equitable division of wealth. For, as labour cannot produce without the use of land, the denial of the equal right to the use of land is necessarily the denial of the right of labour to its own produce. If one man can command the land upon which others must labour, lie can appropriate the produce of their labour as the price of his permission to labour. The fundamental law of nature, that her enjoyment by man shall be consequent upon his exertion is thus violated; the one receives without producing, the other produces without receiving. The one is unjustly enriched, the other one robbed. . .. . It is the continuous increase of rent-the price that labour is compelled to pay for the use of land-which strips the many of the wealth they justly earn, to pile it up in- the hands of the few who do nothing to earn it."

This "equal right of all men to the use of land" is one of those apparent truths that require great caution in adopting. Assume the State confiscated the land and all the houses therein -the State must let the land and houses to get the rent that is to defray the expenses of governing the country. I fail to see in any of the speeches and books upon this subject how the "plot of land every one born in the world has a right to "is to be kept until his appearance to claim it. Of course, whilst the State remains the freeholder, each individual will benefit by the rent or land-tax paid for its use; but we are told that the nationalization of the land is the only way to satisfy this "land-hunger "-the only way for each individual to get the bit of land to work upon, and obtain for himself the produce of his own labour. Mr. Wallace (President of the Land Nationalization Society), in Tract No. 3, tells us that ''the immediate