MR. MILL AND UNEARNED INCREMENT.
[To THE EDITOR OF TER "SPECTATOR."]
SIR,—Are you not mistaken in thinking that Mr. Mill "never went fully into the logic of his principle, never considered how essential it would be, if it were adopted, for the State to. accept the burden also of the decrement of value due to. times of depression "P
On the contrary, in his paper on " The Right of Property in Land," written for the Land Tenure Reform Association (1873), and included in his published works, he seems to have had this consideration expressly in view. "In the plan of the Association," he says, "the landlords would have the right reserved to them of parting with their land to the State, im- mediately or at any future time, at the price for which they could sell it at the time when the plan is adopted By giving up the rise in value, they would obtain an actual State guarantee against a fall."
It is perhaps material to bear in mind, however, that what Mr. Mill and the Association had evidently in view was not local and restricted, but State and therefore general valuation and right of purchase ; and that thus the decrement lose in some cases would, in their judgment, be far more than com- pensated by the increment gain in the rest,—to national benefit possibly, without individual wrong.—I am, Sir, &c.,
[We were referring to the earlier editions of Mill's "Political Economy," in which the principle was certainly not fully discussed. Perhaps Mr. Havelock is right as to his later writings.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
