The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1874

Evening Star, Issue 3520, 5 June 1874, Page 2

The Evening Star FRIDAY, JUNE 5, 1874

According to promise we intend to make a few observations on the “ unearned increment,” which so raised the ire of some of our Provincial Councillors. The quotation from J. S. Mill, made by Mr Stout in his speech on Mr M ‘Lean’s motion, aptly illustrates the meaning of the phrase, and we therefore publish it at length : The other of the two chief points of our programme—the claim of the State on the unearned increase of rent—requires rather more explanation, as it is not yet equally familiar, though the time has already come when it is listened to, _ and it is probably destined to become an article of the creed of advanced Reformers. The land of the world—the raw material of the globe— all prosperous countries constantly increases in value. The landlord neea only sit still and let Nature work for him ; or, to speak truly, not Nature, but the labor of other men. is it that has produced the prodigiously increased demand for building land, which has created the colossal fortunes of the GrosvenOßS, the Postmans, the Stanleys, and others of our great families ? It is the growth of manufactures and the increase of towns. And what has 6 reduced that? Your labor and outlay; not rat of the landlords. The same lab'>r and outlay—namely, yours, not theirs—produces a steady increase of demand for agricultural and mining products, causing prices to rise and rents to increase. No other portion of the community has a similar advantage. The laboring classes do not find their wages steadily rising as their numbers increase; and even capital—its interest and profit—instead of increasing, becomes a less and less percentage as wealth and population advance. The landlords alone are in possession of a strict monopoly, becoming more and more lucrative whether they do anything or nothing for the soil. This is of little consequence in a country like America, where there is plenty of unused land, waiting for anyone who chooses to go and cultivate it; but in an old country like ours, with limited land and a growing population, it is a great and increasing grievance. We want the people of England to say to the landlords, “You are welcome to every increase of rent that you can show to be the effect of anything you have done for the land; but what you get by the mere rise of the price of your commodity compared with others —what you gain by our loss—is not the effect of your exertions, but of ours, and not you, but we, ought to have it.” They will say, “But we bought our land as a property increasing in value, and the probable increase was considered in the price.” Our answer to that is, “ If you are dissatisfied, give up the land; we will pay you back what you gave for it, and even what you could have sold it for yesterday morning. That is all you have a right to ; we give you that, and the nation ■will gain the difference between the present and future value.” From the foregoing extract, the meaning of the-term “unearned increment ” is plaim It is not, however, with, the meaning alone that we must deal. We shall allude to certain objections raised against it by Mr M‘Lean. And in dealing with them, we may state that Mr M‘Lean, in his very able speeches, boasted that his ideas were original, though perhaps crude. We do not know that we need question his statement, especially the latter part of it. We feel, however, that we are bound to inform our readers that all his arguments have been used by other people. Not that, in writing this, we intend to detract from either the originality or the crudity of his remarks ; we rather point it out as one of those coincidences that so ofUm come across one’s path in one’s journey through life. We may state generally, however, that Mr M‘Lean did not attempt to deny that there is such a thing as an “ unearned increment.” That was an undoubted and patent fact. The difference of opinion arose only when the question was put—who ought to benefit by it 1 That the persons who caused it—the State, in fact—should reap the benefit Mr M'Lean denied. This was, he believed, inequitable. At first sight we can hardly believe on what grounds such a position could be taken up. A., B, C, and D create a profit, but A alone should reap the reward of A’s, B’s, C’s, and D’s labors. This is Mr M‘Lean’s position. And here is reason number one for his “ original, though perhaps crude idea ” :—“ When a State prospers ” —we condense Mr M ‘Lean’s argument—“ all parties prosper. The lawyer gets more clients, the newspaper proprietor sells more papers. Now, as the State caused the profits of these various persons to increase, why should not the State in this case reap the reward 1 ” Our reply to this need not be lengthy. First we have to state that if the lawyer did no work, or a newspaper proprietor printed no papers, his profits would not increase. But when we deal with laud there is a difference. A landed proprietor may do absolutely nothing, and yet his land increases in value a hundredfold. There is there-

fore no analogy between the two. Again, it is true that a prosperous State makes the people prosperous ; but it does nob increase the earnings of one class to the detriment of another. If wages increase all the receivers of wages are benefited. Special trades may for a time reap the sole benefit, but no long period can elapse before all trades feel the rise. In the case of the rise in the value of the land, however, it often does happen that wages may fall, and yet the land increase in value, and why is this? Land is limited in quantity. Lawyers, newspaper proprietors, doctors, shoemakers, increase as the demand increases for them. Land cannot be increased. Here again then the analogy fails, and Mr M‘Lean’s “original ideas” might well be spared further criticism. But that is not all. Mr McLean next gave an illustration. He said to put it briefly—a man has two sons : one he educates for the bar, another he does not educate, but with the money he would have required to expend in the education of the second sou, he purchases land for him in the Colony to which both sons emigrate. In this Colony one becomes a lawyer, the other a settler. The Colony prospers, the lawyer gets employment, makes his thousand a-year, and the settler also makes his thousand a-year, through the purchase he had made of his land. Having given this illustration, he conclusively, as he thinks, puts the question ; has not the settler as much right to his profit as the lawyer ? Now, our readers here meet * the same fallacy as we have before pointed out. No one objects to the farmer, as well as the lawyer, getting an enhanced wage for his work ; no one even objects to the farmer’s reaping the reward of his industry in getting even a higher price for his sheep, or his oats. But we do object to the farmer who has secured a monopoly being able to dictate his own terms of profit. And here we come to the root of whole matter.' Land given over to private persons is a monopoly. No doubt such a monopoly is, to some extent, necessary. But see what an unrestricted monopoly means. If it be carried out to an unlimited extent, an owner of land can drive all human beings off his “ section ” of the earth’s surface. Talk of a monopoly of the air we breathe ! Why a land monopoly is even worse than that. Has a man a right to do with his landed property as he pleases ? If he has, he has a right to evict all and sundry from off his private property ; and if a rich man could buy up Dunedin, we might have to write “ Dunedin ddctH/ est. Do not our readers see that land monopoly cannot be allowed to be carried to its extreme limit ? If not, then where is the line to be drawn. We answer that provision, snould be made for farmers to become usufructuaries only. The State increases the value of the land monopolized. Every road made, every railway constructed, every bridge built, every harbor improved, every immigrant landed increases the value of the monopoly. And yet it must increase, and land that sold at twenty or thirty pounds a quarter of an acre become, in a quarter of a century, worth twenty thousand pounds, and the owner may not have spent sixpence on it. And yet this person, to whom the State has given this monopoly, must not be disturbed in his possession. Nay more, the State must go on increasing monopolists as fast as can, selling its waste lands, fu fairness, we ask is this wise; is it proper? If it be, it is giving one generation power to partition out the earth s surface to the exclusion of its successors ; it is giving a monopoly of the common heritage of man ; and it is founding a system, gigantic in its evil effects, and for what? Why, for our present necessities. It is, in fact, selling our birthright for a present urgently required meal. We do not exercise self-denial- -we do not see that it would be most right, nay, most just, in order to uphold “ equal rights ” to all, to tax ourselves for present necessities, instead of creating monopolies. Nay, it would seem as if the sale of monopolies and the sale of our land is neither more nor less than this—is the only way to raise revenue; and this being the case, we do not see why the State should not sell to our M'Leans the sole right to depasture sheep ; or to some of our lawyers the sole right to plead in court; or to some hotelkeepers the sole right to sell liquor; or to some merchants the sole right to dispose of sugar; or to some shoemakers the sole right to make boots. If we did so, no objection could be urged, for if their profits increased it was not the monopoly that caused that, for were not all the people prosperous ? Here is certainly an original idea Let our readers ponder on the position our present land system must eventually land us in.