thing. It is felt to be an 
 anomaly and an injustice. If the landlord inserts these provisions 
 in his leases for his own protection, and also requires that every 
 appUcation which a leaseholder makes shall be examined and 
 reported upon by his professional advisers, he ought to bear the 
 cost of much of this protection of his interests and ought not to 
 be able to charge it upon his tenant because, in order to spare him- 
 self trouble and responsibility, he hands over the management of 
 his property entirely or largely to others. That is a luxury and a 
 relief for which he and not his tenants ought to pay. The employ- 
 ment by the owner of an architect to see that damage is not done 
 
cH.iu URBAN PROBLEMS 553 
 
 and that the work is properly executed when considerable structural 
 alterations are made is another matter. That, of course, should be 
 paid for by those who make the alteration. As a matter of fact, 
 the owner often knows little or nothing of the schemes of fees 
 and charges which were instituted and are perpetuated by a whole 
 army of men who live by this method of legalised extortion. 
 
 Repairs and Dilapidations 
 
 Questions of decorations, repairs, maintenance, and dilapida- 
 tions are sources of much irritation, dispute, and complaint. Fre- 
 quently there is lack of a precise and clear understanding. A 
 building, say a dwelling house, is a property which requires frequent 
 repair and decoration to keep it in good tenantable condition. 
 Even then it is a wasting security. In course of time, houses wear 
 out or become antiquated or unsuitable for the locality, and have 
 to be rebuilt. Clearly the rent paid must be sufficient to give a 
 satisfactory return upon the cost of the premises, after allowance 
 has been made for the risk of them being unlet and provision has 
 been made for replacing the cost when the building is worn out. In 
 addition to this, provision must be made for keeping the building and 
 its fittings, inside and out, in good repair, and for papering and paint- 
 ing it at regular intervals. If the owner is to do this the rent must 
 be correspondingly increased. In the alternative, the tenant must 
 do the necessary repairs, decorations, and maintenance, and leave 
 the premises as spick and span for a new tenant as they were for 
 him. 
 
 Trouble arises because, on the one hand, in the majority of cases 
 the rent paid is not sufficient to show a proper commercial return 
 on the cost of the premises and leave a sufficient margin to enable 
 the owner to do the repairs and decorations. The result, in most 
 cases, is that they are not done properly. On the other, where the 
 tenant takes a lease and covenants to do the repairs it is extremely 
 seldom that he complies fully with the conditions of his lease. 
 When the term expires and he is called upon to leave the house 
 in thorough repair for a new tenant, he usually considers he has a 
 great grievance and complains bitterly. He has no groimd for so 
 doing. The rent he paid was a bare commercial return on the cost 
 of the house ; the repairs, maintenance, and decorations are an 
 additional cost — a cost which must be borne by the tenant in some 
 form or other, or the return on property will cease to be a commercial 
 one and people will cease to build and buy houses. The difficulty 
 
554 OWNERSHIP Sz: TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 is that people are apt to overlook this and regard the rent as covering 
 everything, except rates and taxes, when it obviously* does not. 
 What does seem inequitable and is very difficult to justify, except 
 on strictly legal grounds, is the making of a heavy charge for dilapida- 
 tions when a ground lease is expiring and the property is about to 
 be pulled down. That is. always resented and regarded as an 
 imposition which is rendered possible by a provision in the lease 
 which was not intended for that purpose. 
 
 What is required 
 
 What is required is that the relations between landlords and 
 tenants should be adjusted to those which all fair-minded owners 
 and honourable tenants would desire them to be. In the great 
 majority of cases that is what they are. But there are exceptions ; 
 and it is for the exceptional cases that an amendment of the law is 
 required to prevent injustice being done. It must not be imagined, 
 however, that the risk of injustice and hardship is all on one side, 
 or that the law, as it now stands, is all in favour of the landlord. 
 There are unreasonable tenants as well as unreasonable landlords. 
 Some of the stories of alleged hardship as regards tenants are true. 
 With regard to most of them there is, however, another side, about 
 which usually nothing is said by those who are stating the grievance, 
 but which puts a very different complexion upon it, when all the 
 facts are known. Property, as an investment, is anything but a 
 gold-mine, and its management is by no means a sinecure. Few 
 things are more troublesome and disappointing. The tenant sees 
 one side of the picture ; the side which meets the eye of the owner 
 presents a very different aspect. 
 
 Given thoroughly competent and really impartial tribunals to 
 which in case of necessity appeal could be made without risk of 
 being involved in heavy legal and other professional expenses, and 
 there is little or nothing to which any reasonable man need object 
 in the proposal to constitute such an authority. What a just land- 
 lord wants is a proper and equitable rent for his property. A fair- 
 minded tenant will expect and be prepared to pay a proper and 
 equitable rent. If they cannot quite agree as to what amount of 
 rent fulfils those conditions, it is a reasonable suggestion that a 
 competent authority should be available to determine, expeditiously 
 and inexpensively, this and similar matters for them, on being 
 appealed to. It would, of course, be necessary that there should be, 
 in the last resort, an appeal to a higher tribunal from a decision of 
 
CH. Ill URBAN PROBLEMS 555 
 
 the tribunal of first instance. These tribunals need not be— indeed, 
 perhaps, they shoidd not be — ordinary law courts ; but there 
 should be a representative of the legal element on them. Further, 
 they must not consist of removable officials. They must not be 
 subject to popular or political influence. 
 
 Everything would depend on the constitution of the tribunals 
 and the spirit in which they approached their work. It would not 
 have to be assumed that they were appointed to reduce rents. It 
 would have to be quite as competent for them to increase them. If 
 power were given them to determine the terms on which a lease- 
 holder should be allowed to acquire the freehold of the property 
 he occupied, it would almost invariably be found that the terms 
 would be very diEEerent from what the tenant imagined they would 
 be. Many of the alleged grievances and injustices are thought to 
 be so simply because those who make the complaint have failed 
 to understand the real facts and position of the matter. It would 
 be a great advantage to aU concerned to have the opinion of an 
 independent and competent authority in such cases. It would 
 remove much misapprehension. 
 
 Fair Treatment for every one 
 
 Fair treatment for everybody is what all honourable men desire. 
 That can be secured, and there should be no serious difficulty in 
 securing it, if the whole of the very, difficult and complicated 
 problem be approached in the spirit of Sir Edward Grey's speech 
 to his constituents on October 27, 1913, in the course of which 
 he said : 
 
 I would say, when you are dealing with land reform and you find 
 it necessary to interfere with the individual owner or with the mort- 
 gagee, or whoever it may be, you should do it in such a way as not to 
 make him a poorer man. You do not confiscate, you do not take 
 money out of his pocket, but you say, in cases where land is wanted for 
 a public purpose, " The community needs your land. We will treat 
 you fairly and will pay you a fair price for your land, but we must have 
 that land if it is wanted for public purposes, and must get it easily 
 and at a fair price." 
 
CHAPTER IV 
 
 CONCLUSION 
 
 There is a standard of fairness and honour which all honest men 
 either know full well or can easily discover if they wish ; and it 
 should be a matter of conscience for all good citizens to measure 
 their conduct by it, and for Parliament and all public authorities 
 to enforce it. From time to time changes and revisions in existing 
 laws and institutions become necessary. In so far as the well- 
 being of the community demands them they must be made, and no 
 claim of vested interest or of personal right must be allowed to block 
 the way. This is especially the case with regard to questions affect- 
 ing land. But that interests and rights should not be allowed to 
 block the way does not mean that they should be ignored or that 
 property should be confiscated. All it means is that if property of 
 any land is required for pubhc use, or if the public interest requires 
 that it should be used in a particular way or devoted to a particular 
 purpose, it should be so acquired and used, subject to fair and 
 equitable compensation being given to those who are thereby 
 deprived of property and rights which are valuable to them. 
 
 ResponsibiUty for the Past must be accepted 
 
 To attempt to justify inflicting loss and injury upon innocent 
 persons because in centuries long ago some one did something which 
 we think ought not to have been done, and the community sanctioned, 
 permitted, or did things which we think were undesirable and even 
 wrong, would be inequitable in the extreme and would shake the 
 foundations of the social structure. The present generation are the 
 heirs of the past, and in accepting its assets, its benefits, the results 
 of its wisdom and the accumulation of its resources and its experi- 
 ence they must also take upon themselves the burden of its liabilities, 
 its disadvantages, and its errors. We must do so, not least, because 
 
 556 
 
CH.IV CONCLUSION 557 
 
 we cannot now form a just judgment with regard to what was 
 then done, inasmuch as it is impossible for us to place ourselves in 
 the position of those who lived and acted and were responsible in 
 the distant past — we must always consider and discuss it and form 
 our opinion about it with the knowledge of what has happened since 
 before us — and because it is impossible to go back to the conditions 
 which then prevailed. We cannot put things where they were and 
 begin again ; and so much has happened in every direction, result- 
 ing from and based upon what was done then, that any attempt to 
 rectify an error of the past — ^supposing there was one — by reversing 
 it now, without recognising what has been built up on and done in 
 consequence of it, would only be to remedy an old past injustice or 
 error by inflicting a new, present, and most probably a far greater 
 injustice upon others to-day. 
 
 The commimity as a whole must take the responsibihty for the 
 past. It cannot receive and accept what it Hkes and ignore or reject 
 what it dislikes. It cannot accept the assets without also accepting 
 responsibility for the debts. Things must be taken as they are and 
 be dealt with honourably and honestly as they have come down 
 to us. They may, they do need revision and reform ; but it must 
 be done fairly and equitably. If we are to rob some one to-day 
 because some of his ancestors or predecessors in possession once 
 robbed some one else, it will be difficult to know where we shall end. 
 It will be difficult to find any one amongst us, no matter how exalted 
 or humble his pedigree, who, at some time or another, had not 
 ancestors who were murdering, thieving ruffians, some of whom 
 were^ and more undoubtedly deserved to be, hanged. Things as 
 they now are are the growth of ages. Our laws and the conditions 
 which they have created have slowly evolved through the centuries, 
 and are the result of the work, thought, and struggles of scores of 
 generations of people. We are not responsible for them. We have 
 received them ; and to attempt to penalise and punish any one 
 class or section of our people to-day because our laws and social con- 
 ditions have been so handed down to us would be to perpetrate a 
 criminal wrong. 
 
 Abuse of Land-Owners Unfair and Impolitic 
 
 The laws affecting the ownership, tenure, and taxation of land 
 and buildings require amendment. In order to demonstrate and 
 secure that, it is not necessary to attack and denounce the owners 
 of that class of property and hold them up to obloquy and scorn. It 
 
558 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. x, 
 
 is as unfair and unjust as it is unnecessary and impolitic. Land- 
 owners are very much like other people. Taking them as a whole, 
 the land-owners of England will bear comparison with any other class 
 in this country or any other. They have their faults ; who has not ? 
 There are black sheep amongst them ; in what class are there none ? 
 Things have been done by some of them or in their name which are 
 reprehensible ; of what section of the community cannot the same 
 thing be said ? All this simply means that they are human, and 
 are afficted with a share of the faults and weaknesses which char- 
 acterise so many of us. Take them all in all, they are as good 
 as the rest of us — ^neither better nor worse. So far as there is a 
 difference, it is that their position and advantages have perhaps 
 caused the pubUc, and especially those of their own social order, to 
 require of them a higher standard of public and private conduct and 
 duty than is exacted from those whose station in Ufe is more humble. 
 It is equally unnecessary and misleading to create or leave an 
 impression that tenants and occupiers of land and buildings are 
 beings of a superior moral order, quite deserving a special robe 
 and a halo. To do that would be to distort and misrepresent 
 the facts, and until the facts are seen as they are, and in their 
 real proportions and true perspective, there will be no possibility 
 of dealing with them equitably and effectively. Tenants are 
 neither better nor worse than landlords. There are bad and 
 good ones among both. Every story of harsh and unfair 
 treatment by landlords can be matched by one of fraud and 
 damage by and loss through tenants. It has been said, with a good 
 deal of truth, that if you wish to do a man a bad turn you should 
 leave him half a dozen cottages with a mortgage on them in a poor 
 neighbourhood on condition that he manages them and collects the 
 rents himself weekly. There can be no question that for an ordinary 
 person property is an unsatisfactory investment. Much house 
 property has been sold during the last three years at considerably 
 less than it would cost to erect the buildings alone, without adding 
 anything for the value of the land. The popular idea that property 
 in growing towns and cities is always increasing in value is a great 
 delusion. The decreases which take place in value are sometimes 
 appalling and ruinous. Some people talk as though the ownership of 
 land, and especially of town property, was the high road to opulence. 
 If land, and especially urban property, is such a splendid investment, 
 if it is always steadily increasing in value, why do not some of those 
 who talk so gUbly about it sell their other investments and put their 
 
CH. IV CONCLUSION 559 
 
 money into this " continually improving security " ? There is an 
 abundance of it in the market. If they will announce themselves 
 as buyers they will find that any number of sellers will be anxious 
 to secure a customer. 
 
 The truth is that the vast majority of landlords and tenants 
 are reasonable, just, and honourable people who desire and get 
 an equitable bargain and fair treatment. They approach the 
 question of renting or bujdng property from difEerent points of view, 
 and naturally each of them is apt to exaggerate what is of importance 
 to him, and to overlook and xmderestimate those phases of the trans- 
 action which are disadvantages to the other party to it. The one 
 gets what he can, the other pays what he must. It is inevitable 
 that there should be grumbling. There always is and always will 
 be where there are business transactions. Certainly the Govern- 
 ment does not contrive to avoid complaint in its capacity as a land- 
 owner, as an urban landlord, as an employer, as a purchaser of 
 supplies, as the proprietor of the postal, telegraph, and telephone 
 service, and as a collector of public revenue. In each one of these 
 capacities it is subject to criticism and denunciation quite as severe 
 and apparently, at least, as well founded as that which is directed 
 against land-owners and landlords. As is the case with the Govern- 
 ment so with landlords and tenants, some of the complaints are 
 justified and reform and improvement is possible and necessary ; 
 but there is no justification for widespread wholesale denunciation 
 of a class of people who are at least as honourable, just, and generous 
 as those who assail them. 
 
 How Injury may be done 
 
 It is in the public interest that capital should flow freely into 
 investment in land and buildings as well as into other businesses and 
 enterprises. Cheap capital is the life-blood of extension and develop- 
 ment. Whether capital is cheap or dear, speaking of it generally 
 and for all purposes, depends, of course, on the demand for it and the 
 supply of it. Whether the supply of it at a low market rate will 
 be ample for any particular class of investment or enterprise — say 
 buildings and the development of building estates — will depend very 
 largely on the character of the security that is ofEered and the pro- 
 spect there is of a safe and remunerative return. Make the invest- 
 ment uuacertain, create doubt as to its permanence and stabiUty, 
 impose or create conditions which will render an adequate return 
 doubtful, and pour contumely and abuse upon those who make that 
 
56o OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 particular investment, and the flow of capital in that direction will 
 at once be checked, with the result that a much higher return will 
 be required upon so much as remains available. This means, in 
 the case mentioned, that all progress in connection with land and 
 buildings will be hampered and rendered more costly, and conse- 
 quently that every industry will be shackled. 
 
 It is an elementary condition of our economic life which is often 
 forgotten or ignored, that unless industries and enterprises pay 
 they will not be undertaken or carried on, and that if they do pay 
 artificial stimulus and help is not required and is quite as likely to 
 be injurious as beneficial. The real difficulty of the housing problem 
 to-day is that many of those who require cottages cannot pay a rent 
 that will show a commercial return upon the cost of erecting and 
 maintaining them. Any legislation, any policy, any propaganda, 
 and the creation of any public opinion that checks the investment 
 of capital in land and buildings and diverts it into other channels, 
 must inevitably make capital more difficult to obtain for building 
 houses, must thereby make houses dearer and rents higher, and 
 must therefore increase the difficulty of the housing problem, 
 and consequently be detrimental to the well-being of the country 
 and check its progress and development. 
 
 As we have again and again said, reforms are necessary ; some 
 of them are urgent ; but if they are to be honestly, honourably, 
 efficiently, and beneficially effected they must not be carried through 
 at the cost of punishing, penalising, and defrauding one class or 
 section of the community. Such cost and loss as is unavoidable — 
 and it will not be great if prudence and foresight be exercised — 
 must be borne by the community as a whole, except in so far as it is 
 the result of economic changes to which all industries, enterprises, 
 and investments are liable. It is only reasonable and fair that the 
 pubhc as a whole should accept their share of responsibility for much 
 of which they now complain. Much which it is now desired to alter 
 and for which we are all apt to blame others is really largely due, 
 not so much to those who are blamed as to the short-sightedness 
 and lack of wisdom of the community itself. 
 
 Two IllustraMons 
 
 Take two instances as illustrations. There is general agreement 
 that, in working-class districts of urban areas in particidar, houses 
 are far too closely crowded together. Streets, roads, passages, and 
 backways are far too narrow, yards are too small ; courtyards, 
 
CH. IV CONCLUSION 561 
 
 alleys, and cul-de-sacs are objectionable. Who is to blame for the 
 existence of these conditions ? Chiefly, if not entirely, the com- 
 munity represented by the law of the land when these properties 
 were built. The law not only permitted what was done ; in many 
 cases it specified the conditions which had to be complied with. To 
 do that was practically to set a standard which could not well be 
 exceeded. After all, building houses is a commercial undertaking. 
 If the law allows a builder to erect 40 houses on an acre of land, it is 
 clear that another builder cannot put only 20 houses of the same 
 size on a similar acre and let them at the same rent. Competition 
 will drive him to do as others do. What the law permits one builder 
 to do is practically what it compels another to do. The number of 
 houses which a builder is allowed to erect on a given area of land is 
 determined by the street, yard, and air and light space which he 
 is compelled to provide. That determines the price he can give and 
 the price the owner can get for the land. It also determines the 
 price which other builders must give ; and having bought the land 
 at a price based on putting say 40 cottages on it, they cannot very 
 well limit themselves to say 18, 20, or 25. The only way to prevent 
 the overcrowding of buildings on land, narrow streets, small yards, 
 and insufficient light and air space is by prohibiting the erection of 
 buildings under conditions which will produce such results. To 
 permit it is to render them almost inevitable ; and consequently is 
 to be responsible for them. The community, having not only 
 sanctioned but rendered almost unavoidable the overcrowding of 
 buildings in urban areas, is not justified in turning round afterwards 
 and demanding the rectification of that error and neglect of duty 
 on its part at the cost of the purchasers of the property from those 
 who, when the buildings were erected, complied with the require- 
 ments of the law and were driven to build as closely as they did by 
 the competition of others whom the law permitted to crowd 
 dwellings together. 
 
 One of the reasons why railway rates and fares cannot be reduced 
 is the heavy capital outlay that was involved in obtaining powers 
 and constructing the lines. A large part of that outlay was due to 
 the enormous cost to which Parhament put the companies by the 
 procedure which it adopted and the conditions which it imposed. 
 The ParKamentary expenses alone were enormous. The fear of 
 them provided abundant openings for what was little better than 
 blackmail on the part of land- and property-owners, local authorities, 
 and the community generally. Everybody regarded a railway 
 
 2o 
 
562 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND pt. xi 
 
 company as fair game. The attitude of local authorities and the 
 general public was often unreasonably obstructive. Sometimes 
 opposition had to be bought off in various wayg — always expensive : 
 at others, stations and lines were kept at a distance from towns, 
 with the result that afterwards enormous cost had to be incurred 
 by the companies to redeem the error. It is not generally known 
 that the London and North- Western Railway would have had its 
 terminus not far from Ludgate Circus, instead of at Euston, but 
 for the fierce opposition the proposal met with. Its first London 
 terminus was at Chalk Farm, but in 1835 Parhament was induced 
 to consent to the line being carried to its present terminus in what 
 was then Euston Grove. But the concession was only granted on 
 condition that no engines came south of Chalk Farm. Thus it was 
 that, until the year 1845, the carriages of the London and North- 
 Western were worked between Euston and Chalk Farm by means 
 of an endless cable operated by a stationary engine two miles from 
 the terminus ! 
 
 To this day, whenever a railway, an electric, or a tramway com- 
 pany, or a dock board, or any similar body, applies to Parliament 
 to commence or extend operations it is at once set upon by local 
 authorities and the general public and the members of Parhament 
 who represent them, for the purpose of imposing conditions and 
 exacting concessions which are always hampering, restrictive, and 
 costly. These good people honestly think they are serving the 
 public interest, just as similar people did seventy or eighty years ago 
 when they kept railways out of areas which they would afterwards 
 have given their ears to get them into. As a matter of fact, they are 
 doing an infinitude of harm. They add greatly to the cost of the 
 undertakings, and, consequently, inevitably to the fares, rates, tolls, 
 and charges which they and others will have to pay for all time. 
 They also deter enterprise, prevent extension, and obstruct develop- 
 ment. Then, forsooth, these same people afterwards attack these 
 undertakings on account of conditions, short-comings, and charges 
 which are largely, and sometimes entirely, the result of their own 
 short-sighted action. They have yet to learn the simple truth that 
 they cannot eat their cake and have it. If costly conditions are 
 exacted, the enterprises must have larger receipts to pay for them. 
 That means that these worthy people who think that they are 
 cleverly securing something for the public for nothing are really only 
 securing expenditure or limiting receipts for which the public will 
 certainly have to pay. 
 
CH. IV CONCLUSION 563 
 
 Conclusion 
 
 If the solution of the many complicated and thorny problems 
 which surround those phases of the ownership, tenure, and taxation 
 of land which we have been considering is approached with know- 
 ledge and a fair mind, avoidiag on the one hand any idea that land 
 and land-owners are sacrosanct and that our land laws and customs 
 came down from Sinai, and on the other any desire to foment class 
 hatred or promote a policy of pillage of one section of the community 
 for the supposed benefit of the others, there is no reason why, with 
 very general assent, there should not be such changes made and 
 such conditions established as would bring about much-needed 
 improvements that would benefit the whole community, and not 
 least that patient and long-suffering class of humble and extremely 
 worthy folk who cultivate the soil of our country. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Absurd statement by Henry George, an, 
 
 83, 85 
 Abuse of land-owners, unfair and im- 
 politic, 537 
 Adam, Mr. Edwin, 347, 460, 472 
 Adams, Dr. G. B., 131, 140 
 Agricultural housing, 531 
 Agricultural land, changes in value of, 
 97 
 problems of tenure of, 511 
 shitting of rates on, 361 
 some unseen effects of rates on, 365 
 unimproved value of, 87 
 value of, 86 
 
 value of improvements and buildings, 
 88 
 Agricultural wages, 60, 279, 531, 534 
 in olden times, 61, 277 
 in Sussex, 62 
 Agriculture, a minimum wage, 534 
 effect of the French war, 275 
 effect of growth in manufacturing, 
 
 273 
 in England under the Eomans, 25 
 in olden times, 124; the open field 
 system, 125; its disadvantages, 
 246; improvements in, 275 
 Ancestors of the nobility, 272 
 Anglo-Saxon times, ownership and occu- 
 pation of land in, 119 ; the manor 
 in, 121, 123 
 Anomalies in rating, 407 
 Antiquity of private ownership of land, 
 
 33 
 ArgyU, Duke of, 131, 208, 397 
 Ashley, Professor W. J., 27, 38, 220 
 Asquith, Mr., 421 
 Assessments for land tax, the fixed, 176, 
 
 288, 290 
 Assize of Arms, 1181, the, 151 
 Australia, 518 
 
 Babylon and Assyria, ownership of 
 land in, 33, 40 
 
 "Back to the land," 526; Mr. Eels' 
 
 fiasco, 526 
 Barons and people v. the Crown, 156 
 Bastable, Professor, 343 
 Baxter, Mr. Dudley, 344 
 Belgium, 515, 530 
 Beneficial rates, 317, 321 
 Black Death, the, 129, 159, 238 
 Blackstone, 143, 148, 149, 217 
 Boc-land and folk-land, 123 
 Boon to the nation, a great, 170 
 Bowley, Professor A. J., 54, 59, 62, 63, 71 
 Bracton, 127, 128 
 Breach of public good faith, 206 
 Building land, price of, 438, 450 
 
 trades, wages in, 63 
 Burden of feudal charges, 148, 154 
 Burgage, 144 
 Business abUity, importance and value 
 
 of. 111 ; profits of, where they 
 
 come from, 113 
 
 Cade, Jack, 158 
 
 Caird, Sir John, 62 
 
 Caimes, Professor, 194 
 
 Campbell-Bannerman, Sir Henry, 421 
 
 Canada, 518 
 
 Cannan, Dr., 177, 303, 312, 321, 343, 
 
 417 
 Capital value of the land of the United 
 
 Kingdom, 97 
 Capitalisation of rates and taxes, 366 
 Carucage, 153 
 Caustic exposure, a, 198 
 Celtic, cultivation of the soil, 25 
 
 ownership and tenures, 38 
 Census of Production, 45 
 Changes in grades and occupations, 
 
 effect of, 66 
 Charles 11., final abolition of the feudal 
 
 incidents, 169 
 Charter, the Great, 153 
 Children at school, 78 ; fewer employed, 
 
 79 ; lower death-rate, 76 
 
 565 
 
566 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 China, land holding in, 106 
 
 Chomley and Outhwaite, Messrs., 
 
 xxiv, 95 
 Classes and status in Anglo-Saxon and 
 
 early Norman times, 119, 127 
 Cleared sites and prairie value, 92 
 Cobden, Richard, 179, 345 
 Colonial trustee securities and Parlia- 
 ment, 197 
 Common fields, 125 ; uneconomical, 
 
 247, 251 
 Commons and rights of common, 214 
 et aeq. 
 ancient legal position, 216 
 a modem theory, 217 ; its refutation, 
 
 219 
 Blackstone's view, 217 
 effect of changing conditions, 231 
 enclosures, 213 e< seq. 
 method and effects of enclosure, 253 
 nurseries of crime and idleness, 250, 
 
 268 
 origin of, 230 
 
 popular ideas as to, erroneous, 215 
 position of copyholders, 227 ; other 
 
 customary tenants, 229 
 Sir John Sinclair's account of, 222 
 troubles of, 249 
 uneconomical, 247, 251 
 various rights of, 221, 223 
 what rights of common really were, 
 230. (;Siee aho Enclosure.) 
 Commonwealth and the feudal burdens, 
 
 the, 169 
 Communal ownership of land in Eng- 
 land, lack of evidence of, 36 
 and communal occupation or cultiva- 
 tion — ^the difference between, 37 
 Commutation of military services, 150, 
 167 
 of other services, 152 
 Conclusions, summary of, 483 
 Conditions of ownership of land, the, 
 
 193 
 Confiscation by taxation, 191 
 Constant and differential rates, 322 
 Constitutional government, the struggle 
 
 for, 166 
 Consumption, fewer deaths from, 76 
 of tea, sugar, tobacco, 78 
 of currants and raisins, 78 
 Contracts, existing, 418 ; some weighty 
 opinions, 419 ; Mr. Ure, M.P., and 
 others thereon, 422 
 Copyholders, 129 ; and enclosures, 227 
 Cotton trade, wages in, 64 
 Coulanges, Fustel de, 36 
 
 Courtney, Lord, 342 
 
 Crime and drunkenness, statistics of, 80 
 
 Crown lands, 166, 168 
 
 Customary tenants, 129, 229 
 
 Cynical utterance, a, 192 
 
 Daily Chronicle, The, 97, 461 
 Danegeld, 146, 151 
 Davies, Mr. C. L., 348, 463, 476 
 Death-rate, the, 75 
 
 Death penalty, decrease in cases of, 85 
 Debts, public and private, to be re- 
 pudiated, 209 
 Decay of the manorial system, 158 
 Demesne, the king's, 147 
 Dependent and servile tenures in early 
 
 England, 38 
 Differential rates, 322, 329; incidence 
 
 of, 330 
 Differential rating, 496 
 Dividing rates between owner and 
 
 occupier, 416 
 Domesday tenures, the, 143 
 Domestic servants, wages of, 65 
 Do rates increase the cost of houses ? 
 
 452 
 Dowell, Stephen, 171, 175, 177, 187, 
 
 291 
 Drink and housing, 550 
 Drunkenness, statistics of, 80 
 Duke of Sutherland's land, 513 
 Duke of Westminster, Henry George 
 
 and the, 199 
 
 Early communities in Germany, 35 
 Early settlers, hardships of, 205 
 Economic progress, 43 et seq. 
 
 fallacies, some, 107 
 Edgeworth, Professor, 343 
 Education, extension of, 78 
 Effect of inventions and improvements, 
 107 
 of changes in grades and occupation, 
 66 
 Election statements, 477 
 Enclosures, 213 et aeq. 
 
 alleged substitution of pasture for 
 
 arable cultivation, 244 
 a misconception, 259 
 a painstaking investigation, 260 
 a social revolution, 234 ; due to eco- 
 nomic causes, 235 
 common fields, uneconomical, 246 
 difSoulties and what was done to meet 
 
 them, 269 
 effect of the Black Death, 238 
 growth in manufactures, 273 
 
INDEX 
 
 567 
 
 Enclosure, effect of the French War, 275 
 effect on employment and population, 
 
 259 
 importance and position of copy- 
 holders, 227 ; other customary 
 tenants, 229 
 methods and effects of, 253 
 necessary and inevitable, 240, 245, 
 
 250 
 other influences, 248 
 position of the poor, 256 ; their dis- 
 advantages, 257 
 Professor Gonner's conclusions, 265 
 results as a whole, the, 258, 280 
 tenants desired them, 236, 240 
 the legal position, 226 
 the lord of the manor's share, 259 
 troublesome and costly, 254 
 what they realty were, 224 
 wool growing and sheep-farming, 241, 
 243 
 England under the Romans, 34 
 
 when the Romans left, 120 
 English Manor, the, early origin of, 35, 
 37, 38 
 a private estate, 37 
 Equal right of aU to land, 3 
 Estimates of the value of land in the 
 United Kingdom, 86 et seq., 94 et 
 seq., 97 
 Europe overrun by barbarians, 132 
 Eve, Mr. Trustram, 345 
 Evolution of property, the, 25, 26 
 
 Fallacies, some economic, 105 
 
 Family life, early stages of, 24 
 
 Farrer, Lord, 342, 420 
 
 Faulty economics, 467 
 
 Fels' fiasco, Mr., and its lessons, 526 
 
 Fels' views, Mr., xvii, xxiii 
 
 Feudal burdens and local rates, 406 
 
 final abolition, 169 
 
 not understood, 149 
 
 on whom they fell, 148, 154 
 Feudalism and security, 135 
 
 a necessary stage, 133, 163 
 
 a transition stage, 156, 161 
 
 English and Continental, 140 
 
 in England, 138 et seq. 
 
 its object and justification, 162 
 
 its origin and growth, 131 
 
 Maitland's view, 164 
 
 Norman, 141 
 
 of WiUiam I., 140 et seq. 
 
 the financial side, 145 
 
 the military side, 138 
 
 where it did not reach, 136 
 
 Finance, parliamentary control of, 156 
 
 Folk-land and boo-land, 123 
 
 Fortunes, great modem, 114 
 
 Foundations of society, the, 397 
 
 Fox, Mr. Wilson, 63 
 
 France, 516 
 
 Freedom, growth of, 128 
 
 Freeman, Professor E. A., 141 
 
 Free or servile communities ? 27 
 
 Free tenants, 127 
 
 S'yrd, the, 138, 140, 152 
 
 Garnier, Mr. R. M., 173 
 General principles of taxation and rat- 
 ing, 487 
 George, Henry, 3, 11, 14, 15, 17, 43, 83, 
 85, 103, 104, 107, 191, 192, 197. 199, 
 207, 209, 273, 395, 469 
 his contention and proposals, xix 
 opinions of him and his book, xviii 
 repudiation of public and private 
 
 debts, 209 
 what his proposals involve, 208 
 George, Mr. D. Lloyd, M.P., 381, 422 
 Germany, early communities in, 35 
 Giffen, Sir Robert, 55, 64, 344, 420 
 Gift of land by Sir Samuel Montagu, 
 
 455 
 Gladstone, W. E., 345 
 Gomme, Sir G. L., 343 
 Gonner, Professor E. C. K., 249, 250, 
 
 258, 260, 265, 343 
 Gorringe case, the, 381 
 Government cottages, 538 
 
 as landlords, 383, 538 
 Grants of land by kings, 123 
 Grave injustice, a, 195 
 Great modem fortunes, 114 
 Great Plague, the, 129, 238 
 Green, Mr. J. R., 159, 170 
 Grey, Sir Edward, M.P., 555 
 Ground rents, what they are, 91, 377 
 effect of specially taxing them, 385, 
 
 386 
 not site value, 377 
 Growth of population, 74 
 
 Hamilton, Sir Edward, 344 ; memor- 
 andum on local rates, 312 
 
 Hanley case, the, 456 et seq., 477 
 
 Hardships and rewards of early settlers, 
 205 
 
 Harper, Mr. E., 345, 455, 476 
 
 Hemmerde, Mr. E. G., M.P., 95, 456, 
 458 et seq. 
 
 Henry I.'s Charter, 148 
 
 Henry VIII. and the monasteries, 201 ; 
 
568 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 many sales of land, 202 ; iirice 
 paid, 202 
 Hirst, Mr. F. W., 44, 64 
 History of local rates, 301 e« seq. 
 Hobhouae, Professor L. T., 32 
 Holidays of working classes, 79 
 Holkham estate, the, 89 
 Hollesley Bay Colony, 528 
 Honesty and honour, some considera- 
 tions of, 191, 394, 418 
 Houses, numbers and rental, 81 
 
 and buildings and their sites, value of 
 in the United Kingdom, 86 et seq. 
 
 and persons, 82 
 Housing problems, 438, 448, 450 
 
 a fantastic proposal, 550 
 
 and drinking, 550 
 
 Government cottages, 536 
 
 in olden times, 66, 277 
 
 Liverpool, 547 
 
 London, 448 
 
 Manchester, 545 
 
 Municipal dwellings, 448, 545, 547 
 
 rural, 535 
 
 sites and wages, 537 
 
 statistics, 81 
 
 the real problem, 546 
 
 urban, 544 
 
 wages question fundamental, the, 
 539 
 How injury may be done, 539 
 Hungry forties, the, 59, 60 
 Huxley, Professor T. H., 7, 9, 15 
 
 Importance and value of business 
 
 abUity, 112 
 Improvement, moral and material, 84 
 Improvements and rates, 358, 410 
 Incidence of local rates, 317 eJ seq. 
 in exceptional cases, 352 et seq. 
 Poor Law Commissioners' opinion in 
 
 1843, 418 
 views of land taxers as to, 347 
 views of political economists, 341 et 
 seq. {See also Bates.) 
 Income, the National, 45 et seq. 
 how it is divided, 46, 53, 56 
 various estimates, 53 et seq. 
 Income tax, a local, 490 
 Incomes, comparisons with the past, 53, 
 55, 56 
 from land and other sources com- 
 pared, 99 et seq. 
 from investments and earnings 
 
 abroad, 51 
 intermediate class, 50, 53, 56 
 over £160 a year, 47, 48, 53, 56 
 
 Incomes, per head and per family, 57 
 under £160 a year, 49, 50, 53, 56 
 working class, 50, 53, 56 
 
 Increased longevity, 76 
 
 Index numbers of wages, 59 et seq. 
 
 Injustice, a grave, 195 
 
 Invaders, settlement of, 120 
 
 Investments and earnings abroad, 51 
 
 Investors and land, 195 
 
 Investor, the small, 195 
 
 Ireland and feudalism, 136 
 
 Is land to be cheaper or dearer when 
 taxed ? 460 
 
 Jack Cade, 158 
 
 Jenks, Professor B., 142, 144 
 
 Kaleidoscopic propaganda, a, xxviii 
 " King should live on his own, the," 
 
 166 
 King's demesne, the, 147, 187 
 revenue in Saxon times, 145 
 
 Norman times, 146 
 
 the Middle Ages, 166 
 Kingsway and Aldwych, an interesting 
 
 experience, 437 
 
 Labour as the title to ownership, 14, 16, 
 17 
 does it produce anything ? 17 
 Labourers, the Statute of, 238 
 Lancashire, savings and holidays, 80 
 Land, changes in the value of agricul- 
 tural, 97 
 " absorbs aE the benefits of progress," 
 
 469 
 antiquity of private ownership of, 33 
 concUtions of ownership of, 193 
 decrease in yeoman owners, 272 
 different from other commodities, 391 
 " equal right of all to," 3 
 grants of by kings, 123, 201 
 income from, and from other sources 
 
 compared, 99 et seq. 
 in new and old countries, 393 
 investments of small people in, 195 
 monopoly in, 431 
 more on offer for building than can be 
 
 sold, 429 
 '■ necessary to our existence," 392 
 of London, value of, 92 
 origin of private property in, 23 
 Parliament and investments in, 195 
 private property in, and poverty, 104 
 
 et seq. 
 private property in, an early stage, 
 23, 40 
 
INDEX 
 
 569 
 
 Land, "private property in, immoral," 3 
 to what extent could more be culti- 
 vated ? 427 
 tying-up of, 511 
 value of in London, 92 
 value of in the United Kingdom, 86 
 
 et seq., 94, 97 
 Who is the robbed and who is the 
 
 robber ? 200 
 Who really owns it ? 185 
 Who were the original occupiers ? 200 
 Land-holders and national burdens, 155 
 Landlord parliaments, 39 
 Land-owners, abuse of, unfair, 557 
 and public expenditure, 359 
 in London, 514 
 
 " might exclude every one," 1 1 
 " pay all rates and taxes " — views of 
 
 land-taxers, 471 et seq. 
 the rates and taxes they now bear, 
 401 
 Land taxes, so-caUed, 175 et seq. 
 a complete misconception, 179 
 of 1692, 1697, and 1798, 175 
 theories as to, 298 
 view of Inland Revenue authorities, 
 
 178 
 what they really were, 175 
 Land taxers' dilemma, the, 469 
 Land values, effect of rates on, 368 ; 
 on occupiers, 369 ; on owners, 
 370 
 group in Parliament, proposals of, 
 
 xxvi, 398 
 what has to be proved for special 
 
 taxation of, 390 
 a limited rate on, recommended, 506 
 Land tenure, problems of, in agricul- 
 tural districts, 511 
 in urban districts, 544 
 Laveleye, M. de, 30 
 Law, the Boman system of, 133 
 Lawes, Sir John, 112 
 Layton, Mr. W. T. — ^wages of domestic 
 
 servants, 65 
 Leasehold system, the, 375 
 an interesting case, 384 
 at the end of the term, 379 
 business premises, 551 
 effect of specially taxing ground 
 
 rents, 385 
 enfranchisement, 376 
 price of the property allows for giving 
 
 it up at end of term, 379 
 repairs and dilapidations, 552 
 restrictions and charges, 552 
 security of tenure, 552 
 
 the Gorringe case, 381 
 
 the Government and its leases, 383 
 
 the land-owner's position, 380 
 
 what is required, 554 
 Lester, Mr. W. B., xxiii, xxiv, 348 
 Lever, Sir William, 115 
 Levi, Professor Leone, 62, 63 
 Lewis, Sir G. C, 4, 7 
 Liverpool and slums, 547 
 Lloyd George, Mr., M.P., 381, 422 
 Local expenditure and rates, 491 
 
 analysed, 499 
 Local income tax, a, 490 
 Local Bates, a kind of income tax, 302 
 
 difficulty of assessing personal pro- 
 perty for, 302 
 
 history of, 301 et seq. 
 
 incidence of, 317 et seq. 
 
 intended to be levied according to 
 ability to pay, 307 et seq. 
 
 legal decisions, 308, 310 
 
 personal property was to be assessed, 
 307 et seq. 
 
 Sir Edward Hamilton's memorandum, 
 312 
 
 the intention and the fact, 313 
 Local taxation, desirable reforms, 504 
 
 suggested methods of relief, 495 
 
 the actual position, 502 
 
 the sound principle, 493 
 
 two grievances, 503 
 London County Council and housing, 
 
 448, 450, 545 
 Long, Mr. James, 523 
 Lord Mayor's banquet in 1663, 61 
 Lordship, evolution of, 29 
 
 in Saxon and Danish times, 30 
 
 Macaulay, Lord, 171 
 Machinery, development of, 274 
 Magna Charta, 153 
 
 Maitland, Professor F. W., 123, 156, 164 
 " Making of the land of England," 88 
 Mallock, Mr. W. H., 11, 13, 45, 53 
 Manchester building trades, wages in, 63 
 Manorial system, origin of the, 121 
 
 decay of the, 158 
 
 in Anglo-Saxon times, 121, 122 
 Manor, the English : early origin, 35 
 
 constitution of the, 122 
 Manors, new, 123 
 Man's right to himself, a,, 15 
 Manufacturing, growth of, 275 
 Marriage register, signed by a mark, 78 
 Marshall, Professor A., 11, 44, 61, 66, 
 
 84, 111, 113, 115, 342, 397 
 Marx, Karl, 44, 85 
 
570 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 Masterman, Mr. C. P. G., M.P., 232 
 Mediseval taxation, theories and prac- 
 tice, 285 el aeq. 
 Military service, exempted from many 
 
 other payments, 155 
 Military tenure and service, 134, 138 ei 
 seq., 150, 161 
 becoming a misnomer, 161 
 payment instead of, 150 
 Mill, John S., xxi, 394 
 
 and unearned increment, xxi 
 Minimum wage, a, 534 
 Modern fortunes, great, 114 
 experience of establishing private 
 ownership in land, 39 
 Monasteries, Henry VIII. and the lands 
 
 of the, 201, 202 
 Money, Mr. Chiozza, M.P., 53, 94, 181, 
 
 348, 550 
 Monopoly in land, 431 
 Montagu, Sir Samuel, gift of land, 455 
 Morgan, Professor J. H., 28 
 Movables, taxes on, 152, 154, 157 
 Municipal dwellings, 448, 545 
 house the wrong people, 448 
 Liverpool, 547 
 Murray, Sir George, 321 
 
 National income, the, 45 
 
 how it is divided, 46 
 Nations, rights of, how obtained, 13 
 Natural rights, 4 et aeq. 
 
 and social utility, 10 
 
 experience the guide, 19 
 
 of the tiger, 8 
 
 the only safe appeal, 21 
 
 the right of force, 6 
 New countries, ownership of land in, 
 
 39 
 New and old countries, 393 
 New Manors, 123 
 Norman tenures, imposed by force, 188 
 
 their validity, 189 
 Norman times, ownership and occupa- 
 tion of land in, 119 
 
 the King's revenue in, 146 
 North-Devon farm, a, cost and value of, 
 89, 90 
 
 Occupation and cultivation, different 
 from ownership, 37 
 
 and use, a basis of possession, 31, 32 
 O'Connor, Judge Arthur, 420 
 Old propaganda, an, 193 
 Onerous rates, 317 et seq. 
 
 defined, 321 
 
 incidence of, 325 
 
 Open field system of agriculture, the, 
 125 
 
 uneconomical, 246 
 Opinions of political economists on the 
 
 incidence of local rates, 341 et aeq. 
 Order, social in early times, 120 
 Origin of private property in land, 23 
 Orr, Mr. John, 347, 460, 471 
 Outhwaite, Mi., M.P., xxiv, xxv, 95, 
 
 465. 466, 467, 477 
 Overcrowding and slums, 82, 83, 445, 
 447 
 
 and access to land, 449 
 
 houses available, 447, 544 
 
 Liverpool, 547 
 
 Municipal dwellings, 448, 545 
 
 price of building land, 438, 450, 546 
 
 the real problem, 546 
 Ownership of land, antiquity of, 33 
 
 and landlord parliaments, 39 
 
 in Anglo-Saxon times, 119 
 
 in Babylon and Assyria, 33, 40 
 
 in early Celtic times, 38 
 
 in early Norman times, 119 
 
 in England, history of, 119 
 
 in new countries, 39 
 
 in the Roman Empire, 34 
 
 Parliament and investments in, 197 
 
 small investors in, 195 
 
 the conditions of, 193 
 
 what it reaUy is, 185 
 
 what William I. did, 186 
 
 who were the original occupiers, 200 
 
 who is the robbed and who the 
 robber? 200 
 Ownership, the evolution of, 29-31 
 
 Labour as the title to, 14, 16 
 Ownership v. tenancy of agricultural 
 land, 519 
 
 Parliament and investments in land, 197 
 and trustees, 197 ; colonial securities, 
 
 197 
 Parliamentary control of finance, 156, 
 
 167, 168 
 Pauperism, decrease of, 74 
 
 increased expenditure per person, 78 
 Payment instead of military service, 
 
 150, 152, 167 
 Peasants' revolt of 1381, the, 159 
 PeU, Mr. Albert, on the making of the 
 
 land of England, 88 
 People as " Packs," 24 
 Personal property, taxes on, 152, 157, 
 
 175 et seq., 180, 286, 289 
 always evading taxation, 176, 177, 
 
 178, 181, 289, 291, 306, 314 
 
INDEX 
 
 571 
 
 Personal status, 119, 127, 128 
 Pitt's land tax, 177, 181 
 Plague, the Great, 129, 238 
 Political economists, opinions of, on in- 
 cidence of local rates, 341 et seq. 
 Pollock and Maitland, 155, 161, 162 
 PoUock, Sir F., 124, 215 
 Poll tax, 158 
 
 Poor — growing poorer ? 44 
 Poor rate, the, 305 
 who liable to pay, 306 
 personal property to be assessed, 306 
 
 et seq. 
 Acts of Parliament and legal de- 
 cisions, 308, 310 
 Population, growth of, 74 
 Possession based on occupation and use, 
 
 31 
 Poverty and the private ownership of 
 land, 104 et seq. 
 where land is not appropriated, 105 
 Price, Professor, 343 
 Prices, relation of, to wages, 72 
 Private ownership of land, antiquity of, 
 33 
 begins with agriculture and families, 
 
 25 
 evolution of, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31 
 immoral ? 3. (See also Ownership.) 
 Production, The Census of, 45 
 Profits of business ability, where they 
 
 come from, 113 
 Progress, economic, 43 et seq. 
 
 other tests of, 74 
 Public good faith, a breach of, 206 
 Public pillage, 210 
 
 Purveyance and pre-emption, 145, 158, 
 172 
 
 Hacial controversy, the, 28 
 Railways, Mr. Outhwaite's scheme, 
 
 XXV 
 
 Rates and the price of land, 334 
 
 a limited rate on land values, 506 
 
 a kind of income tax, 302 
 
 changes of during ownership, 354 et 
 seq. 
 and during tenancy, 354 et seq. 
 
 constant and differential, 322 
 
 differential, 329, 330, 496 
 
 dividing between owner and occupier, 
 416 
 
 do not come off the value of the build- 
 ing, 336, 352 
 
 do they increase the cost of the 
 house ? 452 
 
 economic friction and diffusion, 345 
 
 feudal burdens and, 406 
 history of, 301 et seq. 
 incidence of, 317 et seq. 
 
 when building is erected, 337 
 influence rents, 339 
 intended to be levied according to 
 
 ability to pay, 307, 311 
 land-owners should pay, 401 
 Mr. Chiozza Money's view, 348 
 on agricultural land, shifting of, 364 
 on building land, shifting of, 366 
 onerous and beneficial — a definition 
 
 attempted, 317-321 
 onerous, incidence of, 325 
 on houses built on cheap land, 327 
 on improvements, 358, 410 
 on land, peculiar characteristics of, 
 
 326 
 on land values, effect of, 366, 368 
 on shops in Bond Street and Regent 
 
 Street, 353 
 opinions on incidence of, 341 et seq. 
 paid by land-owners now, 401, 405, 
 
 471 
 some practical and desirable reforms, 
 
 504 
 special points and exceptional cases, 
 
 352 
 summary of conclusions as to in- 
 cidence of, 335 
 the actual position, 502 
 two grievances, 503 
 views of land taxers as to who pays 
 
 them, 347, 471 
 which reduce the value of land, 335. 
 {See also Local Rates.) 
 Rating anomalies, 407 ; fallacious argu- 
 ments based thereon, 408 
 of country mansions, 407 
 of building land, 407 
 general principles of, 487 
 Relation of wages to prices, 1900-12, 72 
 Rent and the price of produce, 109 
 " Rent is Robbery," 395 
 Rents, fair, 621 
 
 Report of Royal Commission on Local 
 Taxation, 340, 341, 342, 413, 417, 
 419, 507 
 Report of Select Committee on Town 
 
 Holdings, 339, 341 
 Repudiation of public and private debts 
 
 proposed, 209 
 Repulsive but dangerous teaching, 192 
 Responsibility for the past, 556 
 
 two illustrations, 561 
 Rights, Natural, 4 et seq. 
 the only safe appeal, 21 
 
572 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 Eights of individuals, 13 
 
 of nations, 13 ; how obtained, 13, 14 
 
 various kinds of, 4, 6 
 Right to himself, a man's, 15 
 
 to live — ^where ? 12 
 
 and wrong, ideas as to, a growth, 19 
 Ritchie, Professor D. G., 11, 19, 20 
 Roads and their repair, 303 
 Roads in the Stuart period, 277 
 Roads and sewers, cost of, 92 
 Rogers, Mr. Thorold, 155, 168, 176, 275 
 Roman Empire, break-up of the, 131 ; 
 results, 132, 133 
 
 England under the, 34 
 
 its gifts to the world, 133, 135 
 
 ownership of land in the, 34 
 Romans and agriculture in England, 25 
 
 when they left England, 120 
 Rowntree, Mr. Seebohm, 516, 530 
 Runrig and Rundale, 127 
 Rural exodus, the, 514 
 
 experience of other countries, 515 
 Rural housing, 535 
 
 Government cottages, 536 
 
 sites and wages, 537 
 
 wages fundamental, 539 
 
 Saladin tithe, the, 153 
 
 Sargant, Mr. C. H. (now Mr. Justice), 
 
 343, 386, 421 
 Savings — amount in banks, etc., 79 
 Savings banks and insurance societies, 
 
 effect of the single tax on, 197 
 Saxon Militia, the, 140 
 Saxon times, the king's revenue in, 146 
 ownership and occupation of land in, 
 
 119 
 status in, 119 
 the manor in, 121, 123 
 Scattered strips in open field culture, 
 
 126 
 Scotland and feudalism, 137 
 Scrutton Mr. (now Justice), T. E., 216, 
 
 220, 254, 268 
 Soutage, 151, 154 
 Seat in a tramcar, 32 
 Security in possession, importance of, 
 
 32 
 of tenure, 520 
 Seebohm, Mr. Frederick, 125, 126, 246 
 Seligman, Professor, 18, 299, 479 
 Serfdom, disappearance of, 159 
 Serfs and slaves, 125, 127, 129, 155 
 Servants, domestic, wages of, 65 
 Servile services, 128 
 
 tenures in early England, 38 
 Settlement of invaders, 120 
 
 Settlers, hardships of early, 205 
 
 Sheep-farming, 243 
 
 Shifting of rates on agricultural land, 
 
 361 ; on building land, 364 
 Shipgeld, 146 
 Shops in Bond Street and Regent Street, 
 
 rates on, 353 
 Sidgwick, Professor Henry, 343, 420 
 Sinclak, Sir John, 222 et seq., 247, 265 
 Single tax, the, and savings banks, 197 
 
 and the Duke of Westminster, 198 
 
 involves repudiation of public and 
 private debts, 208, 209 
 
 J. S. Mill's opinion of, 394 
 
 the idea of not new, 297 
 
 Voltaire on, 198 
 
 what its supporters have to prove, 
 401 
 Site values in London : in various cities : 
 
 in the country as a whole, 92, 93 
 Slater, Dr., 262, 263, 266, 267 
 Slavery, 20, 38, 125 
 Slums, 443, 544 ; and over-crowding, 
 445 
 
 and access to land, 449 
 
 and the price of building land, 438, 
 450, 546 
 
 Liverpool and, 547 
 
 Municipal dwellings and, 448, 545 
 
 other houses available, 447, 554 
 
 some illustrations, 445 
 
 the real problem, 546 
 Small holdings, 522 
 
 " back to the land," 526 
 
 Belgium and, 530 
 
 Mr. Pels' fiasco, 526 
 
 the need for experience, 524 
 
 the practical side of, 523 
 
 the price of land, 524 
 Small investor, the, 195 
 Smart, Professor W., 193, 394 
 Smith, Mr. S., M.P., 209 
 Smithson, Mr. C. H., 348 
 Snowdon, Mr. Philip, M.P., 44, 238 
 Socage, socagers, and sokemen, 127, 144 
 Social order in early times, 120 
 Social structure, the, basis of in early 
 
 times, 139 
 Society, the foundations of, 397 
 Some comparisons, 462, 463 
 Some considerations of honesty and 
 
 honour, 191, 394, 418 
 Some economic fallaoies, 105 
 Sources of wealth, the. 111 
 Spicer, Sir Albert, M.P., 434 
 Statistics, wages, 59 et seq. 
 
 consumption of tea, sugar, tobacco, 78 
 
INDEX 
 
 573 
 
 statistics, crime and drunkenness, 80 
 death-rate, 76 
 education, 78 
 housing, 81, 448, 545 
 pauperism, 77 
 population, 74 
 savings and investments, 79 
 Status in Anglo-Saxon and Norman 
 
 times, 119 
 Statute of Labourers, the, 238 
 Storey, Mr. Harold, 44, 347, 424, 461, 
 
 463, 470 
 Struggle for Constitutional government, 
 
 the, 166, 168 
 Stuarts, the struggle with the, 168 
 Stubbs, Bishop, 138, 140, 141, 148, 156, 
 
 160, 172 
 Sugar, increased consumption of, 78 
 Summary of conclusions, 483 
 Support of the poor, 304 
 Sutherland, Duke of, value of his land, 
 513 
 
 Tallage, 151, 154 
 Taswell-Langmead, Mr., 148, 170 
 Tawney, Mr. R. H., 215, 227, 228, 241 
 Taxation, 145 et seq., 154, 292 et aeq., 
 487 et seq. 
 a complete misconception, 179 
 confiscation by, 191 
 local, the sound principle of, 493 
 parliamentary control of, 156 
 seventeenth and eighteenth century 
 theories of, 292 et seq. 
 Taxes and rates — all borne by land- 
 owners, 471 ; Mr. Wedgwood, M. P., 
 thereon, 473 
 Taxing ground rents, effect of, 385 
 Taxing land values, some proposals, 
 xviii, xxii, xxvii 
 an interesting experience, 437 
 a limited rate recommended, 506 
 a specious argument, 463 
 confusion and contradiction, 461, 476 
 effect of, would be slight, 439 
 effect on rural land, 432 ; on urban 
 
 land, 433 
 effect on sale of land, 435 
 equity of, 442 
 
 " everybody will pay," 462, 476 
 in rural areas, 465 
 is land to be cheaper or dearer or 
 
 what ? 460 
 slums and, 443 
 some illustrations, 438, 434 
 view of the Surveyor's Institute, 
 440 
 
 would it bring land into the market ? 
 
 425 et aeq. 
 what the electors are told, 477 
 Tea, consumption of, 78 
 Temporary and transitional nature of 
 
 feudalism, 161 
 Tenancy or ownership, 519 
 Tenants of the Manor, 123, 129 
 Tenure, security of, 521 
 Tenures, the Domesday, 143 
 Theories of taxation in the seventeenth 
 
 and eighteenth centuries, 292 et seq. 
 Tigers and natural rights, 7 
 Tobacco, consumption of, 78 
 Towns and feudal burdens, 150 
 Towns to relieve rural districts, 465 
 Toynbee, Mr. Arthur, 239, 272, 275 
 Tramcar, a seat in, 32 
 Tramp and the locomotive, the, 104 
 Trevelyan, Mr. C. P., M.P., 452 
 Trend of wages, 58 et seq. 
 Tribal system, the, 24, 119 
 Trinoda Necessitas, the, 146 
 Trustees and Parliament, 197 
 Tying-up of land, 511 
 
 Unearned increment, J. S. Mill and, 
 
 xvi 
 Unimproved value of agricultural land, 
 
 86 el seq. 
 United Committee for the Taxation of 
 
 Land Values, xxii, xxiii, 179 ' 
 United States, the, 206, 516, 518 
 Urban problems, 544 
 Ure, Mr., M.P. (now Lord Strathclyde), 
 
 xxiv, 422, 465 
 
 Value and importance of business 
 ability, 112 
 
 Value of property is rent plus rates, 
 339 
 
 Value of the land of the United King- 
 dom, 86 el seq., 94 
 of London, 92 
 
 Various rights of common, 223 
 
 Vassal's burdens, 148 
 
 Verinder, Mr. P., xxvi 
 
 Village artificers and officials, 126 
 
 Villenage and customary services, 125, 
 127 
 disappearance of, 159 
 
 Villein tenants, 125, 128 
 become copyholders, 158 
 
 Vinogradoff, Professor, 30, 122, 124, 
 139, 145 
 
 Virgate, a, 125 
 
 Voltaire and the single tax, 198 
 
574 OWNERSHIP & TAXATION OF LAND 
 
 Wage system, origin and growth of the, 
 
 129 
 Wages, the trend of, 58 et seq. 
 agrioultniaJ, 60, 531 ; a century's 
 experience, 533 ; compared with 
 olden times, 61 ; a minimum wage, 
 534 ; Parliamentary intervention, 
 541 
 efieot of changes in grades and occupa- 
 tions, 66 
 index numbers, 59 
 in good and bad times, 72, 73 
 in the cotton trade, 64 
 in the building trades, 63 
 of domestic servants, 65 
 relation of, to prices, 72 
 Walker, Professor F. A., 109, 110 
 Ward and Liveries, Court of, 169, 171 
 Waterloo Bridge tolls, 455 
 Wat Tyler's rising, 129, 159 
 Wealth, the sources of. 111 
 
 Webb, Mr. Sydney, 345 
 
 Wedgwood, Mr. Josiah, M.P., 348, 472, 
 
 473 
 Westminster and his estates, the Duke 
 
 of, 198 
 and the Gorringe case, 381 
 What has evolved through the centuries, 
 
 203 
 White, Dr. Dundas, M.P., xxiv, 348, 
 
 422, 475 
 Who really owns the land ? 185 
 William I., the feudalism of, 140 et seq. 
 Wood, Mr. G. H. — tables of wages, 64, 
 
 70 
 Wool-growing and manufacturing, 241 
 Working-class incomes, 60, 53 
 holidays, 79 
 investments and savings, 79 
 
 Yard-land, 125 
 
 Yeoman, land-owners, decrease in, 27 
 
 THE END 
 
 Printed by R. & R. Clark, Limited, Edinburgh, 
 
TWO RECENT BOOKS 
 
 Svo. I2S. net. 
 
 COMMON LAND AND INCLOSURE. By E. C. K. 
 
 GONNER. 
 
 TIMES. — "This book is a valuable contribution to history, marked 
 throughout by studied moderation of statement, and conspicuous for its 
 sustained effort to reach accurate conclusions." 
 
 NA TURE. — " Professor Conner has written an invaluable study, which 
 is final and should become a classic. No sociologist and no statesman can 
 afford to ignore it." 
 
 DAILY MAIL. — "The volume is a monument of research. It leaves 
 no branch of the subject unilluminated, and is likely to stand as an invalu- 
 able book of reference for all who are interested in the passing of the old 
 system, which began to disappear in the sixteenth century, into the new." 
 
 DAILY NEWS. — "An important book on an important subject." 
 ?,vo. $s. net. 
 
 PROPERTY: ITS DUTIES AND RIGHTS— 
 HISTORICALLY, PHILOSOPHICALLY, AND RE- 
 LIGIOUSLY REGARDED. A Series of Essays by 
 Prof. L. T. HoBHOUSE, Canon Rashdall, A. D. Lindsay, 
 Dr. Vernon Bartlet, Dr. A. J. Carlyle, H. G. Wood, 
 M.A., and Canon ScOTT Holland. With Introduction 
 by the Bishop of Oxford. 
 
 MORNING POST. — " This volume of essays will be found very help- 
 ful by those who are interested — as every elector should be — in a problem 
 that is at the heart of modern politics. ... A volume full of learning put 
 lightly (but without levity), in which the whole matter is discussed, historic- 
 ally, philosophically, and religiously, by a number of competent authorities. 
 . . . The strength of the book lies in its many provocations to a deeper 
 thoughtfulness in regard to matters which the average man is apt to dis- 
 miss with a sneer at the grudging labourer or the grasping capitalist." 
 
 GLOBE. — " Those interested in the question of property, which indeed 
 is of permanent interest to all men to-day, will find much food for thought 
 in these essays. ... It is a book which deserves to be read, not as a final 
 solution of what, perhaps, is an insoluble problem, but as a contribution to 
 a world-old controversy." 
 
 NATION. — "An exceedingly valuable collection of essays." 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON. 
 I 
 
A SELECTION OF 
 
 BOOKS ON POLITICS, ECONOMICS, Etc. 
 
 NOTES ON POLITICS AND HISTORY. By Viscount 
 MORLEY. 8vo. 2s. 6d. net. 
 
 POLITICAL AND LITERARY ESSAYS, 1908-13. 
 By the Earl OF CROMER. 8vo. I OS. 6d. net. 
 
 , BRITISH BUDGETS, 1887-8 TO 1912-13. By Bernard 
 Mallet, C.B. 8vo. 12s. net. 
 
 ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT 
 THROUGHOUT THE BRITISH EMPIRE. 8vo. 5s. net. 
 
 LECTURES ON THE RELATION BETWEEN LAW 
 AND PUBLIC OPINION IN ENGLAND DURING THE 
 NINETEENTH CENTURY. By Prof. A. V. Dicey, D.C.L. 
 New Edition, with Introduction. Svo. [^Spring, 19 14. 
 
 , The New Introduction deals with : — {a) Legislative Opinion at the 
 End of the Nineteenth Century, {b) Course of Legislation from the 
 Beginning of the 20th Century, (c) The Main Currents of Legislative • 
 Opinion from the Beginning of the 20th Century (Collectivism), {d) 
 Counter-Currents and Cross-Currents of Opinion. Conclusion. 
 
 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE LAW 
 OF THE CONSTITUTION. By Prof. A. V. Dicey, D.C.L. 
 Svo. I OS. 6d. net. 
 
 THE GOVERNMENT OF ENGLAND. By Prof. A. 
 Lawrence Lowell. Two vols. 8vo. 17s.net. 
 
 LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN ENGLAND. By Dr. Josef 
 Redlich. Edited with additions by F. W. Hirst. Two vols. Svo. 
 21s. net. 
 
 THE LAND LAWS. By Sir F. POLLOCK, Bart. Crown 
 8vo. 2s. 6d. 
 
 THE GREAT SOCIETY. By Graham Wallas, Author 
 
 of "Human Nature in Politics," etc. Svo. [^Spring, 19 14. 
 
 ECONOMIC NOTES ON ENGLISH AGRICULTURAL 
 WAGES. By Reginald Vivian Lennard, M.A. Svo. {Spring, 1914. 
 
 THE STATESMAN'S YEAR BOOK. Statistical and 
 Historical Annual of the States of the World. Revised after Official 
 Returns. Edited by J. Scott Keltie, LL.D. Assisted by M. 
 Epstein, M.A., Ph.D. Crown Svo. los. 6d. net. 
 
 MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd., LONDON.