place during the forty-four years that have since elapsed. They are already familiar with this gigantic, glaring, and ancient fraud; but until it has been arrested, and put out of existence-to say nothing of redemption-it will be necessary to repeat the tale, even with most "damnable iteration."

There is another, and a not unimportant object' however, that may be served by reproducing these few sentences from one of the, if not the, greatest, and perhaps the least known, of Cobden's speeches, at the present moment, and that is to show that the members of the so-called Free Land League are not, as the vast majority of them suppose, Free Traders after the order of the master they profess to follow. The aim of the Free Traders of the Free Land League is to obliterate as far as possible the distinction between land and the products of human labour and skill, and thereby confound them together more completely than they have yet been confounded, as marketable commodities and legitimate subjects of private property.

It would be well if the formidable array of M.P. vice-presidents who support Mr. Arthur Arnold in this combination for transforming the limited possession of the soil by individuals, which at present exists, into full-blown personal property, by relieving landed estates from the dead man's grip and other shackles that still hamper the landlords, could be got to ponder Cobden's résumé of the process by which the people of Great Britain

were gradually deprived of their natural and inalienable right to their native land; and the few sentences in which he sums up the moral of the tale. I shall repeat two or three of those sentences, reversing their order, for the sake of novelty. "The land was formerly held by right of feudal service. The land tax was in reality a substitute for the ancient feudal tenures. The people had fared better under the despotic monarchs than when the power of the State had fallen into the hands of a landed oligarchy, who first exempted themselves from taxation, and next claimed compensation by a corn tax for their heavy and peculiar burdens!" Can the free traders of the "Free Land" League imagine for a moment that he who uttered these words would have sympathised with them in their efforts to supplant the landed oligarchy, who have gradually deprived the people of their native land, by a plutocratic oligarchy who would administer their landed estates in a strictly commercial spirit, or, in other words, with a single eye to the individual interest of the owners? Surely, if Cobden denounced the landed oligarchy at whose hands the people had fared worse than they had under the despotic monarchs, he would have denounced still more vehemently the plutocratic oligarchy under whom the people would be more completely alienated from the soil than they have yet been, and be reduced to more abject privation and servitude than they have yet endured. WILLIAM Webster.

London, 20th Dec., 1886.

PROBLEM.

The signs of dissatisfaction on the part of the labouring classes are clearly apparent everywhere. Labour organizations, strikes, boycotts, labour journals - all these mean something, and what that something is we cannot find out too soon.

Is the dissatisfaction of labour simply the result of human perverseness, the envy and jealousy of idleness and carelessness at the better success of industry and thrift, or are there unjust forces operating on society producing vicious inequalities? Has every man the same chance? Can all men attain to the same fortune if all are equally industrious and thrifty? Is there a fair field and no favour ?

Certainly there is, cries a host of respondents. Is not each man the architect of his own fortune? And they quote case after case of men who began at the foot of the ladder, but who with indomitable

pluck gained step after step until they conquered fortune, while others who began at the same point, neglected their opportunities and are still toiling in poverty, where they are destined to stay to the end of the chapter.

Is society so constructed that to all there is the same chance? Can all by exercising the same industry and thrift become equally wealthy? This question goes directly to the core of the labour problem. If there is the same chance to all, then

what reason has the labourer to complain? A little consideration answers this question.

In how many years could society with its utmost exertions and greatest economy accumulate enough so that toil would be no longer necessary, and forever after all succeeding generations could live in idleness. No more ploughing in spring, no reaping in harvest, no toiling in the mine, no sailing on the ocean-a huge, everlasting pic-nic!

Never! Toil, to restore the faded or to replace the worn out, must be as lasting as the race. Toil, toil, toil, is the inevitable.

"Men may come and men may go, But toil goes on for ever." Note that as fact number one and put fact number two alongside it.

And fact number two is this: Certain families toil. They organise no industry, invent no machine, now have the power of living for ever without do nothing to furnish supplies for themselves or their fellows-drones in the human hive, and yet

their cruse of oil never fails.

Now, put these two facts together: 1st. Toil must be lasting as the race;

2nd. Some are now eternally exempt from toil; Therefore, as certain as any therefore can bo, some are endowed with privileges from which the

The mere statement of this probleni shows at once the fact that our methods of distributing wealth are such that one part of society is endowed with privileges and powers from which the rest of society must inevitably be excluded. Toil must be done continuously and for ever. One part of society is now relieved for ever from that toil, therefore the rest of society must inevitably be compelled to do all the toil, not merely to maintain themselves, but also to maintain the idlers.

Of all the questions in economics pressing for solution not the least important is this power of idleness appropriating for ever the fruit of other people's industry. By what divine right of idleness can one part of society be for ever exempt from toil? How and why is it that one part of the race is endowed with powers and privileges from which the rest must inevitably be excluded?

To ascertain the cause of this extraordinary arrangement it is necessary to make some inquiry into the nature of trade. The attention of the reader is therefore asked to a few simple illustrations.

When the shoemaker sticks to his last, by the accumulation of suitable tools, increased dexterity, and increased knowledge, he produces in much greater abundance and of much better quality than if he had been a jack of all trades The same is true of the clothier. When therefore each of these produces and exchanges with each other, each gives more and each receives more; each enriches and each is enriched. The characteristic of this kind of trade is mutual enrichment-a beautiful harmony whereby each toiler not merely satisfies his own wants in the easiest way possible, but also reduces the toil and increases the comforts of his fellows. Here is the action of a harmonious force, each toiler tending to the elevation of his fellow. This kind of trade is like Portia's quality of mercy, "twice blessed, it blesseth him that gives and him that takes."

It is quite safe to say that the vast majority of writers on economics have fixed their attention wholly on the above kind of trade, and that a rash generalisation has led many to conclude that all trades possess the same characteristics. Therefore the doctrine of laisser faire has been proclaimed by some in the widest possible sense, denouncing any governmental interference in the production or distribution of wealth. According to these writers, if poverty is a calamity, it is such just as the sickness of the intemperate is a calamity —the just retribution of a violated law, warning us to avoid transgression if we would avoid the resultant penalty. A little further investigation will show, however, that there is another kind of trade marked by characteristics quite different from the preceding.

A few years ago fuel on this continent was excessively abundant, and so cheap that in many places it could be obtained by merely taking it from the forests. Two factors have effected a marked change. The quantity of fuel has diminished, while population has increased. The supply is less, the demand is greater. In this commodity the quantity being less, society is poorer. But some

parties obtained possession almost absolute of immense deposits of fuel at a merely nominal figure, and the enhanced value has rendered these parties exceedingly wealthy. Here we see a trade whose characteristics are not mutual enrichment, but encroachment of a few, and impoverishment of the many.

The same law is clearly seen in the growth of land values, especially in rapidly-growing cities. A settler secures a section at a merely nominal figure; population crowds on to that section; the portion of land for each is less, so that in this commodity each is poorer. But the value advances, so that the owner grows richer and richer. The landholder or speculator becomes rich, not by enriching, but in consequence of the impoverishment of his fellows.

When farmers raise grain, or when weavers make cloth, they enrich society by their products, and only when they have so enriched, are they allowed to withdraw for themselves a share of the world's wealth. They must increase the world's utilities before they can appropriate any of these utilities for themselves.

Were all trades marked by this characteristic, then, indeed, we would have no reason to complain. But when once society drifted into the method of allowing absolute ownership in the natural wealth of the world-the store of minerals, the forests, and especially the land, then there was set in operation a force destined to split society asunder, carrying inevitably one part up and another part down.

We can give but a brief summary of the characteristics of this antagonistic force.

1st. As these commodities, minerals, land, etc., become more scarce, society becomes poorer, while in consequence of the enhanced value the owners become richer. Thus, instead of mutual enrichment we have enrichment of one and impoverishment of another.

2nd. These owners become richer without effort on their part. Many of them cease to produce or fellows. In the case of land which lasts for ever enrich, but live by the impoverishment of their they may live for all time in idleness

3rd. Increased population compes resort to poorer soils, a physical calamity not easy, if at all possible, to overcome. Increased population increases ground rents, enriching a class of idlers. A second calamity-an economic evil-one which it is possible for better regulations to remedy. Thus increased population becomes to the labourer a double calamity.

4th. It divides society into toilers and idlers, compelling one part to do all the toil and allowing the other part to live for ever in idleness.

5th. It imposes such obligations on the toilers, compels them to yield so much of the product of their toil to the idlers, that it presents an impossible barrier to the progress of the former, keeping them for ever in a condition bordering on penury.

I have but indicated a line of inquiry in the labour problem, the investigation of which must lead to most important results. How little these antagonisms have been studied may be noted from the fact that many of the text books on economics do not so much as point out their existence. And

yet how is it possible to arrive at any solution of the labour question without their very thorough investigation ?

Such an investigation would show that society in certain directions develops harmoniously: mutually assisting, mutually elevating; but in other directions it is developing antagonistically-a tug of war-one part of society gaining exclusive possession of stores of wealth that should have been retained for the common weal.

It would not be at all difficult to point out many cases in history in which our laws have done their utmost to destroy or prevent the development of these harmonies, and other instances in which the direct drift of legislation has been to intensify the antagonisms. W. A. DOUGLASS.

:0:

LIGHT AND SHADE. Nearly every problem of State policy and economy as at present understood, and practised, consists in some device for persuading you labourers to go and dig up dinner for us reflective and æsthetical persons, who like to sit still and think or admire. So that when we get to the bottom of the matter, we find the inhabitants of this earth

broadly divided into two great masses the peasants, spade in hand, original and imperial producers of turnips; and, waiting on them all round, a crowd of polite persons modestly expectant of turnips, for some-too often theatrical-service.

-Ruskin.

Parsons do preach and tell me to pray,
And to think of our work, and not ask more pay,
And to follow the plough-share, and never think
Of crazy cottage and ditch stuff's stink-
That, doctor do say, breeds ager and chills,
Or, worse than that, the fever that kills-
And a' bids me pay my way like a man,
Whether I can't or whether I can ;

And as I h'ant beef, to be thankful for bread,
And bless the Lord it ain't turmuts instead;
And never envy the farmer's pig,
For all a' lies warm, and is fed so big,
While the missus and little 'uns grows that thin,
You may count thar bones underneath thar skin;
I'm to call all I gits the " chastening rod,"
And look up to my betters, and then thank God.
-Punch.

Struggle as the landowners of our empire may, no sooner will the people understand the character and effects of our own Land Laws than the day of their complete abelition will have come. -Joseph Kay.

TWO DEMOCRATIC NOVELISTS. Who in this day and generation have most influenced the ordinary thinking of ordinary men? Whose ideas flow chiefly in the life-blood of the work-a-day world? By the teaching of whom are men most impressed and unconsciously influenced? We should say by our two novelists, Charles Dickens and William Makepeace Thackeray. In the sixteenth century the drama, in the seventeenth century the pamphlet, in the eighteenth century the essay, were the chief means of influencing men and actions; in our latest, greatest century the novel combines in itself all the powers of play, pamphlet, and essay. Not that one sits down a Conservative to read the work of a great writer and arises a Democrat, but certain sympathies are touched, certain thoughts are imparted, and in a vague, unconscious way the reader has begun to despise senseless luxury and to pity helpless poverty. Once he has come to that he will fast and soon go further. He will begin to ask why these two hateful things should exist in our civilisation, and then he determines that they shall not exist, if his will and his help can prevent them. Thus Democrats are made.

Now, while I cannot agree with the religious views of Mr. Frederic Harrison, I think that he has brought into this country a new and beautiful principle that should appeal to every man of head and heart-the worthy honouring of the great and good. I have often bethought me of writing "A Democrats' Calendar." It should contain, in briefest space, some account of all who have dared and done great things for the holy cause of liberty. And in it day by day men should read of such noble minds and such radiant actions that they should go out to their daily duties feeling that the weak man may be called to do the grand task, and the humble man to lead humanity. And surely in this record I would give illustrious record to Dickens and to Thackeray.

am I than my neighbour across the way? He has got a trade on which he cannot live; I have got a trade on which I can just live. But his trade was good once, yet it went away. Suppose mine went, too, where would I be then?" And so he thinks and thinks and asks himself about the why, the whence, and the whither of all things. By-andbye you will see, besides his copies of Dickens, a copy of "Progress and Poverty," written by one Henry George, a book and a man that, like the apostles of old, are turning the world upside down, the right side being just at present down, and the wrong side up. Among the middle classes the effect is somewhat, but not quite the same. Many of them feel that they are too good for Dickens. The progeny of a wealthy butcher or manure contractor, who are on calling acquaintance with a baronet's half cousin, to say that Dickens does not satisfy their artistic sense. In fact, it is the fashion at present for the poor creatures who go smirking and gabbling of their refinement to look down on our great novelist.

These people naturally take to Thackeray, and in their great innocence do not see their own portraits in his fine pages, although all the world is laughing at the resemblance. Thackeray is very popular among the aristocratic classes, as Voltaire was just before the French Revolution. In fact, there is a great deal of resemblance between Dickens and Rousseau and Voltaire and Thackeray. The two first prepared the way for what was coming, the second pair laughed away the old. And aristocrats, knowing well the shams exposed by Voltaire and Thackeray, could not resist the fun of their exposure. Among the upper classes then and now a feeling was widely spread that "things will last our day, and what need we care for the future?" Those who understand Thackeray's work and its influence know that he has struck as severe a blow at our aristocratic delusion as Cervantes struck at the delusion of chivalry. He was not a partisan, and, in literature at least, he was never passionate. He just took the sham to pieces and showed you what it was. His art is summed up in one of his own little drawings. We have three figures. One represents a stately figure, and is called Ludavicus rex. It strikes us with awe. The second is the rex part of Ludavicus rex-a gorgeous suit of clothes. The third part is the Ludavicus part of Ludavicus rex-a weak, totter

foolish, ridiculous old man. What a moral. All the greatness and the glory and the majesty of kings and courts came from the tailors, and are supplied at so much a yard. Thackeray did more harm to royalty than Cromwell, for he made it laughable, and no institution ever recovers from that.

Thus it is that two great sons of the century have prepared the way for the social revolution that we preach.

A SCOTTISH PRESSMAN.

-:0:

Mr. Thackeray, speaking of the most despicable character he ever drew, says, "Had he been a crown prince he could not have been more weak, useless, dissolute, or ungrateful,"