the invasion, and that in his, as well as in subsequent reigns, large grants of land were given by our sovereigns to followers and favourites. It would be curious, if it were possible, to ascertain how great or how small a quantity of the lands so granted has been handed down by descent to those who are its present possessors, and how much or how little has changed hands by the regular process of sale and purchase which has been going on for the last four hundred years. It would be interesting, moreover, if it were possible, to discover what was the amount of population in any way wronged or dispossessed by these ancient "annexations," what the condition of the lands annexed, and what would have become of them if they had been left alone. Assuredly, the greater part of such lands were in a wild and uncultivated state; and where this was not the case, the change which took place was, to a large extent, only the substitution of one great owner for another, the comparatively small population of that period being but little affected by the transaction. These reflections are at once suggested by Mr Chamberlain's next words, although the latter certainly throw considerable doubt upon the actual meaning of those which we have already quoted. Let us read, mark, and learn from the following sentences: –
"If you will go back to the origin of things," says Mr Chamberlain, "you will find that when our social arrangements first began to shape themselves, every man was born into the world with natural rights, – with a right to a share in the great inheritance of the community, with a right to a part of the land of his birth. But all these rights have passed away. The common rights of ownership have disappeared. Some of them have been sold; some of them have been given away by people who had no right to dispose of them; some of them have been lost by apathy and ignorance; some of them have been stolen by fraud; and some have been acquired by violence. Private ownership has taken the place of these communal rights, and this system has become so interwoven with our habits and usages, it has been so sanctioned by law and protected by custom, that it might be very difficult, and perhaps impossible, to reverse it."
In the opinion expressed by Mr Chamberlain in the last sentence we are certainly inclined to agree. It would be "very difficult," if not "impossible," to reverse that private ownership of land which is the outcome of an advance in civilisation which gradually puts an end to those "communal rights" which are only compatible with a comparatively primitive state of existence. So long as men are congregated in nomad tribes, without fixed place of abode, and living only, so to speak, from hand to mouth, it is possible for "communal rights" to exist in the widest sense of the words, and for every member of the tribe to claim his share of the scanty property which it may possess. But the moment that men settle down in the permanent occupation of a country, and establish themselves as a nation, under whatever form of government they may have chosen, the acquisition of property by individuals immediately begins, and "communal rights" of necessity disappear, by a longer or shorter process, according to circumstances. It is impossible that it could be otherwise. If a man could have no security that he would be allowed to enjoy any property which his own skill or labour had acquired, the desire to acquire would be sensibly diminished, if not altogether destroyed. As to land especially, the difficulty of
