A UNIQUE COMBINATION OF PROPOSALS.
In the last chapter, I pointed out the great differences of principle
between the project placed before the reader of this work and some
of those schemes of social reform which, having been put to the test
of experience, have ended in disaster, and I urged that there were
features of the proposed experiment which so completely distinguished
it from those unsuccessful schemes that they could not be fairly
regarded as any indication of the results which would probably follow
from launching this experiment.
It is my present purpose to show that though the scheme taken as a
whole is a new one, and is, perhaps, entitled to some consideration on
that account, its chief claim upon the attention of the public lies in
the fact that it combines the important features of several schemes
which have been advocated at various times, and so combines them as to
secure the best results of each, without the dangers and difficulties
which sometimes, even in the minds of their authors, were clearly and
distinctly seen.
Shortly stated, my scheme is a combination of three distinct projects
which have, I think, never been united before. These are--(1) The
proposals for an organised migratory movement of population of
Wakefield and of Professor Marshall; (2) the system of land tenure
first proposed by Thos. Spence and afterwards (though with an important
modification) by Mr. Herbert Spencer; and (3) the model city of Jas. S.
Buckingham.[22]
Let us take these proposals in the order named. Wakefield, in his “Art
of Colonisation” (London: J. W. Parker, 1849), urged that colonies
when formed--he was not thinking of home colonies--should be based on
scientific principles. He said (page 109): “We send out colonies of
the limbs, without the belly and the head, of needy persons, many of
them mere paupers, or even criminals; colonies made up of _a single
class of persons_ in the community, and that the most helpless and
the most unfit to perpetuate our national character, and to become
the fathers of a race whose habits of thinking and feeling shall
correspond to those which, in the meantime, we are cherishing at
home. The ancients, on the contrary, sent out _a representation of
the parent State--colonists from all ranks_. We stock the farm with
creeping and climbing plants, without any trees of firmer growth for
them to entwine round. A hop-ground without poles, the plants matted
confusedly together, and scrambling on the ground in tangled heaps,
with here and there some clinging to rank thistles and hemlock, would
be an apt emblem of a modern colony. The ancients began by nominating
to the honourable office of captain or leader of the colony one of
the chief men, if not the chief man of the State, like the queen bee
leading the workers. Monarchies provided a prince of the royal blood;
an aristocracy its choicest nobleman; a democracy its most influential
citizen. These naturally carried along with them some of their own
station in life--their companions and friends; some of their immediate
dependents also--of those between themselves and the lowest class;
and were encouraged in various ways to do so. The lowest class again
followed with alacrity, because they found themselves moving _with_ and
not _away from_ the state of society in which they had been living. It
was the same social and political union under which they had been born
and bred; and to prevent any contrary impression being made, the utmost
solemnity was observed in transferring the rites of pagan superstition.
They carried with them their gods, their festivals, their games--all,
in short, that held together and kept entire the fabric of society as
it existed in the parent state. Nothing was left behind that could
be moved of all that the heart or eye of an exile misses. The new
colony was made to appear as if time or chance had reduced the whole
community to smaller dimensions, leaving it still essentially the same
home and country to its surviving members. It consisted of a general
contribution of members from all classes, and so became, on its first
settlement, a mature state, with all the component parts of that which
sent it forth. It was a transfer of population, therefore, which gave
rise to no sense of degradation, as if the colonist were thrust out
from a higher to a lower description of community.”
J. S. Mill, in his “Elements of Political Economy,” Book I., Chap.
viii., § 3, says of this work: “Wakefield’s theory of colonisation
has excited much attention, and is doubtless destined to excite
much more.... His system consists of arrangements for securing that
each colony shall have from the first a town population bearing due
proportion to the agricultural, and that the cultivators of the soil
shall not be so widely scattered as to be deprived by distance of the
benefit of that town population as a market for their produce.”
Professor Marshall’s proposals for an organised migratory movement of
population from London have been already noticed, but the following
passage from the article already referred to may be quoted:--
“There might be great variety of method, but the general plan would
probably be for a committee, whether formed specially for the purpose
or not, to interest themselves in the formation of a colony in some
place well beyond the range of London smoke. After seeing their way
to building or buying suitable cottages there, they would enter
into communication with some of the employers of low-waged labour.
They would select, at first, industries that used very little fixed
capital; and, as we have seen, it fortunately happens that most of the
industries which it is important to move are of this kind. They would
find an employer--and there must be many such--who really cares for the
misery of his employees. Acting with him and by his advice, they would
make themselves the friends of people employed or fit to be employed
in his trade; they would show them the advantages of moving, and help
them to move, both with counsel and money. They would organise the
sending of work backwards and forwards, the employer perhaps opening
an agency in the colony. But after being once started it ought to be
self-supporting, for the cost of carriage, even if the employees went
in sometimes to get instructions, would be less than the saving made
in rent--at all events, if allowance be made for the value of the
garden produce. And more than as much gain would probably be saved by
removing the temptation to drink which is caused by the sadness of
London. They would meet with much passive resistance at first. The
unknown has terrors to all, but especially to those who have lost their
natural spring. Those who have lived always in the obscurity of a
London court might shrink away from the free light; poor as are their
acquaintanceships at home, they might fear to go where they knew no
one. But, with gentle insistence, the committee would urge their way,
trying to get those who knew one another to move together, by warm,
patient sympathy, taking off the chill of the first change. It is only
the first step that costs; every succeeding step would be easier. The
work of several firms, not always in the same business, might, in some
cases, be sent together. Gradually a prosperous industrial district
would grow up, and then, mere self-interest would induce employers to
bring down their main workshops, and even to start factories in the
colony. Ultimately all would gain, but most the landowners and the
railroads connected with the colony.”
What could more strongly point than the last sentence of that quotation
from Professor Marshall’s proposal to the necessity of first _buying_
the land, so that the most admirable project of Thomas Spence can be
put into practice, and thus prevent the terrible rise in rent which
Professor Marshall forsees? Spence’s proposal, put forward more than a
hundred years ago, at once suggests how to secure the desired end. Here
it is:--
“Then you may behold the rent which the people have paid into the
parish treasuries employed by each parish in paying the Government its
share of the sum which the Parliament or National Congress at any time
grants; in maintaining and relieving its own poor and people out of
work; in paying the necessary officers their salaries; in building,
repairing, and adorning its houses, bridges, and other structures; in
making and maintaining convenient and delightful streets, highways, and
passages, both for foot and carriages; in making and maintaining canals
and other conveniences for trade and navigation; in planting and taking
in waste grounds; in premiums for the encouragement of agriculture or
anything else thought worthy of encouragement; and, in a word, in doing
whatever the people think proper, and not, as formerly, to support and
spread luxury, pride, and all manner of vice.... There are no tolls
or taxes of any kind paid among them by native or foreigner but the
aforesaid rent, which every person pays to the parish, according to
the quantity, quality, and conveniences of the land ... he occupies
in it. The government, poor, roads, etc., ... are all maintained with
the rent, on which account all wares, manufactures, allowable trade
employments or actions are entirely duty-free.”--From a lecture read
at the Philosophical Society in Newcastle, on November 8th, 1775, for
printing which the Society did the author the honour to expel him.
It will be observed that the only difference between this proposal and
the proposals as to land reform put forward in this book, is not a
difference of system, but a difference (and a very important one) as
to the _method_ of its inauguration. Spence appears to have thought
that the people would, by a fiat, dispossess the existing owners and
establish the system at once and universally throughout the country;
while, in this work, it is proposed to purchase the necessary land with
which to establish the system on a small scale, and to trust to the
inherent advantages of the system leading to its gradual adoption.
Writing some seventy years after Spence had put forward his proposal,
Mr. Herbert Spencer (having first laid down the grand principle that
all men are equally entitled to the use of the earth, as a corollary
of the law of equal liberty generally), in discussing this subject,
observes, with his usual force and clearness:--
“But to what does this doctrine that men are equally entitled to the
use of the earth, lead? Must we return to the times of unenclosed
wilds, and subsist on roots, berries, and game? Or are we to be left to
the management of Messrs. Fourrier, Owen, Louis Blanc & Co.? Neither.
Such a doctrine is consistent with the highest civilisation, may be
carried out without involving a community of goods, and need cause no
very serious revolution in existing arrangements. The change required
would be simply a change of landlords. Separate ownership would merge
in the joint-stock ownership of the public. Instead of being in the
possession of individuals, the country would be held by the great
corporate body--society. Instead of leasing his acres from an isolated
proprietor, the farmer would lease them from the nation. Instead of
paying his rent to the agent of Sir John and His Grace, he would pay it
to an agent or deputy agent of the community. Stewards would be public
officials instead of private ones, and tenancy the only land tenure. A
state of things so ordered would be in perfect harmony with the moral
law. Under it all men would be equally landlords; all men would be
alike free to become tenants. A., B., C. and the rest might compete for
a vacant farm as now, and one of them might take that farm without in
any way violating the principles of pure equity. All would be equally
free to bid; all would be equally free to refrain. And when the farm
had been let to A., B., or C., all parties would have done that which
they willed, the one in choosing to pay a given sum to his fellow-men
for the use of certain lands--the others in refusing to pay the sum.
Clearly, therefore, on such a system the earth might be enclosed,
occupied, and cultivated in entire subordination to the law of equal
freedom.”--“Social Statics,” Chap. ix., sec. 8.
But having thus written, Mr. Herbert Spencer at a later period, having
discovered two grave difficulties in the way of his own proposal,
unreservedly withdrew it. The first of these difficulties was the evils
which he considered as inseparable from State ownership (see “Justice,”
published in 1891, appendix B., p. 290); the second, the impossibility,
as Mr. Spencer regarded it, of acquiring the land on terms which
would be at once equitable to existing owners and remunerative to the
community.
But if the reader examines the scheme of Spence, which preceded the
now-withdrawn proposals of Mr. Herbert Spencer, he will see that
Spence’s scheme was entirely freed (as is the one put forward in this
little book), from the objections which might probably attend control
by the State.[23] The rents were, under Spence’s proposals, as in
my own, not to be levied by a _Central Government_ far removed from
contact with the people, but by the very parish (in my scheme the
municipality) in which the people reside. As to the other difficulty
which presented itself to Mr. Herbert Spencer’s mind--that of acquiring
the land on equitable terms, and of yet making it remunerative to the
purchasers--a difficulty which Mr. Herbert Spencer, seeing no way out
of, rashly concluded to be insuperable--that difficulty is entirely
removed by my proposal of buying agricultural or sparsely-settled land,
letting it in the manner advocated by Spence, and then bringing about
the scientific migratory movement advocated by Wakefield and (though in
a somewhat less daring fashion) by Professor Marshall.
Surely a project, which thus brings what Mr. Herbert Spencer still
terms “the dictum of absolute ethics”--that all men are equally
entitled to the use of the earth--into the field of practical life, and
makes it a thing immediately realisable by those who believe in it,
must be one of the greatest public importance. When a great philosopher
in effect says, we cannot conform our life to the highest moral
principles because men have laid an immoral foundation for us in the
past, but “if, while possessing those ethical sentiments which social
discipline has now produced, men stood in possession of a territory
not yet individually portioned out, they would no more hesitate to
assert equality of their claims to the land than they would hesitate to
assert equality of their claims to light and air”[24]--one cannot help
wishing--so inharmonious does life seem--that the opportunity presented
itself of migrating to a new planet where the “ethical sentiments which
social discipline has now produced” might be indulged in. But a new
planet, or even “a territory not yet individually portioned out,” is by
no means necessary if we are but in real earnest; for it has been shown
that an organised, migratory movement from over-developed, high-priced
land to comparatively raw and unoccupied land, will enable all who
desire it to live this life of equal freedom and opportunity; and a
sense of the possibility of a life on earth at once orderly and free
dawns upon the heart and mind.
The third proposal which I have combined with those of Spence and Mr.
Herbert Spencer, of Wakefield and Professor Marshall, embraces one
essential feature of a scheme of James S. Buckingham,[25] though I
have purposely omitted some of the essential features of that scheme.
Mr. Buckingham says (p. 25): “My thoughts were thus directed to the
great defects of all existing towns, and the desirability of forming
at least one model town which should avoid the most prominent of
these defects, and substitute advantages not yet possessed by any.”
In his work he exhibits a ground plan and a sketch of a town of about
1,000 acres, containing a population of 25,000, and surrounded by a
large agricultural estate. Buckingham, like Wakefield, saw the great
advantages to be derived by combining an agricultural community
with an industrial, and urged: “Wherever practicable, the labours
of agriculture and manufacture to be so mingled and the variety of
fabrics and materials to be wrought upon also so assorted as to make
short periods of labour on each alternately with others produce that
satisfaction and freedom from tedium and weariness which an unbroken
round of monotonous occupation so frequently occasions, and because
also variety of employment develops the mental as well as physical
faculties much more perfectly than any single occupation.”
But though on these points the scheme is strikingly like my own, it is
also a very different one. Buckingham having traced, as he thought,
the evils of society to their source in competition, intemperance,
and war, proposed to annihilate competition by forming a system of
complete or integral co-operation; to remove intemperance by the
total exclusion of intoxicants; to put an end to war by the absolute
prohibition of gunpowder. He proposed to form a large company, with a
capital of £4,000,000; to buy a large estate, and to erect churches,
schools, factories, warehouses, dining-halls, dwelling-houses, at
rents varying from £30 a year to £300 a year; and to carry on all
productive operations, whether agricultural or industrial, as one large
undertaking covering the whole field and permitting no rivals.
Now it will be seen that though in outward form Buckingham’s scheme
and my own present the same feature of a model town set in a large
agricultural estate, so that industrial and farming pursuits might be
carried on in a healthy, natural way, yet the inner life of the two
communities would be entirely different--the inhabitants of Garden City
enjoying the fullest rights of free association, and exhibiting the
most varied forms of individual and co-operative work and endeavour,
the members of Buckingham’s city being held together by the bonds of a
rigid cast-iron organisation, from which there could be no escape but
by leaving the association, or breaking it up into various sections.
To sum up this chapter. My proposal is that there should be an earnest
attempt made to organise a migratory movement of population from
our overcrowded centres to sparsely-settled rural districts; that
the mind of the public should not be confused, or the efforts of
organisers wasted in a premature attempt to accomplish this work on a
national scale, but that great thought and attention shall be first
concentrated on a single movement yet one sufficiently large to be at
once attractive and resourceful; that the migrants shall be guaranteed
(by the making of suitable arrangements before the movement commences)
that the whole increase in land-values due to their migration shall
be secured to them; that this be done by creating an organisation,
which, while permitting its members to do those things which are good
in their own eyes (provided they infringe not the rights of others)
shall receive all “rate-rents” and expend them in those public works
which the migratory movement renders necessary or expedient--thus
eliminating rates, or, at least, greatly reducing the necessity for
any compulsory levy; and that the golden opportunity afforded by the
fact that the land to be settled upon has but few buildings or works
upon it, shall be availed of in the fullest manner, by so laying out
a Garden City that, as it grows, the free gifts of Nature--fresh air,
sunlight, breathing room and playing room--shall be still retained
in all needed abundance, and by so employing the resources of modern
science that Art may supplement Nature, and life may become an abiding
joy and delight. And it is important to notice that this proposal, so
imperfectly put forward, is no scheme hatched in a restless night in
the fevered brain of an enthusiast, but is one having its origin in
the thoughtful study of many minds, and the patient effort of many
earnest souls, each bringing some element of value, till, the time and
the opportunity having come, the smallest skill avails to weld those
elements into an effective combination.
FOOTNOTES:
[22] I may, perhaps, state as showing how in the search for truth men’s
minds run in the same channels, and as, possibly, some additional
argument for the soundness of the proposals thus combined, that, till
I had got far on with my project, I had not seen either the proposals
of Professor Marshall or of Wakefield (beyond a very short reference to
the latter in J. S. Mill’s “Elements of Political Economy”), nor had I
seen the work of Buckingham, which, published nearly fifty years ago,
seems to have attracted but little attention.
[23] Though Mr. Herbert Spencer, as if to rebuke his own theory that
State control is inherently bad, says, “Political speculation which
sets out with the assumption that the State has in all cases the same
nature must end in profoundly erroneous conclusions.”
[24] “Justice,” Chap. xi., p. 85.
[25] Buckingham’s scheme is set forth in a work entitled “National
Evils and Practical Remedies,” published by Peter Jackson, St. Martins
le Grand, about 1849.