WCP7025

[1]

Frith Hill, Godalming

Octr. 24th 1883

M. Agathon de Potter

Dear Sir

I have read your notice of my book on Land Nationalisation with great interest. There is not much difference between us except on points of detail and of expediency. I fully acknowledge that you have studied the whole question of Social Economy far more profoundly than I have done and I have learnt much from your writings but I beleive that in limiting my proposal strictly to the one point of Land Nationalisation I am taking a course more likely to produce speedy results that (at least in Great Britain) than if I had [2] extended the subject and made it take in the whole series of social reforms which may be necessary in the remote future.

I will make a few brief observations on your article, At p. 125, you ask why I limit my proposals to the United Kingdom? I answer that I do not limit them at all, but that I am an Englishman writing for and to Englishmen, with the direct object of bringing about a definite reform as quickly as possible. I do not know the wants, habits, and laws of other countries, as I do those of my own country, and I beleive that each country will push further [3] the common good by trying to reform itself. Such reform requires in any one country will, if successful, be surely followed in others. In this way most reforms have spread from one country to another. At pp. 126 and 127, you object to my place of limiting the state ownership to the land itself, while each occupier is to the owner of all improvements on the land. This hinges at predominately the Chief- aboush [?] the only important diffrence between us. You seek to maximise the possessions and agency of the State — I seek to minimise them, I do not say that your view will be the best and the true one for the perfect social state, but I say that in the present place [4] of man's development it is impracticable all our politicians and philosphers seek to minimise the central haven of government, because it always leads to waste, to melain patronage, and to the permanent establishment of an increasing array of highly paid officials. I seek to make my scheme workable now, with our actual human nature, and I therefore [1 word illeg.] exclude all that State interference, and encouragement beyond the minimum possible.

Also as a matter of principle, I maintain that the true destinction is between land — own made by man — and all other things on or in the land. Which man has put there;—not between that which is attached to or not attached to the land. [5]

At p. 130 you object to the use of the term "permanent possession of a set of land". But "possession" does not neccesarily imply absolute ownership but merely holding, and it is essential that each man & each family should have that secure holding of the kind they concentrate [?] in order that they should expand on it in the full amount of care & loving labour which is only done where there is a pure source of permanent enjoyment.

At p. 132 you object to my term "oppressed taxes",- But taxes are "oppressive" not by their amount but by their mode of collection, Customs and Excise duties are all too oppressive, because they interfere with liberty & the freedom of labour ^{and [}1 word illeg^.] & hence taxes are oppressive because they are inequatorial &c. &c. [6]

At p. 133 you again refer to the question of State agency, in landing capital, in relieving poverty, in replacing losses by accident &c. &c. When any of these things are done by State agency, now, they are always badly done, at great cost, & with many accompanying evils. I therefore object to them all, in the present state of consolidation.

Even State education is a doubtful benefit, since it always leads to become stereotyped in focus unsuited to the actual state of society. Or a matter of fact the practical education of the [1 word illeg.] or the workshop better fits a man to earn a livelihood than any education he gets in public schools & colleges ^{at large} in England [7]

At p. 134 you say I propose Land Nationalisation "solely in order that each man may live by his work." But I also lay stress on questions of justice and freedom. A large point of my book is devoted to showing by examples that us man is free where the land be must live on & owned by another man, and I show the cruel injustice,^oppression& robbery it has led to and must lead to. As to convincing the rich, that is not needful. The middle and lower classes have [1 word illeg.] & will have let more carefully soon, the absolute power to choose representatives pledged to carry out their will in law. Just as the middle class carried free-trade against the will of the rich landowners, so they will be able to carry Land Nationalisation as soon as they are [8] convinced of its great importance to them, and its inherent justice.

At p. 135 you say I distinguish the land as it was before the existence of men on the globe, & the [1 word illeg.] man has brought upon it. This is incorrect. I clearly lay down that the inherent value of land (which the State is to possess) is that due to its natural qualities and to the action of society. The latter is most important. If only the actual accomidation, which the present owner can have that he or his immediate predecessors have made, that it is to be private property, and these is no practical difficult in making the distinction. [9]

Lastly, in your summary you point out several deficiencies in my work as compared with yours. Yes; but their objects are different. Mine is to suggest a reform which can be carried into object by the present generation without infringing any & with economic, physical, social & moral broughts to all.

I never say or suggest that it is to be social reforms, that it will cure all the evils of life that will result in a perfect social state. But I maintain; that of all reforms capable of being carried and worked [10] by our English people as they are now, it is the most fertile & practical result; which by the material and moral benefits it will bring to them it will put them onto a more favourable position for future reforms than they ever could be ⁱⁿ so lay as [1 word illeg.] ^with and all its evils prevail [?].

Yours, on the contrary, is an endevaour to point out the true road to social perfection and I must say that it is the best and most complete and most practical that I have [11] met with. I think it most valuable;— but at the same time I think that it can only be carried into complete effect in the far future, & that to purpose it, in its entirety, as a practical scheme of legislation would create such antagonism and derision as to check all reform in the same direction. By By keeping to the one point of Land Nationalisation we have I believe a good chance of creating a public opinion which may carry with it operation even during the present generation.

Yours very sincerely,

[signature] Alfred R. Wallace

[12]

P.S. I have been exceedinly interested in the all as "La Question Social en [1 word illeg.]". What remarkable testimonty to the values of Land Nationalisation above!

Have you seen an article which on "La [2 words illeg.]" or La Nouvelle Revoke [?] of March 15th 1883? It entails a most interesting account of the Social System of China which is [1 word illeg.] that proposed by me for England!

A.R.W.