The Sunday herald. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1866-1887, 1883-03-11
HerbeEt Spencer ana the Hand Ques-
linn

Mr.. Herbert Spencer sends to the ST. iumss'S
Ga.stts (LOndon) the following communication, ex-
planatory TO his views on the ownership Of land
During my absence In America there appeared
in the 81. Jdes'S Gn=ets l27th Of october iss2) an
article entitled Mr. Herbert Spencer's Political The
cries Though, when IL was pointed ont to me afTar
my return, felt prompted to say something in expa-
nation OF my Views, should probably have let the
matter pass mad not found that elsewhere such seri-
GUS misapprehensiOns Of them are being dused that
rectihcatiUn seems imperative. Before commenting
on the statements of your contributor, must devote
paragraph to certain more recent statements which
have far less justification.
lin old days among the Persians the suboTdina.
tiOn Oi subjects 20 ruler was extreme that, even
Wneh punished the subject thanked the ruler for
taking notice Of hn. with like humility | suppose
that now, when after have been publishing books for
third OF a century the leading critical organ Ias
recognized nv existence ought to feel thankful even
though the recognition draws forth nothing save
blame. Bat such eiutiUn as might otherwise he ex-
pected to feel Is checked by two Facts. One is that
the Edat'Tgh Rs0ieto has not itself discovered we,
but has had its attention drawn ms by quotations
in the work Of Mr. Henry George work which |
closed after few minutes on finding how visionary
were It's ideas. The other is that though there has
Deeh mus made Known the 0fa book of mine
mine published thiry-twO years which have with
drawn from circulation In England andOf which have
nerdicted transatUns, he is apparently unconscious
that have written other hooks sundry of them poti-
cal aad especially he seems not to know that the last
Of them, Political Institutions, contains passages
concerning the question lie discusses. Writers IN
critical Journals which have regulations TO lose usually
seek out the latest version OF an author views, and
the more conscientious among them take the trouble
TO ascertain whether the constructions they put de-
tached passages are warranted or not by other pas
sages. Had the Edinburgh reviewer read even the
next chapter to the one FROM which he quotes he
would nave seen tha so lar tromRttacking the right
OF private property as he represents, my aim is to put
that right upon all unquestionable basis the basis
alleged By Locke being unsatisfactory He would
have further seen that far from giving any couute
nancetO communistc doctrines, have devoted four
sections of that chapter to the REPUTATION of them.
Had he dipped into the latter part OF the work had
he consulted the more recently published Study OF
Sociology and Political Institutions, lie woud not
have ieckessly coupled with Mir Gorge uphold
ing the doctrines Of communism fatal alike to the
welfare OF society and TO the moral character of man.
for lie would have discovered the fact lamiliar TO
many though unknown TO him) that much current
legislation is regarded by cOnInunistiC and is
for this reason condemned as socially Injurious and
individually degrading.
rhe of the article In the S. Jamess GAZETTE
does not represent the facts correctly when he says
that the view concerning ownership Of land IN Social
States is again eNpounded in Political Institu-
tiohs - nor 50 Iulyi but WIN rs much confidence
as ever In this last work have said that, though
indusiialism has thus far tended ndyldual2e pos
session OF lahd, while indivdualiEing all other pos
session. 1t "taB b. doubted whether the final stage is
at present reached Further on have said that at
stage still more advanced, Il may be that private
ownership OF land Will disappear and that III seems
posTittS thar the primitive ownership of land
Ana g yet aEan have said T hat Es the
right OF the community to the land, thus
tacitly asserted, win IN time De overly
serted NOW II seems TO he that the words 1 have
itallcisedimply hogreat confidence. Contrariwise
think they show quite clearly that the opinion
Feyeh is tentative one lhe tact Is that have here
expressed myself In way much more qualified than
Is usual with me; because do not how certain
tendencies, which are apparently conflicting, VIII
eventually work out The purely ethical view OF the
matter does not obviously harmonic with the political
and The politicO- economical Views some OF the ap-
parent incongrutIes being vi the SIND indicated by
your contributor.
''This is not the place to repeat my reasons for
thinking that the present system VIII not he the uti-
mate system. Nor do propose to consider the OH
stacies, doubtless great which stand In the way OF
change. All when wish here TO point out is that
my opinion is by no means positive one; and fur.
lher that regard tue question as one to be dealt
with ia the future rather than at present These two
things the quotations have given above prove con
cluslyely.