The Only Hope for Labor – Unknown, 6/21/1887

If the English operatives could only retain for their own use and benefit the vast sums which, under the
existing system of land tenure, go on the one hand to the owners of the soil, and the sums that an eco-
nomical system of taxation would save for them on the other, their material comforts and enjoyments
would be multiplied a hundredfold. Under the existing state of things, their condition is utterly incapable
of any improvement in the future. Political economists can see no possible way in which English operatives
can permanently improve their condition, except by recourse to that revolting and unnatural expedient
of voluntarily restraining and limiting their numbers. “This, then,” says Mr. Cairnes—“the limitation of his
numbers—is the circumstance on which, in the last resort, any improvement at all of a permanent kind
in the laborer’s condition turns. If the self-commissioned apostles who preach this new doctrine only
warned the people against the consequences of reckless and improvident marriages, I would join and
go with them heartily. But when they advise them (as they seem to me to do) to increase and multiply
according to the requirements of trade, and in such proportions as they may be wanted for the benefit
of their betters; when they advise them to increase and multiply only when trade is prosperous, prices
are high and commerce flourishes, I am heartily opposed to them. These teachings appear to me not only
unchristian, but revolting and unnatural; and their wickedness is only surpassed by the astounding ignorance
of human nature which they reveal in men who ought to be better informed. The British workman has no
need to have recourse to such an unnatural expedient for the purpose of improving his condition. The chief,
the fundamental obstacle he will have to overcome, will be found in the existing system of land tenure.
British operatives and capitalists, of all men living, appear to me to have the largest and deepest interest
in a thorough and radical reformation in the system of land tenure in our country as well as in their own.
Trades unions, therefore, instead of wasting their energies and resources in a fruitless struggle with
capitalists, would do well to turn their attention in this direction.

They have a wide field here for their efforts, and their labors here cannot possibly be fruitless. The rallying
cry of capitalists and laborers ought to be—‘BACK TO THE LAND.’” The above is the concluding paragraph
in a letter to the clergy and laity by Dr. Thomas Nulty, Bishop of Meath, Ireland. In it he mentions, among
other things: That private property in land is not justified by its general acceptance, any more than the re
-cognition and general acceptance of slavery by the nations and by Christendom could justify that institution.
That the approval of the whole world cannot justify injustice. That private property in land is the twin sister
of slavery. That no so-called vested rights can or should be mentioned as against natural rights. That the
justice of private property is in the fact that it is the result of labor. That the necessity of private property
springs out of the necessity of labor. That the necessity of labor proves a common right to the land. That
therefore the land of every country is the common property of the people of that country. That therefore the
practical problem to solve is how best to use and utilize the common estate in the interest of all. That in
working out this problem, it appears that first of all, security of possession is necessary to secure the rights
of the improver in the fruits of his labor. That non-improvers can have no rights in the land. That security of
possession and full ownership—not of the land, but of its products—is necessary. That there is a just right
of property in products of labor and in improvements, but no just right of property in the land itself. That
individuals who have made the improvements on land may rightfully collect rent for the improvements
thereon, but to permit them to collect rent for the land itself is wanton injustice. That the whole people are
the true owners of the land. That Divine Providence intended that the rent of the land itself should go to the
whole people or the community. That landlordism takes away from the people their God-given patrimony.
That the price of land is a monopoly price. That landlordism confiscates the work of the improving laborers.
That it prevents improvements. That it is in open violation of the principles of justice. That it rules all classes.

That land values were intended by Providence for public purposes. That it is mainly because of this that
wages do not increase. That private property in land is the real robber of the laboring man. And lastly, the
proposition stated at the beginning of this article—“The only hope is to get back to the land.” We have only
given the heads and outlines of Dr. Nulty’s argument, with his discussion on the first thesis. Each of them,
however, is ably supported by reasoning that we are unable to meet, and by a conviction that we do not
desire to resist. We earnestly wish we were pecuniarily able to spread the whole letter before our readers.
While we are not prepared to give full assent, we are prepared for further investigation. The letter was written
in 1881, before Henry George and Dr. McGlynn were before the public, or their theories as to land were
under public observation and discussion. It is a public letter addressed to the clergy and laity of his diocese,
and it is pretty hard for a plain layman to see how it is possible to condemn either Dr. McGlynn or Henry
George, or their doctrines as to private ownership in the land itself, without including the Bishop of Meath
in the same condemnation. It will be found in the end to be pretty difficult to convince the American people
that the churches, or any of them, can determine ex cathedra what are our civil rights, and what must be
the principles of political action controlling either political economy in general or land tenure in particular.
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the whole theory and practice
of our government and people are in direct opposition. Compare the above with what Mr. George said in
a recent speech, and mark their close agreement, the one with the other: The subject of the lecture was
“The Cause and Cure of Poverty.” Mr. George spoke slowly and earnestly, and frequently aroused his
audience to great exhibitions of enthusiasm. Among the points Mr. George made were the following: “A
fear of want on one side produces a worship of wealth on the other. This is a religious cause, and though it
has no creed it has the fundamental basis of true religion. We do not propose a division of property, nor
to take from any man what belongs to him, nor to make the State a national landlord. We want to put all
men on an equality with regard to the opportunities provided by nature; to secure to all that which they
justly earn, and in that state of society if a man will not work our consciences will be clear if we let him
starve. The social troubles that are looming black on the horizon of the future and the degrading struggle
for wealth are traceable to one monstrous wrong—that which disinherits the majority of children that
come into this world.” Let us open the way for the people to get back to the land.