every great landlord was a sort of petty prince. His tenants were his subjects. He was their judge, and in some respects their legislator in peace, and their leader in war. He made war at his own discretion, frequently against his neighbor, and sometimes against his sovereign. The security of a landed estate, therefore, the protection which its owner could afford to those who dwelt on it, depended upon its greatness. To divide it was to ruin it, and to expose every part of it to be oppressed and swallowed up by the incursions of its neighbors. The law of primogeniture, therefore, came to take place, not immediately, indeed, but in process of time, in the succession of landed estates, for the same reasons that it has generally taken place in that of monarchies, though not always at their first institution. Hence the origin of the right of primogeniture, and of what is called lineal succession.

"Laws frequently continue in force long after the circumstances which first gave occasion to them, and which could alone render them reasonable, are no more. In the present state of Europe the proprietor of a single acre of land is as perfectly secure of his possession as the proprietor of a hundred thousand. The right of primogeniture, however, still continues, and as of all institutions it is the fittest to support the pride of family distinctions, it is likely to endure for many centuries. In every other respect nothing can be more contrary to the real interest of a numerous family than a right which, in order to enrich one, beggars all the rest of the children.

"Entails are the natural consequence of the law of primogeniture. They are formed upon the most absurd of all suppositions, the supposition that every successive generation of men have not an equal right to the earth, and to all that it possesses; but that the present generation should be restrained and regulated according to the fancy of those who died perhaps five hundred years ago.". Wealth of Nations.

This is the soil out of which have grown, and these are the nurserymen who have cultivated and matured the laws and customs under which we are de

veloping. There have been some changes in the instruments used and methods of procedure, but the results are practically the same. The hands of the great proprietors are no longer shielded with gauntlets of iron, but are covered with softest kid, tipped with finest furs. But the kid and furs beautifully disguise a vast increase of active crushing power. They no longer seize the sword as the weapon of oppression, but wield the pen, which is mightier, and are supported by an army of economic teachers who have studied only in the schools of feudalism. These teachers have not yet learned anything of the great developments of the present century, nor of their causes or effects, but like the barbarians they represent, would force the people to believe "that the more the rich may gain in wealth the more the poor may gain in comfort."

Having transplanted from the old feudal nurseries their laws, and made them our own, it follows, as a matter of necessity, that we must reach the same results, and we find them in our tenant farms, our great land holdings, our monopolies, the wealth and power of the few, and the miseries of the many. Our laws and teachers having prepared the way and laid the foundation for these great social evils, they have come upon us with the inexorable certainty of fate. Do the conditions under which we live require the longer continuance of a system founded under the circumstances described, and with such results? There can be but one answer.

It must be apparent to every thoughtful person that a system of land and labor laws that found its

origin in the barbarisms and confusions of the middle ages, out of which have grown all the evils described, is not a good foundation for the development and growth of Republican Institutions, nor the elevation and improvement of the masses. Feudal Laws and Republican Institutions, with us, are irreconcilable; one or the other must and will be changed. The present tendencies are all in the direction of the concentration of all the elements of wealth and power in the hands of the few, and degradation of the masses. These were the peculiar features of feudalism, and have ever marked the periods of greatest distress and decadence with every people. Can we hope to escape the necessary consequence of our own barbarous and unjust system if we persist in retaining it ?

In the remedial measures here proposed there is no taint of socialism; in it I fail to find any hope of improved conditions. Nor is there the least color of communism; that, to me, is far less hopeful than socialism. Neither can any action of agrarian laws place our people in the position which would achieve the best results for humanity.

What we require is the freest and fullest exercise of independent family and individual relations, in all business, educational, and social affairs, within a range and under such limitations as will best protect the weak from the natural encroachments of the strong, and enable all to share in the blessings of well regulated society. Unquestionably, it is in this manner that the "general welfare of the United States" can be best promoted.

In seeking remedies for the cure of the evils herein

described, the fact must be fully recognized that however great these evils may be, they are the direct result of the action or nonaction of society, for which it is alone responsible; and that if, in applying its remedies, actual and undeserved damage should be inflicted, provision for indemnification should be made. But in no case can society become responsible for the failure of any speculation or attack upon the true interests of mankind. That whilst confiscations are uncalled for and unjustifiable, the further sacrifice of the interests of society for the benefit of the few can not and will not be endured.

CHAPTER VI.

MACHINERY IN TEXTILE AND OTHER MANUFACTURES.

PREV

REVIOUS to the last quarter of the past century the work of carding of wool and cotton, of spinning of yarn, and weaving of all textiles, were the operations of purely hand labor. In England, in 1763, High invented the spinning jenny. Crompton, in 1775, introduced the mule spinner, and in 1790 Arkwright introduced the power loom. These inventions, with the introduction of Watt's engine, in 1783, in steam carding and spinning, and Bell's cylinder printing, in 1775, mark the commencement of the world's use of machinery in textile manufactures.

From the very earliest period in the history of the American Colonies, not only was domestic or household manufactures almost universal, but companies were engaged in the spinning of flax, wool, and cotton. In 1638 a company of Yorkshiremen settled in Rowley, Massachusetts, and engaged in the business; and in 1640 the General Court of that Colony encouraged that industry by bounties, followed almost immediately by the Assembly of Connecticut.

As early as 1775 a spinning jenny was put in operation in Philadelphia, followed by beginnings to manufacture by machinery in 1780, in Worcester, Massa