.

AT THE present time the evolution of man's knowledge in reference to the use of land goes on, and, as it would appear to me, the process of putting this thought into action must soon commence.

In these processes, which from a social point of view form the chief lessons of our time, Henry George was and is the pioneer and leader of the movement. Herein his paramount importance rests. He has, by his excellent works, materially contributed both to the improving of people's ideas on this question as well as to their direction on a practical basis.

It is curious that iri regard to the question of the abolition of the clearly unnatural monopoly of land, we have an exact repetition of what, in our opinion, happened when slavery was abolished both in Russia and America.

The government and the leading classes, recognising in their inner consciousness that in the question of had was contained the solution of all social questions, with the settlement of which all their privileges would, at the same time, break down, and that this question now stands within the region of practical politics; make believe as if they had a great care for the salvation of the people; but while they erect savings banks, labour inspections, Income Tax and even Eight Hours' Day Labour, carefully ignore the question of land, and with the help of their subservient political economy, which proves all they please, maintain that the abolition of private ownership of land is useless, injurious, and even impossible.

Just the same is going on now as happened with slavery. People had felt for ever so long that this condition could not last any longer; that slavery was a dreadful, soul-insulting anachronism, but the quasi religion asserted, notwithstanding, that slavery was necessary, or that it was too soon to abolish it.

At present the same is happening in regard to the land question, only with this difference, that religion is replaced by political economy.

One would have thought that it must be as clear as day to any educated man of our time, that the possession of land by people who do not cultivate it themselves, but prevent hundreds, nay thousands, of starving families from access to the same, must be a state of things as immoral as the possession of slaves; but, none the less, we see educated, refined English, Austrian, Russian, and Prussian aristocrats enjoying this cruel, base privilege; -- based on the ready sophisms which political economy affords them -- and they are not only not ashamed, but pride themselves in it.

The merit of Henry George now lies in this, that he has dissipated into thin nothingness all these sophisms which are brought forward for the defence of property in land; so that the defenders of this already dare hot discuss the question, but cautiously avoid it and pass it over in silence.

But Henry George has also shaken this evasive policy, and herein lies his merit; he has not rested satisfied with bringing this question to the highest degree of clearness, so that it is only the people with closed eyes who cannot perceive the immorality of private property in land.

He was also the first to demonstrate the possibility of a solution of the question; he was the first to give a clear and straight answer to the usual objections which are used by the enemies of all reforms, which culminate in the point that the demands of progress are declared to be vain, impracticable, Uptopian ideas which can be passed over in silence.

The proposals of Henry George controvert these objections, as he puts the question in such a way that already committees could be formed tomorrow for the examination and discussion of the proposal and the carrying of it into law.