Property and Inheritance. 29
nf
ing
SO
the
ty.
art
the
om
1ls
ay
BN
as
for
be
id
at.
re
er
on
ng
he
ar
on
of
es
ht
at
tO
on
28,
ct
of
18
generation, to enforce a continual redistribution of
property, and to substitute a large number of small
fortunes for a small number of large fortunes. The
rate of change would be set by the scale adopted,
and the steepness of the scale would depend on the
strength of society’s desire for equality.
Mill found himself, in putting forward this proposal,
faced with a difficulty he could not overcome. At
that time his proposal would have involved the break-
ing up of the unity of large industrial enterprises.
Since his time the development of joint stock has
removed the difficulty. The separation of the
ownership of capital from the administration of
industry has made possible any division of the former
without affecting the unity of the latter.
Property and Equality.
Mill’s proposal, so far as I know, failed entirely to
secure consideration. No country or party has
deliberately adopted a policy of equalising property.
It is not that the principle of compulsory division
at death is novel ; it is well-established in the practice
of other countries, though not with the direct object
of promoting equality. Nor are the administrative
difficulties insuperable ; most of them have already
been faced and overcome in the administration of
the Estate Duties; evasion by gifts inter vivos
would promote rather than prevent the object of
this reform. It would seem that the distinction
between the effects of the property right as such
and the effects of the inequality of its distribution
has escaped politicians. The defenders of property
are, in the main, the defenders of inequality ; the
advocates of equality have given up all hope of
reforming property, and thrown in their lot with the
authoritarian reformers who seek to abolish it.