Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1881-04-09
REVIEW OF BOOKS.

D. Appleton S Co.
In this pamphlet MIR. George has utilized
the Irish land question to further his special
views upon the general land question. He
sets out with an affirmation of the statement
of Mr.. Justice Fitzgerald that the land laws
of Ireland are more favorable to the tenant
than those of Great Britain, Belgium, or the
United States, and he proceeds to demon.
strate the correctness of this assertion. He
claims that as regards tenant rights the Irish
have absolutely less ground for protest than
the American people; that their tenure is
practically identical with our own that, in
effect, " the Irish land system, which is so
"much talked of as though it were some
peculiarly atrocious system. is essentially
" the same land system which prevails in all
" civilized countries, which we of the United
I" States have accepted unquestioningly, and
"have extended over the whole temperate
" zone of new continent-the same system
(which all over the civilized world men
are accustomed to consider natural and
lated to please the Land Leaguers, and it in
wolves also a sharp rebuke of those American
politicians who, in the House of Representa-
tives not long ago passed resolution con-
demning Great Britain for not amending
the Oppressive land laws of Ireland; the
said Representatives according to Mr.. George,
being stupidity ignorant of the fact that they
could not condemn the Irish land laws with
out condemning their own in the same breath.
Mr.. George puts the question boldly
" " hat would the Irish landlords lose, what
=" would the Irish tenants gain, if, to.mor-
" row, ireland were made a State in the
" Union, and American law substituted for
" English law" And he answers it by saying
:" The truth is that the gain would be to the
" landlords, the loss to the tenants" II will
be gathered from these indications that our
author does not believe in any of the rene.
dies for Irish discomfort which have been
proposed, and this will not surprise such as
have read his book, Progress and Poverty
His theory Is that all the political and nearly
all the social ills which afiict society are due,
directly or indirectly, to private ownership
in land. He holds that this system of land
tenure ought to be abolished, and he propose;
the straightforward and easily Ineligible
method Of confscation as the best means Of
accomplishing his object. In the present
instance he seeks to apply this proposition tc
fka IS Tra1 L., g
be argues, belongs to the whole people. Ii
should therefore be restored to them. If il
belongs to them, however, the present holder;
can have no right to it, and consequently car
have no title to compensation. Therefore il
ought to be taken from them without com
pensation, and thenceforth held by the State
for the whole people, and never again parted
with permanently to any one. OF course
Mr.. George maintains that this method
should be applied all over the world, and he
merely avails himself of the case Of Irelanc
to point his argument, and TO demonstrate
the futility Of all the remedies which have
hitherto been proposed by the Land Leagues
aud all who have undertaken to discuss the
question.
The pamphlet is written with great elo
quence, force, felicity of illustration and
picturesdueness of style. 1t is due to Mr.,
George TO say that however we may disagree
with his conclusions it is impossible not tc
admire and take pleasure ia his mode Of
writing In the present instance, however,
perhaps owing to the necessary condensa.
ton of the argument. some of the propositions
which appeared to us most defective in his
larger work, stand out with quite startling
deformity. Before noticing these, however
it may be well to state succinctlY the extent tc
which his position ON the land question seems
justified by reason, experience and author
ity. The right of private ownership in lane
has almost always been treated
by economists with exceptions and reserva
tions, and for obvious reasons. If any natural
rights are postulated, the right of existence
must be held to involve the right to main.
tain existence. But without land Chico.
retically at leastl this would be impossible
And if private ownership in land is per.
Missile in equity, then it is clear that the
whole surface of the earth might be claimed
by half the human race, to the absolute ex.
clusion and consequent destruction of the
other half. The assumption of natural rights
therefore, necessitates the assumption that
private ownership in land is inadmissible.
1t is true that a great deal may be said or
the other side. The assumption of natural
rights is one which will not bear too close an
alysis. When people are making serious
argument they cannot be permitted to base il
upon a supposition as to what God or Nature
or whatever the first cause may be styled, in.
tended. When, for instance, Mr. George
says "The earth is an entailed estate-en.
tailed upon all the generations of the chill
dren of men, by deed written in the con.
"stitution OF Nature, a deed that no human
proceedings can bar, and no prescription
determine his language carrys absolutely
no Ineligible meaning. What does he mean
by the constitution of Nature? 2" So far as
anyone can say, Nature, meaning the aggre.
gate of existing phenomena, has conferred
neither rights nor privileges, in the common
sense of those words, upon any creature. TIC
say that Man inherits the Earth is rhetorical
it is not philosophical. As fact man does
not inherit the earth any more than the
horses or the cows or the lions OF
the elephants inherit it. He has
certain capacities and powers, which. accord.
ing to circumstances, he may or may not be
able to turn to beneficial account. But il
we question Nature as to the meaning of hel
institutions she is silent and if we question
experience we can only gather the conclusion
that there are no such things as natural
rights, but that every creature is the slave
of circumstance, and that the control of cir.
cumstance is beyond human capacity. Those
who talk most glibly about natural rights dc
not, as rule, know what they are thinking
of. Fitz-James Stephen observes that 'As
50 against God or fate, whichever YOU please.