men.

give evidence from the beginning of the changes which had been made in political ideas. They were necessary for the protection of their inhabitants not always from foreign enemies-although in countries which were constantly made the seat of war it was in the fortified city only that property or life had a chance of safety— but often from the oppression and violence of their own countryThe feudal chief became more the owner of serfs than the ruler of free men, and in the City only was personal independence possible, except to the comparatively few who gave up the hope of private and family happiness by joining the Church or taking refuge in the religious houses. The great towns furnished also the only means, outside the religious orders, for any kind of culture amongst the mass of the people, and were the only places in which industrial progress could be secured. But wherever-as in England, Spain, and France-the national unity and independence were preserved the cities never aspired to separate sovereignty, and even in the Low Countries, where foreign domination both temporal and spiritual was imposed upon the people, the Cities although they had often to act alone for the defence of their liberties, were willing to form parts of a Federation for joint national purposes. It is not necessary to trace how step by step, as the condition of society changed and the nations settled down within defined limits and engaged in more peaceful pursuits, the Cities assumed the less independent but not less useful position which they now occupy. What is desirable is that we should ascertain briefly how far their original objects have to be pursued and their original functions performed. The work of the City will not be less important because it is not the ultimate stage of human progress any more than any part of a highly organised body would be less valuable because other organs had been developed and perfected.

It is in its relations to morality, its development and its practice, that the highest place of any social institution is to be found. Assuming that moral growth means the extent to which purely individual and selfish feelings are made to give way to the

wish and the determination to serve and to promote the happiness of others, we have already seen the important part which City life plays in the great drama of human progress. It is in the city that a man finds friends to love, neighbours to serve, immnediate social duties to perform. The love of the brother whom we have seen prepares us for the wider and still less personal service of the state or community of men whom we have not seen. original tribal basis of morality and its extension by the influence of Cities are not superseded but are completed and utilised by the broader national life.

The

Looking from the other side not at the qualities which City life requires and evokes but upon the social and political duties which it demands and the benefits which it confers we again find, not violent change, but modification. Modern towns are saved from that element of turbulence and revolution which as we have seen, arose from the fact that the municipality of the City was the Government of the State. The danger in our time is not lest the interest in local politics should become too intense and vehement, but lest they should be considered of too little importance to arouse the interest and secure the labour of the ablest and best cultivated of the citizens. That this ought not to be so, everyone will allow, and there are good reasons for hoping that the danger is daily decreasing. The growing recognition, which is taking place in all civilised nations, that the diffusion of material intellectual, moral and social advantages amongst the masses of the people, is a matter with which the Government is concerned, must add to the importance of Municipal administration. It is only by local Authorities, in immediate connection and association with the people, that educational, sanitary and other social machinery can be worked with success, and the greater the necessity for such action the higher will be the estimation in which such authorities will be held, and the greater will be the readiness of competent people to join them.

In this respect it is essential that we should refuse to believe that the division, which, for the sake of efficiency and convenience

we make in practice, between work done by local and that done by national Authorities involves any difference either in the importance of the business, in the principles on which it should be conducted, or the character and qualification of the men by whom it has to be performed. The City is an integral part of the nation, the city government only a part of the national administration. Whether a particular function of government is exercised by a municipality or by Parliament it is equally of political importance. Before we can fully realise what are the ultimate possibilities of city life, what duties it demands, what benefits it can confer, we must recognise the fact that it is not a perfect political organism but is a defined and vital organ, which in the evolution and development of society, morals and polities, obtained a place which however it may have been modified, remains of the most essential importance in the government of nations and in the progress of humanity.

ON THE CONFLICT IN ENGLISH HISTORY

BETWEEN PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LAND

AND THE

OWNERSHIP OF THE STATE AND THE COMMUNITY. BY MR. G. J. JOHNSON.

May 9th, 1883.

At the present time, owing greatly to Mr. Henry George's book on "Progress and Poverty," various schemes for depriving owners of land of their property, with or without compensation, and vesting all the land of the country in the State, are very eagerly and widely discussed. It is outside the province of this society to consider this question on its political, or politico-economical side, but it may be a useful contribution to the discussion to see what have been the tendencies of English life for the last seven hundred years as to the ownership of the soil, and this is clearly within our province.

The propositions this paper is intended to establish, are :— First. That since the reign of Henry the Second, there has been in England a complete substitution of individual ownership for ownership of land by the State or the Community.

Secondly. That this substitution has been the gradual, almost unconscious result of the working of economic laws, first evading, and then transforming the old principles of ownership of land.

I select the latter part of the reign of Henry the Second, say A.D. 1183, just seven hundred years ago, as the point at which the feudal principles of tenure were most strictly enforced, and at

which, consequently, the rights of private ownership were at a minimum. In speaking of the "State," or the "Community," I shall use the term State for the Imperial Government as it was under the feudal system, and as comprehending all feudal lordships from the King, as chief lord of the realm, down to the lord of the smallest manor; and I shall use the term "Community," as meaning any collection of persons dwelling together in townships or villages, which, as a Community, had common rights over lands. The first point to be noted is that the theory of ownership of land seven centuries ago is exactly what it is to-day, viz.—that all lands in the realm were, and are, held either mediately or immediately of the Crown (ie., substituting the modern equivalent, the State), and that all that any subject could, or can have, was, and is, a certain status, i.e., a relation to, or interest in such lands; but never the same absolute interest as he can have in his furniture, his books, or his money. But whilst the theory in the days of Henry the Second was the same as in the days of Queen Victoria, there was this important difference :-Then the theory was an accurate generalization of the facts; the interests of the State and of the Community did prevail over the interests of all private owners. Nor, whilst the theory remains the same, it no longer represents the fact that private ownership has everywhere and in every point prevailed over the interests of the State and the Community. To see this let us contrast the incidents of ownership of land in the years 1183 and 1883.

As there is nothing like a specific instance, let us contrast the Birmingham of to-day with the Birmingham of seven centuries ago. If at that date you had looked out from the spot where you now are, you would have looked on a different world. You would have seen, just below where St. Martin's Church now stands, a castle surrounded by a moat, and below that a few scattered houses. Looking around, you would have seen a common or heath, of which the last remnants still bear the name of Birmingham Heath. But the outward scene was not more different from the Birmingham of to day thin were the relations of the inhabitants