While Dove is not so elaborate as Spencer, he is clearer in distinctly disclaiming the idea of compensation, and in proposing to take ground rent for public purposes by taxation, abolishing all other taxes. His book must have done some good work on the minds it reached, but it passed out of print and was practically forgotten.

"Social Statics," however, had a happier fate in passing over to the United States. Among those early attracted by Mr. Spencer's writings was the late Professor E. L. Youmans, who in 1861-62 sought his acquaintance and entered into correspondence with him. Professor Youmans's tireless energy, backed by the resources of the strong publishing house of D. Appleton & Co. of New York, with which he was connected, was thenceforward devoted to the task of popularizing Mr. Spencer and his teachings in the United States. Through the efforts of Professor Youmans, D. Appleton & Co. arranged with Mr. Spencer for the publication of his books, and in 1864, making stereotype plates, they re-issued "Social Statics," and from that time forward kept it in print; and as may be seen, both from the preface of 1877 in their edition of "Social Statics" and from the preface to the abridgment of 1892, such English demand as existed was supplied by the sending-over of sheets printed by them1-a more economical arrangement than that of printing a book of small circulation on

1 A number of years passed some ten, I think before the edition was exhausted; and as the demand seemed not great enough to warrant the setting up of type for a new edition, it was decided to import an edition from America, where the work had been stereotyped. After this had been disposed of a third edition was similarly imported. — Preface to "Social Statics Abridged and Revised," 1892.

both sides of the Atlantic. Thus in a larger sphere it continued to circulate, mainly in the United States (where Mr. Spencer's reputation, aided by the active work of Professor Youmans, grew first in popular estimation), and to some small extent at least in Great Britain. But the radical utterances on the land question that it contained gave no evidence of attracting active interest or passing for more than an academic opinion.

Between 1850 and 1882, during the greater part of which time Mr. Spencer was engaged in developing his evolution philosophy, nothing more that I am aware of was heard from him on the land question. But "Social Statics," in the United States at least, increased in circulation as Mr. Spencer's reputation grew, and its declarations continued to stand for his opinions without even a suggestion of change. Several prefaces, or notes, were from time to time added, but none indicating any modification of views with regard to the land question. The last of these was dated January 17, 1877. In this, certain changes in Mr. Spencer's opinions as to teleological implications, the political status of women, the useful effects of war, etc., are noted, but there is no modification of the radical utterances as to the tenure of land. On the contrary, he says:

To the fundamental ethical principle expressing in its abstract form what we know as justice I still adhere. I adhere also to the derivative principles formulated in what are commonly called personal rights, of this or that special kind.

In "Political Institutions," which, after some magazine publications of chapters, was finally published

in book form in the early part of 1882, Mr. Spencer again spoke of the tenure of land, and in a way that would lead any one acquainted with his previous fuller treatment of the subject to understand that he still adhered to all that he had said in "Social Statics."

"Political Institutions," like the other divisions of "The Principles of Sociology" to which it belongs, is "in part a retrospect and in part a prospect. First explaining in accordance with his general theory how social institutions have been evolved, Mr. Spencer proceeds to indicate what he thinks will be the course of their further evolution. In the chapter on "Property," after some pages of examination he says, (Section 539):

Induction and deduction uniting to show as they do that at first land is common property, there presents itself the question - How did the possession of it become individualized? There can be little doubt of the general nature of the answer. Force, in one form or other, is the sole cause adequate to make the members of a society yield up their joint claim to the area they inhabit. Such force may be that of an external aggressor or that of an internal aggressor: but in either case it implies militant activity.

Having thus repeated in a form adapted to the character of the book the declaration of "Social Statics" that the original deeds to private property in land were written with the sword, he proceeds to develop it, showing by the way a comprehension of the fact that the feudal tenures did not recognize the private property in land which has grown up since, or, as he phrases it, that "the private land-ownership established by militancy is an incomplete one," being

qualified by the claims of serfs and other dependants, and by obligations to the crown or state, and saying:

In our own case the definite ending of these tenures took place in 1660; when for feudal obligations (a burden on landowners) was substituted a beer-excise (a burden on the community).

From this, in a passage which will hereafter appear,1 he proceeds to consider what is likely to be the future evolution of land tenure. Saying that "ownership established by force does not stand on the same footing as ownership established by contract," he likens individual property in land to property in slaves, and intimates that as the one has disappeared so the other will doubtless disappear, to make place for landholding "by virtue of agreements between individuals as tenants and the community as land-owner, . . . after making full allowance for the accumulated value artificially given."

This is a re-statement of what was said in Section 9 of "Social Statics," where, speaking of the once universal assumption that slavery was natural and right and the better faith that had been generated, he adds:

It may by-and-by be perceived that equity utters decrees to which we have not yet listened, and men may then learn that to deprive others of their rights to the use of the earth is to commit a crime inferior only in wickedness to the crime of taking away their lives or personal liberty.

Thus, in so far as was consistent with the very different scope and character of the book, Mr. Spencer

1 See Mr. Spencer's letter to the Times, pp. 98-9.

repeated in March, 1882, the views on the land question that he had set forth in 1850. And in this connection the words I have italicized are noteworthy as showing what was really meant in that incongruous passage in "Social Statics" previously discussed.

With this re-assertion in "Political Institutions of the views on the land question set forth in "Social Statics we must draw a line in our review.