5 20 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



should be inherited by all the males of a family collectively, they 

 being forbidden to alienate any portion of it. 



This " joint family " or " village community " system, there- 

 fore, so far from denying the right of several property in land, 

 is founded upon that right. Assuredly, our ancestors did not 

 trouble themselves much about the philosophical foundations of 

 property. But I am well assured that if any one had tried to 

 persuade a village community that all mankind had as much 

 right as they to their land, that missionary of " absolute political 

 ethics " would have been short-lived. 



It may be said that I have been talking about the archaic ex- 

 istence of " several " property in land, while the question is about 

 " personal " property. But is that so ? Are the land reformers 

 going to exempt corporate several ownerships in land, when they 

 abolish personal ownerships ? If so will they explain why cor- 

 porate several ownership is less an infringement of the rights of 

 mankind in general than personal ownership ? But if corporate 

 several ownership is not " permitted by equity " any more than 

 personal property if the archaic communities had no more valid 

 title than the squires who have succeeded them whence comes 

 the evidence that those rights of " mankind at large " to the use 

 of the soil, which we are told they are to " resume," ever existed ? 



Let us, then, clear our minds of all the cant of " history after 

 the manner of Rousseau." Genuine history shows that, as far 

 back as the constitution of settled society can be safely traced, 

 several property in land was recognized and acted upon. It also 

 affords much ground for the belief that individual property was 

 recognized in the case of the clearer of forest land ; that either 

 individual or family several property was recognized in the case 

 of the plot of land in which the house was situated ; and that, in 

 bringing about the change from collective to individual sever- 

 alty, industrialism has been just as important a factor as milita- 

 rism. State ownership may be right or wrong, but those who sup- 

 pose it to be a resumption by the people of a right they ever 

 exercised, or even claimed, are at variance with the plainest teach- 

 ings of history. 



I am, sir, your obedient servant, T. H. Huxley. 



Eastbourne, November 19th. 



P. S. Mr. Spencer, in the letter which you publish to-day, 

 says that he learns from me that " the principles of physiology, 

 as at present known, are of no use whatever for guidance in prac- 

 tice." I think that Mr. Spencer must have achieved this feat of 

 learning by his favorite a priori method, for nothing of the kind 

 is discoverable by mere observation and deduction in what I have 

 said. No phrase of mine is inconsistent with my belief that the 

 principles of physiology, like those of ethics, are of great use, so 



