great-uncle, Frederick William IV., to Julian the Apostate. William II. appears to have inherited much from his greatuncle; like the latter, William's speech is figurative and intemperate, and he makes progress consist in pouring old wine into new bottles. The Socialist Democracy, in the eyes of William II., is the modern incarnation of the satanic spirit; but it is not at all by exceptional measures that he pretends to rout this dangerous enemy. He wishes to combat the genius of evil by good laws, which will inoculate his people with the spirit of obedience, with religious submission, and all salutary respect. This is his ruling preoccupation, the thought which dominates all others.

It is not only to please his new friends, it is to please himself, that he has just had submitted to the Chamber of Deputies that famous project of law which renders religious instruction obligatory, and restores to the clergy of the different creeds inspection, control, and superintendence of the schools. This project has caused alarm in all classes of Prussian society. There is apprehension that the system established by the law will soon be applied to secondary instruction and, perhaps, some day, to higher instruction. Eighty-three of the professors of the University of Berlin-among them some of the most illustrious-have addressed to Parliament a pressing appeal, protesting against the passage of the law. This romantic sovereign, it appears to me, is in a delicate position. There is danger for him in this last project of his. When Don Quixote had been disarmed by the Knight of the White Moon, Sancho, seeing his lord bite the dust, asked himself with amazement whence could have come the indomitable paladin who had vanquished this flower of chivalry, and reduced his glory to smoke. It was discovered, after the Don was unhorsed, that this paladin with a flat nose, a pallid skin, and a great mocking mouth, was named Carrasco; that he was a simple bachelor of arts who had received his degree at Salamanca.

sion of a speech which has excited considerable attention far beyond the borders of the German Empire.

It would be a violation of the respect which every good citizen owes to the head of the State, were we to close our eyes to the significance of this Imperial speech, and seek, by specious interpretations, to evade a serious estimate of the Kaiser's words.

Not only respect for the Sovereign, but also the vital interests of the nation demand that this speech shall be met by so clear and outspoken a protest as will guard against the possibility of the Monarch deceiving himself with the idea that there is no difference of opinion on the sentiments he gave utterance to in respect to the limits of his authority.

The Kaiser's speech conveys a lively, rhetorical, and sharply pointed condemnation of those political circles which criticise and grumble at every act of the Government. But as parties which grumble at everything have no existence-even the Social-Democrats lent the Government their support in the matter of the recent Commercial Treaties-the words cannot be understood literally. Moreover, the present Government has persistently repudiated the idea that it identifies itself with any existing party; and practically it is at this moment, in the public school matter, resting for support mainly on the Conservatives, the party which, only a few weeks ago, opposed the Chancellor's commercial policy.

It is hence by no means clear to what party or body of politicians the Emperor's words are properly applicable, and we have no other course than to assume that they are aimed at all who, on any ground whatever, feel called on to find fault with the existing Government system in any essential point.

All these dissenters, who, unless we err, are to be found,

not alone among Social-Democrats and Radicals, but even in the forests of Saxony, and among National Liberals, and indeed outside of parties of all shades, are invited by the Emperor to consider whether they would not do better "to shake the German dust from their feet, and escape the wretched and miserable conditions existing here, as speedily as possible." In this remark the Emperor emphasizes very impressively his condemnation of all public criticism of Government measures. On the other hand, the people are admonished "not to allow themselves to be misled by outlandish notions, but to trust im God, and in the faithful, anxious labors of His appointed ruler."

The Emperor then expressed his firm resolve "to press forward in the course appointed for him by Heaven"; he emphasized his sense of responsibility to our highest ruler "in Heaven above," and closed his toast with the words: "My course is the right one, and will be persisted in."

There is no possibility of mistaking the Emperor's meaning in this connection. It harmonizes essentially with the theory of Ruler by the infallible grace of God, in respect that it calls upon the people to submit themselves absolutely in the rôle of simple political obedience to the behests of their God-appointed ruler. Neither the German nor the Prussian people are pledged to this rôle by their Constitution, and, unless we greatly deceive ourselves, they have no disposition to accept it voluntarily. The belief that the ruler is gifted by Providence with exceptional wisdom no longer retains its hold. In this skeptical age, monarchs are regarded as merely human like other mortals, although occupying lofty and influential positions calling for great deeds, yet as liable to all the dangers of error as other men.

With these views we can hardly look for a renunciation of the idea of giving practical effect to antagonistic convictions. All that we can demand is, that in giving effect to them suitable forms shall be adhered to, that the limits of existing laws shall not be transgressed, and that their enforcement lead to no neglect of the duties of citizenship.

We Radicals, at any rate, are of opinion that we should be bad citizens if we took no part in politics but one of blind obedience. In our opinion, simple obedience is too often the convenient means of escape for the coward soul. We consider it our duty to strive to give practical effect to adverse views which proceed from well-considered convictions; and in our opinion, no political course is safe which ignores the independent views of the people.

Whoever, then, demands of us to follow him blindly through thick and thin, makes it our duty to answer, clearly and significantly, No!

HAV

PARTY GOVERNMENT.

CHARLES RICHARDSON.

Annals of the American Academy, Philadelphia, March. AVING found (as shown in the Annals for January) that the consequences of allowing political parties to make our nominations are almost wholly evil, it becomes our duty to inquire whether this power can be taken from them without seriously interfering with any useful purpose; and, if so, whether it can be intrusted to other agencies with reasonable hopes of better results.

The practical work now performed by our political parties may be considered under different heads, as follows:

1. Educational work, or activity in advocating special ideas or principles, such as Protection, Free Trade, Free Coinage,

etc.

2. Selecting candidates for office.

3. Making up the platforms or declarations of principles. 4. Preparing tickets and furnishing them to the voters-a task which, under the new ballot laws, will be entirely performed by public officers.

5. Getting out the vote by addresses, personal solicitation,

etc.

6. Guarding against frauds, and contesting elections.

7. Distributing the subordinate appointments and government patronage, as bribes or rewards for personal or partisan services.

8. Dictating the conduct of legislators and other officials, so that they may faithfully serve the party, or rather its leaders, with such secondary consideration for the people as may seem necessary to prevent a loss of votes at subsequent elections.

Parties, as well as individuals, should always be free to persuade the voters towards a particular policy or principle, and to elect candidates pledged to support it; but they should never be permitted to usurp the rightful and necessary control of the people over their own servants.

It is not proposed to discuss here any of the remaining functions assumed by political parties, except that of selecting our candidates. It is believed, however, that an unprejudiced consideration of the others will make it clear that, so far as any of them are legitimate or useful, they are not the least dependent upon the power to make nominations, but could and would be much better and more effectively executed by voluntary associations, similar to those which are constantly engaged in educational or social labors, and are free from the suspicion of working for purely selfish purposes. It must be seen that any change would be wiser than to allow the spoilsmen to retain a power of which they have made such disastrous and demoralizing use.

The improved system of which we are in such earnest need must exclude or render nugatory all the elaborate organization, complicated processes, and opportunities for secret conspiracy and fraud, which we have been discusssing, and which have given the politicians such decisive advantages over their fellowcitizens. What we need is a system for the selection of candidates which will, as nearly as possible, give the best and busiest voter as potent a voice as the worst and most useless patron of the grogshops; and will enable the most honest and conscientious citizen to exert as much influence as the most cunning and unscrupulous of the professional politicians.

When the people are about to elect representatives, the man for whom every corrupt combination and agency have been working for months should not have the slightest practical advantage as a candidate over one who has been spontaneously nominated by honest and unselfish citizens, who could spare but a few minutes for the task.

The most important part of the genuine Australian Ballot System provides simply and very fully for the requirements just spoken of. If not deformed by the neutralization and adulteration applied by American politicians, it would entirely ignore all organizations of every kind; and nominations made at an hour's notice by intelligent and patriotic citizens would be submitted to the voters in precisely the same manner as if they had been made by the chiefs of Tammany, or had been the carefully elaborated product of one of the regular machines, manipulated by an expert leader. The proper officers would have the names of all the nominees printed in alphabetical order on the official ballots, and no one could cast a vote without using one of these ballots, and selecting and marking his preferences thereon.

Experience has shown that there would be no danger of too many candidates. Anxiety for the success of their principles, and the fear of making themselves ridiculous or unpopular, would prevent men of standing and influence from coming forward too freely, either as candidates or sponsors; and the number of endorsers required by law, could be increased if necessary to avoid confusion. Such a law would tend to improve the character of party nominations, by making it so much easier for citizens to defeat unfit nominees by supporting independents. But it would accomplish much more than this whenever the people should decide to rely entirely upon the

methods which it would provide, and ignore all partisan candidates. The political parties, deprived of their power to control nominations, would be incapable of further mischief, and could no longer be of use to the corrupt leaders who now dominate them. They would thus be abandoned by their worst elements, and become patriotic associations for educational work.

Instead of relying upon a party nomination obtained by dishonorable means, each aspirant would have to depend upon his own merits and upon the number and influence of those willing to appear before the community as his endorsers.

There is every reason to believe that, so far as nominations are concerned, if we could introduce the real Australian System, as distinguished from such deformed imitations as we owe to the low cunning of political leaders in Pennsylvania and New York, we would provide the most admirable means for doing the work, which leads to such endless mischief when intrusted to political parties, and thus make these as unnecessary in the capacity of servants, as they are now intolerable in the position of masters.

THE REVOLT OF THE PRUSSIAN LIBERALS.

THE

The Economist, London, March 5.

HE defeat of the Prussian Government in the Reichstag on March 1st was more important than may at first appear. The Government asked for a grant of money in order to begin the construction of ten armored cruisers; but the installment was refused. General Caprivi himself appeared in the debate, and pleaded hard for the money, alleging not only that the cruisers were required for the navy and for the full protection of Prussian commerce abroad, but that the work was essential to the port of Dantzig, the peace of which was threatened by the number of unemployed artisans. Both arguments were of a kind which a very little while ago would have been most acceptable to Prussian ears.

The people are proud of their navy, which they hope will become one of the first in the world; and they are quite ready to vote work in order to relieve momentary distress among the skilled artisans, most of whom are voters, and who alone would benefit greatly by the construction of the cruisers. In the present instance, however, the members were deaf to argument, and their determined action revealed the existence of strong latent irritation against the Government, the cause of which is not difficult to understand. Liberal feeling in Prussia, as well as Germany, has been profoundly moved by the recent imprudent speech of the Emperor, speaking as King to his faithful Brandenburgers," in which he claimed a position hardly removed from that of an earthly Deity. The speech was truly an assertion of autocratic power in its most offensive form, the theocratic or Papal form, which regards opposition or even hostile criticism not only as rebellious, but as impious; and it has aroused in the cultivated, and perhaps rather skeptical, men who fill the Prussian Chamber a feeling of humiliation.

The young King is armored in prerogatives and in laws, and in possession of physical force, the strength of the Prussian army having become irresistible. No city in Prussia could stand for two hours against the force, which, if resistance were openly threatened, could at once be thrown into its streets. The only remaining body to resist the Emperor-King is the Prussian Parliament, elected on a comparatively narrow suffrage, and the only weapon the Deputies can use is their partial control of the public purse. Full control they have not, for they cannot abolish old taxes, or reassign old revenues, and the military expenditure is provided for by Acts, which lapse once in every seven years only. The majority, however, can refuse new loans, new taxes, and new grants, and, as expenditure in the Prussian kingdom tends to considerable enlargement, the Government incessantly increasing the military forces, spending large sums on fortifications and bits of mili

tary railway, and making considerable contributions to pension schemes, bounty schemes, and the like, this is an important power. Whether it is sufficient to restrain the Emperor-King from acting as an irresponsible sovereign, remains to be seen. A wise Opposition may be able to bargain with him, and make its grants contingent upon respect for the Constitution, the electors of all shades of opinion greatly fearing extravagance. This is, however, the only ground that can be taken up, for the prerogative, now so strong, occupies every other.

It is only as regards money that the Liberal Deputies have any chance of making themselves felt. They evidently see that, and are inclined to use their solitary power. If the Opposition can refuse cruisers, they can also refuse artillery; and, with that weapon in their hands, they may possibly insist on terms which the King will resent, but will honorably keep, as being a kind of treaty. A vote of that kind may, however, drive his Majesty to extremes, and we confess that if we were Prussian Liberals, we should not altogether like the constitutional outlook. The Emperor may say that the situation is really one of veiled war, and that while war is so imminent, he cannot permit his action to be trammeled by constitutional forms, and so, in effect, claim the whole legislative, as he already possesses the whole executive power.

ΜΥ

SOCIOLOGICAL.

SOCIAL PROBLEMS AT THE ANTIPODES.
GENERAL WILLIAM BOOTH.

Contemporary Review, London, March.

Y comparatively brief stay in the Southern Continent convinced me that the Australians are in possession of the most magnificent inheritance that has ever fallen to the lot of a young nation. All that is required to insure them a splendid future, and to make them the United States of the Pacific, rivaling the great American commonwealth in prosperity and influence, is a large increase in population and a strong government. The one danger that confronts Australian politics is that which results from the fear, in the minds of the legislators, of the people whom they ought to govern. The danger of losing their seats is constantly before their eyes.

The Australians are hearty, friendly, and outspoken. They possess the qualities of men who have gone through many difficulties to attain to their present position. The greatest danger confronting them is the danger that comes of prosperity. They are in constant peril of setting too much store on the good things of life.

In a young nation, as in a young man, the hilarity and vigor of youth lead to a love of excitement, with all its consequent dangers. Gambling has a terrible hold upon the Australians. It is almost a national calamity. The passion for outdoor sports is tremendous. One lady told me that her son had been at school where sports received much more attention than education. Still, I should by no means say that there is more vice in the Australian colonies than in the older nations of Europe; it is simply more barefaced, because of the very vigor of the national life, and the much smaller influence of public opinion.

Respecting the Labor Question in Australia, we find very much the same evils there as at home, though not in the same proportions, notwithstanding the boast of Australia that it is "the Paradise of the working man." There are many workingmen to whom it proves in no sense a Paradise. One of the labor members of Parliament said to me:

A short time since, a census was taken in Sydney of fifty representative and most respectable artisans of New South Wales. It was found that they were earning, on an average only £2 a week each, and that of this sum they paid twenty per cent. in rent.

The second largest ship-owner in New South Wales told me that, while it was true that the dock laborer received a shilling

an hour for his work, yet there were so many seeking the work that the majority of the dock laborers lived in constant poverty. There is the same centralization going on in the large Australian towns that we find to be such a grave social danger at home.

My remedy for all this is to get the people there, as in this country, to work on the land. I would first instruct the people thoroughly regarding the evils of the present state of affairs, and then lay it down absolutely that charity must come to an end. There must be no more giving out of doles. Money must not be handed out without a return in labor. Those who are unable to work must be supported, but the idle, able-bodied must be compelled by Government to work. Idleness must be made criminal.

The next step would be the formation of industrial villages, with ample provision for recreation and amusements, and above all, for the development of the higher side of human nature by religious services. The present system is wrong. One hundred and eighty acres are granted free to one man with only a few pounds capital. He finds it impossible, with this to till such a large farm. If he has the energy and courage to fight his way through, he is separated from the rest of his fellows and debarred from that social intercourse, which is as necessary to man as the very bread he eats. I would give him six acres for spade culture, and a run for his horse and cow. I would further find him implements, plant his orchard, provide him with a horse and cow and everything else necessary to start him, and then surround him with a community similarly circumstanced. In such conditions the temptation to migrate to the city would be reduced to a minimum.

I am well aware that I shall be told that this is not work for a Government to undertake. I ask my objector what would be his opinion of a Government which had abundant corn stored in one part of its domains, and a population starving for want of bread in another part? Would not the world execrate the Government which refused to convey the corn to the starving multitude? What, then, shall we say of the Government that has millions starving for want of land in one part of its dominions, and millions of acres of land unoccupied in other parts of the realm ?

I pointed out to the people of Brisbane that near their city lies a splendid tract of country known as the "Darling Downs," which would not require manure for years to augment its fertility. It is held by squatters, and used for sheep runs. There is enough land to contain the whole of my three millions who make up the "submerged tenth in England; and I assured them that if these three millions were located there and impregnable walls built around them, the gates sealed forever, the three millions might live there and never trouble anyone till the Resurrection morn.

The Chinese in Australia, hated though they are, are showing what can be done in land culture, by raising one hundred bushels of wheat to the acre. This shows that the ground, like everything else, produces in exact proportion to the amount of labor expended on it.

I have had large tracts of land offered me free in Australia, which when cleared would be worth £20 an acre. What I ask is that the Government should advance the money necessary to carry on this work, and take the land as security. The land in my farm at Hadleigh* cost £18 an acre, and I am assured on competent authority that in a few years this land will be worth £50 an acre. I am prepared to expend £25,000 in developing an Over-the-Sea Colony, and when that is expended I shall ask the Government to advance another £25,000 on the security of the property already created, to further extend the work. I am convinced, as I believe the English public will be convinced in a short time, that the necessary skill and the necessary authority for carrying out this great work are to be found in the organization of the Salvation Army. The English people, either through their Government or by voluntary subscriptions, must advance the necessary capital.

*For an account of the Hadleigh Colony, see "General Booth's Experiment," THE LITERARY DIGEST, Vol. IV., No. 9, p. 229.

use, is not perhaps, from several points of view, says Hæckel, happily chosen. It would have been more exact to say: the struggle to satisfy the necessities of existence. With the latter phrase it would not have been requisite to comprehend under "the struggle for existence," a number of conditions which do not belong to that struggle.

Darwin did not mean this biological law laid down by him to be considered the fundamental law of societies and social relations. Some disciples of his have so understood the law, and some literary works, badly interpreted, have been brought forward in support of this fashion of understanding Darwin. What weight should be given to this sociological interpretation of the theory of Darwin?

The struggle for life is universal. The field of battle is as vast as the habitable world. Every being, from the beginning of its existence (even when it is in the state of germ) has to fight for its existence. Under the impulse of the mechanical laws of development alone, every being is obliged to struggle from its very origin against entire nature, almost constantly against the sum of the conditions of existence which the inorganic world causes, against physico-chemical forces, the temperature, inclemency of the weather, and other influences comprehended under the term, climate, very often and directly against the living beings of which it is the natural element or which live at its expense. Moreover, the struggle for existence results from the rapidity with which all organized beings tend to multiply. Darwin applied to all the vegetable and all the animal kingdom the doctrine of Malthus.

The struggle for life is an incontestable fact. The experience of every day proves it. Doubtless, the field of these rivalries does not present the spectacle of a universal encounter, of a disorderly conflict of all beings indifferently. A battle, nevertheless, whether it be confused or carried on according to certain rules, is a battle all the same, a lamentable reality. Darwin, however, considered the law of vital competition, as a law of organic evolution, and not a social law. The neatness of the phrase has resulted in giving it an application far wider than its author dreamed of. It has been applied to the philosophy of history and made the formula of progress. Let things take their course, said and still say many economists. The German publicists have used Darwin's law to justify the right of the strongest and most intelligent, and declared the infamous Treaty of Frankfort to be the natural consequence of that law. By this law has been justified the cruel decree of Malthus, and it has even been used to justify crime. Certainly, Darwin never thought for a moment that his doctrine would be used to encourage the legion of bandits of all kinds, usurers, industrial tyrants, who have taken possession of some parts of the world, and to soothe their consciences by applying this Darwinian doctrine to these acts: "I squeeze the weak because I am strong. I cannot act differently. It is a natural law."

Yet is Darwin's law incontestable? Is it the supreme law of the relations between beings? Will the law justify the social interpretation given to it? Is it not, on the contrary, plain that the supreme characteristic of civilization, that is, of social evolution, is a struggle against this law, and, so to speak, a denial of it, and that man in particular, whatever may be his origin, has produced a new principle of progress, which makes his species gravitate in a direction opposite to that of animal nature; the law of justice, of charity, of solidarity ? Hæckel himself recognizes that the struggle for life in the human species is becoming more and more an intellectual struggle, less and less a battle with murderous arms.

History teaches us, that one of the causes of the fall of

strongly united, that is, associated, which have triumphed over others.

It is false to consider, even from a physical point of view, the human species as regulated by the same law of evolution as the inferior species, since man utilizes the natural forces which crush the lower animals; it is even more false, from a moral and intellectual point of view. There is, then, at least, one other law of evolution which dominates the law of competition, it is the law of association, still more indispensable than the other for the preservation and development of living beings.

In fact, no living being can live alone. Man is, by nature, a sociable and even political animal. Doubtless, this sociability has an antagonist-the unsociable sociability of man, to use the happy expression of Kant—that is to say, a perpetual reaction, which threatens societies with dissolution. Life in common is not an accidental fact belonging to man alone. It belongs to animals also.

One may go further and say that this law of association is the condition of the persistence of beings, whatever they may be, in the struggle for existence. In other words, their aptitude for resistance is in direct proportion to their cohesion.

To sum up: if the struggle for life arms societies against each other and provokes conflicts in the bosom of a society, the agreement for life none the less dominates these hostilities and, as a consequence, at least within the limits of the same body and the same society, it is no longer a struggle for life ɔr a crushing out of the individual which is the rule; it is coalition, in order to sustain this struggle better, and, consequently, respect for the individual, which is the dominating law. This conclusion is irresistible, whatever origin you may assign to society, whether you consider it as the result of a contract, or assimilate its formation to that of an organism governed by the ordinary laws of life.

THE RUSSIAN FAMINE AND THE REVOLUTION. S. STEPNIAK.

A

Fortnightly Review, London. March,

FEW weeks ago a Russian residing in St. Petersburg-a well-connected man, of wide information, and not a revolutionist-wrote to friend of mine:

There is a real panic here among my well-to-do friends and acquaintances. They expect by the Spring a universal breaking up-chaotic risings, arson, robberies, horrors of every description; and they do not believe the Government will be able to preserve order and protect property.

'Shall we have a revolution soon?" I asked a Russian scientist, who is an authority upon Russian economic questions. He answered quite seriously, “I do not expect any revolution in Russia, but I fully expect that six months hence, the Government will be compelled to make an appeal to the country, and a zemsky sobor (national Parliament) will be summoned by the Czar." He added that he thought Alexander III. quite capable of such a step, if he were convinced of its necessity. I mention this, not because I consider the Czar a very persuadable person, but to show the impartiality of my scientific friend.

Count Tolstoi, reviewing the situation in his now famous letter upon the famine, says that unless adequate measures are taken at once, he forsees "death to the starving millions, and for the whole nation the worst of all misfortunes, rage and bitterness among men," which in plain English means rioting, civil war, revolution. As the measures taken were neither timely nor adequate, Count Tolstoi's conditional prognostication becomes a positive one.

Reading the Russian papers-published with all the caution

due to fear of the Censorship; observing the unmistakable revival of all forms of opposition, beginning with that of the Revolutionists and ending with that of the discreet and wary Liberals; and noticing the changed tone of the Government organs, one is impressed with the fact that all Russians view the present famine as something more important than passing material sufferings. All point to the universal conviction that this year's famine means the breaking down of the whole political system. The same feeling prevails among all foreigners who are interested in Russian affairs-politicians, journalists, and general readers. All expect a revolution in Russia.

I will not reproduce the harrowing pictures of the famine, which are familiar to all newspaper readers. The point of interest here is: What are the possible political consequences of the disaster? Is is likely to bring about revolution in Russia?

A popular revolution is looming in the background. It may come any day if the present crisis is protracted. But is it imminent just now? No, I frankly admit, it is not. This year, and probably next year, too, are not likely to bring popular disturbances of a serious nature.

There has been no exaggeration of the famine. The sufferings of the people are terrible. Englishmen, Frenchmen, or Germans would have begun rioting long ago; but in Russia a considerable portion of the agricultural population is accustomed to live upon starvation diet during certain months of every year. Still there is a limit even to the patience of Russian peasants. Many of our great famines, which took place in the Moscovite period, were accompanied with rioting and disturbances, which in the present political instability would be sufficient to sweep away the dynasty. But those famines were far more severe than this. Then there was no bread to be had at any price.

Philanthropy and the State are vigilant. Russia has enough telegraphs and railways to render it possible to foresee in time, and prevent wholesale starvation. And it will be prevented as long as the resources and the credit of the State are not exhausted. When love would fail, fear will not. Bread will be imported, if for no other reason than to make things “go smoothly," and this will prevent the famine from assuming its most terrible aspect, and will stave off revolution.

But though warded off in this way to some degree, the blow given to the framework of the State by this year's famine is not rendered less effective. The Government is compelled to pay a ransom which will crush it. Bankruptcy is substituted for revolution-that is the long and short of it. This year's famine will cost the Government in round figures no less than 500,000,000 roubles (£50,000,000), the sum which was spent during the Balkan war. But in 1877 the Government borrowed this sum and was not crushed by it.

At that time it was an added burden on the shoulders of a population still able to make both ends meet. It is quite different now; the country is exhausted. This famine is due only in a small degree to climatic conditions. The real cause lay in a total ruin and disablement of the peasantry. This fact is recognized in Russia by the press, by men of science, and even by the Government. The Imperial Commission of 1871 established by its extensive investigations the astounding fact that the Russian peasants pay to the State in taxes about 45 per cent. of their total income. This was more than any taxpayer could stand. As a matter of fact, the crisis began at least eleven years ago, because the year 1880 marks the epoch in which the exhaustion of both land and people began to appear quite clearly, in the way of arrears of taxes.

The arrears have steadily increased, and correspond with the gradual falling off of the crops. A destitute peasantry means poor husbandry, and with bad husbandry good returns are impossible. The average productivity of Russian agriculture is very low; seed excluded, it is 2.9 upon one grain sown, which is about the limit beyond which agriculture is impossible.

Ours has now sunk below that limit. The harvests below that average have been frequent during the last decade. The present famine is but the last link in a long series. Russian agriculturists began to slide downhill long ago. The general famine of 1880 gave them a blow which accelerated their fall; that of 1891 administered the coup de grâce.

The millions spent for relief can do nothing more than keep the destitute peasantry alive until next harvest. What will that harvest bring? We can foresee it, for it depends not upon atmospheric conditions alone. The winter sowing of this year was most unsatisfactory. Only about one-third of the needed seed was furnished, and part of that was eaten by the starving population. An enormous area of land was left unsown. More seed is promised for the spring sowing; but millions of horses. have perished of starvation or been sold in haste for a mere trifle, and how will the ground be ploughed? If next year's climatic conditions be unfavorable the result will be appalling; if most favorable, the harvest must be far below the normal.. A falling off of only one-sixth to one-eighth of the normal harvest will perpetuate and intensify the present famine.

Only the remoulding of our political system can put an end to the present disgraceful condition of Russia. All Russians understand this and clamor for the change. Under the treble pressure of public opinion, of the financial difficulties, and of the fear of revolution, the small clique which stands for a government in Russia must yield, and is sure to yield. There may be difficulties to overcome, and struggles to endure, but the end cannot be doubtful.

I

PENSIONS FOR OLD AGE.

FAILURE OF THE SYSTEM IN GERMANY.
WILHELM BODE.

National Review, London, March.

SEE in the National Review that you English are seriously discussing the introduction of State Insurance laws. We Germans, who have tried it, are sick of State Insurance; and you, who have not yet tried it, think you will relish this new dish of the Social cooks. One would have thought you would have been thankful to us for giving you the opportunity to study its workings, but then you are ready to try the dangerous experiment on your own persons rather than look on.

There are two great schools of social politics-the School of Patience and the School of Impatience. With us the latter has had supremacy for the last ten years; while we always felt sure that in England the patient man would remain in power,. that England would always be (as it has been so long) a model of good Conservatism in every effort of natural free self-help. But, no: you, too, get impatient; you, too, think that God's mills work too slowly; you, too, believe that you must help on the millennium by artificial force, methods of State help. How Germany has advanced so far in State Socialism is easily explicable. We are a military country, drilled in the discipline in which alone a socialistic organization can be built up. But the English appear determined to be Socialists, without having gone through the military schools. I do not believe it possible.

I said that we are sick of the Insurance laws. I mean that the majority of Germans would give much to get rid of them in a decent way. But, unhappily, there is no decent way; for a simple repeal is scarcely possible, because the laws have created millions of claims, and our politicians naturally do not like to confess ignominious failure of this grand German scheme of social reform.

Of all the three Insurance laws, that for old age is most. unpopular. The friends of the law (or rather the fathers of the law, for it has no friends) have only two answers. Firstly, they say it is natural that such an incisive reform meets with great resistance; and, secondly, that the unpopularity of the law is caused, not by the principle of the law, but only by the administration of it. Everybody blames this administration,