The people's land, and an easy way to recover it: three letters to the editor of the "Nation"
showing how famine may be prevented in Ireland : and how, in Great Britain and Ireland,
taxation may be diminished, and the distresses of the agriculturalist, the mechanic, and the
tradesman, effectually relieved
Author(s): Linton, W. J. (William James)
Source: Cowen Tracts, (1850)
Published by: Newcastle University
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/60200353
Accessed: 17/12/2010 08:41
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Digitization of this work funded by the JISC Digitisation Programme.
Newcastle University is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Cowen Tracts.
http://www.jstor.org
JftTi>r}iJ| (Li'hn-u
jinn
THE
j^J
AND
AN
EASY
WAY
THREE
TO
RECOVER
IT.
LETTERS
TO THE
EDITOR
OF
THE
'NATION:'
SHOWING
howfamine may be prevented in Ireland; and how, in GreatBritain
andIreland,taxationmay be diminished,and the distressesof the
agri¬
culturist,the mechanic,and the tradesman,effectuallyrelieved.
DEDICATEDTO B. DISRAELI,R, COBDEN,
andothers:
by
W. J. LINTON.
' In the year A.D. 1846there
wereexportedfromIreland3,266,193quarters
of
wheat,harley,and oats,besidesflour,Dean's,
peas,andrye,—186,483
cattle,6,363
calves,
259,257sheep,180,827swine(food,thatis,
for
about
one-half
of
the
Irish
popu¬
lation);andyet thisveryyearof 1846waspre-eminently,
owingto alandmonopoly,
thefamine
yearfortheIrishPeople.'—
The'LandMonopoly,'
byEben,Jones.
LONDON:
J. WATSON,3, QUEEN'S HEAD
PASSAGE,PATERNOSTERROW.
18.10.
I dedicatethis reprintof Three Lettersin the ' Nation' to Benjamin
Disraeli—the'Farmer's Friend/ and to Richard Cobden—'TheFinan¬
cial Reformer,'and commendthe proposal therein discussed to their
patrioticconsideration;I commend the same to the considerationof
Lord Stanhopeand the like zealous prescribersfor agriculturaldistress;
and also to all other tinkers and professionalmendersof our radically
vicioussystemof taxation. Nevertheless,as it is not improbablethat so
'
thorougha revolution' may not find favour amonglandlordsor finan¬
cial *reformers,'I commendit, further, to the considerationof some
immediatelyinterestedin its success: namely,the head and handworkers,
the farmers,and the tradesmen,who composethat befooledand suffering
'
body,the tax-payersand paupers(late tax-payers)of the United King¬
dom.' With them I leave itj possibly for their enlightenmentand ad¬
vantage.
W. J. L.
Jan.1, 1850.
Miteside,
r
A
TO THE
LAND
TAX.
EDITOR
OF THE 'NATION.5
LETTERI.
My dear Sir,—You tell us (and thereis no difficultyin believingyou)
thatanotherfamineis imminentin Ireland. Setting aside all motives of
humanity,this famine,this recurrenceof famine,is the vital questionof
themoment.
Two things, in relation to it, I take for granted;—thefirst,—that
Irishmenmust not be left to starve; the second,—thatthe alms of other
nations(not here to dwell upon the indecencyof leaving our own people
to the alms of othernations) cannot be sufficientto feed them. I take
yet a third positionas incontestable,that it is notjust that the burthenof
supportingthe Irish poor throughthis famine shouldbe thrownupon the
hard-workedand ill-paid tradesmenand hand-workersof eitherEngland
or Ireland.
The harvestin Ireland has been plentiful. It is said (and I believe
thatno doubthas been thrown upon the assertion)that the harvestpro¬
duce is sufficient,and more than sufficient,to maintainthe whole Irish
populationuntil the next harvest.
This producehas been raisedby Irish labourupon Irish land.
I do not ignore the capital employed by the land occupier,whether
tenantor land-owner.
But I reckonas paramountrights : first, the right of the Irish
People (in their collectivecapacity,as a people) to the whole land
of Ireland ; second,the joint right of the labourer and capitalistto
theproduceraisedby them'uponthe People's land.
The first-namedright is also anteriorto any right of cultivator,or of
the lattermay have acquiredpossession.
landlord,—however
The starvingIrish mustbe fed; and that neitherby doles wrungfrom
those buta grade abovethem, nor by the chance alms of strangers. Let
them be fed with the produceof their own labourupontheir own land—
the land of Ireland,the land of the People of Ireland.
What hinders Nothing of which I am awareexcept the landlord,
claimingunderwhat is calledthe right of property.
The landlordclaimsit as his 'right' to do what he will with the land;
1o cultivateit, or to preserveit as a waste; (o clearhis estatesof their
inhabitants,when it may please him so to do. If they starve outside,
what is that to him there are poorhouses. If thoseare over-crowded,
thereare the Irish seas.
If one landlord has this ' right,' (a Shirley, for instance) why not
everylandlord Supposethey all resolveto put their 'right' in force,to
evict the Irish, the law will of coursedefend them. If Mr. Shirleyis
justifiedin clearinghis estates,so would the landlordbody of Irt4andbe
justifiedin sweeping out of Ireland the whole population. Then divide
it into Shirleyfarms,and import Hill Coolies, or any other convenient
sort of men, to do your work. Why not, if the land is the landlord's
land, and not the land of the Irish People
Becausehumannature could not stand it. Becausehuman instincts
wouldsufficeto perceivethe essentialinjusticein so broadan experiment,
-howeverblind your statesmen may be to the injusticein a smallerscale.
But, if the depopulationof the whole countrywould be unjust, will any
lawyer-workjustify the partialdepopulation
The right to the soil restswith the whole People, not with any fraction
of that People, and not with ' aliens.'
I proposeno confiscationof Irish estates,howeverunjustlyobtained,
however unjustlyheld. I only propose that, of the produce of those
estates sufficientshall be reservedto feed the labourers; that out of the
produceof the Irish land the Irish People shall bemaintained.
I makeno claimon the groundof the People's labour. For that they
have been paid—starvation
wages. The capital expended,too, has its
right of increase. Still there remains the rent due,—notowing to the
landlord,but owedby the landlordto the real proprietor,the Nation.
The Nation'slife, too, is of higher momentthan any landlord'sclaim,
even if the Nation had given him the land. The People must first be fed
fromtheirown land.
How 1
Thereneed be no governmentcommission,no new appointments,no
cumbrousmachinery. There is no difficultyin ascertainingthe exact
numberof acres of cultivatedor reclairaableland in Ireland. Imposea
tax of so muchan acrefor thepreventionof thefamine.
It is not a questionof very complicatedstatistics. The how muchan
acre will be determinedsolely by the need.
Why conic upon the landlords? Nay, why upon any one else?
Merchantsand tradesmendo not live upon others'capital; labourers
must toil for their famine-wage. But the landlord what does he for his
rents Somethingis due for capital expended: huthowcame he by the
land Somebody'suncleor grandfatherhad relations,and so this man
is entitledto injurethe communityfor his own pocket's sake, or at his
caprice. True, some landlordshave bought their land, paid hardmoney
forit; but if they have bought it with a faulty title, is that a reasonwhy
theIrish People shouldstarveunlessthe burden of their maintenancebe
thrownupon the ill-paid mechanic and over-taxed tradesman?
No otherclass of the Nation lays claim to any possessionwithoutequi¬
valent(or supposedequivalent) of service or work done at some time or
other. The landlordis the mere receiverof rents,the uselessabsorberof
the producewhichmight else supporta People.
Let the land support the national burthen. Give the landlord fair
interestupon all moniesexpendedin cultivating the land ; but let him
nottouch one penny more, while the natives of that land are perishing
withfamine. If the famine swallow up the whole rent-roll,better that
thanthat one manshould starve.
I would give the landlords this choice :—either the paymentof this
faminetax, or the surrenderof any portionsof the land for which they
did not choose to pay it. They would, of course,pay the tax for the
moreprofitableland; and only give up the less profitable. By so much
thegross amountof the tax levied would be reduced.
I do not proposethat thereforethe assessmentshould be increased. To
makemyself clear,I suppose that twenty shillings an acre is the assess¬
ment,and that one half the landsare eitherunownedor given up by the
presentowners. I do not proposethat this deficiencyof one half should
be madegood by doublingthe assessment.
Let the governmentadvancethe sum deficient,taking possessionof the
landsfor which the tax is not paid; the sum so advancedmay be repaid
intothe treasuryin the shape of rents for the landsso surrendered,such
landsbeing allotted to the peasantry; governmentalso advancing,upon
thesecurityof such lands, small loans to assistin their cultivation.
At first sight it may seem that the lands surrenderedby the land¬
lordswould be surrenderedonly.because they were not worth the tax.
Even so, the judicious applicationof capital advanced by government
wouldenhance their worth. Much good land, however,would be given
up merelybecausethe landlord had not capitalsufficientto work it to a
profit. I own to the expectationof large tracts of land being surren¬
dered. So much the better. Upon these governmentcould settle those
whoare now landless,houseless,and starving.
I own, too, that I look to this principle of taxing the land for some¬
thingbeyond the bare provisionfor a time of famine. This furtherap¬
plicationI reservefor a secondletter.
But now confiningmyself to this famine question,why shouldnot all
classesin Irelandjoin in an agitationto compelfrom governmentthe en¬
forcingof this most righteoustax
Here—if they are indeed in earnest, and surely very manyare—the
Irish priesthoodmay be of immense service for the salvation of their
perishingflocks. Let them head the movement. There is only one
classin Irelandwhich could have any objectionto this tax—towit, the
Jandlords. Let it become a question betweenthem and the Nation, and
we need not long wait for the result.
How the agitation may be strengthened,and the victoryexpedited,I
hall endeavourto make apparentin my next letter.
LETTER
II.
My dear Sir,—In my first letterI proposeda tax upon the land, to
provide against the famine; and I asked for an agitationfor that pur¬
pose. I stated also that I looked to a further applicationof the prin¬
ciple, andI undertookto show how the agitationshouldbe strengthened
and the victory expedited.
The further applicationI propose is this :—Let a land tax not only
provideagainstthe famine; but let it also support the wholeburthenof
the state, not only in Ireland,but in Great Britain. So strengthenthe
agitationby making it commonto both countries.
Let it be bornein mind that all I have said of the right of the Irish
peopleto the land of Ireland,applies with equal force to the right of the
English and Scotch to the land of England and Scotland. The natural
right of the Nation is anteriorand always superiorto any conventional
right of the landlord. If you confine the agitation to Ireland for the
famine-need,you cannot, certainly on this side of the famine, muster
strength sufficientto grapple with the Irish landlords,backed as they
will be by the active sympathiesof the English landlords, and by the
inertnessof all those on this side of the channelwho do notthink them¬
selves directlyinterestedin the question.
But bring the war here. Fight this Irish question upon English
ground. Make it an English question,too. Show that the People of
the two countrieshave on this point one common interest,though the
immediateresolutionis not here of such imminent need. Raise the cry
of a land tax in place of all othertaxes; and rouse the whole empireto
contestwith landlordism. This is the true way in whichthe People may
repossessthe land. I proposethenanagitation(to commencein Ireland,
becauseIrish need mostimmediatelyrequiresit, and the Irish People are
best preparedfor the consideration)for the remissionof all taxes, and
the enforcementin theirsteadof one uniformland-tax—somuch an acre
for all land cultivatedor reclaimable,withoutreferenceto its quality.
I proposethis as a just, simple, and easy method of taxation.
Our presenttax-systemis unjust, complicated,and onerous.
The land-taxwould hejust, because,based upon the first principleof
the right of the People to their own land, it comes in the form of a
ground-rentfrom those who desire to hold, that land as their private
property. It wouldhejust, too, because,underlyingall the produceand
industryof the country,its burthen will be fairly divided among all
classes—fallinglightly on the poor, heavily on the rich, in proportionto
theirriches.
The land-tax would be simple. Who sees not the simplicityof a
singletax; who will not on that score contrast it favourablywith our
present cumbrousand complicatedsystem of customs,excise, land-tax,
assessedtaxes,income-tax,&c. &c. I would also includethe provision
for the poor,and abolishthe presentunequalpoor-rates.
The land-taxwould be more easily borne than our present taxation.
Firstly,becausethe heaviestburthenswouldalwaysfall uponthe strongest'
shoulders; secondly, because through this method of taxation there
wouldbe a large saving.
The cost of collectingthe whole amountof the imperialtaxes in 1847
(exclusiveof poor-rates)amountedto .£3,500,000. The assessed,land,
andincomeand propertytaxes were collected at a cost of ,£358,449 :
forwhichsum it is evident the one land-tax could be collected. The
savingto the country,therefore,in the mere cost of collecting,would be
morethan threemillions.
But this is not all. A traderinvesting certain monies in his business,
equiresinterestthereupon,upon all monies so invested. I find in the
year1847 of a taxationof £59,000,000, £38,000,000 collectedfrom the
Exciseand Customs. This £38,000,000 is capitalinvested by the trader,
Werethe tax paid directly by the consumerit would not be so bad, but.
to everyshilling of the tax paid in the first instancewe have to add the
profitsof the severaldealers who successivelyadvance their capital for
thatpurpose*.The wholesale dealer must have his profit,the retailers
musthave theirs. It is not only the nominal amount of the tax that
comesout of the pockets of the consumer.
This surchargehas been calculated to be more than 40 per cent.: so
addingsome £15,000,000 more to the taxes. Add the £3,000,000 to
be savedin collection,and my propositiongoes to relieve the countryof
eighteenmillionsof taxes, withouttaking count of poor-rates.
The tax upon land then would be juster, simpler, and easier to be
bornethan our presentsystem. I proceedto furtherexplanations.
There are in England,Wales, Scotland,Ireland, and their adjacent
islandsthe followingnumberof acres (in roundnumbers):—
Cultivated
46,000,000
Uncultivated,but reclaimable
15,000,000
Irreclaimable
17,000,000
the
two
first
of
land
as
taxable.
take
I
descriptions
Somethingunder
eighteenshillingsand sixpencean acre would meet the whole taxation of
thecountryat its presentamount. Or call it (in round figures) tmenty
shillings,addingpoorrates to the presenttaxation. Let this be thegroundrentof the country.
So the burthenof taxationwould be equalized,lessenedby the saving
of £3,000,000 in collection,and £15,000,000 by directness; and even
thelandlords(upon whom the tax would first fall) might become con¬
vertsto financialreform,and advocatesof a moreeconomicalexpenditure.
My proposal,therefore,extendsitself from a mere provision against
theimpendingfamine,to be at once the redemptionof Ireland,and also
of the sisterisland. A right noblerevenge for Ireland,if she may com¬
mencethe movement.
And it seemsto me well that such a movement should commence in
Ireland. Circumstancesthere compel a considerationof the land ques¬
tion. Why not take the advantageof the occasionto push the consider¬
ationto so beneficialan extent Here the elements are not so life for
originatingthe movement; but plenty lie readyfor carrying it on when
once commenced. It would be, as I said before, the question of all
classesagainstthe landlords,and who would doubtthe result
Oncefairly afloat in Ireland (wherethroughI believe it would spread
immediately,men'sminds,I take it, needing therebut little preparation
for such a measure),it would soon obtain assistancein this country;
8
wouldspeedilybecome the question of the day, displacingeven the agi¬
tationfor financialreformwhichis confinedto endeavourat reducingan
expenditure,whereof £23,000,000 is merely the interestof our debt.
The movementwouldnot have to encounterthe obstaclesthrownin the
way of the corn-law
agitation—thenit was the 'manufacturinginterest'
'
'
against the landed interest/ Here we should reduce the landed
interest'to its real limits—thelandlordinterest. The 'manufacturing
interest,'whose ' free trade'is checkedby customs,the ' agriculturalin¬
terest'—northat alone—harassedby the excise (to mention malt and
hops may be enough), those who pay assessed taxes, those who pay
incometax, and the poorwho pay all taxes in the aggravateddispropor¬
tion o a scaleincreasing as the payer grows poorer—allthese wouldbe
*
unitedagainstsuch poweras a few landlordscan wield.
That poweris in the lantHords'
parliament. How long would it be a
landlords'parliamentwith sucha questiondominantoutside1
I reservegomefurtherelucidationsfor a concludingletter.
letter
hi.
My dear Sir,—I purposein this,my concludingletter,to noticesuch
matters,with referenceto this proposedland-tax,as may seem to involve
pointsof difficulty.
Those I take note of are collection,estimation,and distributionof
income,possibilityof large quantitiesof land being give up, and conse¬
quentinsufficiencyof tax, and ' injusticetowardthe landlord/
For collection,I would have providedthat every districtshould have
its half-yearlytax-day, or tax-days(on the same principleas a landlord's
rent-day),and its properofficerappointedto receivethe tax, or Nation's
ground-rent. All land shouldbe consideredforfeitedto the State,for
which uponsuch day, or withinsuch numberof days, the tax shouldnot
be paid.
For estimateof income—ifthe tax raisedfell shortof the half-year's
expenditure,the governmentwould have little difficultyin obtaining a
loan on the creditof the next half-year'stax.
For distribution(sinceI have spoken of including poor-ratesin the
one tax)—I by no meansproposethat the governmentshould pretendto
dictatethe local expenditure. To my mind, nothingseemsso opposedto
the just governmentof a republic,as the central power descendingto
local matters. Let the parishesdraw uponthe treasuryfor such sums as
may be needed,and applythe sameaccordingto their judgment. Under
propermanagement,however,therewould be no cost for the relief of the
ablebodied.
For thereis no doubtbutlarge tracts of inferior land would be given
up by the present landlords. Upon these lands I proposethat the ablebodiedapplicantsfor relief shouldbe locatedat a rentalto the amountof
the tax; the governmentlendingsuchcapitalas might be neededto work
the land, and throughtheiragents(of the localityor speciallyappointed)
the properapplicationof that capital. I would makethe
superintending
9
holdingof such land equivalent to the present freehold. The holder
shouldnot be dispossessedso long as he paid his tax-rentand the instal¬
ments of the improvement-loanadvanced by government. Indeed I
would simplify all title to landed propertyby making the government
receiptfor tax sufficienttitle in all cases.
Another advantage of this freehold allotment system would be its
tendingto check exorbitant rents. A man would rather hold directly
undergovernmentthan of a landlord,unless the landlordcould come to
fairterms. And he would know that the landlordcould not hold back
forexorbitantterms,becauseof the tax, to be paid whetherhe might let
hisland or not.
It may be said, this would bo abolishingthe landlordclass. It would
go far toward abolishing the class of those who, like the dog in the
manger,hold land which they will neitherCultivate,nor allow to be cul¬
tivated on any terms by which a tenant can live; but it would not
abolishor diminishthe class of landed proprietorswho hold land in cul¬
tivation. As to mere pleasure-grounds,
though confessing to an artist's
love of the beautiful in our old parks and in many a copse and wild, I
wouldsay, let them be preservedby the State for the healthfulrecreation
of the People, or as privatepleasuregroundsby those who can affordit,
butdo not let (as now) overtaxed labourers starve that the squiremay
havehis park rent-free.
But, why ' tax the landlordsV I have already(in my first letter)
answeredthe question—'Why tax the land ?' For the special case of
the landlords,let it be bornein mind that we have come to our present
enormousload of taxation underlandlordauspices; the landlords have
necessitatedthe taxation—letthem first pay. They made no talk of
injusticewhen they flung the mainburdensof the state on any shoulders
buttheir own.
Again:~How came they possessedof the land? The land was origi¬
nallybestowedfor a certain consideration;that considerationwas, that
the burthenof the State should be supportedby the proprietary. Any
readerof our history knows how they have evaded the charge,while
neverthelessretaining their properties,the value of which has so im¬
menselyincreased. After all, we would be but insistingon the landlords
fulfilling the terms of their own contract; giving them, however,the
optionof abandoningit altogether.
It is not the landlord class which should complainof harsh usage.
With the exceptionof those whose lands are let on lease, the landlords
wouldnot bo called upon to pay the tax withoutremedy. They could
addat least some portionof it to their rents,and have it readilypaid, too,
by the else untaxed farmer. They would not add the whole, because,
beingthe farmer'sfriends,and the just and continual complainersof his
ruinunderthe present charges,they would be only too glad to see him
to some extent relieved. Especially as there would be the government
landto be had by the farmerat a moderate rental.
And those who have let the main portionsof their lands on lease, for
whomI proposeno remedy (theremust always be some victims in every
change),they would not be altogetherlosers. Would they not sharein
the remissionof the present taxation,in the saving by employmentof
10
the ablebodiedpaupel's,in the eighteen millions reduction And would
they be so ungratefulas utterly to repudiate the advantageof beingin
their own defence convertedto the creedof financial reform When
the landlordstake to backing Mr. Cobden,we may fairlylook to a con¬
siderablereductionof the twenty-shillingsan acre of my presentpro¬
position.
But to every schemetheremust be some objectors. Here I can fore¬
see nonewith any reason, exceptsomeof the landlords.
The farmersmight say—'If the landlordsadd the amountof the tax
to our rents, what will we be better?' They would still be betterthe
eighteenmillionsand poor-ratessaved. But the landlordscould not add
the wholeeven to the tenantsat will; for would any man be fool enough
to pay a landlordan exorbitaatrent when the governmentwould let him
land at the amountof the tax; and, if inferior land, would lend him
capitalto improveit This would be always a safetyvalve for the escape
of the farmer; and wouldin the end, as beforesaid, do away altogether
with the class of letters of land, mere middlemen(whethercalled so or
not), an utterlyuselessand vexatiousbody.
Some might possiblybe found to grumble,that townsmenwould get
too greatadvantagethroughthis scheme. But is it not plain that the
townsman,the trader,or manufacturer,calculateshis presenttaxationas
outlayof capital,and chargesit to the consumerwith someconsiderable
interest? If he couldlive morecheaply,would he not sell more cheaply,
and so all classesbe gainers
Besides,why should land uponwhich houses stand be chargedat a
upon which corn is grown; or that, again, at a
higherratethan land
'
higherrate than waste' land The cost of building or cultivating is
privateexpenditure,fairlyproducingprivate property,and ought not to
be taxed. Tax the land, and be sure of the burthenbeing rightly placed
and equallydistributed. Once admit any other basis of taxation,and
you openthe door to endlesscomplicationsand injustices.
The only reasonableobjectorsto a land-taxwill be the landlords—
those, at least, who have let their land on leases. It remainsto consider
what powerthese wouldhave of enforcingtheir objections.
The landlord'spoweris in Parliament. Parliament is mainly theirs.
But how No longerby pocket boroughs: they must at least appealto
the constituencies. Upon what ground would they appeal against so
equitableand beneficiala tax? I own to being quite at ease upon
this point. The farmers,who supportthem now, are not such fools as to
believethat the throwingpart of theirburthensupon the landlords,and
gettingthe remissionof at least a quarterof the present charges,could
do themany harm. Dependupon it, an agitationfor a land-taxwould
find few opponentsamongst ' the tenantry/
I havethus far endeavouredto show that this tax would be just and
beneficial; and I have in conclusionbut to urge the People upon both
sides of the Channelto forthwithorganizethe agitationof the question:
you in Ireland,for your immediatesuccourin this terriblefamine-visita¬
tion, you and us for our permanentrelief and advantage.