WCP3698

[1]

Frith Hill, Godalming

June 12th. 1888

My dear Girdlestone

I cannot understand how you sh[oul]^d. mistake my meaning as to the compensation of landlords — at p. 194 (L[and]. N[ationalisation].) I say distinctly that "This portion of the value of the land may become the property of the State"— that is, the inherent value. And on p. 197, I go on to show how the State may compensate landlords for "this portion" of their property.— Then I make the fundamental principle of the whole transaction,— I have shown somewhat fully how "this value" may be separated from the improvements value a tenant right [2] and of course whenever afterwards I speak of compensatory landlords by the State, it is for this part of their property only. The net rental on which their annuities (formerly— —"land-bonds" now) will be calculated is the net-rental of the land only— how could it possibly be anything else? Even Lacy does not think so. His objection is not to this, but to giving them the value of the measured increment in the past, and [one word illegible crossed out] I do not see that his objections in the note have the slightest value as against my statement in the same [3] note. The whole fist of his objection is in his p. 332. L. 13 to 16. But on my principles the whole value of land— economic or inherent value— is increased increment! It is merely a question of how far back you go, & who is to decide this? go back 1 a century ^{or even 50-60 years} and half the present value is increased increment; go back 5 centuries & perhaps ⁴/₅ is so— go back 1000 or 2000 years & ⁹/₁₀ or ⁹⁹/₁₀₀ will be increased increment! If there is to be any compensation for the land, as distinguished from the improvement, it must be include measured increment— that is what has been bought & sold ^{as land} & nothing else! and the arguments against confiscating that [4] by the state, whether as a question of justice or of policy, are to my mind absolutely unanswerable.

Your other objection as to want need of a limit to holdings is easily answered. All ^legal restrictions are bad if unnecessary, and if the same result will come about naturally. My answer to the possibility of "Bonanza Farms"¹ in England is,— first that they would not pay, next that they could not be worked. When access to land is free— when every labourer can have land to work on & secure both independence and the whole produce for himself, where will be found the labourers to work the Bonanza farms? And when the moderate English farmer, now, with the cheapest labour, cannot make his farms pay, how will he do ^so when hired labour costs double, as it certainly will do under nationalisation free- selection? Labourers now grow 40 to 50 bushels of wheat an acre where farmers [5] grow 20 to 30 only— (see(Impey’s Housed Beggars², Rev^d. Stubbs &c. &c.) In Bonanza farms the produce would drop to 15-20. The fundamental principle of L.N. is, that a man’s personal labour on the land for himself, is better, and more profitable than hired labour, and infinitely more desirable to the labourer. Under State-tenancy & free-selection farming will more & more tend to become peasant-farming wages will therefore rise higher & higher,-small farms, highly cultivated with a few well-paid labourers, will tend to replace large farms with many ill-paid labourers, all tending [6] ultimately to universal peasant- farming. If this is not so, then we are all wrong, & landlordism & big farms & labour half-starved labourers ending their days in the workhouse are inevitable— but if it is so— if free access to land on state-tenancy (not peasant-proprietorship!) has this inevitable tendency, then what need is there, by legislation, to limit personal holdings? For a time moderately large farms in personal holdings will go on, but they will inevitably grow smaller & smaller as L.N. & free-selection inevitably [7] produce their natural and intended effects.

As to Lacy’s book I cannot see any practical results to flow from his elaborate & often I think false discussions & conclusions as to liberty & law. His argument that natural & human laws are fundamental[ly] the same & that the same conclusions apply to both seems to me preposterously wrong.

If I go to Penzance I shall see Lacy if he has not returned to Australia, & he will be able to tell me what the winters there are like. I will enquire about your Phosphoric-acid remedy for old age, but I have not [8] much faith in it.

I send you a very excellent pamphlet on "The Land" by a Tasmanian landlord & Land Nationaliser— there are some good & new points in it. Please return it at your leisure.

Yours very truly | Alfred R. Wallace [signature]