LETTERS ON THE LAND QUESTION. 337 



proprietorship of land, partially or wholly merged in the ownership of dominant 

 men during evolution of the militant type, will be resumed as the industrial type 

 becomes fully evolved (pp. 643-646). 



The use of the words " possible," " possibly," and " perhaps " 

 in the above extracts shows that I have no positive opinion as to 

 what may hereafter take place. The reason for this state of hesi- 

 tancy is that I can not see my way toward reconciliation of the 

 ethical requirements with the politico-economical requirements. 

 On the one hand, a condition of things under which the owner of, 

 say, the Scilly Isles might make tenancy of his land conditional 

 upon professing a certain creed or adopting prescribed habits of 

 life, giving notice to quit to any who did not submit, is ethi- 

 cally indefensible. On the other hand, "nationalization of the 

 land," effected after compensation for the artificial value given 

 by cultivation, amounting to the greater part of its value, would 

 entail, in the shape of interest on the required purchase-money, 

 as great a sum as is now paid in rent, and indeed a greater, con- 

 sidering the respective rates of interest on landed property and 

 other property. Add to which, there is no reason to think that 

 the substituted form of administration would be better than the 

 existing form of administration. The belief that land would be 

 better managed by public officials than it is by private owners is 

 a very wild belief. 



"What the remote future may bring forth there is no saying ; 

 but with a humanity anything like that we now know, the im- 

 plied reorganization would be disastrous. 



I am, etc., Herbert Spencer. 



Athenaeum Club, November GOi. 



MR. GREENWOOD'S LETTER. 



To the Editor of "The Times" : 



Sir: Mr. Herbert Spencer's letter in "The Times" of to-day 

 carries with it a heavy lesson to political philosophers. They are 

 taught to remember that this is an age of popular education, as 

 well as of social unrest ; that their books are read not only by 

 students like themselves, who often find their chief interest in a 

 display of intellectual subtlety or athleticism, but by thousands 

 of men who are ever on the alert for warranted theories of social 

 reform that will better their condition. And if such theories 

 should happen to be ill-considered before publication, or unaccom- 

 panied by a strong and clear recital of whatever reasons are fatal 

 to their application in this work-a-day world, the mischief they 

 may do is enormous. How clearly Mr. Spencer himself must see 

 this now ! And how sorry he must be for having so terribly mis- 

 led, not Mr. Laidler and the Labor party of Newcastle alone that 



