TRANSACTIONS OF SECTION F. 865 



generations n, treasure which would enable them to abolish taxes or to pay off 

 debts so soon as the leased lands should fall into the possession of the State, 

 together with such buildings and improvements as might be found on them. 

 Absolute alienation is a robbery (f posterity. Look at the prodigious fortunes 

 which this system has accumulated in the hands of the families who own land in 

 the "West End of London. Why did not the State do as well for itself? So far as 

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

 years with a new estate would be just as effective as the fee simple of it. Here is 

 an unanswerable proof of the fact : — During the last forty years, more than fifty 

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

 nent under concessions of from seventy to eighty years. When the French State 

 resumes possession of the railways created by the companies, it will be able to pay 

 off one-half of its debts. In Java the Dutch Government no longer grants public 

 lands in perpetuity, but only for a long term of years. I venture to refer for the 

 fuller treatment of this subject to my work on ' Primitive Property ' — preface and 

 chap. xxiv. 



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

 where found its solution, in primitive times, in the village communities, of which 

 the Russian ' Mir ' still furnishes us with an example. The territory of the 

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

 all the families. This system is a perfect guarantee of equality of conditions, and 

 prevents pauperism on the one hand, plutocracy (divitisme) on the other. Cavour 

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

 an adequate 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 Allmend is also a collective 

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

 yet it is perfectly cultivated, as anyone can see by visiting, for instance, the 

 Allmend of Bonigen, near Tnterlaken. This is due to the arrangement that each 

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

 of his land as long as he lives has a stronger inducement to cidtivate it well than a 

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

 the greater number of the Swiss villages the inhabitants find on the communal 

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

 for firing and building purposes. What makes bad husbandry is not collective 

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

 he 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 him migrating to the 

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

 becomes the organic cell par excellence of the social body (or hody 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 the 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 

 right that the owners of 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 diffusion of property (amongst the largest possible number of 

 families) should be encouraged, first by the 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 



