under such conditions no one would care to claim to control the use of a single acre of land unless he wanted to use it, and, what is of even more importance, to put it to the best use of which it is capable. To give but one instance, and every reader will be able to multiply it by thousands: Some few years ago one of our most important Northern towns required further dock accommodation. To this end the use of some barren, sandy land, near to the old docks, was necessary. For this the owner demanded some eighty thousand pounds sterling. Of course, he was an honourable man, so presumably if the land had not been worth as much, he would not have asked it. But if it was worth so much, then why should it not have contributed toward the public expenditure in proportion to this value? If this had been the method in vogue, this land, which at the time was bringing in nothing to any body, and to make which productive required the expenditure of a vast sum of money, would soon have passed at a very different price into the hands of those who would put it to use. To-day, as even our opponents know well enough, the industry of the whole community is being hampered, as well as exploited; the activities of our great municipalities are being checked, nullified, and made more costly; the employment of labour is being made more precarious and uncertain; the reward of labour is being forced down below, and far below, the subsistence level: these and other more evil results follow from the want of that equitable system of raising public revenues known, though the name is by no means an appropriate one, as the taxation of land-values. Under this system the land would be taxed, not in proportion to the value it had a few hundred years ago, but according to the value it has to-day. Next year, or next century, it would be taxed according to the value it will have then; and so on to the end of time each generation appropriating for its common benefit the value which its presence and activities yearly re-create. But, say our adversaries, "land has been treated as a merchantable commodity in this country for centuries." Well, what of that? It may still continue to be so treated. Other "merchantable commodities," with far less reason and justice, have been and are being subjected to taxation. Why should land be the one merchantable commodity" to be exempted? As a matter of fact, however, what it is proposed should be taxed is, not land, but land values: i.e., the value accruing to land owing to the presence, needs and activities of the community. And it is the established privilege of being the man allowed to appropriate these values, which is the "individual property " that would be affected, and the selling value of which would be reduced, if not swept away, by this long-delayed measure of Justice. But, our opponents argue, any such measure, or as some of them " express it, "this sweeping measure of confiscation," would not prevent the holding up of land. They admit that to-day some land is being held up "for a rise," and in "the hope of future profit," to the injury of the present and at the cost of future generations. But they ask us to believe that men would still cling to this hope, and, therefore, act in the same anti-social manner, even thongh they were annually asked to contribute to public revenues in exact proportion to the value of the land they were thus "holding up,' and knew that in every succeeding year they would be called upon to do so the amount they would have to pay increasing with any appreciation, decreasing only with any depreciation, in the unimproved value of such land. Well, there is no knowing what men might be foolish enough to do. Under such conditions, however, there would clearly be far less inducement to such action than there is at present-when land not in use is practically exempt fram taxation, no matter what may be the price its holder demands for it. Such holders would soon find any such action to be very unprofitable, and to tend to impoverish rather than to enrich those who indulged in it. It may, then, be taken as certain that this natural and equitable method of raising public revenues would, in fact, tend to put an end to all withholding of land from its full and proper uses, as well as to all gambling in our natural and inalienable national inheritance. Moreover, it would tend to reduce the present inflated monopoly value of land, due to this power "to hold up " land, to its true natural or economic, value; thus making the natural outlets to the national industry available to the labour, enterprise, and capital of the people on easier and more equitable terms, and tending to increase not only the productive power of the nation as a whole, but also the earning power of each individual citizen who assists in such labour, or who renders service to those so employed. Behind every political question there is a moral, an ethical, question. The ethical question behind the taxation of landvalues is, obviously, to whom in equity should these values accrue, to some or to all? This is the one question we have attempted to answer in this article. And in conclusion I would fain remind our opponents that "this question cannot be answered so as to satisfy the moral sense of the nation" either by sneering at Henry George, or by inventing fanciful metaphysical analogies between property in land and property in commodities, or between incomes derived from industry and incomes derived from privilege. Such confusing of the issue can deceive only those who wish to be deceived. Moreover, I would remind them that "confiscation," "plunder," and "robbery" are very harsh terms, which, though necessary, perhaps, to special pleading, do not in reality strengthen weak arguments. In truth, such terms can with far greater justice be applied to the present system of the exploitation of the fruits of the activities of the community by land monopoly, a system which the taxation of land-values would help to change for the better. However, no radical change is possible without some vested iniquity suffering; and, therefore, the special pleaders for those who have expected to benefit by its continuance, may, perhaps, be excused for indulging in a little hysterical shrieking. Still those who would take part in this great controversy would do well to remember dear old Punch's pertinent words: "Differences exist, no doubt; L. H. BERENS, THE SCIENTIFIC ASPECT OF RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. THE trend of evolution of human society must depend upon the changes in constitution, in thought and action of its individual units. Such changes in the individual are partly determined by the reactions of the rest of society as a whole or a part, and partly by the innate forces of the individual. That masses survive and minorities suffer is a truth we need hardly recount. The metabolism of the social organism consists in a continual series of readjustments which are never quite the same. These innumerable readjustments are permanent for longer or shorter periods, and so surely as they arise in an anabolic process, so surely do they disappear in a kinetic one. Each area involved in one adjustment contains within itself an indefinite number of other adjustments in varying stages of stability, which affect the stability of the larger adjustment. The more transitory phases of stability represent the experiments of society, and exhibit the empirical method by which the whole evolves. The very nature of the component units renders it certain that no condition or system of nice balancing can continue as such for longer than a limited time beyond which the units still exist. This important fact is well shown in the rise and fall of empires, of systems of administration, of systems of religion and of education, each and all of which had seemed to be built for eternity, so far as the superficial or limited observer could say. The survival of the fittest must obtain, and in human society this survival is regulated in great part by sentiment. The basic instincts of men rule the tide of affairs, and this weapon of instinct is, like unto the sword of Damocles, ever ready to descend whenever the prevailing factors have ceased to prove of value to society as a whole, or to the particular section concerned. We must observe that in no one of the many growths of special social activities, founded on a few grains of fact, and nursed by neurotic champions into a larger but often false creation of a great truth, are we to look for the apical point of social development. The patriots of Free Trade on the one side, and of Protection on the other; of increase in armaments, and of drastic reductions in naval and military personnel; of the power of science, and of its vague and uncertain possibilities when compared to those of the man of business; of religion in schools, and the abolition of religion; each and all announce their discovery of various great truths. What we mean by this apical point is represented by the aggregate of those social conditions which are destined to survive for a considerable period, and have great influence on the condition of the whole. Such progressive parts of the social organism are with difficulty located, but as the study of man becomes more profound, and human biology becomes more understood, we shall be able to sift social activities, and point with great approximate exactitude to what must be cultivated and selected for the benefit of succeeding generations, and to what must be performed to successfully grapple with the environment of the immediate future. Thus shall we attain to rational modes of procedure in all departments of life; and the foundation of such knowledge, be it observed, must be laid in biology. In the wider application of this knowledge, as in dealing with education, we seek to determine the trend of present activities, and to turn the tide of affairs in a gradual way. This is the recognised policy of all stable administration. This is the policy which animates to some extent even the present Liberal Government of this country, and, as an example, we may point to their dealing with the religious factor in national education, Many have considered this action of the Liberals to be typically radical, but we contend that social development is not against it, and that it is a healthy sign of the times. Let us briefly follow the development of the religious factor in education in this country. To understand this development more clearly, one must first take note of certain other facts in the biology of the social organism. Men tend for the most part to form their reasonings on their emotional activities; their prejudices have to be considered; individual welfare gives way before precedent, and things before words. The material, the means of subsistence, is the groundwork for all theories and systems. People who earn a comfortable living, so long as a certain social condition is maintained, are in strenuous opposition with all factors that go to break it up, in spite of fine theory, of intellectual and abstract considerations. These old stable systems have to reckon with the growth of new forces as readjustments increase and survive in other directions. Either they must go into oblivion, or else their several parts come to perform some of the functions of a new and larger readjustment in a process of absorption. We could scarcely direct our attention to a better instance of this phenomenon than that provided by the Established Church of this country. The original function of this august corporation was in ruling the people, and particularly in controlling their intellectual and ethical development. Appealing more to the deep-seated instincts of man, and less to his mental endowments, it could rule by |
