PROPERTY IN LAND

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 14400, 6 July 1912, Page 14

PROPERTY IN LAND

TO 'THK KPITOR OF "THIS I'l'.ES.'."'

Sir.—ln your riub-leadcr of Wednesday, the 3rd instant, on the single-tax, you imply that only the "unthinking" members of the.community could swallow Mr Lloyd George's arguments. You will no doubt admit that Herbert Spencer was a thinker, and a great thinker, and that he was, in the opinion of many competent judges, the greatest thinker of the nineteenth century. This being so, his opinion "of the* matter in hand should carry some weight. ' I quote from the 1863 English reprint of "Social Statics," chapter ',), paragraph 3:— "Passing irom tho consideration of the possible to that of the actual, we find lurthcr reason to deny the rectitude oi property in land. It can never bo pretended "that, the existing titles to such property aro legitimate. Should ■anjone think so, let him look in the Chronicles. Violence, fraud, tho prerogative of force, the claims of superior running—these are the sources to which those titles may be traced. The original deeds were written with tho sword rather than with the pen. Not lawyers, but soldiers were the conveyancers. Blows were the current coin given in payment, and for -seals Mood was used in preference to wax. Could valid clams be thus constituted? Hardly. Anil if not, what becomes ot the pretensions oi all subsequent holders oi estates so obtained? Does sale or bequest generate a right where it did not previously exist.-' Would tho original claimants be non-suited at the bar ot reason, because, the thing stole. 1 , from them hud changed hands? Certainly not! And if ono art 01 transfer can give 110 title, can many? No! Though nothing be mulii&'ied lor ever it will not produce one. i-'ven the law recognises this pnncj'-'le. Au existing holder must, ir railed upon, substantiate the "claims it «hose Loin whom he purchased or inherited his property, and any flaw in the original parchment, oven'though the property should have had a score of intermediate owners, quashes his right. 'But time,' suy some, is a great legalise"'. Immemorial possession must be taken to constitute -a legitimate claim. That which has been held from age to age as .private property and has been bought and sold as such, must now be considered as irrevocably belonging to individuals.' To which proposition a willing assent shall bo given when its prppoiuiders ran assign to it .a definite meaning. To do this, however, they must find satisfactory answers to svcli questions as: How long does it take for what was originally a wrong to grow into a right? At whnt rate ncr annum do invalid claims become valid? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years, how much more perfect toes it become in two thousand year??—and so forth—for the solution of which they will require a new calculus. Whether it may lie expedient to admit claims ol" a certain standing is not to the point. AYe have here nothing t-i «io with the consideration of cony nti-ninl privilege ci legisl it-. c co-ivenieti'.v. We have ■d-'iply to enquire what is the verdict given, by pure equity in the matter, and this verdict enjoins a protest against every existing pretension to the individual possession of tho soil: and dictates the assertion that the right of .mankind at large to the earth' siufi.ee in still vilkl. All deeds, customs nnd laws notwithstanding." .-%

Then-'in paragraph 10. of eh'ipter 9. he sums up the whole .. chapter as follows: —

reviewing the argument, we see that the right of each man to the use of the earth, limited only b« the like rights of his fellow men, is immediately deducible from tho luW of equal freedom. We !see that the maintenance 'of-tlii«- right necessarily forbids private property in land. On examination all existing titles te such r»roticrty turn out to bo invalid. Those founded on reclamation inclusive: It appears-'that npt even an equal sippor•tionment of the earth its in-r habitants could ; generate a legitimate proprietorship. Wo find that if pushed to its ultimate, consequences, n claim to exclusive possession of the soil involves a land-owning despotism. AYe further find that such a claim is constantly denied by enactments of our Legislature, and wo find, lastly, that the theory of co-heirship of all men to the soil is consistent'with'the highest civilisation; and that, however difficult it may be to embody that theory in -fact, equity sternly comman.-Js it to be done." T feel sure that many of the "unthinking" multitude who nccept the above as rtospel will be glad to sue'hot* you can dispose of it.—Yo<irs etc.. TACIHAK.