crease the production of wealth.

But from

When the devil quotes Scripture, good Christians know that he is perverting its sense. They, however, do not suspect that he will misquote it; to do so is a depth of dishonesty which they do not expect, even in the devil himself. The abyss, which is too deep for the devil, has, however, no terrors for the 46 Age." In its leading article of the 20th ult., it produces quotations alleged to be culled from Chapters 21 and 22 of Henry George's celebrated work, "Protection or Free Trade." These quotations are intended to prove that" in the closing chapters he has ruthlessly demolished his own handiwork by proving what a hollow sham, as applied to daily life, is this same Free Trade."

The alleged quotations which are marshalled in support of this astounding statement are craftily separated from the surrounding text, and have been manipulated and expurgated with complete disregard of the most elementary honesty. We place them in juxtaposition to the true text, so as to enable our readers to judge for themselves the character of the "Age's" proceeding.

HENRY GEORGE.

We have seen the absurdity of Protection as a general principle, and the fallacy of the pleas that are made for it. We have seen that Protective duties cannot increase the aggregate of wealth of the country that enforces them that their tendencies, on the contrary, are to lessen aggregate wealth and to foster monopolies at the expense of the masses of the people. It still remains to explain why such exposures produce so little effect. I shall hereafter show that the protective system does indeed derive support from doctrines and habits of thought which the opponents, no less than the advocates of Protection, have failed to call in question. But what I now wish to point out is the inadequacy of the arguments which Free Traders usually rely on to convince workingmen that the abolition of Protection is for their interest.

THE "AGE."

He admits that in view of the living facts there is a hopeless "inadequacy in the arguments which Free Traders rely on.''

HENRY GEORGE.

But what have we proved as to the main issue? Merely that it is the tendency of Free Trade to increase the production of wealth, and thus to permit of the increase of wages, and that it is the tendency of Protection to decrease the production of wealth and foster certain monopolies. But from this it does not follow that the abolition of Protection would be of any benefit to the working class. The tendency of a brick pushed off a chimney top is to fall to the surface of the ground. But it will not fall to the surface of the ground if its fall be intercepted by the roof of a house. The tendency of anything that increases the productive power of labour is to augment wages. But it will not augment wages under conditions in which labourers are forced by competition to offer their services for a mere living.

But this point lies beyond the limit to which Free Traders are accustomed to confine their reasoning. They prove that the tendency of Protection is to reduce the production of wealth and to increase the price of commodities, and from this they assume that the effect of the abolition of Protection would be to increase the earnings of labour. But not merely is such an assumption logically invalid until it is shown that there is nothing in existing conditions to

prevent the working classes from getting the benefit of this tendency; but, although in itself a natural assumption, it is in the minds of "the poor people who have to work" contradicted by obvious facts.

In this is the invalidity of the Free Trade argument, and here, and not in the ignorance of the masses, is the reason why all attempts to convert workingmen to the Free Tradeism which would substitute a revenue tariff for a Protective tariff must, save under such conditions as existed in England forty years ago, utterly fail.

While both sides have shown the same indisposition to go to the heart of the controversy, there can be no question that so far as issue is joined between Protec tionists and Free Traders, in current discussion, the Free Traders have the best of the argument. THE "AGE."

But what have we proved as to the main issue? Merely that it is the tendency of Free Trade to in

tion would be of any benefit to the working class. The tendency of a brick pushed off a chimney top is to fall to the surface of the ground. But it will not fall to the surface of the ground if its fall be intercepted by the roof of a house. The tendency of anything that increases the productive power of labour is to augment wages. But it will not augment wages under conditions in which labourers are forced by competition to offer their services for a mere living. In this is the invalidity of the Free Trade argument, and here, and not in the attempts to convert workingmen to Free Tradeism, ignorance of the masses, 18 the reason why all which would substitute a revenue tariff for a protective tariff, must, save under such conditions as existed in England forty years ago, utterly fail.

HENRY GEORGE.

Beaten in argument, the Protectionist usually falls back upon some declaration that the real grounds of his belief have been untouched.

The real question is whether the reasoning on which Free Traders rely takes into account all existing conditions? What the Protectionist means, or at least the perception he appeals to when he talks in this way of the difference between theory and fact is, that the Free Trade theory does not take into account all existing facts. And this is true.

THE "AGE."

The real question is whether the reasoning on which Free Traders rely takes into account all existing conditions? What the Protectionist means when he talks of the difference between theory and fact is, that the Free Trade theory does not take into account all existing facts. And this is true.

HENRY GEORGE.

It would be as rational to expect any thorough treatment of the social question from the well to-do class represented in the English Cobden Club, or the American Iron and Steel Association, or from their apologists in professional chairs, as it would be to look for any thorough treatment of the subject of personal liberty in the controversies of the slave holding Whigs and slave-holding Democrats of forty years ago, or in the sermons of the preachers whose salaries were paid by them.

THE "AGE."

It would be as rational to expect any thorough treatment of the social question from the well-to-do class represented in the English Cobden Club as it would be to look for any thorough treatment of the subject of personal liberty in the controversies of the slave-holding Whigs and slave-holding Democrats of forty years ago.

HENRY GEORGE,

How the abolition of Protection would stimulate production, weaken monopolies, and relieve Government of a great cause of corruption, we have seen. "But what," it will be asked," would be the gain to workingmen? Will wages increase!

For some time, and to some extent, yes. For the spring of industrial energy, consequent upon the removal of the dead weight of the tariff, would for a time make the demand for labour brisker and em

ployment steadier, and in occupations where they can combine, workingmen would have better opportunity to reduce their hours and increase their wages, as, since the abolition of the Protective tariff in England many trades there have done. But even from the total abolition of Protection, it is impossible to predict any general and permanent increase of wages or any general and permanent improvement in the conditions of the working

classes.

Here is the weakness of Free Trade

as it is generally advocated and understood. will the change you propose benefit me?" The workingman asks the Free Trader, "How The Free Trader can only answer, "It will increase wealth and reduce the cost of commodities." But in our own time the workingman has seen wealth enormously increased without feeling himself a sharer in the gain. He has seen the cost of commodities greatly reduced without finding it any easier to live. He looks to England, where a revenue tariff has for some time taken the place of a Protective tariff, and there he finds labour degraded and underpaid, a general standard of wages lower than that which prevails here, while such improvements as have been made in the condition of the working classes since the abolition of Protection are clearly not traceable to that, but to trades unions, to temperance and beneficial societies, to emigration, to education, and to such Acts as those regulating the labour of women and children, and the sanitary condition of factories.

THE "AGE."

Even from the total abolition of Protection, it is impossible to predict any general and permanent increase of wages, or any general and permanent improvement in the position of the working classes.

Here is the weakness of Free Trade, as it is generally advocated and understood. The workingman asks the Free Trader-"How will the change you propose benefit me?" The Free Trader can only answer-"It will increase wealth and reduce the cost of commodities."

But in our own times the workingman has seen wealth enormously increased without feeling him. self a sharer in the gain. He has seen the cost of commodities greatly reduced without finding it any easier to live. He looks to England, where a revenue tariff has for some time taken the place of a protective tariff, and there he finds labour degraded and underpaid, a general standard of wages lower than that which prevails here, while such improvements as have been made in the conditions of the working classes since the abolition of Protection are clearly not traceable to that, but to trades unions, to temperance and beneficial societies, to emigration, to education, and to such acts as those regulating the labour of women and children and the sanitary conditions of factories.

The obvious object of the manipulations which any attentive reading of the above contrasted passages reveals, is to change George's meaning into its exact contrary. Protection, he says, is wholly bad, it reduces the production of wealth, increases the price of goods, creates monopolies, and thus reduces wages. But a mere change from Protection to a revenue tariff, though it will increase the production of wealth, will cheapen goods and increase wages, and therefore im. prove the condition of the working classes for a time, cannot do so permanently. Ultimately the landlord will swallow up the gain. This perfectly clear position the Age perverts by garbling George's statements, so as to make it appear that he supports the claims made on behalf of Protection, i.e., that it increases the production of wealth and permanently improves the condition of the workers; that he condemns the teaching of Free Traders, not only of those who want to change the protective tariff into a revenue tariff, but even of those who desire to abolish the tariff altogether, and to reduce and ultimately abolish the power of the landlord to intercept the increase in wages which would result from the abolition of duties, by a tax on the unimproved value of land.

Yet all these deceptions are unavailing. Either George is right or wrong in his teaching, that the landlord swallows up the wealth which labour creates. If wrong, why does the "Age" adopt his reasoning, not only in the perverted manner of this article, but outright, as in that which appeared on the 19th last? If right, how is it that the "Age" up. holds the power of the landlord to intercept the wages of labour, and calls it" theft and robbery" to interfere with him? because, while wooing the pennies of the working classes by an apparent and hypocritical care for their interests, the real endeavour of this conscienceless journal is to foster the monopoly of the capitalist in land and trade.

1. Because privileging the few at the expense of the many is the very essential principle of Toryism. And no scheme has ever been promulgated which does this so effectively as Protectionism, which in countries that enjoy the fullest measure thereof, e.g., the United States, "protects only 5.6 per cent. of the people, at the expense of the remaining 95.4 per cent.

2. Because "Protection " is the only method discoverable at present for making the mass of the people not merely willing to have the necessary national revenue raised from their hunger and nakedness, but actually eager to tax themselves ever more and more, while allowing the monopolist to go comparatively free.

3. Because not one-tenth-no, nor onetwentieth-of the people who are nominally and apparently "protected" really advantage by the duties, which go into the pockets of the employers, in whose hands practically all manufactures which can be "protected" are monopolised.

4. Because "The Fiscal Issue" can always be relied upon to divide the Democracy. To make that part of a community whose avocations are" Protected" look upon the maintenance and increase of the subsidies which they draw from the rest of the nation, the be-all and end-all of their political activities; thus keeping questions of really vital reform out of the sphere of "practical politics."

5. Because the mass of the people are incomparably the chiefest gainers by a policy of Free (that is, natural) Trade, which secures them, as far as economic laws and conditions can, from monopoly of the common commodities of life, of which the working classes consume at least a hundred times as much as the few rich people do.

6. Because the Tory has always been called "The Stupid Party," and it is certainly the acme of stupidity to raise the price of all goods by import duties, when everybody admits that the cheaper every individual can buy goods, the better-providing our goodsproducers do not suffer. And we could, at a far less cost, raise a national tax, and subsidise our manufacturers to the extent to which they are benefited by the duties, and thus secure the cheap goods which everybody desires, and at the same time make the same

free gift to certain persons which we now tax ourselves twice over to do-once by paying our manufacturers higher prices, and once by paying our importers higher prices. (To be continued.)

FISCAL FANCIES

"What Protection has done" is the title of some articles in the "Age," in which are described some of the protected factories which have prospered on the forced contributions of the rest of the people. We will not deal with the accusation which has been raised by at least one of those factories, that the "Age" invents the facts which it describes to its readers, nor with the question, what is the cost of these fortunate concerns to the rest of the people? but it is worth while to point out that the following declara. tion, embodied in the half-yearly report of the protected" Euroa Preserving Company," has not found its way into the pages of the "Age":

The cost of producing and tinning was largely increased by the duties levied on almost every article used in preparing the goods for sale, whilst almost the whole output of the factory had to be sent to London to compete in the open markets of the world. As an instance of how seriously the tariff interferes with the sale of tongues, the local storekeepers complain that they are

"What Protection has done." Done for unable to sell the Euroa tongues owing to the colony.

Protectionists are consistent. Their tariff on reasoning amounts to Prohibition.

the duty; consequently in Euroa every tin of tongues sold is imported from New Zealand, whilst the quantity exported last year under bond was over 40,000 tins. A profitable market exists throughout the colony for the Euroa tongues, could the raw tongues There are five millions of unemployed in be sent here across the border free; and it is a the United States.-"Arena," January.

"Even the very dogs in the streets of Richmond are Protectionists." This accounts for Mr. Trenwith being able to buy 5 lbs. of sausages for a shilling.

Not long ago an engineer stood begging in New York's streets, with a card in his hatband stating how he had tramped 1000 miles across the continent seeking work and not finding it.

was seventeen feet high, I'll stick to it." If," said Longbow, "I said the horse "If," says the " would maintain a high rate of wages, find "Age," "I said Protection the land with the song of busy and contented employment for our rising generation, fill workers-if I said so, I'll stick to it."

Instead of bombs and nitro-glycerine, it is far better to buy a pennyworth of mental dynamite, in the shape of George's Protection or Free Trade. This is guaranteed to blow the medieval superstitions and other cobwebs out of the brains of any Protectionist. That is, if he has any-brains, not cobwebs.

It is gratifying to be able to announce that tion or Free Trade," which is now obtainable over 480 copies of Henry George's "Protecalready been disposed of. for one penny at the Beacon office, have We especially the book broadcast. urge our country friends to aid in spreading

At Reggio in Italy, in the bergamot scent distilleries, the workmen work from ten at night till three the following afternoon for 1s. a day. They breakfast off black bread and pepper pods dipped in oil, and never taste meat or wine. They doubtless pay rent too, and enjoy all the privileges of "Protection."

fact that they can be imported in bond, preserved in Euroa, sent to London and actually sold at a profit lower than they can be sold locally. Free Trade would, without question, place this industry in a flourishing condition, and enable the directors to pay higher wages and give a better price for

rabbits.

Bravo, Trenwith! What a pity it is you had no hand in the shaping of this Universe. However, this can be remedied. Let us make him dictator; he will then block up our harbours; destroy our breakwaters, railways and bridges, and will thus prevent any possibility of our exporting or importing anything. If this should not be enough, he might post sentries along our coasts and frontiers, with strict orders to shoot anyone who dared to bring any goods into the country or who took out any. This would prevent our people from following the trading instinct which is inherent in all men, and would thus be the best substitute for the universal misfortune that Mr. Trenwith was not there to create human beings without it.

Seriously speaking, it is manifest that Mr. Trenwith is as innocent of history as he is devoid of common sense, otherwise the fact that commerce has everywhere been the forerunner and originator of civilisation might have caused even him to pause before he labelled himself as the most senseless fool who ever took part in public affairs.

SHAKESPEARE Revised.

Prince Hal, doubtfully (asking reasons for the conclusion that Protection has benefited Victoria)-Come, tell us your reasons. What say'st thou to this?

Poins-Come, your reasons, Jack, your

reasons.

Protectionist Falstaff-What, upon compulsion! No. Were I at the strappado or all the racks in the world, I would not tell you on compulsion. Give you a reason on compulsion! If reasons were as plenty as blackberries I would give no man a reason on compulsion, I.

In the past the evil effects of Protection in the United States have been largely concealed by causes similar to those which have operated in a similar manner in Victoria. Mr. Wilson, of the " Investor's Review," calculates that £1000,000,000 worth of European wealth has been sent to America for investment there since the close of the civil war. As in Victoria, this has had the effect in the past of keeping up the revenue and an outward appearance of prosperity similar, though in a less degree, to that which prevailed in the palmy days of the boom. Borrow! Boom!! Burst!!!

Sir Graham Berry and Mr. Trenwith say that farming has been booming under the fostering influence of Protection. The "Age" had the same story to tell, until the

are good enough to be utilised a little longer in labouring for the mortgagee, but, all the same, with the sure and certain fate of hav. ing at last to go the way of their departed neighbours."

The "Age" thus tells the farmers it wants them to have cheap money, but it doesn't mind how much the farmer pays for his machinery, furniture, or clothing. Would it not be better to allow him to keep his own money instead of robbing him of it by duties?

Properly speaking, the land belongs to these two-to the Almighty God and to all His children of men that have ever worked well

on it, or that shall ever work well on it. No generation of men can or could, with never such solemnity and effort, sell land on any other principle; it is not the property of any generation, but that of all the past generations that have worked on it, and of all future ones that shall work on it. Ah! yes; soil, with or without ploughing is, the gift of God. The soil of all countries belongs evermore, in a very considerable degree, to the Almighty Maker!—Carlyle.

"At last the fatal wound, which spreads dismay around," has been given M'Kinleyism in the United States. It is worthy of note that the Ohio wool growers, who lobbied the M'Kinley wool tariff through Congress, are simply silent and ashamed in the presence of the result of their labour in that direction, for under the highest tariff ever enacted the prices of domestic wool have fallen to the lowest level. Wool is now to be on the free list, and the wool growers admit it will be to their interest, as it will dispense with the domestic wool markets against each other. middlemen, who now play the foreign and Thus the wool growers allow it is better for the Government to stop its interference, the

people are delighted because they will get

fore make superfluous the labour of about one-half the men previously employed. Those employers who lack the capital or the energy to adopt the new machinery find themselves unable to compete, and have therefore made the demand that their employés shall work for the same piece wages as those using the machine. The operatives are resisting this preposterous demand, which would compel them to work for much less a day than the machine hands can earn, and not for the proverbial 10s. a day, which Mr. Trenwith alleges he has always earned, but for it must be noted that the wages paid in Sydabout 1s. to 18. 6d. a day. At the same time

ney for working the new machines are stated to be about 25 per cent. higher than those paid in protected Melbourne.

the masters' proposal, and was unanimously Mr. W. J. Fleming led the opposition to supported by his fellow-workers, in spite of Mr. Trenwith's endeavours to the contrary, because they recognise that, if it were accepted, the day wages of the machine hands would quickly come down to a similar level, while they themselves would merely prolong the agony preceding certain ultimate dismis sal. Whether the subsequent development the outcome of Mr. Fleming's action, we was merely a coincident, or whether it was meeting of the union in which his resolution are unable to say, but two days after the employment, and without prospect of any was carried, saw him dismissed from his other.

took a shop in the Eastern Arcade, estabNothing dismayed, Mr. Fleming at once lishing himself there as a boot repairer. As he is known to be one of the most expert workmen, as well as one of the most punctual and conscientious of men, we have every friends, and all men who value independence reason to hope that he will succeed. Our of character and sterling worth, should sup

issue of No. 1 of
and the Way Out," in which it says:-

"The bulk of the advertisements in the provincial papers refer to clearance sales,' farmer after farmer succumbing to his fate, and being driven off the soil; while the land tax register is annually having added to it the names of business firms and financial in

stitutions as owners of estates converted by the aggregation of deserted farms into their original condition of grazing runs."

"An estimate of the exodus of farmers from

No

their lands from 1881 up to the end of 1893 shows approximately that 5375 have left their farms, chiefly in the counties of Bendigo, Gladstone, Kara Kara, Ripon, and Talbot, averaging 250 acres each, and aggregating a total area of 1,433,750 acres, while at the rate of five persons to each settler's family this means a total population of 28,675. doubt a considerable proportion of these have shifted to the mallee, and some have still retained their old farms; but the figures are suggestive of what is going on. As the sales of farms also have been heaviest in the years 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1893, it may be assumed they will be equally, if not more, numerous in 1894."

"Those who are now being sold off are understood to have reached a point of utter hopelessness to overtake their interest, therefore there is nothing for it but to realise upon their security, viz., the land; and those being allowed to go on for another are extended that favour on the ground that they

SMOKE

tralia are going to also gain immensely by the change. Such is Free Trade. The only people in the States who will really suffer will be the manufacturers of shoddy.

Mr. Prendergast, President of the Trades Hall Council-a firm believer in Protectionat a meeting presided over by Mr. Trenwith, according to the " Age," delivered himself as follows:

"The status of the English workman was much in advance of that of the workman of this country.... As to the union rates of wages in London 10d. an hour was paid to plumbers, the maximum hours of labour per week in that trade being 47 hours in summer and 42 in winter. Carpenters received 94d. an hour, and watermen from 6s. to 8s. a day. These wages were almost equal to those paid in the most prosperous times that Victoria had ever seen, and were now obtaining in various parts of England, Ireland, and Scotland.”

which, if we had uttered, would have been We thank our friend for saying that, denounced as false by himself and his party.

The utter inadequacy of Protection as a solution of any of the industrial problems which confront the workers, is well exemplified by the present experience of bootmakers. New machines have been introduced for heeling, rubbing down channels, and finishing, which enormously increase the output of every hand using them, and which there

him their custom.

The Government Pawnshop.

When the question of reconstructing our insolvent banks was under discussion, we were earnest and persistent in pointing out the inevitable evils which would result from such an interference with the rights of creditors as this proposal involved. Why the law of the land should be altered so as to enable the banking corporations of Australia to withhold from their creditors the moneys due to them without going into liquidation, when such an act would result in the insol. vency of any private person, has always been a mystery to us. Presumably, however, it was no mystery to our Treasurer-Mr. G. D. Carter-who is also a director of one of the banks to which this privilege was extended, for he and his fellow Ministers were loud in their recommendations of this system, and in the assertions that anyone who objected showed a criminal "want of confidence." was actuated by unpatriotic motives, and

Apparently, however, Mr. Carter and his fellow Ministers have at last discovered that their confidence in the banks was misplaced, and that they would have acted much more wisely if they had shown a little sensible "want of confidence." For they now complain bitterly that these same banks, while paying only 3 or 4 per cent. for new deposits, and from 4 to 5 per cent. on old ones, are charging from 7 to 8 per cent. for loans on the

THE BEST TOBACCO.

most unexceptionable security, and are thus discouraging enterprise and killing the producers. This power of the banks to charge almost any interest they please is, however, the direct outcome of the power conferred upon them, to retain the moneys of their depositors against the will of the latter. For if the depositors could dispose of this capital, they would not be satisfied to let the banks have it at from 3 to 5 per cent., when 7 to 8 per cent. could be obtained outside. They would quickly withdraw their capital, and not only deplete the deposit accounts of the banks, but also, by their competition, reduce the rate of interest. In short, banks can never establish more than a legitimate difference between the rate of interest paid by them and that paid to them, except by such a wholesale act of repudiation as we have witnessed. Where private capital is free, the banks in their own interest are compelled to strive for low deposit and for low discount rates, because high deposit rates would restrict their business, and low deposit and high discount rates are incompatible for any length of time.

The present high rate of interest charged by the banks is therefore a direct outcome of that immoral interference of Government which has enabled them to lock up the capital of their creditors. Instead of being warned by this unforeseen result; instead of being taught that the interference of Government with private concerns generally brings about consequences equally unforeseen and disastrous, our meddlesome Treasurer now proposes further interference, in order to reduce the rate of interest which his former interference has raised. The proposal is that our Savings Banks Commissioners shall lend in small sums the moneys entrusted to them, and at the same rate of interest at which they have hitherto lent it in large sums, viz., 5 per cent. There can be no objection to the Savings Banks Commissioners lending their money in any legitimate way. If they can profitably lend the capital of their depositors in small sums at 5 per cent; or if they require 5 or 6 per cent. in order to provide for the greater expenditure which small loans will entail on them, no one has any right to interfere with them. What we object to, and what cannot be too strongly condemned, is the assumption of the Treasurer, that he has a right to dictate to the Savings Banks Commissioners.

The latter

are trustees of the public and not servants of the Government. Let the Government once undertake to grant loans to private people, two evils will inevitably arise. First The doors will be open to such corruption and favouritism as this colony has happily only seen when valuable lande were thrown open for selection. Members of Parliament, their brothers, cousins, aunts, and supporters will sooner or later be the principal recipients of the cheap money, which they then can loan to the common, or garden variety of farmers at increased rates. Secondly: No device will be spared-and everyone knows how fruitful in devices the jobbing member is to exaggerate the value of securities; loans will therefore be granted far in excess of the real value of the perty, with the result that sooner or later the general taxpayer, that patient beast of burder, will have to make up the loss.

The farmer who must have money, and who is told that the Government may perhaps be in a position to lend it to him in six months' time, provided that his security is approved of and the available funds are not overapplied for, will not benefit much by this prospective boon; and if he has allowed himself to be persuaded once, to find only that the money was exhausted when his turn came, he will be all the more compelled to accept any terms which the usurious banks are willing to grant him.

The only sensible proposal is that the farmers who want cheap money make an effort to help themselves. The establish ment of co-operative farmers' banks-either on the French model, i.e., one for the whole colony, or on the German plan-one for each district-is a perfect solution of the problem. Very little capital is required, because the bank does not advance money, but issues interminable mortgage bonds, which are saleable in the open market. No Government interference is wanted, except, perhaps, the appointment of sworn official valuators as a guarantee to purchasers of the bonds. Though such a plan might not give our farmers money at 4 per cent., it would certainly give it them at a price much lower than any that is otherwise possible, say at from 5 to 6 per cent., free of commission; and it would further enable them to pay the capital back in yearly instalments of say to 1 per cent. They have, therefore, in their own hands the power to escape from the thraldom of the banks, to whom the interference of Government delivered them; they can do this without any further interference of Government, the result of which would again be disastrous.

The Corsican Brothers.

A STRANGELY ASSORTED PAIR.

The capacity of the “Age" for "hunting with the hounds and running with the hare," to throw a democratic mantle over its monopolistic desires, has never been shown with greater audacity than in the leading article of the 19th ult., dealing with the failure of machinery to increase the wellbeing of the working classes. We quote the following as examples of its duplicity :

What we know is, that while steam and electricity are toiling with almost immeasurable energy for the benefit of some men, who become millionaires by their uses, millions of other men, willing workers, stand idle and drift towards pauperism for lack of employment, and even among the mora opulent classes the struggle for life is now more incessant than ever it was before. George has his own theory to account for this failure (of machinery), and truth to say, his reasoning

Mr.

has not been much shaken by the critics. It amounts to this: that the land is the primal source of all riches; and that all increase of population, of machinery, and of wealth in the community merely increases rent, because increase in wealth makes an immediate corresponding increase in the demand for Fortunately, the world has not sunk to the moral level of wholesale spoliation of one class for the sake of others (as the Single Tax on land values implies).

land.

And after all, the sum at the disposal of the Government is so small, that even if it were to be offered without interest, the general rate could not be materially affected.

The man who reasons thus might make a toler

able hod-carrier had he the thews and willingness of so respectable a being, but as a writer on social subjects, what claim can he make to redeem him from the indictment of being a sham?

Strange to say, only a few days before, the very respectable Mr. Murray Smith sought occasion to express his opinion of the Single Tax in the pages of the "Argus." He is in agreement with the "Age," in so far as he also calls it "a system of robbery." The Free Trade advocate of land monopoly is thus in full harmony with the Protectionist, in shrieking against any interference with the power of the landlord, to "take from the national production an ever-increasing share and an ever-increasing proportion of the wealth which others make," as Professor Walker, a most conservative economist, styles it.

What we want to know is, what is the definition of robbery, theft, spoliation, which either Mr. Murray Smith or the "Age” have to offer? Is it, "to take from others what belongs to them by law," or is it "to take from others what belongs to them by right of having produced it by their labour"? If the former, then both the "Age" and Mr. Murray Smith must maintain that we have no right to alter laws which give special privileges to some, for we would thus deprive some of what belongs to them by law. The "Age" was thus guilty of spoliation, theft, and robbery when it helped to rescue the land from the hands of the squatters, who held it by law, and Mr. Murray Smith proposes spoliation, theft, and robbery when he proposes to deprive the protected manufacturer of the right to tax the rest of the people, which has been given him by law.

If the other definition is adopted by the two champions of land monopoly, they are in an even more sorry plight. For if to take from any man what his labour produces constitutes theft, then the landlord is the champion thief of the universe, and as it is the duty of the law to prevent theft, both these authorities will have to clamour for the Single Tax as the only effective method that can put a stop to it. We leave the strangely assorted pair on the horns of this dilemma.

A Poor Law.

BY H. BROOKES.

There is an undoubted move in the direction of the establishment of a poor law by those who are looked up to as the leaders and organisers of charity in our community. Charities are to be carried on, if these worthies have their way, by municipalities, whose functions hitherto have centred on the maintenance of roads and the sweeping of the gutters.

When a community is taxed wholesale, taxed indiscriminately, taxed directly, and taxed indirectly, the virtue of a new tax naturally fails to appeal to individuals so surfeited. But a tax for charities has a virtuous ring about it, and smacks of Christianity.

So long as charity is a garment, that we can don or doff at pleasure; so long as charity grows on our epidermis, like the bark of a tree or the accretions on mineral substances, so long might the State hope to add somewhat thereto. But if charity is, as we believe, a plant which cannot thrive under coercion; if charity shrivels up and withers away under a forced growth; if charity is a