because the conditions are not sufficiently remunerative to tempt capitalists to invest. What they have sold has been sold at a loss; to buy up all the land at its market value would cause a very heavy loss. We are told that before the earth was peopled, land was not appropriated. Why? Because while population was very sparse it was not worth the while of individuals to claim special plots, lieu they could get what they wanted by taking it. Briefly, it was then of no value, and was parted with then as land is parted with now in new, undeveloped countries, to tempt the people to settle thereon. There would have been no progress, no civilization, without private ownership. Who would toil to raise crops which lie could not enjoy? The State was compelled to recognize private ownership, and to respect individual occupancy, to induce people to settle down. Who would cultivate and improve the soil, who would be thrifty, and acquire for the use of future generations, unless the State secured to its citizens the fruit of their labour? Try to take back what has been paid for in meal or in malt, you destroy the sacredness of property, you take away the incentive for self-denial and thrift, you check progress, you kill the goose that has been laying you the golden eggs.

Mr. George wants us to believe that all our poverty and degradation are the result of private land ownership; and lie tells us that the nationalisation of the land would rid us of trio poverty and misery that exist. There was a time when land communism did exist; why does not Mr. George prove to its that at that time poverty was unknown? There are parts of the world where land is still unappropriated; do we find in any of these places a trace of such social well being as is worthy of