(6.) In any case the whole question of rent resolves itself into a question of capital, and interest thereon. (7.) Law, from time immemorial, has recognised the right of property in land. (8.) In most cases the owner has paid hard cash both for the land and for the improvements of it. (9.) Land is therefore actual capital just as much as money, coal, iron, cattle, or any other disposable commodity. It is absurd, therefore, to say, that a man possessing capital in land may not act in the same way as the owner of any other form of capital. (Of course he has his moral obligations, but those are applicable to the possession of any other form of capital.) If the tenant desires capital, he must work for it, or obtain it in some legal manner. If he get it in any other way, it is theft; and any legislation that transfers the capital of the landlord to the tenant without due compensation, is legalized theft. As regards absentee landlords, I admit it is desirable, on many grounds--on the ground of his own personal interest--to put it on the lowest ground, that he should not be absent; but if the life of the landlord and his family be at stake, is he to be blamed if he declines to take the risk of being boycotted or shot? You argue that _he does nothing for his money which he draws, and spends away from the place in which it has been produced_, thus impoverishing the district. Is he different in this respect from the capitalist who invests money in colonial or foreign funds, who does nothing for his money, and spends it away from the country in which it is produced? Is he different in this respect from the London banker, who lends money to the manufacturer in the provinces, or abroad? He does nothing for his money, but spends it away from the locality in which it has been produced. Would you argue on this ground, that the railway shareholder, the foreign bondholder, the London banker ought, in equity, to receive no interest on their money, and should be held up to public execration? If you place any value on the laws of political economy, which you are so fond of quoting, my Fanatical Friend, drop your absurd arguments about landlords. Land is a commodity to be bought, sold, improved by the capital of the landlord, and if you treat it otherwise, you violate every principle of sound political economy. Admitting that land is capital, and the landlord is the capitalist, what does Political Economy say?-- “If a man has not wealth himself, but only his labour to sell, what is most to his advantage? Why, of course, that there should be as many rich men as possible to compete for his labour.... Nothing can be more fatal than the _cry against capital_ so often unthinkingly uttered.... It would be impossible to conceive a _greater benefactor to his country_ than the one who would permanently reconcile the interests of masters and workmen, and _put an end to the internecine wars of capital and labour_.”[75]