They were more and more recognized in jurisprudence and in education; they had given birth also to eleemosynary institutions; but the fact that men are brothers had been supposed until now to have no connection with the question of labor and capital and the distribution of wealth, matters which belonged entirely to the domain of political economy, which Mr. Mill says is concerned with man "solely as a being who desires to possess wealth. It makes entire abstraction of every other human passion and motive."

This "dismal science," ignoring all other ethical considerations and treating the mass of men as "dumb driven cattle," fell into deserved contempt.

A newer and truer political economy is now announced, which rejects the Roman and accepts the Christian idea of property which makes it a trust imposing obligations. The new philosophy declares with God, that "No man liveth unto himself;" that is, society has valid claims upon every man, and this claim extends to property, the title to which therefore cannot be absolute.

Dr. Josiah Strong touches hard pan when he says, "What is needed is not simply an increased giving, an enlarged estimate of the Lord's share, but a radically different. conception of our relations to our possessions." 2 He says a great majority treat their property as if it were their own. The Christian idea of property is based on the command, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." If this means anything, it means that property should instantly respond to the necessities of a neighbor; that so sure as I am bound to love him, he has a right to be loved; and this duty on my part and right on his have a real and vital connection with the production, distribution, and consumption of wealth. This is the marrow of the social question, which is simply an attempt to realize the Christian idea of property, founded upon the great principle of human brotherhood, in the industrial affairs of life.

The present industrial system, root and branch, is a development of the Roman idea of property, which is now

1 As quoted in "The Wages Question " (Walker), p. 366.

2" Our Country," p. 183.

as never before felt to be anti-Christian. The new ethical conception of love and fraternity is irreconcilably opposed to this pagan view of property, hence the conflict.

In the light of these principles, look now at land monopoly. Great Britain is owned by a mere handful of her citizens. England and Wales contain about 37,243,859 acres about the same as the States of New York, New Jersey, and Delaware. One man owns 186,397 acres, or one two-hundredth of the whole, and less than five hundred men own more than one-half of the whole. The condition of Scotland is still worse. Of her 18,946,694 acres, one man owns 1,000,326 acres, which is equal to the whole State of Rhode Island, together with all of Massachusetts from Fall River to the end of Cape Cod. Twenty-four men own one-fourth of all Scotland. Ireland contains 20,159,687 acres, of which one person owns 170,119. Of the 35,000,000 inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland, two-thirds of her territory is held by 12,489 persons, leaving 34,987,502, or substantially the whole population, shut out from the greater part of the land, and at the mercy of a privileged few.

Dr. A. J. F. Behrends thus indorses a truth that is nothing less than frightful. "The ownership of land carries with it the ownership of all that the land produces and of all who live upon it." 1 Aside from the three or four million of smaller holders of land these 12,489 British Landlords may say to over 30,000,000 landless men and women, "Get off my land;" and enforce their decrees with all the muskets and bayonets of the nation. But where shall the poor people go? There is not a foot of unclaimed land. The owners will not sell, and, if they would, the people have not the means with which to buy. Plainly the people must escape into the air or sea. Is it any wonder they are crying out,

'Which way I fly is hell; myself am hell.'"

The average man in Great Britain to-day has no right to walk the earth, much less to pluck the fruits thereof; that 1 "Socialism and Christianity," p. 87.

is, he has no right to live, save by the sufferance of a landed aristocracy; and, what is worst of all, there is a tendency to the still greater concentration of the land.

This is why Socialists demand the abolition of private property in land, because, as Dr. Berhends says, "The ownership of the land carries with it the ownership of all that the land produces and of all who live upon it." We have italicized the last clause, because it is an admission of the tremendous charge of labor; namely, the industrial slavery of the masses inevitably resulting from private property in land. The admission is significant, because made by a keen observer, a philosophical writer, and independent thinker.

We should do him injustice, however, not to add that the above declaration was made in defence of private property, and especially in attempting to show the inconsistency of Henry George, in declaring that, "The pen with which I write is justly mine," while claiming that the land from which it originally sprung was stolen property. Dr. Behrends shows that if the land was stolen property, all that springs from it is stolen property, including the pen of Mr. George, which cannot therefore be justly his own. He seems to think the refutation complete, but he has not touched the thought of George, and the fallacy of his argument will be obvious at a glance. Mr. George is trying to show that an individual may have exclusive right to what he produces, but not to what God has made for all men. As to the pen, Mr. George does not say, as his opponent assumes, that the land from which it sprung was stolen property; it might have been land not yet appropriated, or, if appropriated, the owner, without regard to his title, would have the same right to obtain materials for the pen which George claims all men have — that is, a common right.

Thus the argument that "the partaker is as bad as the thief" falls to the ground. Moreover, Dr. Behrends, in attempting to refute George, virtually admits the principle for which George is contending; namely, that private property in land is unjust. He says, "The ownership of land carries with it the ownership of all that the land produces

and of all who live upon it." Looking at the earth to-day he is bound to substitute for, "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," the earth is the landlord's and the people thereof.

If this be true, if the masses doomed to live on the land of others are in any sense the legitimate property of the landowners, and must suffer all that this economical and social bondage implies, then private ownership in land is the most economically indefensible, politically dangerous, socially hateful, morally rotten, and religiously damnable institution ever devised by human selfishness and tyranny.

There is no swifter enemy of injustice than the author of "Socialism and Christianity;" but his theory of ownership, based on the Roman, rather than the Christian, idea of property, has, it seems to us, led him into grievous error. In perfect harmony with this heathen conception, he says, "Individual ownership" can "pertain to land."

He preaches, however, another doctrine; to wit: "The earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." He says if there cannot be individual ownership "man cannot own himself." He preaches, however, that no man can own himself, "Ye are not your own, for ye are bought with a price."

He says again, "Possession cannot be defended when ownership is denied." He preaches, however, that men are only tenants, whose duty is merely to "occupy till I come," which renders possession without ownership defensible. Is it replied, these are considerations that belong to the Christian religion, and the gospel of love, and not to the present industrial system and the gospel of private monopoly? Or shall it be said that ownership is against our fellow-men and not as against God? We reply, let us be done with this heathen, mammonistic, and caste conception of religion which allows us to honor God by injuring our fellow-men. He serves God best who serves man best. These words of the eminent divine sound like an echo from feudalistic times. Guizot says, one of the three essential factors of feudalism was "the amalgamation of sovereignty with property, the attribution to the proprietor of the

soil over all its inhabitants, of the rights which constitute what we call sovereignty."1

Laborers do not generally live on their own land, and it sounds strangely to hear from a minister of the gospel of love and equality that on that account they belong to the owner of the soil, and it sounds still more strangely to hear him defend this principle.

If we belong to God, our property belongs to Him. But God has no use either for us or our property except for the good of our fellow-man. In an important sense, therefore, we and all we possess belong to our neighbors. If God is our Father, men are brethren, and brethren have claims upon each other.

Imagine twelve brethren who set out to gather nuts, their only means of subsistence. They join forces, because singly they could do nothing. On returning from their labor, in which each has done his best, they prepare the nuts for eating, and seat themselves at the family table; whereupon one of them scoops up nine-tenths of the nuts, saying, "These are mine; I gathered them, owing to my superior skill and strength. I have a longer arm and am taller than you, and so could reach branches that none of you could reach.

"You saw how skilfully I balanced myself, standing on a limb, so that I could pick with both hands, while you could use only one hand.

"My strength enabled me to shake limbs that you could not move. Yes, I must have nine-tenths of the product. I know, dear brothers, you will go hungry, while I have more than enough. I admit that you have all worked as hard as I have and deserve as much. I pity you; but individual ownership is sacred. These nuts belong to me and to our Heavenly Father, and you must starve."

Thereupon these brethren cry out grievously in their distress. They appeal to the Law for help; it replies, "Touch one mouthful of these nuts, and you go to jail." They turn to Political Economy; it says, "Political Economy is concerned with man solely as a being who desires to possess wealth."

1 American Cyclopædia, title, " Feudal System." 2 John Stuart Mill.