It will be noticed that Mr. John Laidler, "bricklayer," is disposed to be severe upon Mr. Spencer for having in part abandoned the views expressed by him as long ago as the year 1852, in his work on "Social Statics." It is hardly worth while, however, to be a philosopher if a man can not mature and, if necessary, modify his views as he advances in life and gathers the fruits of experience and reflection. Mr. Spencer long ago recognized that in his "Social Statics" he had expressed himself somewhat unguardedly on the land question; and he has refrained for many years from giving any currency to his earlier opinions on that subject. Had his health permitted, it is not improbable that he would have taken some recent occasion for reviewing the whole question, and giving the world the benefit of his latest thought. As it is, he is obliged to content himself with indicating the germ of truth in his former views, and the modifications and safeguards he would now attach to the enunciation of the general principle which they embodied.
Mr. Frederick Greenwood, who participates in the discussion, undertakes to point a serious moral, to the effect, namely, that philosophers should be careful how they scatter abroad ideas which may serve as the seeds of revolution. The caution reminds us of a famous one given by St. Peter to St. Paul, some of whose writings, the former apostle thought, "the unlearned and the unstable" might "wrest to their own destruction." It was St. Paul, however, with his bent toward philosophy, who moved the ancient world to embrace Christianity. What his critic did in that direction is not very conspicuously recorded on the page of history. Mr. Spencer has labored hard to rationalize the thought of his age, to bring the minds of men into contact with the laws that—whether we recognize them or not—govern human life; and if, by some, his teachings are misunderstood and misapplied, we must judge of his total influence, not by such cases, but by the whole volume of mental activity that owes its origin to his writings.
The general impression which the controversy will leave on the minds of most readers will be, if we mistake not, that the land question is a good one to leave alone—at present. Not that there are not many abuses connected with the tenure of land waiting to be corrected; but that the correction of such abuses can best be accomplished without raising the fundamental question as to whether land can or can not be held by as good a title as chattel property. In this country, a few years ago, we had a slight wave of excitement in connection with the theories propounded in Mr. George's "Progress and Poverty"; but the conviction has been strengthening, we believe, in most thoughtful minds that, plausibly and eloquently and earnestly as Mr. George has presented his ideas, their adoption could only lead to social and political confusion. The world at large will be better when men individually are better; and social justice will reign when individual justice reigns. The land requires to be appropriated to and by individuals in order that the best and most profitable use may be made of it; but it does not follow that the individual occupier should act the part of a tyrant toward his fellow-men. A man may do that without owning a foot of land. Every man who follows a gainful trade or profession has an interest in the land, seeing that those who own and till it, own and till it for him to the extent of the demand expressed by his wages or emoluments. The world wants justice and wants it now; but it would be a poor inauguration of justice to turn title-deeds to which society has given every possible sort of sanction into waste paper, and virtually confiscate the honest earnings, invested in land, of millions of honest men.
