Much has been said, since the establishment of the Republic, of ‹gratuitous› credit, and ‹gratuitous› instruction. But it is evident that a gross sophism lurks under this phraseology. Can the State shed abroad instruction like the light of day without its costing anything to anybody? Can it cover the country with institutions and professors without their being paid in one shape or another? Instead of leaving each individual to demand and to remunerate voluntarily this description of service, the State may lay hold of the remuneration, taken by taxation from the pockets of the citizens, and distribute among them instruction of its own selection, without exacting from them a second remuneration. This is all that can be effected by government interference—and in this case, those who do not learn pay for those who do, those who learn little for those who learn much, those who are destined to manual labour for those who embrace learned professions. This is communism applied to one branch of human activity. Under this régime, of which I am not called upon here to give an opinion, it might very well be said that ‹instruction is common›, but it would be ridiculous to say that ‹instruction is gratuitous›. Gratuitous! Yes, for some of those who receive it, but not for those who have to pay for it, if not to the teacher, at least to the tax-gatherer. For that matter, there is nothing which the State can give ‹gratuitously›; and if the word were not a mystification, it is not only ‹gratuitous› education which we should demand from the State, but ‹gratuitous› food, ‹gratuitous› clothing, ‹gratuitous› lodging, etc. Let us take care. The people are not far from going this length, and there are already among us those who demand ‹gratuitous› credit, ‹gratuitous› tools and instruments of labour, etc. Dupes of a word, [p248] we have made one step towards Communism; why should we not make a second, and a third, until all liberty, all justice, and all property have passed away? Will it be urged that instruction is so universally necessary that we may depart somewhat from right and principle in this instance? But then, are not food and sustenance still more necessary than education? ‹Primò vivere, deinde philosophari›, the people may say; and I know not in truth what answer we can make to them. Who knows? Those who charge me with Communism for having demonstrated the natural community of the gifts of God, are perhaps the very people who seek to violate justice in the matter of education, that is to say, to attack property in its essence. Such inconsistencies are more surprising than uncommon. [p249] IX. LANDED PROPERTY. If the leading idea of this work is well founded, the relations of mankind with the external world must be viewed in this way: God created the earth. On it, and within it, he has placed a multitude of things which are useful to man, inasmuch as they are adapted to satisfy his wants.