of their birth." Every day, therefore, a further division of land would become necessary. Then arises another difficulty. Who is to till the land until the infants are able to enjoy their "natural inheritance"? Again, another obstacle: land is of different character and quality; how is equality to be arrived at? We are perfectly aware that this line of argument has an appearance of absurdity about it which is little suited to that which has become one of the greatest questions of the day; but the theory of Messrs George and Chamberlain is so absurd in itself, that it can only be met in this manner. The truth is that, either from ignorance or something less excusable, these would-be instructors of our new electorate have fallen into a confusion of ideas which would be thoroughly ridiculous, if its results were not likely to be mischievous when they come to us in the shape of revolutionary speeches addressed to ill-informed audiences. Men are only too willing to believe that they have been, somehow or other, deprived of rights, and treated with injustice, and they can scarcely be blamed for listening with a ready ear to persons in high and responsible positions who address them in such a strain.
It occurs to us at once that an orator inspired with patriotic feelings at such a time as the present, would have rather sought to point out to the newly enfranchised the manner in which the different ranks of society depend one upon the other, how their interests are blended, how no one class can suffer alone, and how much freedom for all is provided under our mixed constitution. Such an orator would have striven to awaken his hearers to a sense of the new and responsible duties about to be imposed upon them, rather than to teach them lessons of discontent, and a desire to use the franchise for selfish purposes. But where did Mr Chamberlain learn his history, or whence did he glean the information which he so glibly and yet so authoritatively places before his Birmingham constituents? Is it by direct inspiration from Divine authority that he derives this new and wonderful doctrine, that men are born each with a share in the land of his birth? As Christians we readily admit that, in one sense, men are all born "equal," – that is to say, that equally to high and low is given the same blessed hope of eternal happiness in a future state, where the differences which exist in the present world will exist no longer. But during men's pilgrimage upon earth these differences of rank, wealth, and position do exist, and have always existed: we are distinctly told that we are to "have the poor always with" us; and Providence has no more ordained that men shall be born with "equal rights," than that they should come into the world equal as to health, size, and strength. Therefore when Messrs Chamberlain and George propound this startling doctrine, they are simply declaring that which has no real existence in fact and truth.
"Private ownership," whether of land or of anything else, is only another form of words for "the right of possessing"; and that right of individuals to possess is an absolute necessity to a civilised community, and could not be "reversed," as Mr Chamberlain appears to wish, without the greatest detriment to the general interest. The mistake which is made by these advocates of a relapse into primitive barbarism, is in pitting "private ownership" against "common rights," as if the two things
