The record-union., 1895-04-12
Herbert Spencers Latest Expression
on the Subject.
He Declares That ''Resumption'' of
Land by the Community is
Now Impolitic.

ent view has been widely ditfused, and
it seems desirable that this misconcep-
ton should be- dissipated by a simple
statement of what the original view was
and what the present view is.
~ | originally contended that the land
could not become individual property,
but was the property of the community,
and that this is, Ill fact, the current legal
doctrine, since the State assumes The
power to appropriate any land 1t pleases
on making compensation, like power
subject to a like condition being, be-
lieVe, asserted in the American Constitu-
ton, as interpreted by the Supreme
Court. This doctrine l continue to hold,
and in Justice | have not only adhered
TO ii, but have emphasized it and
strengthened it by numerous facts, show
ing what is the tenure of land in early
communities, and that such tenure is of
the kind alleged-ownership by the
community. In these passages it is
shown that among the uncivilized
the private ownership of land is
unknown; that originally among
| the civilized the relation of men to the
| soil was one of joint ownership and not
one of individual ownership; that the
cause of the change from this original
state must have been the exercise of di
rect or indirect force-sometime internal
| but chiefly externaI"; that in England
| mo absolute ownership OF land is recog
| niZed by our law books except in the
! Crown; and that the changes which
have replaced the supreme power of the
! monarch by the supreme power OF the
| people have, by implication, replaced the
| monarch's supreme ownership Of the
| land by the peoples supreme ownership
! of the land" Here, then, there is not the
| least surrendering of the original doc
trine, but rather an enforcement of it.
~ Along with this assertion OF the
iolai off ha mir to 1 ta1
in Social States" | made the further as
sertion that the private owner has claim
| 10 all that value given to the land by
| clearing, draining, cultivation, and all
| the appliances standing upon it for carry
| ing on food production. Here are two
passages from the chapter on The Right
TO the Use OF the Earth" clearly showing
this:
(d) "Well, but surely you would not
! eject me without making some recon-
'pense for the great additional value
! have given to this tract, by reducing
| what was a wilderness into fertile lands.
| You would not turn me adrift and de-
prive me of all the benefit of those years
OF toll it has cost me TO bring this spot
| into its present state.
''Of course not; just as in the case of a
! house, you would have an equitable title
to compensation from the proprietor for
repairs and new fittings, so the COM
]
| this estate without paying for all that
you have done to it. This extra worth
which your labor has impaired to it is
| fairly yours; and although you have,
| without leave, busted yourself in better
! ing what belongs to the community, no
doubt the community will duly dis
/ charge your claim. But admitting this is
quite different thing from recognizing
your right TO the land itself 1t may be
true that you are entitled to compensa-
| ton for the improvements this incIosure
! has received at your hands, and at the
same time it may be equally true that no
act, form, proceeding or ceremony can
make this lnclosure your private prop
erty.
! t6) But, unfortunately, most of our
! present landowners are men who have,
either mediately or Immediately either
| by their own acts or by the acts of their
ancestors-given for their estates equiv
alents Of honestly earned wealth. believ-
| ing that they were investing their savings
IN legitimate manner. To justly esti-
mate and lIQuldate the claims of Such is
one of the most intricate problems soci-
ETY. will one day have TO solve But with
! this perpleXlty and our eXtricatiOn from
| it abstract morality has no concern.
! Men having got themselves into the di-
lemma by disobedience to the law, must
get out of it as well as they can, and with
be-"
The view thus set forth in Social
States" is the view still held by me.
Here again there is no change.
90 What then is the change? OF course
when, in Social Statics," resumption of
| the land by the community was shown
| TO be equitable and advocated as desir-
able, 1t was on the assumption that the
| transaction, after making compensation
! would leave a balance of benefit to the
community. 1t is clear that if | had
thought that the change, though equit-
able, would entail loss on the commu-
nifty, | should not have held that the COM
munity ought to bring this loss upon it.
self, but should have held that though, as
| a matter of abstract equity il might
| properly retake possession of the land it
would be impolitic to do this if the bur
! den Of compensation would outweigh the
| benefit OF possession. But of late years
on thinking over the matter, it has be-
| come clear TO me that the burden of COM
pensation would outweigh the benefit of
| possession, II the compensation were any
| thing like equitable in amount. Hence |
have come 10 the conclusion that the
change Of tenure from private to public
would oe lmpoiitic. Respecting my
original view in social Staticsn | have
said: Moreover, L did not clearly see
what would be implied by the giving of
| compensation for all that value which the
labor of ages has given to the land"
a. 1t is true that in further qualifica-
ton of my original view / have pointed
out (more especially referring to Eng
| land) the untruth OF the prevailing as
sumption that the existing landowners
are either those who made the misappro-
| priation or the descendants OF those who
made it, and have further pointed out
that among the people who are supposed
to be robbed exist in large measure those
who are the descendants of the robbers:
and that thus the anger everywhere fos-
| tered is misdirected. And l have also
! pointed out (again in respect of England}
| that If anything like the proposed restor-
alton were to be carried out it would re-
! quire that England should be handed
! over to the Celts of Wales and Scotland.
as the only people who have any claim
Though disputable claim to be regarded
as original proprietors. 1t is also true
| that L have pointed out to how large an
extent in England. since the reign
of Elizabeth, the landless class has
shared IN the produce of the land
under the poor law, and that there
| fore, if we go back upon the past this
! fact must be taken into account. But
all these further Considerations are mt
| in the form of difficulties in the way of a
! change, and are not at all held to inyali-
date the two original propositions-(ll
that the land itself belongs to the COM
munity, and (2) that it can not be resumed
by The community without compensa-
ton for the artificial value given to 1t.