LETTERS ON THE LAND QUESTION. 519 



into the foundations of ethics and the truth of history which the 

 scientific plodders give themselves. 



Now, I do not propose to discuss the ethical assumptions set forth 

 by Mr. Laidler. Let it be granted, for the moment, that " equity 

 does not permit property in land/' and that " men are equally en- 

 titled to the use of the earth." Well, starting from those axioms, 

 I fail to see by what logical process one gets at State ownership. 

 If " equity does not permit property in land/' how does it contrive 

 to permit State ownership ? The State is only a name for a body 

 of men ; and, if " all men are equally entitled to the use of the 

 earth," why have Englishmen any more .right of property in the 

 soil of England than Frenchmen or Germans, or, for the matter 

 of that, the natives of Timbuctoo, have ? 



Thus it is the logical consequence of the doctrine of the Rous- 

 seauites that nations are as much usurpers as individuals, and that 

 there can be no valid title to land until the whole surface of the 

 habitable globe has been thrown into hotchpot, and that share 

 which every man may enjoy the use of, without damage to his 

 neighbors, determined by a cosmopolitan plebiscite. 



Thus, if we are to appeal to logical consequences, those of 

 the principles adopted by Mr. Laidler's authorities are just as 

 startling as those of the principles of the advocates of the " abso- 

 lute " rights of private property. And I would put it to Mr. 

 Laidler, as a man conversant with the practical side of life, 

 whether this does not suggest to his mind that modes of reason- 

 ing which lead to obvious absurdities must be fundamentally 

 vicious ? 



Now let us turn to the historical assumptions of Mr. Laidler's 

 authorities. They affirm that several ownership of land origi- 

 nated in force and fraud whereby the nation, in whom the own- 

 ership was previously vested, was robbed of its rights. And 

 from these data they argue that the nation is justified in " re- 

 suming " its " rights to the soil." 



Now, this is an assertion as to a matter of historical fact 

 which can be tested. In the course of the last thirty years a vast 

 amount of evidence has been obtained respecting the manner in 

 which land is and has been held by people in an early stage 

 of civilization all over the world. And resting on this founda- 

 tion of laboriously ascertained truth, is the conclusion that the 

 tenure of land by communities is that which most extensively 

 prevailed in remote antiquity. What this exactly means will per- 

 haps be best made plain by the supposition that the land in every 

 parish in England was owned, not by one or more private indi- 

 viduals, but by the males of one or more resident families, form- 

 ing a corporation in which the ownership vested. The land of 

 the community, in fact, resembled an entailed estate, which 



