I have already stated that Mill, when he allows that which Herbert Spencer terms “political bias,”--and Luigi Cossa terms his “_narrow philosophic utilitarianism_,” to warp his better judgment,--is guilty of absurdities and inconsistencies that would disgrace a schoolboy. This is notably apparent when he attempts to draw a fundamental distinction between land and any other property, as regards its “sacred rights.” Mr. Mill greatly admired the prosperity of the peasant proprietors in France and Belgium, unfortunately forgetting that a system, suited to the sober thrifty peasantry of the Continent, might possibly not be equally suitable to the improvident lower classes of Ireland and England,[56] neglectful also of the sensible view taken by M. De Lavergne that “_cultivation spontaneously finds out the organization that suits it best_.”[57] He wished therefore to establish an Utopia of peasant proprietors in England and Ireland as a panacea for the evils which Free Trade in the first place, and mischievous legislation in the second place, had brought upon agriculture. Without presuming to offer an opinion on the debated subjects of “Grande” and “Petite Culture,” or peasant and landlord proprietorship, I may say that cultivation appears to have found out spontaneously the organization best suited to it, and that, in England and Ireland, landlordism seems best suited to the improvident character of the lower classes, in providing capital to help the tenants over bad times, and enabling improvements to be made in prosperous times. Be this as it may, peasant proprietorship has proved to be a failure in Ireland, and is rapidly becoming extinct.[58] Writers on the subject state that, under that system, labour was so ill-directed, that it required six men to provide food for ten; and consolidation of holdings is recommended. Mr. Mill, however, thought otherwise, and biased by this political conviction, he has propounded the following extraordinary arguments to prove that the sacred rights of property are not applicable in the case of landed property[59]:-- (1) “No man made the land.” (2) It is the original inheritance of the whole species.[60] (3) Its appropriation is wholly a question of general expediency. (4) When private property in land is not expedient, it is unjust. (5) It is no hardship to any one to be excluded from what others have produced. (6) But it is a hardship to be born into the world and to find all nature’s gifts previously engrossed. (7) Whoever owns land, keeps others out of the enjoyment of it. Now let us apply Mr. Mill’s arguments to any other kind of property.