Why is land to be singled out? If the argument is worth anything, it means that those who have not, have, by the law of natural justice, a right to what others have. This I deny most emphatically; they have no right, except to acquire in the same manner, not by industry alone, but by self-denying thrift. If you admit that private ownership in land is unjust, you must follow the argument to its legitimate conclusion-viz., " that all private property is wrong." Having, as the result of my exertions, got a certain amount of wealth, which I invest in land, I contend that I have as perfect a right to that land, which represents my wealth, as I had to the wealth in another form; having bought the land, it follows that it is perfectly just to demand a rent from those I have let it to; they are only paying me interest for having advanced the money to buy the land for them to use.

It is simply ridiculous to ask, in "Socialism made Plain," "Do any say we attack property? We deny it. We attack only the private property of a few loiterers and slave-drivers, which renders all property in the fruits of their own labour impossible for millions." It is beyond my comprehension how such fallacies can be listened to, or be believed in, by any rational or thoughtful man; they do not seem to have the remotest idea of what constitutes justice or principle. The "right to live " and "land to live on" is said to be God's law; yet land is limited, populations without limit. How can every infant that comes into the world have a moral right to his bit of land? How is it possible for him to get it, when land is a fixed quantity, and population not only not stationary, but constantly increasing? To carry out Mr. George's theory, there would