PROFESSOR HUXLEY ON "PROGRESS AND POVERTY."

Timaru Herald, Volume L, Issue 4829, 28 April 1890, Page 4

PROFESSOR HUXLEY ON "PROGRESS AND POVERTY."

The following is an extract from an article byJProfeasorHuxley in the Nineteenth Century, in which he criticises Mr George's work " Progress and Povorty " : — Lot C3 assume for the sale of argumont, not oi;ly that labour is tho ' only' title to exclusive possession, but the foundation of this title lies in the right of a man to himself ; in which 13, somewhat sophi=tically, included, the right to tho u?o of hia own powera and the enjoTment of thu fruit of his own exortions. If ire try to believe both these propositions at once, mrely we full into perplexities worse than any that havo yet bnfallen us. If labor is the o^ly title 10 exclusive possession j if, for example, there can be no exclusive possession of cultivated land simply and Bolely because, according to Mr Oeorge, it is not, a product of labour- propositions on the axiomatic certainty of which tho wbolo fabric of Progress and Poverty rests — how in tho world does o man come by the ' right to himself ?' I havo paid a good dpal of attention lo Ihose branches of nntnral history which treat more especially of man, but never yet have I come across even the smallest grounds for believing that a man has ever been known to mate himself, or to endow himself by his own labour with tho power be exerts. I have heard often enough of men who were said to bo self-made. Indeed, I havo known some cases in which the fact was alleged in justification of the ways of Providence, and by way of shiftiDg tho ro•ponsibility for the existence of somo people on to tho right Jshoulders. But I have always taken this phrase about ' self-making ' to be a metaphor, and a very foolish ono, inasmuch as the men said to bo self-made are usually those whom Nature has favoured with costly gifts and exceptional opportunities. Uo doubi it may bo said, with justice, that a man who learns diligently and strives bard to' do right, really bestowe labour on himself, and does so far fulfil tho nocessary conditions of self-ownership laid down in Progress and Poverty. But, on tho other hand, might not his fccachors, on the very samo ground, claim possession of tho fruits of their labours in him ? Might not the mother, who not only boro him, but bore with him, day and night, for half-a-dozen years, fed him, clothed him, nursed him in sickness, taught him tho rudiments of civilisation — might not sho rightfully appeal to this wonderful labour-test of ownership ? Is there any logical way out of the following argumentation, tho liko of which Is perhaps to be found only in Ahee in Wonderland ? Tho exertion of labour in production is the only title to exclusive possession. No gratuitous offering of Nature can bo the aubjeot of such private ownership. Therefore a man can have no exclusive posaosiioo of himself, except in to far as he ii

the product of tho exertion of his own labour, and not a gratuitous offering of Nature. But it is only a very small part of him which con in Bny sense be said to be the product of hw own labour- The man's physical and mental tendencies and capacities, dependent to a very Urge extent on heredity, are certainly the 'gratuitous offering of nature ' j if they belong to anybody, tlierefore.tbey must belong to the whole of mankind, who must be, so to speak, a kind of collective slaveowners, all of each. So much" of the man as depends on the care taken of him in infancy and childhood is the propertv of his mother.or of those who took her place." Another smaller portion belongs to the man who educated him. What remains is his own. .Vo that the man's rißht to himself and to all his powers, and to all the fruits of his labour, which tho writer of " Progress and Poverty" makes the foundation of his system, turns out, if we follow another fundamental proposition of tbe same author to its logical consequences, to be a right to a mere fraction of himßelf and to the exercise of the powers which exclusively belong to that fraction. Surely it would take a greater sage than Solomon to Bottle the respective claims of mankind in general, the mother, and the educators, to the ownership of a child ; and when these were satisfied, what might remain in the Bhape of a right to himself would be hardly big enough to form a safe basis for anything, let alone property. Unless my readers can see their way better than I can through this logic-chopping maze, we must give up the attempt to reconcile the two fundamental propositions of the system wo are discussing j the firet that labour is the ' only ' title to sxclusivo possession, and the second, that the foundation of this title lies in the right of a man to himself— tliat is to say, the exolusive possession of himßelf. : " "