50 THE RURAL PROBLEM 



sioners, whenever it is actually wanted or appears to be 

 likely to be wanted by the public for any purpose whatever, 

 at a price based on the official valuation, is the fairest method 

 that can be desired of gradually gaining for the nation, with 

 the minimum of individual hardship, that which to the 

 nation rightly belongs. 



§ 3. The Irredeemable Mortgage. 



There is one other step that might be taken in the same 

 direction. Under the Finance Act of 1909, the State may, 

 with the consent of the owner, take a proportion of the estate 

 as payment for part or all the duty. It is not, however, 

 probable that, much use will be made of this provision. It 

 would be inconvenient to the State to have fragments of 

 estates scattered all over the country. A development of this 

 principle of payment in kind is quite feasible. Where the 

 State does not take land it might, instead of requiring cash, 

 accept from the owner a mortgage on the estate to the amount 

 of the duty due. This should be obligatory on owner and 

 State alike. The mortgage should be irredeemable, and would 

 constitute a permanent charge on the estate. The owner 

 could probably obtain a mortgage in the ordinary way at 

 4 per cent., and the State might require this rate of interest, 

 or, if it wished to popularise the practice, might accept 3i per 

 cent. It should be open to the State at any time to accept 

 land to the value of the mortgage, but it should not be per- 

 mitted to accept cash. The mortgage would be attached to 

 the land, and if parts were sold, should, in due proportion, 

 attach itself to these parts. The Government valuation 

 would make the apportionment easy. 



The advantages of this proposal are many : 



(i) The owner, being unable to free the estate from the 

 charge, would not find himself driven so hard to obtain an 

 increased income from the estate by a sudden reduction of 

 expenditure to meet a redemption fund. Of course the 

 charge would be permanent. But we should avoid to a con- 

 siderable extent the danger of such large reductions of staff 

 and expenditure. 



(ii) A permanent charge attached to land value would have 



