would belong all results of labour; the State trustee, as it were, of the collective produce of the commonwealth, and responsible for the equal distribution of the same, regardless of how or by whom the same was produced. Such a state of society is utterly impossible; it means the extinction of the individual; it means a more crushing dictatorship, under the guise of a protector, than the world has ever witnessed; it means slavery and bondage, life without hope or object.

Let us, for the sake of argument, however, assume the idea to be possible; the "State" one "united family;" each producing, to the best of the abilities God has given him, for the benefit of all; the more gifted content to receive the same reward as their less gifted brethren. Would such a state of society permanently improve the condition of the English, or any people? No! Why not? Because it would be fatal to all progress, by neutralizing and paralyzing individual effort. The idea may appeal to our higher nature, and it would succeed, if done voluntarily, all men being like Robert Owen. But such men are the rare exceptions, and history teaches us that civilization has only been in proportion to the energy and enterprise of the individual; and for our further progress, we must rely on the efforts of the individual, and these efforts will depend on what he is likely to get by them for himself, and not acting under the compulsory orders of the State, for the good of all.

Millions of working men have property. There are 1,07,806 persons in this country holding small plots of land, half of them, perhaps, members of building societies, and perhaps the land not