[The second of these articles is an examination of Henry George's doctrines as set forth in "Progress and Poverty". His relation to the physiocrats is shown in a preliminary analysis of the term "natural rights which have no wrongs," and are antecedent to morality, from which analysis are drawn the results of confounding natural with moral rights. Here again is the note of justice to an argument in an unsound shape (page 369): "There is no greater mistake than the hasty conclusion that opinions are worthless because they are badly argued." And a trifling abatement of the universal and exclusive form of Henry George's principle may make it true, while even unamended it may lead to opposite conclusions--to the justification of several ownership in land as well as in any other form of property. The third essay of the series, "Capital the Mother of Labour" ("Collected Essays" 9 147), was an application of biological methods to social problems, designed to show that the extreme claims of labour as against capital are ill-founded. In the last article, "Government," he traces the two extreme developments of absolute ethics, as shown in anarchy and regimentation, or unrestrained individualism and compulsory socialism. The key to the position, of course, lies in the examination of the premisses upon which these superstructures are raised, and history shows that:--] So far from the preservation of liberty and property and the securing of equal rights being the chief and most conspicuous object aimed at by the archaic politics of which we know anything, it would be a good deal nearer the truth to say that they were federated absolute monarchies, the chief purpose of which was the maintenance of an established church for the worship of the family ancestors. [These articles stirred up critics of every sort and kind; socialists who denounced him as an individualist, land nationalisers who had not realised the difference between communal and national ownership, or men who denounced him as an arm-chair cynic, careless of the poor and ignorant of the meaning of labour. Mr. Spencer considered the chief attack to be directed against his position; the regimental socialists as against theirs, and:--] as an attempt to justify those who, content with the present, are opposed to all endeavours to bring about any fundamental change in our social arrangements (ib. page 423). So far from this, he continues:--]