140 Land Nationalization 



being retarded at this moment, and to the evident 

 injury of the rural population. For is it not evident 

 that the rural population can only be increased by the 

 large areas of land now abandoned to worthless pasture 

 being again brought under the plough, and worked on 

 my system ? And is it not equally evident that this can 

 only be effected by capitalist farmers working on a com- 

 paratively large scale ? There is' here much room for an 

 increase in our rural population. There evidently can 

 be none by cutting oil pieces from large farms for the 

 creation of small holdings, as for every small holder put 

 in you would have to drive out a labourer and his family. 

 So much has been said and written — and written espe- 

 cially in a misleading way — as to the nationalization of 

 the land, that it may be well to devote to this subject the 

 concluding pages of this chapter. It is remarkable, or 

 perhaps it is not remarkable, that those who have 

 advocated this system — ^notably John Stuart Mill and 

 Henry George — absolutely ignore the fact that about 

 two-thirds of the lands of British India are held from 

 the State on 30 year leases, at the termination of which 

 the land is revalued. In making this valuation, the 

 unearned increment — i.e., the rise in values from various 

 causes such as facilities for communication, or a rise in 

 prices— is claimed by the State, while a rise in value 

 owing to the exertions of the occupier — in making wells, 

 for instance, or other improvements — is not made a 

 groomd for increasing the assessment, or, in other words, 

 the rent. Alongside of this nationalized land, we have 

 what are called the permanently settled districts— in 

 other words, where the owners of land have to pay a 

 fixed rate of taxation which is not subject to any 

 revision. Here, of course, the unearned increment goes 

 to the landholder. At first sight, it would seem that 

 the former system ought to answer nearly as well as the 

 latter, with reference to the outlay of capital on the land. 

 As a matter of fact, it does not do so, and obviously 

 because there is an element of uncertainty connected 



