possesses or occupies land can live upon its products without diminishing that, as regards its power to sustain life. But every ton of mineral raised to the surface is so much actually diminished or taken away; not only is the so-called 'owner' taking away what he did not create or put there, but he takes away what he cannot replace: the land is the poorer for it. What a serious consideration this is, may be seen by reviewing the manner in which such matters are regarded as between landlord and tenant. The tenant is not allowed to farm the land as he will, but divers stipulations and covenants are entered into, the object of which is to secure that he does not deteriorate or impoverish his farm, but that he returns it to his landlord as valuable and as capable of supporting life as he received it. If he does impoverish the land, he is in one way or other liable to penalties, or to ejectment, which amounts to the same thing. Now the owner' of land stands towards the State in some respects in the relation of tenant to landlord. We need not consider the very root idea of all feudal tenure; we have only to reflect that the land is not given us for our own sole use and benefit alone, but that our children and their posterity have to live upon it after us, and that we are bound, in wise and reasonable degree, to consider their interests as well as our own. We are, after all, but 'tenants for life.' If, then, a farm tenant may not make poorer his landlord's land, although his mismanagement may be repaired by manure and other judicious reparative agencies; much more may it be asked if any individual member -and because he is a member, tenant of the State may, solely for his individual use and pleasure, produce impoverishment which cannot in any way be repaired? Recent events have given especial point to this question; but they did not create it, and it may yet have to be

fully discussed; as it may yield to any nation whose national wealth lies in those minerals which lie beneath the surface, very profitable matter for reflection. It is not to be declaimed about, but the problem has to be thoughtfully examined; and one condition of it may at once be pointed out, which may serve to dispel much of the alarm many will naturally feel at its being even discussed. It is not so much a question of mere property, but far more of the control of proceedings, which vitally affect the nation at large. Pecuniary rights, which really represent personal rights, as money represents labour, must in any case be met where necessary by pecuniary purchase: it is simply a question, which the compulsory purchase of land for railways has already settled, of how far that mineral wealth, which is as the very life of an industrial nation, shall be expended under the control of that nation, or according to the mere immediate self-interest of a few isolated individuals.

If the considerations which have been thus briefly stated are just, they may be summarised in certain clearly marked general principles; and if these accord with the views of neither extreme party to the discussion, they may be none the less sound or scientifically correct. It is generally found in other matters that the middle path is the 'safe' one; and although the safety no doubt often results from its being in the nature of that 'compromise' from which Mr. Spencer's scientific mind so unutterably revolts, if in the present case it can be made to appear by any fair show of reasoning that the moderate path is really that which follows logically from the most fundamental principles-or even from Mr. Spencer's own-it may be none the less acceptable to practical men. The following truths, then, became plainly manifest in the course of the present inquiry.

I. It clearly appeared to be not necessarily either immoral or inconsistent with the 'common rights' of all, that individuals should become possessed of property in land, and hand that property down to their posterity. It even further appeared, that whereas these rights were at first necessarily somewhat debatable in their nature, the very necessities of civilisation and the vital interests of the communities which became civilised gradually demanded the most thorough recognition of those rights. And it may possibly even further appear, that interwoven as such rights have long since become with almost every other kind of right in property, rashly to disturb or question them now, except on the clearest grounds of equity, may involve dangers to such other individual rights, and questions with regard to them, of which it is much easier to foresee the general nature than to calculate the final results.

II. On the other hand, however, it also appeared with equal clearness, that property in land not only never has acquired, but from the very nature of the case never could acquire, the absolute character of mere personal property. The two facts, that the quantity of land is limited, and that some portion of its products are absolute necessaries of existence to every human being, were seen to imply necessarily certain qualifying rights on the part of the community; and it was also seen that, in actual fact, in every community, such rights have been recognised. These respective rights are not necessarily antagonistic; they simply co-exist; but it became clearly apparent that whenever they did come into conflict, the State right must of necessity overpower the personal right, just as the State takes land from an individual compulsorily without hesitation, for a railway or any other purpose, if only such proceeding is deemed by the

majority to be necessary for the general good.

III. Still further: when the origin of the most legitimate titles to land was considered, the qualifying power of such State rights over personal rights was seen to be eminently reasonable. Not only was the very origin of personal rights found to be simply beneficial occupation, but savage tribes were dispossessed from lands to which they had all the absolute rights (if such there be) which could be urged in any possible case, because their occupation of the land was not really so beneficial as it was fairly capable of, and as the growing wants of an increasing world-population demanded. rights of the vast cosmopolitan community overpowered those of the smaller national community, just as those of a national community overpower those of a single individual.

The

General as such conclusions are, they point irresistibly to a conclusion still more general, but which is at the same time both more definite and more practical. It is seen at once, that the question of questions in this matter, of how far in the case of land private rights are to be qualified or superseded by the State or com munal rights we have had to consider, is entirely a question of circumstances. It is, for instance, obvious, that if every acre of the land possessed by a given community be absolutely necessary for its subsistence, and any individual were to claim his 'right' to preserve a large portion of it unproductive for his own pleasure, the right of the State would in this case become imperative, and its active exercise demanded by the supreme law of self-preservation. On the other hand, if land be plenty and no State necessity exist, any interference with private rights would have no justification whatever; and assuming that human life has other objects than mere animal existence, such unproductive occupation of land for purposes of

recreation might be fairly held to further such other objects, and hence to be of the nature of that beneficial occupation which we have seen already to lie at the root of the whole matter. Indeed, the whole course of any legislation in relation to land which is either practicable or desirable in any given case, is seen to be determined by the question of what aspect the present occupation of that land bears towards the community. If it be beneficial, or at least not detrimental, and if it do not stand in the way of a more beneficial occupation which the welfare of the State really requires, no interference is either right or necessary. Such a condition may be called the normal or healthy condition, and the aim and nature of all legislation must be to produce that condition by removing all that interferes with it. That is the law; and how simply and practically it bears upon various questions of detail is immediately seen by a little consideration of the various modes in which such a condition is or may be interfered with. A few of these may be briefly stated.

1. It is interfered with by anything which actually hinders the actual tillers of the soil producing from the land occupied by them the greatest possible amount of those products necessary to life. And as in England by far the greater portion of land is occupied by tenants under landlords or owners, such an equitable Tenant-right as shall secure to them a full return for the utmost amount of capital and labour which can be beneficially applied to the soil with that end in view, and shall encourage them so to apply such capital and labour, is seen at once to be not only due to the tenants themselves, but is the right and for the benefit of the State at large. This view is rarely urged by tenant-right advocates; but it follows of necessity from the foregoing reasoning.

2. It is interfered with by anything which positively hinders any

actual occupation being exchanged for another occupation more benefi cial to the community. This statement covers a very large field of legislation indeed. To some extent it qualifies in the interest of the landlord the statement preceding; as it is evident that no tenant-right beneficial to the State (and we are precluded by all the premises from considering any other) can or ought to be of such a character as to place obstacles in the way of exchanging a worthless tenant for an able one. But it also involves the removal of all restrictions and unnecessary expense connected with the transfer of land; for since as a rule it will be those who lack capital who will desire to sell, and those possessing it who will desire to buy; as a rule it must be the direct interest of the State to facilitate the transfer. It further involves modification or abolition of the power to entail land; since without dwelling-as foreign to our argument-upon the very dubious character of any man's right to do more than appoint his own successor, it is constantly found that the operation of this power is to place obstacles in the way of such beneficial change of occupancy as we are now considering. And it may appear equally to involve abolition of the right or law of primogeniture; since it may fairly be maintained that any thing which interferes in any way with the great law of competition, is prima facie injurious, as hindering the most beneficial occupation.

1

3. It may be held to be interfered with by the acknowledgment of any such absolute rights as permit the owner to abstract at his individual pleasure from under the land: mineral wealth which he cannot replace, and which is of vital import to the national welfare. This question, however, is too large to treat of here, though it may perhaps furnish subject for discussion at some other opportunity.

The announcement in its title-page, that it was A Description of the Money Market by Mr. Bagehot, at once awakened the hope that a subject generally proclaimed to be full of obscurity would now be unravelled and made clear by a writer possessing exceptional qualifications for the task. He was directly connected with the Money Market, both as an eminent banker and as a still more eminent commentator on its weekly occurrences. His writings penetrated into every great establishment in the City, the most powerful traders eagerly sought his counsels to enlighten the situation and to guide their action. He enjoyed

no

small reputation for literary ability; the capacity to dive into the inmost depths of an entangled enquiry, and to lay bare its mysteries by subtle analysis, was the very quality which had conferred on him intellectual distinction. Here, then, was the very man to shed light on a region covered with deep darkness, to make plain, by the illumination of science, matters in which the understanding of even those who were engaged in them found nothing but inexplicable confusion. We rejoiced that a mental power of adequate force had addressed itself to the exploration of that one subject which knowledge had hitherto failed to clear up, and to wipe away the one reproach, the one failure, that discredited the intellect of the nineteenth century.

The opening of the book, its very first page, showed that Mr. Bagehot had fully appreciated the nature and the difficulty of the problem he had undertaken to solve. meant to deal with concrete realities.

He

it can only be spoken of in very abstract words, and that therefore books on it must always be exceed. ingly difficult.' We have heard one of our friends, a distinguished writer on political economy, declare that money was a subject too hard for the human understanding.' Another, of equally high repute as a thinker and writer, told us that he had commenced the investigation of this mysterious agent of commercial life, but finding the results he was obtaining to be denounced by the great authorities of the practical banking world, he had abandoned the enquiry in despair. Quite dif ferent is the feeling of Mr. Bagehot. He maintains that the Money Market is as concrete and real as anything else; that it can be described in as plain words; that it is the writer's fault if what he says is not clear.' These were words full of delightful promise; the obscurity, after all, was not real; money and the Money Market might be made plain to the common intelligence of men; henceforth they might think of it and speak about it with clearness.

The Money Market, then, is the avowed subject which Mr. Bagehot undertakes to describe. First and foremost, and, for scientific explanation, infinitely the most important, arises the question, What is money?

No one can understand anything about the sheep market until he first knows what a sheep is; when he has acquired this knowledge, he is prepared to enquire what are the causes which make sheep abundant or scarce, cheap or dear. So it is with the Money Market Nothing can be learned or enquired