TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 



865 



ponorations a treasure whicli ■would enable them to abolisli taxes or to pay off 

 debts 80 soon as the leased lands should fall into the possession of the tState, 

 togt'tlier with such buildiujjs and improveiucuts as mi^'ht h(! found on them. 

 Absolute alienation is a robbery if posterity. J^ook at the prodifrious fortunes 

 which this system lias accumulated in the hands of the families who f)wn land in 

 the West iMid of London. Why did not the State do as well for itself P So far aa 

 the stimulus to all kinds of improvements and buildings is concerned, a lease of 100 

 vt'iu's with a new estate would be just as ellective as tlu; fee simple of it. Here ia 

 ail unanswerable proof of the fact : — Durinji' the' last forty years, more than fifty 

 milliards of francs have been invested in the construction oi' railways on tlie Conti- 

 nent under concessions of from seventy to ei<rhty years. AVlieu the J'"rench State 

 resumes jiossession of the railways cre;it(!(l by the companies, it will 1m' able to pay 

 oil' one-lialf of its debts. In Java the Dutch Croveriunent no longer fjrauts public 

 lands ill perpetuity, liut only for a loiifr term of years. I venture to refer for the 

 fuller treatment of this subject to my work on ' I'rimitive I'roperty ' — preface and 

 chap. xxiv. 



The problem (how to secure to each family a share of the land) had every- 

 whei't! found its solution, in primitive times, in the village corainunities, of ■which 

 ihe Itiissian 'Mir' still furuislies us with an e.vainjde. The territory of the 

 commune in this case is collective property, divided at periodical intervals between 

 all tlie families. This system is a ])erfect guarantee of equality of conditions, and 

 prevents pauperism on the one hand, ])lutocracy (diritisnu') on the other. Oavour 

 was a great admirer of it. It has disappeared, nevertheless, because it did not oiler 

 an adeiiuate return to anyone who was willing to make costly improvements. Just 

 in proportion as farming has become 'higher,' has private taken the place of 

 collective property. We have here an historic evolution of which we should take 

 very careful account. At the same time the Swiss Allmcnd is also a collective 

 property, subject to periodic redivisions between all the inhabitants of a village, and 

 yi't it is perfectly cultivated, as anyone can see by visiliiig, for instance, the 

 Allmeml of Bciiiigen, near Interlaken. This is due to the arrangement that each 

 olitains his share for his lifetime. Now the man who is certain to retain possession 

 ul'his land as long as lie livt's has a stronger inducement to cultivate it well than a 

 tenant at will, or even than a farmer with a lease of nine or eighteen years. In 

 the frreater number of the Swiss villages tlii> inhabitants find on the communal 

 meadows enough to keep several head of stock, and in the communal forest wood 

 for tiring and building purposes. What nialces bad husbandry is not collective 

 ownership, but collective enjoyment or cultivation, because under this latter system 

 lie who improves or produces does not enjoy the fruit of his labour. The Allmend 

 is an excellent institution. It dispenses with the workhouse. It prevents extreme 

 poverty. By attaching a man to his native soil it prevents liira migrating to the 

 towns, The commune is thus an economic no less than a political institution. It 

 tjecomes the organic cell^wr excellence of the social body (or liody politic). 



I think that there is so much truth in the opinion of Stuart Mill on the question 

 of the 'unearned increment' as to warrant us in concluding that the land tax 

 ought to be raised whenever tlie income from an estate increases independently of 

 any exertion on the part of the owner. The State makes a road, the municipality 

 opens up a new street, population becomes denser, new suburbs are built ; is it 

 light that the owners (jf the neighbouring properties should retain all the profit of 

 these works, and make them an excuse for levying an ever-growing tax on the 

 labour of others ? It is contrary to the very theory of property itself, which bases 

 property on labour. 



Here, then, are the conclusions arrived at in this short summary: — 



1. That the diil'usion of property (amongst the largest possible number of 

 families) should bo encouraged, first by tlie division of inheritances, then by 

 giving every facility and every security for the sale of real property, 



2. That we should borrow from the United States and Servia the Homestead 

 Law, which guarantees to families the retention of a small property sufficient to 

 maintain them. 



3. That communal property should be reconstituted bv means of a tax on 

 1884. ' 3 k 



