- - - -- -QUARTERLY. J. A. WAYLAND, Publisher.
Studies III Socialism No. 5. Girard, Kan, U. S. A. - Oct., 1898. 15c a year.
Entered at the postonice at Girard. Kansas, as second class mail matter.
TITLE DEEDS TO LAND
By HERBERT SPENCER.
ºn. man or woman has heard of Herbert spencer, the great philoso-
ºne ºut tº have read him. All they know of him is the sound of his name. The
ollowing is the famous ninth chapter of his “social statics," which has done more to
arouse the people of the earth to the enormity of the Roman land law, which all "civ-
lººd nations now use than any other same number of words ever written. The
nºn-rºtºcracy forced him to leave this chapter out of the later editions of the
ºut its truths are so self-evident that once understood can never be expunged
| ºn the ºn of men.
| follows that they have equal rights to the use of this
world. For if each of them “has freedom to do all
=º that he wills provided he infringes not the equal
º freedom of any other,” then each of them is free to
º use the earth for the satisfaction of his wants, pro-
-- vided he allows all others the same liberty. And
IVEN a race of beings having like claims to pursue
the objects of their desires—given a world adapted
to gratification of those desires—a world into which
such beings are similarly born, and it unavoidably
--- conversely, it is manifest that no one, or part of
º them, may use the earth in such a way as to prevent
--- the rest from similarly using it; seeing that to do
this is to assume greater freedom than the rest, and
consequently, to break the law. Equity, therefore, does not per-
mit property in land. For if ONE portion of the earth's surface
may justly become the possession of an individual, and may be
held by him for his sole use and benefits, as a thing to which he
has an exclusive right, then OTHER portions of the earth's sur-
face may be so held; and eventually the WHOLE of the earth's
surface may be so held; and our planet may thus lapse altogether
into private hands. Observe, now, the dilemma to which this
leads. Supposing the entire habitable globe to be enclosed, it
follows that if the land owners have a valid right to its surface,
all who are not land owners have no right at all to its surface.
Hence, such can exist on the earth by sufferance only. They
are all trespassers. Save by the permission of the lords of the
soil they can have no room for the soles of their feet.
Nay, should the other think fit to deny them a resting place,
these landless men might equitably be expelled from the
earth altogether. If, then, the assumption that land can be
held as property involves that the whole globe may become
the private * * * its inhabitants; and if, by con-
sequence, the rest its inhabitants can then exercise their
faculties-can ten exist, even-only by consent of the land-
owners, it is manifest that an exclusive possession of the soil
necessitates an infringement of the law of equal freedom.




–2–
For, men who cannot “live and move and have their being
without the leave of others, cannot be equally free with those
others.
Passing from the consideration of the possible to that of
the actual, we find yet further reason to deny the rectitude
of property in land. It can never be pretended that the exist-
ing titles to such property are legitimate. Should any one
think so, let him look in the chronicles. Violence, fraud, the
prerogative of force, the claims of superior cunning—these
are the sources to which those titles may be traced. The
original deeds were written with the sword, rather than with
the pen; not lawyers, but soldiers, were the conveyancers;
blows were the current coin given in payment; and for seals-
blood was used in preference to wax. Could valid claims
be thus constituted? Hardly. And if not, what becomes of
the pretensions of all subsequent holders of estates so ob-
tained? Does sale or bequest generate a right where it did
not previously exist? Would the original claimants be non-
suited at the bar of reason because the thing stolen from
them had changed hands? Certainly not. And if one act of
transfer can give no title, can many? No; though nothing
be multiplied forever, it will not produce ONE. Even the law
recognizes this principle. An existing holder must, if called
upon, substantiate the claims of those from whom he pur-
chased or inherited his property, and any flaw in the original
parchment, even though the property should have had a force
of intermediate owners, quashes his rights.
“But time,” say some, “is a great legalizer. 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 proposi-
tion a willing assent shall be given when its propounders can
assign it a definite meaning. To do this, however, they must
find satisfactory answers to such questions as, How long does
it take for what was originally a WRONG to grow into a
RIGHT” At what rate per annum do invalid claims become
valid? If a title gets perfect in a thousand years, how much
more perfect will it be in two thousand years?—and so forth.
For the solution of which they will require a new calculus.
Whether it may be expedient to admit claims of a certain
standing, is not the point. We have here nothing to do with
consideration of conventional privilege or legislative conven-
ience. We have simply to inquire what is the verdict given
by pure equity in the matter. And this verdict enjoins a pro-
test against every existing pretension to the individual pos-
session of the soil; and dictates the assertion that the right,
of mankind at large to the earth's surface is still valid; all
deeds, customs and laws notwithstanding.
Not only have present land tenures an indefensible origin,
but it is impossible to discover any mode in which land CAN




















–3–
becoming private property. Cultivation is commonly considered
to give a legitimate title. He who has reclaimed a tract of
ground from its primitive wildness is supposed to have there-
by made it his own. But if his right is disputed, by what
system of logic can he vindicate it? Let us listen a moment
to his pleadings.
“Hello, you sir,” cries the cosmopolite to some backwoods-
man, smoking at the door of his shanty, “by what authority
do you take possession of these acres that you have cleared.
round which you have put up a snake-fence and on which you
have built this log house?”
“By what authority?” I squatted here because there was
nº one to say may—because I was as much at liberty to do
so asºany other man. Besides, now that I have cut down the
wood, ploughed and cropped the ground, this farm is more
mine than yours or anybody's, and I mean to keep it.”
“Ay, so you all say. But I do not yet see how you have
substantiated your claim. When you came here you found
the land producing trees—sugar maples, perhaps, or maybe it
was covered with prairie grass and wild strawberries. Well,
instead of these, you have made it yield wheat, maize or
tobacco. Now, I want to understand how, by exterminating
one set of plants and making the soil bear another set in
their place, you have constituted yourself lord of this soil for
all succeeding time.”
“Oh, those natural products which I destroyed were of
little or no use, whereas I caused the earth to bring forth
things good for food-things that help to give life and happines”.”
“Still, you have not shown why such a process makes the
portion of earth you have so modified yours. What is it that
you have done? You have turned over the soil to a few inches
in depth with a spade or a plough; you have scattered over
this prepared surface a few seeds, and you have gathered the
fruits which the sun, rain and air helped the soil produce,
Just tell me, if you please, by what magic have these acts
made you sole owner of that vast mass of matter, having for
its base the surface of your estate and for its apex the center
of the globe? all of which, it appears, you would monopolize
to yourself and your descendants forever.”
-*Well, if it isn't mine, whose is it? I have dispossessed
nobdy. When I crossed the Mississippi yonder I found noth-
ing but the silent woods. If some one else had settled
here, and made this clearing, he would have as good a right to
the locatiºn as I have. I have done nothing but what any
other person was at liberty to do had he come before me.
Whilst they were unclaimed these lands belonged to all men
-as much to one as to another—and they are now mine sim-
ply because I was the first to discover and improve them.”
“You say truly when you say that whilst they were unre-
claimed these lands belonged to all men. And it is my duty
to tell you that they belong to all men still, and that your


–4–
improvements, as you call them, cannot vitiate the claim of
all men. You may plough and harrow, and sow and reap:
you may turn over the soil as often as you like; but all your
manipulations will fail to make the soil yours which was not
yours to begin with. Let me put a case. Suppose, now, that
in the course of your wanderings you come upon an empty
house, which, in spite of its dilapidated state, takes your
fancy; suppose that with the intention of making it your
abode you expend much time and trouble in repairing it—that
you paint and paper and whitewash, and at considerable cost |
bring it into a habitable state. Suppose further, that on some
fatal day a stranger is announced, who turns out to be the
heir to which the house has been bequeathed; and that th’s |
professed heir is prepared for all the necessary proofs of
his identity; what becomes of your improvements? Do they -
give you a valid title to this house? Do they quash the title
of the original claimant?”
*No.”
“Neither, then, do your pioneering operations give you a
valid title to this land. Neither do they quash the title of
the original claimants—the human race. The world is God’s
bequest to mankind. All men are joint heirs to it; you
amongst the number. And because you have taken up your
residence on a certain part of it, and have subdued, cultivated,
beautified that part-improved it, as you say, you are not
therefore warranted in appropriating it as entirely private
property. At least, if you do so, you may at any moment be
justly expelled by the lawful owner–Society.”
“Well, but surely you would not eject me without making
some recompense for the great additional value I have given
to this tract by reducing what was a wilderness into fertile
fields. You would not turn me adrift and deprive me of all
the benefit of those years of toil it has cost me to bring this
spot to its present state?”
“Of course not; just as in the case of the house, you.
would have an equitable title to compensation from the pro-
prietor for repairs and new fittings, so the community cannot
justly take possession of this estate without paying for all that
you have done to it. This extra worth which your labor
has imparted to it is fairly yours; and although you have,
without leave, busied yourself in bettering what belongs to
community, yet no doubt the community will duly discharge
your claim. But admitting this is quite a different thing from
recognizing your right to the land itself. It may be true that
you are entitled to the compensation for the improvements
this inclosure has received at your hands; and at the same
time it may be equally true that no act, form, proceeding or
ceremony can make this inclosure your private property.”
It does indeed at first seem possible for the earth to be-
come the exclusive possession of individuals by some process
º ºs distribution. “Why," it may be asked, *




















–5–
not men agree to a fair subdivision? If all are co-heirs, why
may not the estate be equally apportioned, and each be after-
wards perfect master of his own share?”
To this question it may in the first place be replied that
such a division is vetoed by the difficulty of fixing the values
of respective tracts of land. Variations in productiveness, dif-
ferent degrees of accessibility, advantages of climate, prox-
imity to the centers of civilization—these and other such con-
siderations remove the problem out of the sphere of mere
mensuration into the region of impossibility.
But, waiving this, let us inquire who are to be the al-
lottees? shall adult males, and all who have reached twenty-
one on a specified day, be the fortunate individuals? If so,
what is to be done with those who come of age on the morrow?
Is it proposed that each man, woman and child shall have a
section? If so, what becomes of all who are born next year?
And what will be the fate of those whose fathers sell their
estates and squander the proceeds? These portionless ºnes
must constitute a class already described as having no right
to a resting place on earth—as living by the sufferance of
their fellow-men—as being practically serfs. And "the exist-
ence of such a class is wholly at variance with the law of equal
freedom.
Until, therefore, we can produce a valid commission au-
thorizing us to make this distribution—until it can be proved
that God has given one charter of privileges to one genera-
tion and another to the next—until we can demonstrate that
men born after a certain date are doomed to slavery, we must
consider that no such allotment is permissible.
Probably some will regard the difficulties inseparable from
individual ownership of the soil, as caused by pushing to ex-
cess a doctrine applicable only within rational limits. This
is a favorite style of thinking with some. There are people
who hate anything in the shape of exact conclusions; and
these are of them. According to such, the right is never in
the extreme, but always half way between the extremes. They
are continually trying to reconcile YES and NO. Ifs and buts
and excepts are their delight. They have so great a faith in
“the judicious mean,” that they would scarcely believe an ora-
cle, if it uttered a full length principle. Were you to inquire
of them whether the earth turns on its axis from East to
West, or West to East, you might almost expect the reply–
“a little of both,” or not exactly, either. It is doubtful
whether they would assent to the axiom that the whole is
greater than its part, without making some qualification.
They have a passion for compromises. To meet their taste,
Truth must always be spiced with a little Error. They can not
conceive of a pure, definite, entire and unlimited law. And
hence, in discussions like the present, they are constantly peti-
ºnine for limitations always wishing to abate, and modify


–6–
and moderate-ever protesting against doctrines being pur-
sued to their ultimate consequences.
But it behooves us to recollect that othical truth is as exact
and as peremptory as physical truth, and that in this mat-
ter of land tenure, the verdict of morality must be distinctly
YEA 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.
If men HAVE NOT such right, we are at once delivered
from the several predicaments already pointed out. If they
HAVE such a right, then is that right absolutely sacred, not
on any pretence to be violated? If they have such a right, then
is his Grace of Leeds justified in warning off tourists from Ben
Mac Dhui, the Duke of Atholl in closing Glen Tilt, the Duke of
Beccleuch in denying sites to the Free Church, and the Duke of
Sutherland in banishing the Highlanders to make room for sheep
walks? If they HAVE such a right, then it would be proper
for the sole proprietor of any kingdom-a Jersey or Guernsey,
for example—to impose just what regulations he might choose on
its inhabitants—to tell them that they should not live on his
property unless they professed a certain religion, spoke a par-
ticular language, paid him a specified reverence, adopted an au-
thorized dress, and conformed to all other conditions he might
see fit to make. If they HAVE such a right, then is there truth
in that tenet of the ultra Tory school, that the land owners are
the only legitimate rulers of a country—that the people at large
remain in it only by the land owners' permission, and ought
consequently submit to the land owners' rule and respect what-
ever institutions the land owners set up. There is no escape
from these inferences. They are necessary corollaries to the
theory that the earth can become individual property. And
they can only be repudiated by denying that theory.
After all, nobody does implicitly believe in landlordism. We
hear of estates being held under the king, that is the state; or
of their being kept in trust for the public benefit, and not that
they are the inalienable possession of their nominal owners.
Moreover, we daily deny landlordism by our legislation. If a
canal, a railway, or a turnpike road is to be made, we do not
scruple to seize just as many acres as may be requisite, allow-
ing the holders compensation for the capital invested. We do not
wait for consent. An act of parliament supercedes the au-
thority of title deeds, and serves proprietors with notices to
quit, whether they will or not. Either this is equitable or it is
not. Either the public are free to resume as much of the earth's
surface as they think fit, or the titles of the land owners must
be considered absolute, and all national works must be postponed
until lords and squires please to part with the requisite slices of
their estates. If we decide that the claims of individual owner-
ship must give way, then we imply that the right of the nation
-
-

- –7–
at large to the soil is supreme—that the right of private posses-
sion only exists by general consent—that general consent being
withdrawn it ceases–or, in other words, that it is no right
at all.
“But to what does this doctrine, that men are equally en-
titled to the use of the earth, lead? Must we return to the
times of unenclosed wilds, and subsist on roots, berries and
game? Or are we to be left to the management of Messrs.
Fourier, Owen, Louis Blanc & Co. 2"
Neither. Such a doctrine is consistent with the highest
state of civilization; may be carried out without involving a
community of goods, and need cause no very serious revolu-
ti in existing arrangements. The change required would sim-
º change of landlords. Separate ownerships would merge
into the joint-stock ownership of the public. Instead of being
in the possession of individuals, the country would be held by the
great corporate body–Society. Instead of leasing his acres from
an isolated proprietor, the farmer would lease them from the
nation. Instead of paying his rent to the agent of Sir John or
His Grace, he would pay it to an agent or deputy agent of the
community. Stewards would be public officials instead of private
ones, and tenancy the only land-tenure.
A state of things so ordered would be in perfect harmony
with the moral law. Under it all men would be equally land-
lords; all men would be alike free to become tenants. A, B, C,
and the rest might compete for a vacant farm as now, and
one of them might take that farm without in any way vio-
lating the principles of pure equity. All would be equally free
to bid; and all would be equally free to refrain. And when the
farm had been let to A, B, or C, all parties would have done
that which they willed—the one in choosing to pay a given
sum to his fellow men for the use of certain lands—the others
in refusing to pay that sum. Clearly therefore, on such a
system, the earth might be enclosed, occupied and cultivated.
in entire subordination to the law of equal freedom.
No doubt great difficulties must attend the resumption
by mankind at large, of their right to the soil. The question
of compensation to existing proprietors is a complicated one–
one that perhaps cannot be settled in a strictly equitable man-
ner. Had we to deal with the parties who originally robbed the
human race of its heritage, we might make short work of the
matter. But unfortunately, most of our present land owners are
men who have, either mediately or immediately—either by their
own acts, or by the acts of their ancestors—given for their es-
tates equivalents of honestly earned wealth, believing that they
were investing their savings in a legitimate manner. To justly
estimate and liquidate the claims of such is one of the most in-
tricate problems society will one day have to solve.
But with this perplexity and our extrication from it, ab-
stract morality has no concern. Men, having got themselves
into the dilemma by disobedience to the law, must get out of

–8–
it as well as they can, and with as little injury to the landed
class as may be.
Meanwhile, we shall do well to recollect that there are
others besides the landed class to be considered. In our ten-
der regard for the vested interests of the few, let us not for-
get that the rights of the many are in abeyance, and must
remain so as long as the earth is monopolized by individuals.
Let us remember, too, that the injustice thus inflicted on the
mass of mankind is an injustice of the gravest nature. The
fact that it is not so regarded proves nothing. In early phases
of civilization, even homicide is thought lightly of.
The suttees of India, together with the practice elsewher-
followed of sacrificing a hectacomb of human victims at the
burial of a chief, shows this; and probably cannibals cºnsider
the slaughter of those whom “the fortunes of war" has made
their prisoners, perfectly justifiable. It was once also univer-
sally supposed that slavery was a natural and quite legiti-
mate institution—a condition into which some were born, and
to which they ought to submit as to a divine ordination; nay,
indeed, a great proportion of mankind hold this opinion still.
A higher social development, however, has generated in us a
better faith, and we now to a considerable extent recognize the
claims of humanity. But our civilization is only partial. It
may by and by be perceived that Equity utters dictates to which
we have not 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 liberties.
Briefly reviewing the argument, we see that the right of
each man to the use of the earth, limited only by the like rights
of his fellow men, is immediately deducible from the law of
equal freedom. We see that the maintenance of this right nec-
essarily forbids private property in land. On examination, all
existing titles to such property turn out to be invalid; those
founded on reclamation inclusive. It appears that not even an
equal apportionment of the earth amongst its inhabitants could
generate a legitimate proprietorship. We find that if pushed to
its ultimate consequences, a claim to exclusive possession of the
soil involves a land-owning despotism. We further find that
such a claim is constantly denied by the enactments of our leg-
islature. And we find, lastly, that the theory of co-heirship of
all men to the soil is consistent with the highest civilization;
and that, however difficult it may be to embody that theory in
fact, Equity sternly commands it to be done.
Copies of this Quarterly
100 for 50c, postpaid. º.