1 Pjf) SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



that IIh' liglit of inheritance is not an absohite. liglit of ])roperty, but has 

 varied much in different places and at different times even in this country. 

 (I have written a short note upon it myself in the introduction to the 

 English edition of Eignano's ' Social Significance of the Death Duties.') 

 Dr. Dalton concludes that the effect of inheritance upon distribution of 

 wealth has been almost ignored by economists.^ Ho takes the view that 

 inequality of incomes is due not merely to the direct influence of bequest, 

 but also indirectly because inheritance enables some to have higher earning 

 power than fithers. But he does not specifically deal with the subject of 

 the aggregate wealth to be divided. 



Prof. Hobhouse in his book on Liberalism says, ' Inherited wealth is 

 the main determining factor in the social and economic order of our time,' 

 with particular reference to the existing distribution of the common 

 product. But there is no examination of its actual economic tendencj^ in 

 the sense in which alone an economic answer is complete. Prof. Henry 

 Clay, in his contribution to the Liberal Summer Schools, gives us the best 

 approach to economic analysis of recent times, but even he does not come 

 to grips with the central problem. He takes as his starting-point the 

 inequality in distribution of proj^erty, as deduced statistically from the 

 Estate Duty returns, and says : ' This inequality enhances and, in part, 

 accounts for the inequality of incomes which is the chief cause of social 

 imrest and the chief cause of waste in the modern economic system.' 

 But again he recognises that inequality of property is, in part, merely a 

 reflection of inequality of incomes. People with large incomes can save 

 and so accumulate property. It is the diffusion of wealth that to him is 

 the central problem, and, although the allied problems are there in his 

 mind, he too takes much as axiomatic that I think ought to be examined. 

 Mr. E. D. Simon, in a recent address to the Liberal Summer School, avows 

 his object to be to point out ' how dangerous is the social effect of the 

 excessive inequality of v/ealth that exists among us to-day.' He says 

 ' there is a strong and growing feeling among the workers that the existing 

 social and industrial order, with its excessive inequalities of wealth, is 

 fundamentally unjust.' And he gets the whole ' jump off ' in his argument 

 by a graphic and moving contrast between the low wages and poverty of 

 the jute industry and the great stone mansions of the jute lords, ' set in 

 spacious, well-tended gardens." The recent debate in the House of 

 Commons on this subject, when reduced to its simplest elements, 

 consisted of the following nou sequiturs : 



There arc gross inequalities in wealth, which are socially unjust. 

 Inheritance laws bring these about, and if they were abolished wealth 

 would be better distributed. If wealth were better distributed the 

 average man would be economically better off. To be better off economi- 

 cally is to be aware of the fact and to be more contented. A sense of 

 social justice and actual economic betterment are identical. People 

 would then have a ' fair start in life.' 



The economic question-begging, or confusions of thought on the other 

 side, bluntly summarised, were : ' Capital is an essential of life, and the 

 worker would be badly off if it were not accumulated. Incentive is 

 required for this. Right of bequest is an incentive to accumulation ; 



'P. 283. 



