J52 THE SOCIALISM OF TO-DAY. 
principle was applied to mines and quarries, to forests, and 
even to arable land. The grounds of this resolution were 
stated as follows:—“Considering that the necessities of pro 
duction and the application of agricultural science call for 
cultivation conducted on a large scale, and require the intro 
duction of machines and the organization of combined labour 
in agriculture, and that, moreover, economic evolution itself 
tends in the same direction,—that, therefore, property in the j 
soil and agricultural labour ought to be treated on the same 
footing as mining labour and property in the subsoil; that, ; 
moreover, the productive quality of the soil is the original ^ 
material of all products, the primitive source of all wealth, 
without being itself the product of anybody's labour ; that the 
alienation to individuals of this indispensable original material | 
makes all society pay tribute to those to whom it is alienated ;— i 
the congress thinks that the course of economic evolution will ¿ 
make the collective ownership of arable land a social necessity, 
and that the land will be granted out to companies of labourers, ¡ 
under conditions of guaranty for society and for the cultivator, ç 
analogous to those necessary in the case of mines and railways.” á 
Observe how this language differs from that of revolutionaries 1 
of Jacobin traditions. The influence of the positivist school, ■ 
which prides itself on preaching respect for natural laws, is ; 
plainly felt. It is not revolution, but “ evolution ” which will j 
lead society to “ collectivism ; ” not the decrees of a conven- 
tion, but “ social necessities ” that will bring about the trans- | 
fornlation. The congress, moreover, retains the reserve of / 
philosophic doubt ; it does not affirm, it “ thinks ” that matters , 
will thus come to pass. The declarations of the congress, ’ 
although reduced to a mere expression of opinion, were not 
carried without vigorous opposition. 
M. Tolain urgently defended private property in land, at 
the risk of seeming reactionary. The idea of the collective 
ownership of arable land had been readily adopted by many 
Englishmen, under the name of “nationalization of the land. 
As a few aristocratic families own almost the whole extent o j 
the British Isles, to assign property in land, there, to the State 
seems to be a measure which does not offer insurmountab e