WCP2013

[1] [p. 154]

38 Queen's Gardens, Bayswater,¹ W. April 25, 1881.

Dear Mr. Wallace, — As you may suppose, I fully sympathise with the general aims of your proposed Land Nationalisation Society;² but for sundry reasons I hesitate to commit myself, at the present stage of the question, to a programme so definite as that which you send me. It seems to me that before formulating the idea in a specific shape it is needful to generate a body of public opinion on the general issue, and that it must be some time before there can be produced such recognition of the general principle involved as is needful before definite plans can be set forth to any purpose.... — Truly yours, | HERBERT SPENCER.

[1] [p. 241]

"38, Queen's Gardens, Bayswater, W.,¹

"April 25, 1881.

"DEAR MR. WALLACE,

"As you may suppose, I fully sympathize in the general aims of your proposed Land Nationalization Society;² but for sundry reasons I hesitate to commit myself, at the present stage of the question, to a programme so definite as that which you send [2] [p. 242] me. It seems to me that before formulating the idea in a specific shape, it is needful to generate a body of public opinion on the general issue, and that it must be some time before there can be produced such recognition of the general principle involved as is needful before definite plans can be set forth to any purpose.

"It seems to me that the thing to be done at present is to arouse public attention to (1) the abstract inequity of the present condition of things; (2) to show that even now there is in our law a tacit denial of absolute private ownership, since the State reserves the power of resuming possession of land on making compensation; (3) that this tacitly admitted ownership ought to be overtly asserted; (4) and that having been overtly asserted, the landowner should be distinctly placed in the position of a tenant of the State on something like the terms proposed in your scheme: namely, that while the land itself should be regarded as public property, such value as has been given to it should vest in the existing so-called owner.

"The question is surrounded with such difficulties that I fear anything like a specific scheme for resumption by the State will tend, by the objections made, to prevent recognition of a general truth which might otherwise be admitted. For example, in definitely making the proposed distinction between 'inherent value as dependent on natural conditions, etc.,' and 'the increased value given by the owner,' there is raised the questions — How are the two to be distinguished? How far back are we to go in taking account of the labour and money expended in giving fertility? In respect of newly enclosed tracts, some estimation may be made; but in respect of the greater part, long reduced to cultivation, I do not [3] [p. 243] see how the valuations, differing in all cases, are to be made.

"I name this as one point; and there are many others in respect of which I do not see my way. It appears to me that at present we are far off from the time at which action may advantageously be taken.

"Truly yours, | "HERBERT SPENCER."