LETTERS ON THE LAND QUESTION 335 



have said things which I have not said, I find it needful to say- 

 something in explanation. 



Already within these few years I have twice pointed out that 

 these opinions (made to appear by those who have circulated them 

 widely different from what they really are, by the omission of ac- 

 companying opinions) were set forth in my first work, published 

 forty years ago ; and that, for the last twelve or fifteen years, I 

 have refrained from issuing new editions of that work and have 

 interdicted translations, because, though I still adhere to its gen- 

 eral principles, I dissent from some of the deductions. 



The work referred to " Social Statics " was intended to be a 

 system of political ethics absolute political ethics, or that which 

 ought to be, as distinguished from relative political ethics, or that 

 which is at present the nearest practicable approach to it. The 

 conclusion reached concerning land-ownership was reached while 

 seeking a valid basis for the right of property : the basis assigned 

 by Locke appearing to me invalid. It was argued that a satisfac- 

 tory ethical warrant for private ownership could arise only by con- 

 tract between the community, as original owner of the inhabited 

 area, and individual members, who became tenants, agreeing to 

 pay certain portions of the produce, or its equivalent in money, in 

 consideration of recognized claims to the rest. And in the course 

 of the argument it was pointed out that such a view of land-own- 

 ership is congruous with existing legal theory and practice ; since 

 in law every land-owner is held to be a tenant of the Crown that 

 is, of the community, and since, in practice, the supreme right of 

 the community is asserted by every Act of Parliament which, 

 with a view to public advantage, directly or by proxy takes pos- 

 session of land after making due compensation. 



All this was said in the belief that the questions raised were 

 not likely to come to the front in our time or for many genera- 

 tions ; but, assuming that they would some time come to the front, 

 it was said that, supposing the community should assert overtly 

 the supreme right which is now tacitly asserted, the business of 

 compensation of land-owners would be a complicated one : 



One that perhaps can not be settled in a strictly equitable manner. . . . Most 

 of our present land-owners are men who have, either mediately or immediately, 

 either by their own acts or by the acts of their ancestors, given for their estates 

 equivalents of honestly earned wealth, believing that they were investing their 

 savings in a legitimate manner. To justly estimate and liquidate the claims 

 of such is one of the most intricate problems society will one day have to 

 solve. 



To make the position I then took quite clear, it is needful to 

 add that, as shown in a succeeding chapter, the insistence on this 



is anything but what it was called the other day either robbery or folly. I have really no 

 more to say on that subject. 



