H. SPENCER ON THE LAND QUESTION 337 



worse or less attractive locality. But neither these well- 

 known facts, nor the other fact that, whatever improve- 

 ment there is in the land itself has mostly been effected, 

 not by the landlords but by successive generations of 

 tenants, are much to the purpose ; because, as Mr. Spencer 

 truly states, all the value, by whomsoever created, now 

 vests in the landlords. This has been recognized, and is 

 still recognized, by the law, and by a large preponderance 

 of public opinion, and therefore, I admit, as I think do 

 most land-nationalizers, that it must not be taken from 

 existing owners without reasonable and equitable compen- 

 sation ; and as Mr. Spencer thinks such a vast transaction 

 to be financially impossible, he concludes that " individual 

 ownership must be maintained." 



Before showing how superficial, illogical, and unjust is 

 such a conclusion, we have to note the extraordinary 

 argument set forth in his Appendix B. He there says : 



' * Even supposing that the English as a race gained possession of 

 the land equitably, which they did not ; and even supposing that 

 existing landowners are the posterity of those who spoiled their 

 fellows, which in large part they are not ; and even supposing that 

 the existing landless are the posterity of the despoiled, which in 

 large part they are not ; there would still have to be recognized a 

 transaction that goes far to prevent rectification of injustices." 1 



And what do you think this " transaction " is ? I 

 would give every one of my readers who is not familiar 

 with the work we are discussing half-a-dozen guesses 

 each, and probably not one person would hit upon this 

 stupendous "transaction" which, apparently, in Mr. 

 Spencer's opinion, settles the land question, and forbids 

 all future generations of Englishmen from possessing 

 their native land, the soil of which is to remain the 

 absolute property of existing landlords their heirs, ad- 

 ministrators, or assigns, as the lawyers say for ever. In 

 no other way can I interpret the terrible dictum that it 

 "goes far to prevent the rectification of injustices." This 

 momentous transaction is nothing but our old and too 

 familiar friend, the Poor-rate ! 



Now for the solution of the problem, Mr. Spencer 

 1 Justice, p. 268, 



VOL. II, Z 



