348 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



of his argument through, the ten sections of which the chapter is 

 composed : 



1. Given a race of beings having little claims to pursue the 

 objects of their desires, and a world into which such beings are 

 similarly born, it unavoidably follows that they have equal rights 

 to the use of this world. Conversely, it is manifest that no one, 

 or part of them, may use the earth in such a way as to prevent the 

 rest from similarly using it. 



2. Equity, therefore, does not permit property in land. Other- 

 wise, landless men might equitably be expelled from the earth 

 altogether. 



3. We find yet further reason to deny the rectitude of property 

 in land. Violence, fraud, the prerogative of force, the claims of 

 superior cunning, these are the sources to which titles may be 

 traced. Could valid claims thus be constituted ? Hardly. If not, 

 what becomes of the pretensions of all subsequent holders of 

 estates so obtained ? 



4. Not only have present land tenures an indefensible origin, 

 but it is impossible to discover any mode in which land can be- 

 come private property. Cultivation can not give a legitimate title. 



5. Why not agree to a fair subdivision of the land ? Until we 

 can demonstrate that men born after a certain date should be 

 doomed to slavery, we must consider no such allotment permissible. 



6. Either men have a right to make the soil private property 

 or they have not. No compromise is possible. If they have such 

 a right, then the Duke of Sutherland may justifiably banish High- 

 landers to make room for sheep-walks. 



7. After all, nobody does implicitly believe in landlordism. If 

 a canal, a railway, or a turnpike road is to be made, we do not 

 scruple to seize just as many acres as may be requisite. If we 

 decide that the claims of individual ownership must give way, 

 then we imply that the right of the nation at large to the soil is 

 supreme. 



8. To what does this doctrine, that men are equally entitled to 

 the use of the earth, lead ? Instead of being in the possession of 

 individuals, the country would be held by the great corporate 

 body society. Instead of leasing his acres from an isolated pro- 

 prietor, the farmer would lease them from the nation. Clearly, 

 on such a system, the earth might be inclosed, occupied, and culti- 

 vated in entire subordination to the law of equal freedom. 



9. No doubt great difficulties must attend the resumption, by 

 mankind at large, of their rights to the soil. The question of 

 compensation to existing proprietors is a complicated one one 

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

 But there are others besides the landed class to be considered. 

 The rights of the many are in abeyance. To deprive others of 



