This in effect, if not in exact words, Mr. Spencer cer tainly does say in Chapter XXI., Section 8, in combating the doctrine of non-resistance. He declares all coercion immoral in itself, but (using the same terms in the same sense as Mr. Laidler) justifies government when "it uses wrong to put down wrong." He adds:

The principle of non-resistance is not ethically true, but only that of non-aggression. . . . We may not carelessly abandon our rights. We may not give away our birthright for the sake of peace. We may not be passive under aggression. In due maintenance of our claim is involved the practicability of all our duties. . . . If we allow ourselves to be deprived of that without which we cannot fulfil the Divine will, we virtually negative that will.

I thus take the trouble to refresh Mr. Spencer's memory and vindicate Mr. Laidler, for, although the latter gentleman was allowed one letter in the Times, it was afterwards that the question was raised by Mr. Greenwood, and I do not suppose that Mr. Laidler got another chance, the Times speaking of him contemptuously, as a Mr. Laidler, and printing his letter in smaller type, although it was he who first brought out Mr. Spencer, and provoked the whole discussion.

Mr. Laidler's letter, of which neither party to the controversy seemed to care to take notice, was published by the Times on the same day as Mr. Spencer's second letter. He said

To the Editor of the Times.

SIR: As one of the deputation of members of the Newcastle Labor Electoral Organization who recently waited upon Mr. John Morley, M.P., to ascertain his opinion on certain political and social topics, I was intrusted by my fellow-members of the deputation with the question of the nationalization of the land, and this subject I discussed with Mr. Morley. In doing so, I sought to back up my position by quoting the ninth chapter of "Social Statics," by Mr. Herbert Spencer, and I certainly thought I had a good case when I found on my side the most distinguished authority of our

time. To my great surprise, I now find that in the letters which he has addressed to you, Mr. Herbert Spencer appears to be very anxious to repudiate the doctrines which he preached so eloquently in 1850. Now, although it is a common thing for the politician of to-day to repudiate principles and deductions which he formerly warmly espoused and to adopt others which he once energetically condemned, one does not expect the same vacillation on the part of a distinguished philosopher like Mr. Herbert Spencer. I find it difficult to understand his position, which seems to be this—that while adhering to his general principles he abandons certain deductions therefrom. Now, to my mind, the ninth chapter of "Social Statics," which deals with "The Right to the Use of the Earth," seems as true, as logical, and as unanswerable an argument in favor of the nationalization of the land as it doubtless appeared to Mr. Herbert Spencer on the day it was written. Let us trace the course of his argument through the ten sections of which the chapter is composed.

Giving a short abstract of these ten sections of Chapter IX. Mr. Laidler continued

*

In the foregoing digest, beyond one or two connecting words, the language is that of Mr. Herbert Spencer himself. Does it not constitute an unanswerable argument in favor of the nationalization of the land? If the author would permit it to be reprinted, what an admirable tract the ninth chapter of "Social Statics" would be for the propagation of socialistic principles! But he now seems to repudiate the offspring of his own genius! We have, however, a right to ask that, instead of a vague repudiation in general terms, Mr. Herbert Spencer should tell us specifically what deductions he has abandoned and why he has abandoned them. We might then endeavor to answer his answers to his own propositions. Yours,

JOHN LAIDLER, Bricklayer.

How far Mr. Spencer has tried to answer his own propositions, we shall see in "Justice."

Mr. Laidler uses the term "socialistic" in the vague way in which it is so commonly used in England, and doubtless means land nationalization principles.

PART III.

RECANTATION.

I. THE FATE OF "SOCIAL STATICS."

II. THE PLACE OF "JUSTICE" IN THE SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY.

III. THE SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY.

IV. THE IDEA OF JUSTICE IN THE SYNTHETIC PHILOSOPHY.

V. MR. SPENCER'S TASK.

VI. "THE RIGHTS TO THE USES OF NATURAL MEDIA."

VII. "JUSTICE" ON THE RIGHT TO LIGHT AND AIR.

VIII. "JUSTICE" ON THE RIGHT TO LAND.

IX. "JUSTICE" THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY.

X. THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY AND THE RIGHT OF TAXATION.

XI. COMPENSATION.

XII. "JUSTICE" THE LAND QUESTION.

XIII. PRINCIPAL BROWN.

Equity therefore does not permit property in land. . . . Not only have present land tenures an indefensible origin, but it is impossible to discover any mode in which land can become private proprty.. Ethical truth is as exact and as peremptory as physical truth; and that in this matter of land tenure the verdict of morality must be distinctly aye or nay. Either men have a right to make the soil private property, or they have not. There is no medium. We must choose one of the two positions. There can be no half-and-half opinion. In the nature of things the fact must be either one way or the other.-Herbert Spencer, 1850.

WE

CHAPTER I.

THE FATE OF "SOCIAL STATICS."

E now come to the purpose for which the preceding lengthy examination has been made: the consideration of Mr. Spencer's present opinions on the land question, as set forth with all the weight of the "Synthetic Philosophy" in its author's most recent volume, "Justice," which bears date of June, 1891, and was published somewhat later in that year.

But it will be best to break the chronological order, and record here the fate of "Social Statics." Even after Mr. Spencer had made the Times and Mr. Greenwood believe that he had suppressed it years before, that book still continued to be published by Mr. Spencer's authorized publishers, D. Appleton & Co., and their edition of "Justice," published in October, 1891, contains an advertisement of it in its original form. But now, at last, it has been done for. It has not been killed outright; that would be mercy compared with its present fate. It hasand I cannot but feel that "Progress and Poverty," the Edinburgh reviewer, and Mr. John Laidler of Newcastle, have been innocent causes of its fate-it has been disemboweled, stuffed, mummified, and then set up in the gardens of the Spencerian philosophy, where it may be viewed with entire complacency by Sir John and his Grace.