A Plea for Land Nationalisation.

By Clement M. Bailhache.

(Taken from the Westminster Review for May, 1892.)

Land Nationalisation has passed through the initial stages of neglect and ridicule—as inevitable to all great reforms as measles or whooping-cough to a child. It has arrived at the next stage—the one in which it has to endure with what composure it may "the contradictions of sinners," Its opponents are playing with it a kind of mental "Aunt Sally," They caricature its objects, misrepresent its reasons, invent for it strange doctrines, and then amuse themselves by demonstrating the absurdities of this creation of their own imaginations. The exercise is easy, and, I suppose, pleasant. Certainly it were ungenerous to grudge them their amusement, if it were not for the fact that the uninitiated, after watching their dexterous blows, go away with the impression that the lay figure, whose destruction they have witnessed, is the real thing.

It is to help, as far as I can, to dispel this illusion, that I propose to state what land nationalisation really means to an ardent disciple. I speak only for myself. My opinions bind no society they are only entitled to such weight as earnestness of conviction can carry, That merit, and that only, they claim.

If I may begin by defining my terms, I mean by land the raw material of wealth, untouched by human labour—the surface of the earthy coal in the mine, a natural stream and the like; by nationalisation, the recognition of the fact that land is the common inheritance of all, and should be secured for the use of all by being directly vested in the State as trustee for all its citizens.

Land nationalisation, then, is more than a reform, it is a revolution—a complete reversal of the economic laws and ideas obtaining among all civilized nations; a change so far-reaching, that it is at once difficult to exaggerate its effects, and fraudulent to attempt to conceal its purposes, The abolition of private property in land means so much, that no man should join the ranks of the reformers until he has convinced himself of the absolute righteousness of their cause. Once he has done this, he will have found a new social gospel, a ground of hope rather than despair tor the future of his race—something worth working for—an end for whose sake he may even rejoice to be called a dreamer of dreams.

The burden of proving the justice of the abolition of private property in land lies upon him who affirms it. Whatever weakness an ancient institution may have, it has this much strength, at any rate, that it holds the field until some more excellent way is shown, and it casts the burden of proof of superior excellence upon the reformer. I hope in this article to prove the injustice of individual ownership of land, and to show that land nationalisation is "the true remedy.

All human beings should, have an equal right to live. This is a proposition which will scarcely be seriously contested, I am not now concerned to inquire whether human beings should be allowed to multiply according to the taste and fancy of every irresponsible pair, I am not concerned to inquire whether the theories of Malthus are true or false, All I care to assert for present purposes is that once a human being is born, he has, or ought to have, equally with every other human being, a right to live. This right is in certain aspects recognised by law, It is as much murder for Ginx to throw his last baby into the canal, as if the superfluous brat were heir to a dukedom. The poor-laws, again, are a grudging acknowledgment of the same principle. The proposition is perhaps the only one among the series promulgated in the famous proclamation of the founders of the American Republic, to which the general consent of mankind has accorded the term "self-evident." That this right is paramount, and takes precedence of all other possible rights, is almost equally self-evident. "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath, will he give for his lile." "Is not the life more than meat?" It follows that if any existing right is inconsistent" with this paramount right of a human being to live, the former, and not the latter, must yield.

My second proposition is that the private ownership of land is inconsistent with this paramount right of all human beings to live. Upon this proposition I rest the whole case for land nationalisation. What is land? Land is a necessity of existence, incapable "being increased in quantity. Some persons do not own land, Not to own a necessity of existence is not to own life. But some persons do own land. Some persons, therefore, own life—the right to live. But, ex hypothesis, all persons ought to have an equal right to live. Therefore all or none ought to own land. (Q.E.D.) The sequence is as irritatingly irresistible as a proposition of Euclid, It this theory, that the owners of land have a better right to live than those who do not own land, is true, it should bear practical results. The land-owner should live in ease, at the expense of the landless, and the landless should have to toil in order to keep both themselves and the land-owner alive. Is not this a correct statement of the conditions of men's lives to-day? Only a week or two ago the London Daily News stated that in a certain Durham colliery the miners' wages upon a ton of coal were eleven-pence, while the royalty was one shilling. The colliers had to pay the colliery owner, for the right to lire by working in his colliery, a sum greater than the total sum earned by themselves. In other words, the collier, in order to take home 25s., to his wife at the end of the week, had to earn 52s., and to pay more than half his earnings to a fellow-citizen for the right to live. Half his working life spent in earning the right to live! half his working life appro- page 24 priated by another human being! Do the colliers submit to this because they like it—out of affection for their landlord? If not, why, except because they are landless men?

Now, as in our complicated state of civilisation and our habit of crowding together in small areas, all cannot own and cultivate sufficient land to live toy, and the only means by which all can own land—the right to live—is for land to be vested in some person or persons—the State, for example—as trustee for the community, and this is land nationalisation. No other remedy meets the case. Free trade in land is of no use to a man who has no money. Enfranchisement of leaseholds will not benefit that enormous mass of citizens who are as likely to become the Grand Llama as to become leaseholders. Peasant proprietorship would answer the purpose, if all were peasants, all wanting to get their living by cultivating, the soil, and there were enough soil to go round, Even then the proprietors of the most favoured plots should in fairness pay rent by way of compensation to their less favoured fellows.

The objects to be attained by vesting the land in the the State are twofold: first, to secure the actual occupation of the J and for all who want to occupy and cultivate; secondly, to secure the payment of land-rent to the State for the common benefit. The first object would apply to rural districts chiefly; the second to all land, both town and country. One principle must, however, be applied to urban and rural lands alike, There must be no sub-letting; every tenant must hold direct from the State; To allow sub letting would only be to substitute small landlords for big—a totally undesirable change. The little finger of the small landlord is thicker than the thigh of the big landlord.

What is to be done with the present landlords? How are they to be got rid of? This is, of course, the great practical difficulty in the way of any scheme of land nationalization. Unfortunately, great reforms are not carried out on strictly logical lines; if they were, landlords would come poorly off, The claim to own land is, we have seen, a claim to a superior right to live to the right to charge other human beings for the right to live. Rent paid to an individual is the price paid to one human being by a fellow-being for the right to live. The abolition of land-owning is the abolition of this claim—this receipt of the fine paid for life; the destruction of an inferior claim by a superior. Where, then, in strictness, is the right to compensation? Are we to compensate individuals for the loss sustained by them by the triumph of the principle that all men have an equal right to live? Is truth to compound with error because error has been long established? Of course I know that compensation will be demanded, and, alas 1 paid. On what scale shall it be computed? what is to be its standard? Is it to be purchase, or a system of State annuities, terminable or perpetual? or what is it to be? I protest that the discussion of terms is, as Mark Twain would say, "a little previous." Such a discussion has no relevancy until the principle of land nationalisation is adopted, the only effect of entering into details now is to becloud the first issue. Land nationalisation, fast as it is making headway, has not yet got beyond the stage of agitation. Now, an agitator has no business with details; his concern is with principles. It is the stateman's duty, not the agitator's to translate those principles into an Act of Parliament For the same reasons the machinery by which land nationalisation is to be worked "not ripe for definition. There is a general concensus of opinion in favour of State-ownership with local administration, Beyond this it would be unwise to go for the present. The boldest land nationaliser may well be content as yet with challenging contradiction of the righteousness of his principles.

The ultimate triumph of the reform is assured, Personally I believe it will come sooner than some of us expect; but what is to be clone meantime? what is to be the attitude of us land nationalises with reference to those reforms which are from time to time offered us? The answer is surely obvious. Try them by the test of whether they lead in the direction of our desired haven. If so, support them, accept them as vantage grounds from which to renew he conflict. If, on the other hand, projected reform, while promising a temporary or partial improvement, would, if carried, render Land nationalisation more difficult to procure, reject it, oppose it in every possible way, The distinguishing characteristic of your land nationaliser is his "sweet reasonableness." If he is walking from London to York, he is quite prepared, for the sake of the companionship of his weaker brethren, to stay awhile at St. Albans or even Barnet He is not, however, prepared to go round by way of Brighton. A land nationaliser, for instance, will, on the one hand, be an enthusiast for taxation of ground-rents, and for the London County Council's principle of betterment, On the other hand, he will oppose to the uttermost the suggestion of leasehold enfranchisement, as proposed to be carried out The fundamental idea of land nationalisation is that private ownership of land is robbery. The sole object of leasehold enfranchisement is to increase the number of owners of land—in other words, the number of robbers, It would no doubt be a satisfaction to those persons who hold leases, and could afford to pay the price, to be turned from leaseholders into freeholders; but the infinitely larger class of persons who are either not leaseholders at all, or could not afford to buy their freeholds, would derive no benefit from the change, and their chance of becoming land-owners themselves in their corporate capacity—"the State"—if not seriously impaired, would at least be postponed. When occasionally an over-eager candidate for parliament is found declaring his willingness to support both leasehold enfranchisement and land nationalisation, one is tempted to laugh. As well might an old crusader have embroidered on his banner the crescent and the cross.

Sometimes a reform is projected, with the principle of which land nationalizes are in fullest sympathy, but are compelled to oppose the proposed method of carrying it into effect, even at the risk of defeating the reform: Such a measure is Mr. Chaplin's 'Small Holdings Bill." It is permissive; they would have it compulsory. It is to be managed by County Councils; they would place it in the hands of parish councils. It proposes to buy out the landlords; they would have the local bodies take the lands on lease only. The position is embarrassing. The practical solution appears to be to approve the principle oppose the details, accept with gratitude such modifications as they can carry, and get more at the earliest opportunity.

Great reforms do not, as a rule, realise all the expectations of their more ardent supporters. It may well be that the nationalisation of the land will prove no exception to the rule. When private ownership of land is abolished, the millennium may still be a little way off. The diseases of society are so various, that no one remedy may be a complete cure for them all. What of that? Shall a man who is suffering from gout and a broken arm refuse to take medicine for his gout because it will not also mend his arm? or refuse to have his arm set because that will not cure his gout?

Land nationalism may well claim to have justified its existence, if, as I believe it will, it destroys wage-slavery, permits every man to enjoy the fruits of his labour undiminished by the fine levied by the landlord as the condition of his right to live, enables every honest industrious man to make a competent livelihood, and—not least-destroys the undue wealth and grinding poverty page 26 which are a perpetual menace to the happiness of man and the safety of society, For the sake of such a reform a man may well be content to be sneered at, to work to wait.