XXXIV] LAND NATIONALIZATION 239 



write further upon the subject. But when the topic of Irish 

 landlordism became very prominent in the year 1879-80, 

 an idea occurred to me which seemed to entirely obviate all 

 the practical difficulties which were constantly adduced as 

 insuperable, and I at once took the opportunity of the 

 controversy on the question to set forth my views in some 

 detail. I did this especially because the Irish Land League 

 proposed that the Government should buy out the Irish 

 landlords, and convert their existing tenants into peasant- 

 proprietors, who were to redeem their holdings by payments 

 extending over thirty-five years. This seemed to me to be 

 unsound in principle, and entirely useless except as a tem- 

 porary expedient, since it would leave the whole land of 

 Ireland in the possession of a privileged class, and would 

 thus disinherit all the rest of the population from their 

 native soil. 



In my essay I based my whole argument upon a great 

 principle of equity as regards the right of succession to 

 landed property, a principle which I have since further 

 extended to all property.^ But the suggestion which rendered 

 land nationalization practicable was, that while, under certain 

 conditions stated, all land would gradually revert to the 

 State, what is termed in Ireland the tenant-right, and in 

 England the improvements, or increased value given to the 

 land by the owner or his predecessors, such as buildings, 

 drains, plantations, etc., would remain his property, and be 

 paid for by the new state-tenants at a fair valuation. The 

 selling value of land was thus divided into two parts : the 

 inherent value or ground-rent value, which is quite indepen- 

 dent of any expenditure by owners, but is due solely to 

 nature and society ; and the improvements, which are due 

 solely to expenditure by the owners or occupiers, and which 

 are essentially temporary in nature. My experience in 

 surveying and land-valuation assured me that these two 

 values can be easily separated. It follows that land as 

 owned by the State would need no " management " whatever, 

 the rent being merely a ground-rent, which could be collected 



^ See my " Studies, Scientific and Social," vol. ii. chap, xxviii. 



