sion-cheers not for taxation of land value, but for Protection.

Nevertheless the petition, we are glad to say, has been received with acclamations even by the rank and file of the Protectionists, and the public meeting, called to draw attention to it, has been successful beyond the hopes of the committee.

No meeting has probably been held in Victoria of equal importance to that which, over-crowding the large hall of the Athenæum, flowed into the hall of the Independent Church, and caused the police to close the doors of both halls in the face of enthusiastic and disappointed crowds. As an expression of the popular objection against the Government proposals, and still more, of the demand for a tax on the unimproved value of land, it has, as Mr. Deakin truly said, struck the keynote to the chorus of voices which demands that, at least, some measure of justice shall be imported into our system of taxation. Both meetings were seething with enthusiasm an enthusiasm which even the organised attempt of a small but rowdy minority to wreck the demonstration could not check. As a sendoff to the petition to Parliament for a tax on land values, which was signed by the majority of those who could find admittance, it could not be improved upon, while the numerous letters and telegrams, received during the evening from all parts of the country, demonstrated the national character of the event.

Mr. Deakin dealt clearly and convincingly with the financial aspect of the question, but rose to the highest pitch of oratory when dealing with its moral importance and its influence on the well-being of the producing classes. He, probably, has never been heard to greater advantage, as he certainly never uttered words of greater import ance to the community. Succeeding speakers equalled him in lucidity of expression and earnestness, though not, perhaps, in eloquence. Professor Gosman's humorous and anecdotal style was, however, much appreciated.

We would call upon such of our readers as can spare the time to take charge of one or more sheets and collect signatures, and upon all to append their signature to it. Petition sheets can be obtained, on application, from the joint secretaries of the committee, Messrs. A. C. Nichols and Arthur Robinson, 849 Collins-street, Melbourne.

We are requested by the committee to make an appeal to our readers to contribute to the expenses of the undertaking. These are necessarily heavy, and the members of the committee are responsible for them. Those among our readers who appreciate the importance of the effort to influence Parliament at this juncture will no doubt be glad to respond to the call according to their means, however small their donation may be. Even forty sixpences make a pound.

The explanatory reasons attached to the petition read as follows REASONS FOR TAXING THE UNIMPROVED VALUE

OF LAND.

labour of the people as a whole, and the The unimproved value of land is due to the public works constructed by the Government. This value, therefore, is a legitimate source from which the expenses of Government may be met. It falls on the unimproved value of the land alone, regardless of the question whether it is used or not, thereby inducing the owners of land to use it to best advantage. It must, therefore, open the avenues of employment, lead to greater production, and thus to a return of prosperity, from which the landowners themselves will derive benefit.

It exempts all improvements from taxation, and, therefore, does not confer an advantage on the speculator as compared with the farmer or house-owner. Under such a tax city land, the unearned value of which is high, would contribute most; the valuable land surrounding the cities, mostly unused or used for squatting, would contribute largely; farm land, the value of which is low, would contribute very little. No other tax can be devised which would take so little from farmers and other producers, and which would take as much from non-pro

ducers and absentees.

Land cannot be hidden or carried away. Nor is it difficult to assess the unimproved value of land. The tax cannot, therefore, be evaded, the revenue is certain, and its collec. causes no fresh expenditure, or only a very slight one. No new Government Department, with numerous and well-paid billets, need be created on its account.

tion, which can be entrusted to local bodies,

amounting to one-half per cent., will yield a A tax on the unimproved value of land, revenue of from £500,000 to £600,000 annually. It will, therefore, allow of the

crops, machinery, furniture, and other movable property, upon mortgages on such property, and upon bank deposits. would be fined in increased taxation for every improvement they made on their property, while the men who kept their land This tax would, idle would be taxed less. therefore, discourage improvement and en

Under it the farmers and householders

courage keeping land idle. It would, therefore, add to the existing scarcity of employment and deepen the depression.

land, and land bearing a more valuable crop, The farmer who owns highly-improved would pay much more per acre than the squatter who holds, as a rule, much better land, but slightly improved.

The farmers' machinery, stock, crops, &c., cannot be concealed, and his and other middle-class furniture can be easily valued. Expensive furniture, oil paintings, &c., &c., deeds, and other certificates of property can cannot be valued easily; jewellery, mortgage be easily concealed. The tax would therefore fall on all the property possessed by farmers, artisans, shopkeepers, clerks, &c., but would fall on a very small part only of the property possessed by the wealthy.

Though the mortgagee can generally evade the tax, the chance that he might have to pay it will cause all capitalists to include it in the interest charge on any capital they lend on mortgage. Consequently the producing classes would not only pay their own contribution to the property tax, but that of the mortgagee as well.

The property tax was tried in New Zealand, and after inflicting disastrous evils on the general taxpayers, especially farmers, it has been altered to a tax on land values, amid general rejoicing and with unqualified success.

OBJECTIONS TO AN INCOME TAX.

At the present time most of our wealthy men find their incomes gone, through the

unremunerative nature of their investments: and business men, however wealthy, are not The men making profits, but rather losses. who are possessed of ample wealth, temporarily unremunerative, would therefore escape taxation. The men employed by them on salaries, professional men, and farmers, on the other hand, would be taxed up to the hilt on incomes derived from their labour, and out of which they hope to put by something for a rainy day. Farmers, moreover, do not keep books, and cannot afford to fight a Government Department in Melbourne. They would, therefore, be at the mercy of the Income Tax Commissioners, and would

be assessed on more than their real incomes.

An income tax cannot increase, but must

abolition of some of the more burdensome Customs duties. But farmers owning land, the unimproved value of which rarely ex- reduce, the chances of employment, because ceeds £300, will only pay 30s. a year; it discourages the wealthy landowners from artisans, clerks, or shopkeepers owning their improving their properties. For, if they homes on land worth from £100 to £300, improve their estates, they increase their will pay from 10s. to 30s. a year; while the income, which they have to re-invest, less owners of squatting stations and land in the the tax. If they do not improve their estate, centres of our cities, worth hundreds of they do not increase their income, but the thousands of pounds, will pay £5 a year for value of the land will rise just the same, and every £1000 worth of land which they own. this increase will not be taxed. Ergo, if they keep their land idle, the increase of their wealth is not taxed; if they improve it by giving employment, it will be taxed. Consequently, an income tax discourages the wealthy landowners from giving employment in the improvement of their land.

A tax on the unimproved value of land, exempting all improvements, therefore, is equitable, just, and beneficent, It will create revenue for the Government, employment for the workers, and prosperity for all

men.

Farmers and the Single Tax.

IV. The third system of taxation under which our farmers suffer is that imposed under the Local Government Act, Irrigation Act, and other similar legislation. These Acts provide that rates shall be levied indiscriminately upon the value of improvements and upon the value of the land. Even if fairly administered, this system would impose a penalty on every improver of land. In practice, however, this injustice is enhanced, because the assessors have become accustomed to assess unimproved land, or land but slightly improved, especially if held in large blocks, at a much lower value than similar land highly improved. It results therefrom that every farmer or houseowner who improves his land, finds his rates increasing from year to year. His contribution to the local revenues is constantly rising in amount, and still more largely in proportion, while the proportion paid by speculators and squatters is constantly becoming less. The land-improver is fined, and the non-improver receives this fine, as a bonus, in proportionally lower rates.

The Mooroopna district in the Goulburn Valley affords a striking and instructive object lesson. A few years ago the district was one huge wheatfield.

When the irrigation proposals were adopted by Parliament a small but energetic minority took up the question, and succeeded in establishing an Irrigation Trust in spite of the strong and venomous opposition of the majority of large land owners. Money and brains were put into the new venture; its success attracted new settlers to the district; and, as a consequence, the wheatfields are rapidly being converted into orchards and vineyards, and the land has enormously increased in value. But the very men to whose pluck and enterprise this increase in the value of land is due, are being rated more heavily than their unenterprising neighbours, and much more heavily than if the latter were called upon to pay their fair share.

ment of labour and capital in improvements; discourages, therefore, the greater production, which the national well-being urgently demands; discourages the farmer and orchardist, and encourages at their expense the speculator and squatter, the men who their land. make no use, or very little use, of

One instance, typical of all, will suffice to illustrate the crass folly and injustice of the system. One farmer, the owner of 320 acres, who was progressive enough to combine vinegrowing with the cultivation of cereals and grazing, planted a 20-acre vinefully £20 per acre in developing his He has spent yard five years ago. vine-patch. His efforts have materially Nor is this discouragement of the aided in raising the value of all the land-users in favour of the mere land in his neighbourhood. He now owners a slight one. According to finds that whereas his farm is still the latest return (1891) the revenue assessed at 4s. 6d. per acre, his vine- collected from rates amounted to in and yard is assessed at 20s. per acre, or £963,257 cities, towns, just 4 times as much as the rest of boroughs, and to £916,604 in shires. the farm, though the market value of Though these figures do not include the land itself, acre for acre, is the irrigation rates and others, they same. The 300 acres pay rates equal amount to the remarkable total of to £3 7s. 6d. per annum; the 20-acre £1,879,861. The just apportionment vineyard, 20s. per annum. If the of this sum, according to the relative farm were rated to the same extent benefit derived from its expenditure, as the vineyard, it would pay £15 per and which finds expression in the annum instead of £3 7s. 6d. ! And unimproved value of land, would yet the injustice does not end here, therefore still further relieve farmers because the local irrigation trust takes and householders, and cause a somethe municipal assessment as the basis what larger proportion to fall on of its taxation, and claps on a similar speculators and owners of scarcelyfine! men who have done improved squatting properties. nothing, or who have obstructed the enterprise of their neighbours, reap Where is the the largest reward in the unearned Where is the Money increase of the value of their land; Gone ? and because they are rated less than the men who produced this value, the rates paid by the latter amount to at least double of what they would be if all alike were rated on the unimproved value of the land.

The improvements made by individuals always increase the value of their neighbour's land. The expenditure of local revenues always maintains and increases the value of the land. But no such causes can increase the value of improvements placed on the land. On the contrary, every road or bridge which lowers the cost of transport enables improvements to be made at a reduced price, and therefore lowers the value of existing improvements. These two kinds of property-land and improvements-are therefore unequally affected by the expenditure of local rates. The one-land-is improved in value; the value of the other-improvements cannot be benefited, can only be injured thereby. Clearly, therefore, the local revenues should be collected from that kind of property which alone benefits by their expenditure-from the unimproved value of land. Our present system is not only unjust, but, what follows of necessity, unwise as well. For it discourages the employ

In pinched homes and deserted shops, in trams and trains, and whereever else men unburden their souls to each other, the question is asked"Where is the money gone?" Money which, a few years ago, was almost forced by financial institutions on reluctant borrowers, which could then be earned with ease and certainty, is now so difficult to obtain that it is but natural for men and women to think that our stock of money has shrunk considerably, and that our sufferings are due to want of money.

Yet this is a mistake; if anything, the stock of money at present in the colony is larger than it was during the height of the boom time. It must be remembered that we do not import our money from abroad. Money with us means gold, which the labour of our miners produces from the earth in greater abundance than is required for our trade. We therefore export the surplus of gold just as we export the surplus of wool and wheat. The exported surplus is exchanged for things of which we want more than we have, or, in the unfortunate position of our colony, is paid away without return as interest on our public and private loans.

What about these loans ? however, will be asked. When we borrowed many millions every year, did we not receive money from abroad? The answer must be No. During the last twenty years we never received any money, with the exception of one or two small shipments. What we did receive was goods to nearly the value of the loans which we contracted. England, Germany, and France are partly dependent upon us for the supply of the money which they require. Even while we borrowed largely we sent them money every year. They have no money to spare. What they can spare is goods, the result of their people's labour; and the capital which they lend us consists of nearly a million's worth of goods for every million we borrow.

It is done in this way:-Our Government borrows in London, say £1,000,000, through the agency of the London and Westminster Bank. The subscribers to the loan send to this bank cheques, say on the Bank of England. The Bank of England transfers in its books £1,000,000 from the account of, say 1000 lenders, to the account of the London and Westminster Bank, and the latter bank, in its books, enters the same amount to the credit of the Victorian Government. Observe that no money has passed so far. Let us now suppose that the Victorian Government has to pay in interest on former loans £500,000. The London and Westminster Bank sends cheques to that amount, say to 5000 of our creditors, who pay these cheques to the credit of their accounts in various banks, while the London and Westminster Bank debits their amount to the account of the Victorian Government. At the clearing house these banks exchange some cheques for others drawn on them and paid into the London and Westminster Bank, and for the balance, if any, they receive cheques on the Bank of England. The latter bank now transfers the amounts of these cheques from the account of the London and Westminster Bank to that of these various banks. This part of the transaction is now complete. Out of the loan of £1,000,000, interest, due on previous loans, to the amount of £500,000 has been paid yet no money has been used.

Let us now follow the fortunes of the remaining £500,000. Say the loan of £1,000,000 was authorised for

use.

extent they were used as food and clothing for workmen engaged in the construction of unnecessary buildings and other works. The goods are gone, and there is either nothing to show for them, or only things which are of comparatively small While we still owe their value, and are compelled to pay the interest on that value, the things we have to show for them are of much less value, and add much less to the productiveness of our labour than the interest amounts to. In other words, the goods which we have borrowed as public and private loans have mostly been wasted. As a consequence, our credit has gone down; we cannot borrow further goods to anything like the old extent. In addition, our own production of goods has fallen off largely, partly on account of the difficulty in obtaining credit, but more largely because the land, pledged to financial institutions for the loan of purchasing power over goods, is kept by them out of use; and all the time we have to send away, as interest on former loans, enormous quantities of the goods which we still produce.

but for the loan, must have been sent the goods were simply squandered in to England in some shape, is now living beyond our means. To some available in Melbourne for the construction of railways. Say another £200,000 is wanted for rails and other equipments, and £300,000 in cash. The Agent-General now purchases such goods to the former amount and pays for them in cheques on the London and Westminster Bank. These cheques are dealt with in the same manner as the cheques for interest previously mentioned. The portion of the loan still remaining is £300,000. Let us now say that ten Melbourne importers have purchased goods from English manufacturers to the amount of £300,000, and have given bills of exchange for the same, payable in Melbourne. The manufacturers want their money at once. They therefore ask their various banks to buy these bills from them. These banks do so, crediting the accounts of the manufacturers for the same. They can now send these bills to Melbourne or sell them in London. As the Victorian Government wants the £300,000 from the London and Westminster Bank, and as that bank is anxious to send the money as cheaply as possible, it is a buyer for bills on Melbourne. a buyer for bills on Melbourne. The manufacturers' bills are, therefore. sold to it at a profit to the other banks; are sent by the London and Westminster Bank to its agents in Melbourne, with instructions to cash them and place the proceeds to the credit of the Government. The Melbourne agent receives cheques from the importers on their banks, and credits the Government with the same, while the London and Westminster Bank has debited our Government with the same amount. Not one penny of money has changed hands, yet the Victorian Government has borrowed £1,000,000 in London, has paid out of the loan £500,000 in interest due, has received £200,000 worth of railway material, and can dispose of £300,000 in Melbourne in any way it pleases. Whatever portion of the loan found its way to Melbourne, came in goods. In this way, with slight modifications according to circumstances, all our loans, public as well as private, are contracted and disposed of.

The rest is plain sailing. During the boom time our importation of borrowed goods were enormous. Goods and credit for goods were easily obtained, and business therefore

This, then, is the solution of the riddle. It is not money which is scarce, but goods. If we could borrow more goods another period of false prosperity would set in, only to lead us into still greater disasters. Our salvation rests with ourselves. We must produce more goods. More production, more employment of our unemployed labourers, alone can pull us through. Therefore open the Lord's treasure house-the land-to the willing hands anxious to use it, that they may produce from it the goods which we want. Lessen the power of the men who hold the key to it, who obstinately refuse permission to use it, and the increased production which will follow will soon bring the prosperity for which we long.

The following is the picture of the discouragement which the high duty on linen goods enacted by the McKinley Bill has given to the Belfast linen trade. First, a rush of goods, just before the tariff was enforced; then a lull; afterwards, a few orders cautiously sent, which however have been gradually increasing till the "Irish linen trade" in Belfast is in a better and healthier condition than it was previous to the tariff.

The high price of linens, however, will, pawn their last shirt" to advantage. "It is an ill wind that blows nobody any good."

perhaps, enable a good many Yankees "to

The Jubilee of Protection.

Let us raise through the land the cry "Hurrah for Protection," and see who will echo it.

a

Men and women stand before closed factory door, a notice to quit and starve is in front of them, Poor wretches, ere there be not a breath in your bodies, and while yet ye have time, up with your cry-"Hurrah for Protection."

The sailors lounge on the wharves watching their ships rotting in the harbour, and the broad back of the stevedore bends beneath the burden of a family that moan for bread. What, is there treachery about? Shall empty stomachs prevent you joining in the old-accustomed cry? For shame! Now then, all together "Hurrah for Protection."

'Twas excellent; its shrillness has even reached the tramps on the cold, up-country roads. They well under stand its meaning; the farmer has pointed to his ruined homestead and bid them begone, and over the scraps

Few Dukes write books; still fewer write books the merit of which challenges attention. Such a book, however, was produced by the Duke of Argyll in "The Reign of Law;" the appearance of a new product of his pen, therefore, has received more attention than his rank alone could have secured.

"The Unseen Foundations of Society professes to be the exposition of a new system of Political Economy. The idea by which the author claims to have been guided is expressed by him in the following sentences:

Those writers, therefore, who imagine that the treatment of this great subject is more strictly scientific in proportion as they make its supposed domain more rigidly fenced off and separate from all else, are greatly deceiving both themselves and others. What they generally do is not really to exclude the class of causes which they pretend to leave aside, but only to assume unconsciously the universal prevalence and permanence of conditions in respect to them, which they see to be prevalent in their own time and country.

The truer method, the Duke says, is to conjointly investigate the religious, moral, and historical, as well as the material factors which determine the production of wealth.

There can be no doubt that the work of a specialist who investigates one department of science can only come to full fruition when it is checked by and combined

and harmonised with the work of other

of bodily labour, however rude, by which a man can earn wages, that is wholly separate from some degree, however small, of mental work." The term labour, therefore, by implication as well as by actual explanation, includes mental activities, and therefore fully expresses the conception for which it stands. At the best, therefore, the substitution for it of the term "mind "would be no improvement. As a matter of fact, however, this new term is misleading. It excludes one set of exertions, the most numerous, if not the most important, in the production of wealth, viz., bodily labour. For while, as the author admits, all sorts of labour are accompanied by mental exertion, the latter does not necessarily involve any exertion of the body. In that case, however, it fails to produce wealth. Mind by itself, therefore, does not produce wealth; it can only do so in partnership with muscular exertion of some kind. The substitution of the term "mind" for "labour," as the definition of the dynamic force in the production of wealth, is, therefore, misleading.

The third factor, Opportunity, as separate from Land and Labour, is much more limited than the author assumes. All opportunities for making wealth are determined by individual exertion, by natural conditions, and by political and social institutions. The and land or mind and matter. The third, two former are evidently the same as labour political and social institutions, alone can be regarded as an opportunity outside these

two factors. As such it is of the highest which the author totally fails to understand,

grace" Hurrah for Protection."

synthesis of Political Economy with moral A ship sails away from this land philosophy and history is, therefore, a work crowded with the strong and the of the greatest importance. So far, it has brave, and passing through the Heads been performed once only, viz., by, Henry George in " Progress and Poverty." The a great cry of farewell is raised-field, therefore, is still open to others. The "Hurrah for Protection." undertaking is, however, so great, demands The seamstress in the sweating den such rare qualities of the man who performs has not much time to spare, for six-it, that his imitators will be few and far beteen hours must she work for her has been attempted by the Duke of Argyll in With what measure of success it eighteenpence; but she drops for a the 600 pages before us, this review will moment the needle from her fleshless show. hands and joins in the cry-" Hurrah for Protection."

There are children sobbing in the night, for so they do when hungry, and the mother is whispering the lullaby of the starving-" Hurrah for Protection."

An admiral gives a false command, and while hundreds perish round him waves his hands and dies. We too have our commanders who, amid the ruin they have created, still wave their hand and cry-" Hurrah for Protection."

What is money? A metal heel under the boots of little people in order to make them appear as tall as others.-Heine.

In other countries when a citizen becomes dissatisfied with his Government he emi

grates; in France he requires the Government to emigrate.-Heine.

Take note, ye enthusiasts for the "New Australia!"

tween.

Considerable space is devoted to the exposition of the absurdity into which all other economists are said to have fallen when they attributed the production of wealth to the three co-operating factors Labour, Land, and Capital. The alternative offered by the author is mind, matter, and opportunity. As far as capital is concerned, most economists agree with his claim, that it is a secondary agent only, though few will be willing to admit that the enterprise and ability of the entrepreneur may be regarded as capital. The substitution of the term "matter" for "land," however, achieves nothing. For the term land" is always explained to denote all the matter in the universe, and is chosen, because man's only approach to any matter is through the surface of the earth; the right to the use of land thus includes the right to the use of all matter.

It is, however, different with the substitution of the term, "mind" for " "labour." The Duke acknowledges that the latter is used in the sense of including mental as well as bodily exertions; the head which plans and directs as well as the hand that executes.

The Unseen Foundations of Society," by the Duke of Argyll. London: John Murray. Melbourne: Melville, Mullen & Slade.

though it has often been pointed out by

other economists, and which arises from the fact that those institutions may prevent the

It

close application of labour to land. This great discovery, & discovery on which the and labour, but mind and matter, which are author prides himself, that it is not land the great factors in the production of wealth, institutions, especially of the tenure of land, therefore turns out to be a mare's nest. obscures the important bearing of political on the production of wealth; it obscures and distorts the importance of labour, the labour of the great masses of men, in relation to wealth. Further investigation will prove

that this error is not accidental, but the necessary result of the bias with which the author approached his subject.

The next definition with which the author quarrels is that of "wealth." He rightly holds that the entire science turns upon the definition of the thing "wealth," of a right understanding of that which labour pro

duces from land or mind from matter. After emptying the vials of his scorn upon all who more or less closely define wealth to be "Matter, the potential utility of which has been partially or fully developed by labour," he produces the following new defi

nition :

things, which are legitimate objects of human The possession in comparative abundance of desire, not obtainable without some sacrifice or

some exertion, and which are accessible to men, able as well as desirous to obtain them.

What is a "legitimate" object of human desires the author wisely fails to tell us. Intoxicating beverages are not, according to some, and there are not a few who exclude tobacco as well. These commodities therefore may not be wealth. Absurd as this limitation is, it pales before the absurdity of the attempt to substitute for a "thing," a particular state in which that thing is pos

sessed. What would be the fate of a school

boy who, asked to define the nature of apples, were to begin his reply with, "The possession in comparative abundance, &c., &c." Yet this is on all fours with the above defini

tion of wealth, a definition, moreover, for which the Duke claims not only the merit of novelty, which it undoubtedly possesses, but an importance so great that it will alter the

entire nature of the science of Political Economy.

We must confess that we failed to understand the condition of mind which produced such an absurd blunder, until further reading disclosed to us that, together with the new definition of the factors in the production of wealth, it was intended to serve as a necessary basis for a course of reasoning which would triumphantly establish the conclusion at which the author aimed. This reasoning, which runs like a red thread throughout the interminable discursions in which he indulges, we exhibit in the following extracts:

"The very first, and perhaps the most absolutely essential of these elementary conceptions (is) that of possession. The idea of possession is that of exclusive use. The universal law is that territorial possession, or the right of exclusive use over some definite portion of the earth's surface, is the essential basis of all national existence.

War has been the original title to all national possessions, and the power of it continues to be the power on which the security of every nation ultimately rests. The result, as regards economic science, is that the item among the sources of wealth which has been talked of as

the free gift of nature, turns out to be the one gift which has been less free than any other, insomuch as the highest energies of our race have always been needed to secure, and are now apparently as much as ever needed to defend it. But the thing which is literally held is not the soil, nor its qualities, but the right of an exclusive use of these, and (this right) follows the man who holds it, wherever he may go. This is the thing which individual men, other than the original workers (sic) must acquire, if they seek to get it, by purchase or hire. The right (to the individual ownership of land) which is thus trans. mitted, is not only a reality, but the supreme reality in which all wealth consists."

source

These extracts, as we have already said, show the purpose for which the book was written and the definitions framed. That purpose is the justification of individual ownership of land. The economist can see no difference between the private possession of the external of wealth and of the wealth produced from it by individual exertion. The moralist can find no other moral law for individual possession than the sword, not even for the individual possession of the result of individual labour. The historian fails to see that the national right to the exclusive use of some land has been secured, and is still being secured, by national effort and not by the effort of that small section of the nation which claims to own this land to the exclusion of all others. Failing to see all this, the so-called synthesis of economic, moral, and historical science, which the author claims to aim at, resolves itself into a combination of absurdities concocted for the defence of an institution in which the author is individually interested, and against the continuance of which the forces of progress, the teachings of all science, are now being marshalled.

Yet the author has occasional glimpses of the truth. Listen to this:

"It is in their interest (the interest of all mankind) that the earth should be made fruitful and should yield the maximum of produce. But this can only be done by enlisting in the service of production the brains and the hands of individual men, for these are the two great instruments of all production But these can only be made to

work by presenting to them those appropriate desires, and which have been verified as the spring motives which are indicated by their natural

of all industry by the universal experience of mankind.'

The exclusion of individual men, of the great majority of them, from the right to the use of the earth; the appropriation of the vast bulk of the wealth which they make by the few who claim the right to the exclusive use of the earth, these, therefore, appear to the Duke to be the main motives to industry. Apparently he is of opinion that if the rights of all men to the use of the earth were recognised; if all men were able to retain the wealth which they make, that then the motives to labour would disappear and the springs of industry would dry up.

At the bottom of this absurd conception lies the idea, nowhere clearly expressed in the work before us, but the truth of which is assumed throughout its wearisome pages, that continuous possession is inseparable from individual ownership; that if the user of land had to pay rent to the State instead of paying it to the Duke of Argyll, his possession of the land and of the improvements which he places on it, would become insecure. That this idea is not expressed in so many words is sufficient proof of the doubt with which the author himself regards it. If it had been expressed, it would have exposed the absurdity of the contentions which he has based on it.

That the author also indulges in a violent attack on Ricardo's Law of Rent is natural; that he republishes in full the abuse and misrepresentation of Henry George's teaching which he first published ten years ago under the title of "The Prophet of San Francisco," and that he fails to mention the utter refutation of it by George himself, is also pardonable-in a Duke. But when he treats us to such assertions as these that rent, wages, and interest are things of the same kind and origin, and that therefore no distinction can be drawn between

them; or that rent is merely the return for capital invested in land, we can only conclude that extreme age has dulled his perceptive powers. "Rent merely the return for capital invested in land." What does it mean? If it means "invested in improvements on the land," then we must suppose that if a building burns down the land has no rental value left. The author's brother-dukes, who derive the main part of their income from ground rents of land, on which the buildings have been erected by tenants, might have taught him a different lesson. If, on the other hand, it means the capital used for the purchase of land, we come to the equally absurd conelusion that this purchase is the determining force that produces rent; and, therefore, that the more you pay for land the higher will be the rent it yields; that unless somebody has paid something in its purchase, land cannot yield rent. Yet Colonial Governments derive incomes from the ground rents of land which were never sold or purchased.

Unless we assume, and the assumption is not indefensible, that the Duke of Argyll has been guilty of intellectual dishonesty, we are driven to the conclusion that he is suffer. ing from intellectual blindness. Knowing the power which self-interest exercises over the minds of men; knowing how easily men are led to believe that to be true which is advan. tageous to them, we prefer to accept the second alternative. The Duke is a landowner as well as a philosopher. The blunders and absurdities which we have exposed, and which are clothed in language full of the

pretension of infallibility, are the blunders abdicated in his favour; the author of "The of the landowner. The philosopher has Reign of Law" has disappeared in the rackrenting landlord who fell under the special condemnation of the Crofters' Commission; whose power to extort excessive rents from his impoverished tenants was curtailed by the Land Courts.

Current Accounts.

We are glad to be able to inform our friends that the Beacon still continues to progress. The number of annual subscribers, which stood at a little over one thousand a month ago, now exceeds thirteen hundred, and our last issue came to six thousand copies. If our enthusiastic friends continue this good work we shall probably be able to convert the Beacon into a weekly before long. For convenience sake, we have converted the undertaking into a limited liability company of 500 shares, of one pound each. The shares being now ready for allotment, we trust that those of our friends who can afford it will apply for one or more shares.

That the colony is under a load of gratitude to the Premier for his common-sense refusal to adopt the wild suggestions of his But it is not Treasurer, is well known. generally known how near to madness the proposals were which emanated from the panic-stricken brain of Mr. G. D. Carter. The following extract from "The Economist" gives, perhaps, the most interesting of the revelations which have been made on this subject :

On March 27th a proposal was brought before the Cabinet that the Government should call Parliament together to pass, if possible, without discussion, and in a single day, a Banking Act, under the provisions of which any colonially (not London) directed bank could obtain the guarantee of the Government for its deposits. As five banks were scheduled, the proposed guarantee might have extended to £28,000,000 of deposits received from depositors in nearly all the colonies and the United Kingdom.

Most of the banks named in the schedule were not consulted, and certainly did not approve of the scheme, when its tenor was brought under their notice. The friends of the Commercial

of the scheme.

Bank itself disapproved of the underlying principle although they would probably have decided to accept it as a way of salvation. There was an animated discussion in the Cabinet, but the clearly expressed determination of the Premier prevailed, and Victoria was saved from the humiliation of offering to guarantee the colonial banks, and from the shock to public credit which such an offer would have occasioned.

There is strength in the Bush Unions of Their wages are left Queensland still. intact when the wages of the station hands and boundary riders, who have not been organised, are tricked off three and more per cent., though they never were in receipt of a wage comparable with that of the unionists.

"The world is better to-day than ever it was before. Take the pyramids and the They were the result of works of antiquity. slavery. In ancient Rome charitable institutions were unknown." The Rev. Dr. Watkin at Lonsdale-street Church delivered himself thus. We are afraid the reverend gentleman looks at the world through rosecoloured glasses. Individual men may have advanced in their ideas of justice, may have grown better. But their ideas have not yet been embodied in laws, and the world, therefore is not yet better. Are not our buildings and monuments the result of slavery?