No -S'- 
 
 PROP ERTY IB LAMP 
 
 {Reprinted from 
 
 “ Elementary Politics” by Mr. Thomas Raleigh , If. A., 
 Fellow of All Souls’ College , Oxford.) 
 
 Economically speaking, there is little, if any, essential 
 difference between property in land and property in 
 capital. This point is so frequently misunderstood that 
 it may he well to enumerate the reasons commonly given 
 for making a distinction between these two kinds of 
 property. 
 
 First, it is said that nature made land, while man 
 makes capital. The fact is that nature and man 
 make both. Man takes from nature so much raw 
 material ; he compels the forces of nature to co-operate 
 with his skill. The result is represented by settled and 
 cultivated land, and by those other products of industry 
 which we call capital. 
 
 Secondly, it is said that nature, or God, intended the 
 land to be common to ail who live on it. To say this of 
 nature is absurb, for nature means only what exists ; 
 common property and private property are equally 
 natural, for both exist. As for God’s intentions, we have 
 no right to dogmatise. God has not given us a land 
 system ; we may presume He means us to do whatever 
 is most just and reasonable. 
 
 Third, it is said that land is the necessary basis of all 
 industry, and therefore we ought not to allow exclusive 
 rights to be acquired in it. This argument applies 
 to capital just as forcibly as to land ; in a 
 civilised country one is as necessary to 
 industry as the other. Give a labouring man 
 ten acres of land and nothing else, and he will probably 
 
die of want. If lie may claim to have the use of land 
 because it is necessary, he may claim the use of capital 
 on the same plea. 
 
 Fourth, it is said that land is limited in quantity, 
 whereas other kinds of wealth may be indefinitely 
 increased. There is a measure of truth in this statement, 
 but it is also to some extent misleading. For if you 
 take the population of a given country at a given time, 
 and compare their relation to land with their relation to 
 capital, you find that the two relations are essentially 
 alike. Capital may be increased, but at any given time 
 it is a limited quantity, not more than sufficient for the 
 needs of the people. And therefore the possession 
 of capital involves monopoly to the same 
 extent as the possession of land. The capitalist 
 and the landowner both hold exclusive command of 
 something without which the industry of their neighbours 
 cannot be carried on. 
 
 Fifth, it is said that ownership of land enables a man 
 to make an excessive gain without taking part in the 
 work of the community. The value of his land increases 
 steadily with the progress of the community : an 
 advantage which he shares with the owners of certain 
 other kinds of property, as for instance bank stock. The 
 annual return which he obtains for the use of his land is 
 also constantly increasing : and the advantage is peculiar 
 to land. But it must be observed that when land becomes 
 private property it becomes also a subject of commerce. 
 The vast majority of owners of land are 
 purchasers and successors of purchasers who 
 have secured the special advantages of this 
 kind of property only by paying a high price 
 for it. The greater number of English estates have 
 been sold and bought once at least within the last fifty 
 years. Each new purchaser has paid from 25 to 40 years’ 
 purchase of the rental, taking his chance of agricultural 
 depression and other causes which may reduce the rental, 
 taking his chance also of the profit he may make if his 
 land is wanted for building or other industrial purposes. 
 
 On the whole, I see no economical reason to 
 distinguish property in land from property in 
 other things. 
 
 Published by The Property Protection Society, 45, Parliament Street, S.W. 
 Printed by Metchim & Son, 20, Parliament Street, S.W., and 32, Clement’s Lane, B.C.