Campaigning for the Taxation
of Land Values in Britain

Chester C. Platt

[Published with the title, "Chester Platt Views the British Situation"
in Land and Freedom, June-July 1928 ]

LONDON -- A superficial observer, and one not altogether grounded in sound land economics, and with an optimistic viewpoint, might suppose that a proper taxation of land value (or shall I say the collection of economic rent?) was about to be put over in England. If not by the present Government then by a Coalition Government after the next election.

Here is the Conservative Party, led by Mr. Churchill who has shown his proficiency as a disciple of Henry George by saying:

"It is quite true that the land monopoly is not the only monopoly which exists, but it is by far the greatest monopoly it is a perpetual monopoly, and it is the mother of all monopolies. It is quite true that unearned increments in land are not the only form of unearned or undeserved profits which individuals are able to secure; but it is the principal form of unearned increment which is derived from processes which are not beneficial but which are positively detrimental to the general public.

"Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical positions land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions. Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolistic opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same, and are similar in all respects to the unearned increment in land."

And here is the Liberal Party declaring in its Manifesto that:

"The Liberal Party seeks to bring the land of Great Britain into its best and fullest use in the interests of the whole population. … The taxation and rating of Land Values, which will liberate enterprise and transfer to the public those values that have been created by public activity" we favor.

And here is the Labor Party saying in its latest Manifesto:

"The land, both agricultural and urban, the production and distribution of the coal and power which are the life blood of modern industry … these and other fundamental necessities are too vital in the welfare of the nation to be organized and exploited for private profit. Without haste, but without rest, with careful preparation, with the use of the best technical knowledge and managerial skill … the Labor Party will vest their ownership in the Nation, and their administrative in authority acting on the nation's behalf."

That looks as if all the English Parties were friendly does it not?

But here is the other side to the shield. The quotation attributed to Mr. Churchill was from a speech which he delivered several years ago, when he said a good many things of the same nature.

But since then, he has changed his mind.

As for the Liberal Party, what I quoted was what that party had to say about the taxation of land values in "Towns." As to agriculture land, they had a different proposition.

And the Labor Party, when I quoted from their recent manifesto, the reader probably noticed an elipsis where I put a couple of stars. I left out a phrase indicating that they are committed 'to due compensation.'

However, it is true that the taxation of land values is a very lively topic of debate in Parliament from time to time, and it is pleasing to know that most of the men in public life at least understand the fundamentals of the doctrines of Henry George.

And the rank and file of the people understand them too; better, far better than they do in the United States.

In Hyde Park and in Finsbury Park every Sunday, (and sometimes on other days) one may hear enthusiastic advocates of the Taxation of Land Values, or of the collection of economic rent, preaching sound doctrine.

J. W. Graham Peace of The Commonweal has been responsible for a series of meetings which have been held at Finsbury Park which have attracted considerable attention and where converts to the idea of the collection of economic rent have been made, some of whom are now assisting Mr. Peace by weekly contributions to his journal The Commonweal.

Mr. Peace says that The Commonweal circulates in every country in Europe and that he not infrequently finds extracts from it reproduced in papers which have been translated.

I am unsound enough in my land economics to like Mr. Peace and his Commonweal, which denounces the phrase "Taxation of Land Values" as misleading and vicious, and insists that taxation ought to be abolished and that the earth is the birthright of all mankind, and the rent of the land belongs to the people, and the first duty of Government is to collect it and abolish all taxation.

So the Commonwealth Land Party, and its organ The Commonweal, demand that on an appointed date, the land shall be declared to have been restored to the people, and thereafter its economic rent shall be collected by and for the people.

I tell Mr. Peace that I am against him as to his methods, but I am with him as to his fundamentals, and I believe he is carrying on an educational work which might not inappropriately be compared to the work done in Anti- Slavery days by William Lloyd Garrison and Wendell Phillips.

I have expressed to Mr. Peace a wish that there might be a better cooperation between him and his journal, and John Paul and Land and Liberty. Mr. Peace says he wishes so too, but any fusion must be without any compromise on his part of essentials.

So much in recognition of Mr. Peace and the work he is doing. But the most effective and sensible work which is being done to bring about the practical application of the economic principles of Henry George is undoubtedly being done by the United committees for the Taxation of Land Values and Free Trade. Their publication is Land and Liberty, edited by John Paul. How firm a foundation it has, is indicated by the fact that it is now in the 35th year of its publication, and on Monday, July 23rd, there will be held at St. Ermins Restaurant, a dinner in celebration of the 21st Anniversary of the establishment of the United Committee for the Taxation of Land Value.

Charles O'Connor Hennessy, President of the International Union for Land Value Taxation, is expected to arrive in London in a few days to be present at this anniversary dinner, and to also take charge of the meeting of the Committee of the International Conference to Promote Land Value Taxation and Free Trade which is to be held at Edinburgh in the summer of 1929.

There has been a large circulation in Great Britain of a speech by Philip Snowden, formerly Chancellor of the the Exchequer in the Labor Government of 1924 in which he presents the land value taxation doctrine mostly clearly and vigorously.

He is expected to be at this anniversary dinner and so of course will be present Andrew MacLaren and other members of parliament. It promises to be a notable occasion, and to put some pep into some of the Land Tax advocates in parliament who are very lazy in their advocacy.

The Land Taxation Movement in Great Britain needs somebody to do for it what Mrs. Pankhurst did for the Women's Suffrage Cause. Members of Parliament were then convinced, but they would not act. Members of Parliament today are convinced, but they will not act. Where is the leader that will do for the Taxation of Land Value what Mrs. Pankhurst did for Suffrage?