The workingman's advocate. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1864-1877, 1871-06-03
THE LAND QUESTION.
BY X. II. PETERS-v.


earned increase in the value Of land" in the
seventy-two larger towns and cities of Eng.
land and Wales during the period between
1901 and 1851 must have been upward OF
three billion eight hundred millions Of dol
lars, and that the increase in the smaller
towns and villages and 10 the rural dis
tricts probably amounted in the aggregate
to similar sum, making grand total sun
earned increase" of more than seven bill
lions and half Of course, the higher the
value the higher the rent; for in fact it is
the increased annual profit that land can
be made to yield which causes it's increase
IN cash value. - -.. Hr
Assuming, then, that the average ratio
of rent to value in England and Wales ID
not greater than one-twentieth-6ve per
cent.--an aggregate 6 unearned increase 2
of seven billions aud half in cash value
will represent an unearned addition Of
S375,0OO,OO0 TO the gross annual land
rent. This sum, if turned into the public
treasury. would pay the entire expenses Of
the British government, and leave con-
siderable surplus, which might be applied
to the support Of schools and other public
purposes for which it is equally needed.
Such purposes it would now be regularly
subscribing, had the principle at present ad-
vocated by John Stuart Mill and the Land
Tenure Reformers been adopted at the be-
ginning Of the century. But as this was
not done, it adds 60 much more to the enor.
nous burden Of rent borne by the tenant
class THAT is, by the masses Of the English
peoPle-for the further enrichment of the
privileged few who own all the land. TAX.
ing 20, ,00O, 900, in round numbers, az the
population Of the country in 1861, the
amount named would form an average
charge Of $l8.75 per annum upon each in
dividual in the country, men, women and
children.
This, II will be remembered, represents
only the 7ncreGse in the rent burdens Of the
people during the period of extraordinary
erowrn between 1901 and 1861 Il We
suppose that this increase amounted to
one hundred per cent. upon the previous
rental value, j. viii form ene-haf Of the to-
tai land rents at the present time-or.
rather, in lS61--upon which hypothesis
that total vii be $3.50, 100000 a year, an
average Of $37 so to each person, or
$l87 so TO each family Of i've.
1t may seem at first sight that the rent
burden which falls upon the working classes
must be far below this general average, and
If we regarded only the sums directly paid
from tenant to landlord, this suppositor
would undoubtedly be correct. Indeed, il
would be simply impossible for them to pay
such sum out of their scanty earnings
But it must be remembered that the pOoI
mans rent bill includes much more than the
tenement in which he lives. Every article
he consumes is enhanced in price by the
rent charges upon it from the field in which
it was grown or the mine wherein it wa:
dug, to the petty retail store at which bt
buys it.
On the other hand bis wages is diminish
ed In consequence of similar rent charges
taken out Of the profits Of bis employer dowr
to the rent of the factory or shop wherein
he performs bis daily tasks. In fact,
great part, probably the greater part, o
the rent tribute paid by the working classes
is paid uneonsciously in indirect ways -ou
Of the products Of their industry, and neve
passes through their hands at all 1t fall
upon them in the form of reduced wages
The idea that the burden Of rent varie
according to the condition Of the people
falling more lightly upon the poor than up
I -
course, superficial one, which applies onl,
to direct rent payments. Analysis vii
make its fallaciousness apparent. If th
| figures above given be assumed to expires
the true average land rent to each person il
the nation, it will follow that in an equa
division (not according to area, but accord
ing to rental value) the same figures voult
represent each persons proportional shar
of the land. In that case there would b,
no receivers and no payers Of rent. Bu
| just to the extent that one class owns NOR
than this proportional share, must the othe
class own less. Every one, then, is a re-
ceiver of land rent from others to the exten
that bis landed possessions fall short Of thi
average. Of course this rule is not math
ematically accurate, but as general prop
osition it comes sufficiently near the truth
1t follows then that the more who owns
no land must directly or indirectly pay
land rent to the full amount of the average
rent charge, which according to the esti
mate already reached is $37 so a year fol
himself, and like amount for each de-
pendent member Of his family AT least
if he does not actually pay the entire
amount, he endures privations enough t.
make up the deficit. 1t is scarcely toe
much to say that the comforts of the Eng
lisb poor would be twice as great as they
are, but for this burden. I
OF course there are many persons theo-
retically belonging to the rent-paying class
l. e. non landowners-who through hber
al salaries, professional fees, profits in trade
and in various other ways virtually par
ticipate in the tribute taken from the mass'
Of the people by the class Of rent-receivers
but it need not be said that this participa
ton affords no relief to the hard WORKED
millicns, who do not possess such excep
uonal advantages.
\ AS it has been shown that the rent bur
den of the poor is rot confined to the rem
paid directly to the landlord, so it may b
shown that the rent received by the land
c;,ners is not confined to what they get
under that name Though they should moi
rent foot of their land, the profits made
unon its produce would still be virtually q
rent-cbarge, which of course would fall up
on the consumer.
But am thinking more especially oI
the vast tracts utterly withheld from pro
ductive uses. James Anthony Froude the
historian, in an article published in
FTaaer's Magazine, some months ago
writes as follows;