sympathy with the objects of the Association. Among those who had thus written were Lord Derby, Lord Bramwell, Lord Reay, Sir Thomas Farrer, Sir G. Baden-Powell, Sir Lowthian Bell, Sir Reginald Welby, Professors Bryce, Geddes, Munro, Nicholson, and Croom Robertson, Mr. Burt, M.P., Mr. Burnett, and Mr. Arthur Crump. From these letters he read the following ex

tracts:

From Lord Derby :-' I do not know whether it will be in my power to attend the meeting which you propose to hold on Nov. 20; but I entirely agree in your proposal to establish an English Economic Association.'

From Lord Bramwell :- I think it would be a good thing to have such a Society as you suggest. As to the Journal, that also would be a good thing, if successful. It must do good, could do no harm, barring questions of £ s. d. I wish I could be present at the meeting on Thursday to show my goodwill.'

From Sir Thomas Farrer :- I am not sure whether I shall be able to attend your meeting on the 20th November, but, if I could, I should heartily support the proposal for a Journal containing valuable papers on Economical subjects. It is rather discreditable and very inconvenient that we have no such Journal now, and are forced to hunt for useful papers through a variety of miscellaneous publications. The question of meetings for discussion is more doubtful. I should prefer myself to begin with a good and impartial editor, strong enough to reject rubbish; to accept papers with different views; and to prevent the Journal from being the organ of any particular school, or the cockpit of particular political controversies.'

From Sir George Baden-Powell :— I think the need of an Economic Journal on the lines sketched is not to be denied. I am well aware that economic treatises are on the one hand often not statistical enough for the Statistical Journal, and on the other, not popular enough for a review or magazine.'

From Professor J. S. Nicholson :-' I need hardly say that I wish the undertaking all success, and that I shall be glad to do all in my power to further its aims. I have been much struck lately in looking over a number of old papers of mine, some in MS. and some privately printed, with the need for some quasi-technical Journal, and I am sure that every one working at political economy must often have felt the same want. If then the association does no more than provide an organized market for the exchange of ideas it will perform a good service, and if, in the course of time, it also serves to introduce to one another the persons in whom the ideas originate, it will be so much the better. What a deal of controversy might have been spared by a little personal contact !'

For himself, he (Professor Foxwell) had long been interested in the formation of such an Association as was now proposed; and the communications he had received on the subject during the last ten years had satisfied him that the demand for an Economic Society was widespread and increasing. It would be admitted that the present time was a critical one from the economic point of view; and that it was just now extremely important that economic opinion should be vigorously expressed, and duly influential in practical politics. The position and authority of economic science in England was clearly not now what it was in 1846. The generation which had elapsed since the triumph of free trade had certainly seen a remarkable development of economics; but for that very reason economic opinion had lost something of its former unanimity and confidence, and had failed to impress itself so forcibly on men of affairs. With originality, we had had eccentricity. The importance of new points of view had been exaggerated; and the great body of common doctrine, the central scientific tradition, had been relatively ignored. Hence an appearance of confusion and discord, which he thought most unfortunate in its effects, and not warranted by the actual state of cultivated economic opinion. The formation of this Association would, he believed, do something to correct this eccentricity and give strength to the economic Centre. It might serve, too, to concentrate and focus the opinion of economists, and to provide a means of ascertaining it, and of bringing its influence to bear upon the discussion of measures in which important economic considerations were involved. In this and other ways it might be hoped that it would do something to bridge over the separation between the theorists and the men of affairs. In the time of Ricardo and McCulloch the economists were perhaps too much immersed in current business and politics. At the present time the danger lay in the opposite direction. Isolation was bad for both sides. The theorist was apt to become academic in the bad sense of that word, perhaps even pedantic: the man of affairs was apt to be shortsighted in his action, and deficient in imagination and breadth of of view. It was the earnest hope of those who had promoted this Association that it might afford a common meeting-ground for the representatives of theory and practice, and tend at the same time to the development of the science, and to the increase of its influence on social progress and reform. The names of those who wished to join might be sent to Mr. T. H. Elliott, at the Local Government Board, to Mr. L. L. Price,

Oriel College, Oxford, or to himself, at St. John's College, Cambridge.

Mr. MARTIN seconded the resolution, which was carried.

Mr. INGLIS PALGRAVE moved and Mr. T. H. ELLIOTT seconded the last resolution, nominating the members of the committee. The following gentlemen were then nominated:

Mr. A. H. D. Acland, Professor Bastable, Mr. James Bonar, Mr. Charles Booth, Mr. John Burnett, Mr. Thomas Burt, Professor Edward Caird, Mr. Leonard Courtney, the Rev. Dr. Cunningham, Professor Edgeworth, Mr. T. H. Elliott, Sir Thomas Farrer, Professor Foxwell, Mr. Robert Giffen, Mr. E. C. K. Gonner, Mr. G. J. Goschen, Mr. George Howell, Professor Ingram, Mr. J. N. Keynes, Sir John Lubbock, Professor Marshall, Mr. J. B. Martin, Professor Munro, Professor Nicholson, Mr. Inglis Palgrave, Mr. L. L. Price, Rev. L. R. Phelps, Sir Rawson Rawson, Mr. Frederick Seebohm, Professor Sidgwick, Mr. H. Llewellyn Smith, and the Rev. Philip Wicksteed.

Mr. G. BERNARD SHAW, whilst fully agreeing with all that their chairman, Mr. Goschen, had said that evening, suggested, with all respect to Mr. Goschen, that the head of the Association should not be a gentleman who was identified with any political party in the State.

The Chairman and Professor Marshall both rose, but Mr. Goschen gave way to

Professor MARSHALL, who asked to be allowed to intervene. He was not a political supporter of their chairman, but he was sure he was expressing the general opinion when he said that it would be impossible to find any more fair and impartial man to be at their head than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The CHAIRMAN said that he thought there was considerable force in what Mr. Shaw had said. He would propose that his nomination should not be decided upon at this meeting, but should be deferred to another meeting. It would probably be better if a political economist were chosen who had no avowed political views. He hoped, therefore, that the matter would be left open.

Professor MARSHALL proposed, and it was agreed, that the matter should, immediately after the close of the meeting, be considered by the council.

The Rev. R. L. PHELPS, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Goschen for taking the chair at this meeting, said that they all knew how important it was to the success of an undertaking such as that which they were starting, that it should be supported in

its early stages by a man of Mr. Goschen's distinction as an economist, as a financier, and as a statesman. He thought he might venture to say that Mr. Goschen's conduct in the chair that day gave no small warrant of the courteous ability with which he might be trusted to direct the affairs of the Association in the future.

The vote of thanks being unanimously carried, the proceedings closed with votes of thanks to the President of University College for allowing them the use of the hall.

THE EIGHT HOURS DAY IN VICTORIA

A WEEK before the May-day demonstrations of last year, at which the working men of Europe and America assembled and cried together to their governments for an eight hours day of labour, the happier working men of Victoria were celebrating the thirty-fourth anniversary of the attainment of the boon. The 21st of April was Eight Hours Demonstration Day, which has now grown to be the national festival of the colony, and drew to Melbourne last year the greatest throng of people ever seen in the city. The usual procession of the eight-hour tradescomposed of 8,000 men and representing fifty separate trades— marched through the principal streets from the Trades Hall, the parliament-house of labour, on to the Friendly Society Gardens, labour's beautiful pleasure-ground. Before them was borne the old patched but venerated banner of 1856, inscribed with the principle, Eight hours work, eight hours recreation, eight hours rest.' Then came the fifty trades in the order of ballot, each with its flags and music and appropriate historical and industrial tableaux, while the rear was brought up by two drags containing the pioneers of the movement, the last grey survivors of those who fought in its first battles and walked in its first processions thirty years ago. In 1857 only 700 men and only nine separate trades took part in the demonstration, and though they played God Save the Queen' as they passed the government offices, they kept the balance right by playing the 'Marseillaise' when they reached the Houses of Parliament; but now there is not a turbulent thought; Parliament adjourns for the day, the Colonial offices are closed, and the Governor-General, after witnessing the show from the Treasury windows, drives on to the Gardens, receives a loyal address as the representative of the Queen, and then, with leading statesmen and some of the largest employers of labour, sits down to a banquet as the guest of the