HENRY GEORGE.

Freethought Review, Volume II, Issue 22, 1 July 1885, Page 12

HENRY GEORGE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘FREETHOUGHT REVIEW.’ Sir, Having been a constant reader of your paper since its commencement, and agreeing with the general policy you have pursued, it is with much regret that I have to complain about what I consider your very unfair treatment of Henry George. A man who sets himself honestly and sincerely to work to devise a means of improving the condition of his suffering fellow-creatures merits the respect and esteem of every right thinking man, and deserves even from his opponents something better than misrepresentation and abuse. I think it is hardly necessary to remind you that abuse is not argument, nor superciliousness wisdom, although they may pass for such among those who will not or cannot think for themselves. In the last two or three numbers of your paper, you devote two or three paragraphs to Henry George and his remarkable book, but you appear to have such a superficial acquaintance with the book you attempt to criticize, that I am compelled to think you have not read it, or, if you have, have utterly failed to grasp the author’s meaning. On the theory that you have read the book, I cannot conceive how you could endorse such a palpable absurdity as this :—“ It is a mere quibble to discriminate between property. What does it matter what my thousand pound’s worth consists of, so long as lam satisfied with the kind of estate, whether it be a diamond ring or a hundred-acre farm?” How utterly selfish must be the man who could express such a sentiment! That is identically the way in which the slave-trader used to argue! “ What does it matter what my thousand pound’s worth consists of so long as I am satisfied with the kind of estate, whether it be a diamond ring or its equivalent in human flesh and blood The chief consideration with men of this stamp is, whether they acquired their estates by fair means or foul. Now that depends entirely on the interpretation put upon the words “ fair and foul.” There are many men who consider anything fair that is lawful, and, if it was still lawful to trade in human flesh and blood, would, with the utmost selfcomplacency, barter away the lives and liberties of their fellow-men, in the comforting assurance that they were engaged in a perfectly honorable and legitimate business. According to the peculiar reasoning of the foregoing quotation, it is a “ mere quibble to distinguish between property!” Is it possible that the writer cannot perceive the distinction between an element of nature —a thing that always has existed and always will exist—quite irrespective of and independant of man—and a thing that is the direct result of human labour? Is it to be wondered at that a man who cannot distinguish this difference should not be able to perceive the injustice of private ownership in land! lam not very much surprised that Mr. Arthur Clayden, from whose speech you quoted, should express himself in this fashion. People do not naturally go to “Royal Colonial Institutes ” in search of liberal sentiments, but what surprises me is, that a paper professing to hold advanced and liberal views should be willing to endorse such palpably illogical nonsense. To apply such epithets as “fanatic” and " George the Fifth ” &c., to such a man as Henry George is a very sorry answer to his arguments. People who have read and studied his writings for themselves, will pay very little attention to stuff like this. If anything were wanting to convince me of the utter impregnability of Henry George’s position, it is the fact that his opponents have nothing better with which to meet his arguments than ridicule and abuse. You speak of “Progress and Poverty” as an extremely fallacious book, that its author is dangerous to the rights of property, that ho strikes at the foundations of society, and that he proposes a scheme of land robbery. Will you bo good enough to show wherein the fallacy of “Progress and Poverty” consists? and what you mean by the rights of property as applied to land ? Are you quite sure that you are not striking at what the great majority of people call the foundations of society? Are you prepared to prove that Henry George proposes a scheme for land robbery? Are you sure that it is not a scheme of land restitution? You complain that his proposals are revolutionary, and that to introduce them would be like cutting a man’s head off to cure the toothache. The simile is not a bad one, but it is capable of more than one application. Those who advocate the continuances of private ownership in land would cut the man’s head off in order to save the tooth, but the most sensible thing to do with a troublesome tooth is to pull it out, and that is what Henry George proposes to do with private ownership in land. You do not like the idea of Confiscation ? Are you not a trifle inconsistent ? I think you will admit that in all countries where private ownership in land exists, the land has been acquired by Conquest ? Now us Conquest is Confiscation, and Confiscation robbery, it conse-

quently follows that the original titles to such lands were obtained by theft. If Confiscation is wrong now, was it right then ? and if it was right then, is it not equally right now ? If those who did not own the land then were justified in taking it by force, have not those who do not own it now an equal right to take it in the same manner? I think it is Herbert Spencer who asks at what rate per year does wrong become right ?” Perhaps you could answer the question. In another paragraph you refer to a speech addressed to the electors of Finsbury by Mr. Bradlaugh, in which he is reported to have said that “the land never belonged to the people, and so could not be restored to them.” This you supplement by saying “This in direct opposition to the views of “George the Fifth” which are said to be gaining ground amongst certain classes. Passing over the rather coarse insinuation contained in the nickname “George the Fifth,” I have only to say that if Mr. Bradlaugh has been correctly reported (which I very much doubt) he has committed himself to an expression which is in direct opposition to the views of every sane man as well as Henry George. What does Mr. Bradlaugh mean by the land never having belonged to the people ? I suppose the first inhabitants of the earth were not people ? In the name of common sense what were they ? Or perhaps Mr. Bradlaugh has an idea that at some very remote period this earth was inhabited by a race of people who became deeply indebted to the inhabitants of some of the other planets, who having a “bill of sale” over the earth, evicted the original tenants, and put the bailiffs in lor the purpose of levying “ black mail ” upon its next inhabitants, when, eventually, the people appeared, they were surprised to find somebody already in “ possession ” to whom it was necessary to pay tribute for the priviledge of being allowed to live. This, or something like it, may be " Bradluffian ’’ reasoning, but much as I admire Mr. Bradlaugh on questions he docs know something about, I prefer, in this matter, the opinions of one Henry George to a hundred Charles Bradlaughs. Notwithstanding that he is systematically abused, misrepresented and ridiculed by a certain class of political thinkers, when the history of Political Economy comes to be written it will contain no brighter name or one that will command sincerer veneration and esteem, than that of Henry George. I am, &c., Jas. Robertson. Timaru, June 19th, 1885.