missing. The failure arises very largely from the utter impossibility of inspecting all the ships in dock, and from the judicial interpretation of the law, according to which, not the merchant, but the inspector, is made responsible for the loss of an unseaworthy ship. Equally logical, but far less mischievous, would it be to acquit a pickpocket, because the policeman should not have let him do it. Unhappily the law generally has a fatal bias in favour of the "propertied" classes. It defends most those who have least need of defence, but who can pay for it best. Here we have a great and signal injustice which both the legislative and the judicial branches of the State have utterly failed to remove. For there can be no doubt that there are shipping merchants who, like the wreckers of old, batten on the drowning of men and the sinking of ships, and who deliberately allow unseaworthy ships to leave their ports in order to reap a harvest from the insurance money, which is only paid in cases of wreckage. So far have we been carried by the unchecked power of marine insurance, which the present laws permit, that great crimes are committed in our midsthundreds of lives taken at a time-without any possibility of bringing the guilty to justice. Obviously our methods must be changed. We must give up the hope of inspecting all vessels before they leave port. Many will always escape such an inspection, however thorough it may be. A bill must be brought in, on the lines of Mr. Chamberlain's deceased bill, placing limits on the power of marine insurance. We are not so powerless in the face of vested interests that we should sit down and let these iniquities go on without making an effort to stop them. Let those among us who live securely on dry land have pity on our brothers who "go down to the sea in ships and whose business is on the great waters," and stretch out a helping hand to them, for of themselves they are unenfranchised and voiceless.

Who Slew Douglas?

WE have received many communications respecting the article under the above title; one correspondent writes :

"I wish I could be of some real service in stemming the horrible tide of intemperance. I am overburdened with business cares which leave me without the time to write a family letter, let alone leisure to follow my heart's desire and devote my

life to the defence of the common herd from the machinations of the vampires of society. Unfortunately, of late the ground of this town has been bought up by a local brewer, which adds to the difficulties very much."

This is a specimen of numerous letters from persons who do good under difficulties. Let all such be encouraged by the reflection that what they do will be accepted according to what opportunities they have. They will not be judged for what they do not possess. All, however, can abstain from the use of a drink which creates thirst and presents a temptation against which none are secure. We scarcely like to think of the responsibility incurred by those who use wealth for a purpose which is so fatal to mankind. Fortunately their judgment and punishment does not rest with us, and our guilt may be even greater than theirs if we do not act up to our lights. Copies of the October DEMOCRAT, Containing the article, "Who Slew Douglas," will be sent, free of charge, to any addresses supplied to us. They will be forwarded "With the compliments" of the correspondent who gives the address.

An Old Fallacy Revived..

IN his answer to the Unemployed, at the Mansion House the other day, Sir Henry Knight used an argument which the Government organs prudently abstained from quoting or commenting on. "It is often said," he argued, that the consumption of the rich is injurious to the poor. But this is not so. Suppose that a man drinks champagne, he gives employment to glassmakers, to cork-makers, to those who grow grapes, and to those who help to ferment the grapes." This is an old fallacy. For to keep men employed is not necessarily a good thing in itself. If hanging afforded immense employment, should we hang more men? Would not all agree that it would be better that the hangers should be idle? But better far than either such idleness or such employment would be that their activity should be directed into better channels. this can only be done if the rich spend their riches-if all of us spend our little money-on things which are good and useful instead of things which are useless and bad. It is an entire mistake to suppose that we are any of us free from responsibility in the spending of our money. In this, as in all things, there is a duty as well as a right. For supply is regulated

And

by demand, and a demand for luxuries means the waste of the God-given powers of man on all that is profitless and pernicious. But the real fact is that the only way to lessen luxury is to prevent the accumulation of that excessive wealth which arises from unjust legislation. When a man has too much money to satisfy his natural needs alone, he will manufacture unnatural needs. A better distribution of wealth will inevitably result in a better expenditure of wealth. And this better distribution can only be brought about by such a change in our laws as will prevent the legalised robbery which at present prevails.

A Shocking Case.

THE case against Mr. Raikes, the PostmasterGeneral, was never thoroughly thrashed out in Parliament, and he was enabled to escape the brunt of the accusation against him. But none the less was the accusation true. There is not the slightest doubt that in many parts of the country-in Westmoreland especially-postmasters were turned off for their political opinions. And now he is taking advantage of his luck in getting out of the last mess, by a fresh indulgence in his tricks. We have this week had placed in our hands the details of a case, probably as bad as any that has previously occurred. Mr. Charles Workman, of Alvington, in Gloucestershire, was sub-postmaster in his native village. He was an active Liberal, and in consequence, found himself suddenly dismissed from his post. He gives the following explanation of his dismissal :

asked to resign, but this I refused to do, thinking that if I were to be kicked out of office, the Postmaster-General should have the sole job to himself; and further, it gave me time to write to our late M.P., T. Blake, Esq., who, in turn, corresponded with our present Member, whose father, Sir B. Samuelson, has been corresponding with headquarters on my behalf, but to no purpose. On the 1st October I was formally dismissed from my official duties, which were forthwith transferred to an active member of the Primrose League, and said to be one of their appointed canvassers in the recent contest. I demanded the names of the persons

who informed against me. This was refused. I asked if there were anything besides that stood against me. The surveyor said none whatever. I cannot narrate all in a single letter that has occurred, but this is the main.

If party politics once begin to invade our Civil Service, when shall we see the end of it?

A Wolf in Lamb's Clothing.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL is a careful student of Liberal principles, and admires them with all the reverence of an aspiring imitator. But he is sadly deceiving himself if he imagines that because the new Conservatism arrays itself in a travesty of Liberalism, the Liberal party has received its death-blow. In the first place, there would be little cause for sorrow or mourning if it really were a fact that the Tory party had adopted all the principles of Liberalism, and the Liberal party ceased to exist merely because a Liberal nation had taken its place. We care nothing for parties, except in so far as they serve as instruments for carrying out sound principles. But this roseate vision is very far from being realised. Lord Randolph Churchill professes to go in for free education and local option. Even if he did, it would not necessarily follow that the Conservative party went in for them. Rather the opposite. But if we look into his schemes for local option and free education, we find that they are the Radical schemes with the heart and soul taken out of them. In his scheme of local option, localities are to be encouraged to support the drink traffic, the cause, he admits, of threefourths of the crime, by making a profit out of it. The power of total prohibition is not allowed, and compensation is to be given to vested interests. Similarly, in his scheme of free education, the Church schools are to be given an important handicap in the race with the School Boards. In both these cases Lord Randolph Churchill indulges in the old Tory dodge of juggling with a name, and hopes to take advantage of the stupidity of mankind, by passing Tory measures under a Liberal guise.

Shall Scotchmen be Cowards? LORD ROSEBERY struck the right note in Scotland when he pointed out to the kinsmen of the planters in Ulster the essential cowardice of the proposal that Ulster should have a

separate Parliament. It is interesting and instructive to note in this instance the corrupting effect of a privileged position-of the position of a dominant section. Cowardice and selfishness are far from being the characteristics of Scotchmen. And yet the Orangemen of Ulster, who come of the same race, and only differ in circumstance, are notoriously selfish; and if they really propose to desert the minority of their fellow Protestants scattered over Ireland, and to "set up for themselves," they cannot be acquitted of the charge of cowardice. All honour to those Ulstermen-and there are many-who, in spite of their privileged position, can feel for the wrongs of Ireland and boldly assert her right to justice.

Luxury and Trade.

IN his letter to the Daily News Sir Henry E. Knight endeavours to show that when the rich drink champagne, the poor are greatly benefited. He begins by saying that, "No entertainment can be indulged in without purchasing the articles which constitute or contribute to it." Quite so. Neither can the poor man obtain the necessaries of life without purchasing the articles," &c. Therefore, as far as stimulating the labour market is concerned, the effect of expenditure in either case may be the same. But the result for which it is stimu

lated is very different. If Sir Henry takes two bottles of champagne, costing twelve shillings, the result is that the worthy knight is slightly titillated. If John Thomas enjoys the luxury of an unusual income of twelve extra shillings, the supply of necessaries and comforts for his whole family can be doubled for a week. They may have a second room instead of being crushed together in one. For once in their lives the children's hunger may be abundantly satisfied. The baker and the grocer may be paid nearly double the usual amount, and something may be left for the butcher, who is usually neglected. We, therefore, think that if there is a choice as to the disposition of twelve shillings, it should go to John Thomas instead of going to Sir Henry.

What we complain of is that, having the control of legislation, Sir Henry and his friends. intercept the money that would otherwise go to John Thomas. They exempt themselves from taxation and put it on industry.

The two bottles of champagne are taxed only twopence, the same value of poor man's tea is

taxed twenty times as much. The poor man's room has to pay in rates 40s. per annum upon every £100 of value. The mansion of Sir Henry Knight will not be charged more than 5s. for every £100 of value. Sir H. Knight and his friends having voted the land of the country into their own title deeds, and refuse to let poor men work or build upon it unless they pay to the idle owner a degree of blackmail which amounts in the aggregate to £150,000,000 per annum-on the average £20 for every family.

These are the reasons why Sir Henry can drink champagne by the bottle while the poor man cannot get tea by the ounce. It is scarcely surprising that the industrious labourer, whose wages are not half what they would be under a fair system of taxation, is so blind that he does not see the great advantage to his starving family of Sir Henry drinking champagne at the cost of the working man.

An Old, Old Story.

MR. W. S. STANHOPE, of Cannon Hall, Halifax, in addressing the working men at a Yorkshire harvest festival, said—

"He should advise them not to quarrel with their own bread and butter, but to consider how difficult it was to carry on the coal trade nowhow very small and vanishing the profits of those engaged in the coal trade were. Therefore it was wise for men not to stand in their own light, but to look on themselves in some way as partners in the concern, because if there were no profits there would be no money to pay wages with. This was a point for the men to think more about than of the curious doctrines flying about the country, socialistic and otherwise. What they had to sell was their labour, and they had a right to sell it without interference from anyone. They had the right to British liberty, the liberty enjoyed in this country in disposing of the labour they had to sell. On the other hand if they wished to pull down those who wished to buy that labour and reduce their positions until they had no money to buy that labour with what would be the good of having any labour to sell?"

This is the old, old story which has been told so many times to the marines. By all means let the mine owner raise his royalties, the landlord his rents, and the capitalist his profits, because, after exacting all these from the labourer, he will return to him a sinall percentage of what he has taken, in exchange for exhausting services. Mr. Stanhope is correct in saying "a man has a right to sell his labour with

out interference from anyone." Why then should the idle landlord stand upon the land and say you shall not plough, or work, or raise coal, unless you give half of the results to a man who does nothing in return?

IF the Land Restoration League received a tenth part of the cost of establishing a bishopric, it would be enabled then to convert the half of the kingdom to justice and commonsense in the matter of land.

THE descriptive correspondent of the Daily News says, respecting the Nottingham meeting: "The balconies, in which nearly 2,000 could be seated, were occupied by ladies and gentlemen." So it seems that the Liberal party is not left altogether to the support of men and

women.

By all means "remember Mitchelstown," but do not forget that pale-faced man looking wistfully into the baker's shop who has been deprived of employment and charged double rent because the earth which the Lord gave to the children of men has been monopolised by the most ungodly members of the human family.

WE are glad to find "the suggestion that all parliamentary elections should be on one day, found special favour" at Nottingham. same principle should be applied to local elections, municipal councils, school board, vestries, and all public officers should be elected on one day. This day should be known throughout the kingdom as the day of election. Electors would then be able to devote their attention effectively to such matters, and might drop their ballot papers for all purposes in the same room and at the same time.

A GOOD deal of light has recently been thrown upon the condition of the working classes in great cities. We are informed in official reports that nearly one-third of the population in the East-end of London are out of work; that the average earnings of skilled artisans throughout the year do not exceed 20s. per week, and that of labourers 12s. per week, while one-third of these amounts have to be paid for room rent. This state of affairs is sufficiently deplorable; it shows starvation in the midst of abundance and enforced idleness where there is willingness and ability to work. But, bad as things are in the town, they are so much worse in the country that the inhabitants of our villages and small market towns are rushing to the misery of our cities to escape from their native wretchedness, which is still distressing.

more

The starvation of body and mind which pervades country life in the South of England is the wonder of many, the anxiety of some, and the disgrace of all. We know that it ought not to be. We know that if we pour so much water into a cistern we ought to get a similar quantity out of it, and we know that as the labour of mankind is now five times as productive as it was fifty years ago, the working classes ought to be enjoying that abundance which they are constantly producing.

Where

is the leakage which prevents us from getting out of the cistern the quantity which goes

into it ?

Nothing but careful investigation and analysis can enable us to discover and remove the causes of the evils which we deplore.

In order to assist in this investigation I propose to describe the conditions of life as they are found in the parish in which I happened to be born. I am not responsible for the selection of a birthplace, although I do not know that I could have made a better choice. In Wiltshire there is little complaint to make against Nature. She has done her part well in providing varied and productive soils and a delightful climate. The population are a steady and industrious race. Many of them I have known for years as men who have worked hard and faithfully in positions of trust and responsibility, whose reward has been from 8s. to 11s. per week in the prime of life, and after that the workhouse or a parish allowance of 2s. per week.

Why then has Wiltshire, like many other country districts, become impoverished and partially deserted? About twenty years ago the chief landlord of Market Lavington and adjoining parishes came to live on his property, and built a large red brick house in a charming and lonely spot. This landlord is a well-known political economist and a shining pillar of the Property Defence League. He has had the courage of his convictions. Soon after his advent he was asked to give a subscription to a small working farmer who had lost his only horse. Instead of subscribing he expounded political economy, and explained that if a man could not afford to lose a horse, he clearly ought not to possess one. Not only in matters of charity, but in business affairs, he put in practice his economical ideas. In the parish of Market Lavington he owned over 2,000 acres of

land, which were cultivated by five farmers. His clear brain and steady heart at once realised the waste involved in this arrangement. Why five farmers? Would it not be possible for one farmer to occupy the whole? Thus the cost of supporting four farmers would be saved, and ultimately find its way into the landlord's pockets. Four farmers were, therefore, dismissed. The plan was so successful, that not only were four farmers and their families sent about their business, but twenty labourers and their families were also superseded and told to look elsewhere for their living. This opened a magnificent prospect of wealth for the shrewd landlord and his favourite farmer. Gloom settled upon the village, shopkeepers complained of a loss of trade, but all this was a part of the superior economic system; a saving of shopkeepers and a reduction of their number, or of their extravagance, was a clear gain, as much to be desired as the lessening of the number of labourers and farmers. economists, therefore, triumphed all along the line. Even the manner of the people improved. They became more quiet and civil, pulled their forelocks with more reverence to their betters, and in their deep anxiety to obtain work, foremen and under stewards were treated at publichouses by men whose families were without food.

The

Lessons in obedience were taught all round. One tenant, who paid a hundred a year for a small mill and a few acres of land, had a son with similar propensities to those manifested by other lads. This boy saw a large trout in what he improperly supposed to be his father's stream. The trout was reposing in a deep hole; the cunning lad got into the water, and making it muddy, produced upon the fish the effect of a London fog, then putting his hands under the big trout, he astonished the fish by suddenly chucking him out of the water and landing him on the bank. Something might have been made of a boy capable of doing this. But repression, not development, was the order of the day. Instead of exercising the arts of concealment, the boy was delighted with his performance and actually boasted thereof. It came to the knowledge of the under stewards, the lad was taken before the county magistrates, and his father had to pay a heavy fine for his misconduct. Both the temper and talent of the precocious youth were ruined by this treatment, and he became a failure instead of a success in life.

Our Lavington landlord is not only enamoured of economy but he has æsthetic tastes. He likes to see beautiful landscapes, and he likes to see them alone. Therefore he has closed foot. paths commanding extensive views, which he now gazes upon without fear of interruption. It is a satisfaction to the inhabitants to know that their great landlord can do this.

But other footpaths were also closed by which the parishioners were put to much inconvenience, and some unsatisfied persons broke down the barriers. A lawsuit followed and the

landlord won; for although it was shown that the public had used the path for a century, it was effectively contended that for a still longer period the property had been under entail, and therefore no rights could be acquired to the prejudice of the unborn heir. It seems that there always is an unborn heir entitled to precedence of persons who come into the world before him. It is very comical that our rights are sacrificed through arrangements made by ancestors, who have long since gone out of the world, for the benefit of those who have not yet come into it. However, the practical point is that the footpath was lost, a few feet of land added to the farm, and the landlord's prospective rent roll slightly increased.

66

Of course our landlord is a fox-hunter. The natural savageness of man and beast has to be stimulated once a year by the process of blooding the hounds, i.e., giving them a taste of the blood of a fox, so that in future proceedings they may rush after him with avidity. The ceremony is one to which landlords, and their wives and daughters, look forward with much interest. It consists of digging out a fox" in the presence of a large assembly of aristocrats and plebeians. Foxes have holes in which they spend a considerable portion of their time. One of these holes being discovered, the process of digging out is commenced, and when the fox is reached, he is seized by a dexterous gamekeeper, who, grasping his tail and the scruff of his neck, suddenly throws the living fox high into the air, from which he falls down backwards upon the noses of a pack of yelping dogs. These dogs, as it is their nature to, tear him into small pieces, and then move on with blood and fur in their mouths, in a state of rapturous delight. Not content with the natural development of vermin, our landlord magnanimously spares a few shillings from his large rent roll for the purpose of importing foxes. A short time since he turned out a score of these creatures into a wood which is surrounded by small holdings, for which the occupiers pay £3 or £4 per acre, and desire to keep poultry, but the prevalence of imported foxes has deprived them of this source of income. The spirit in which this fox-hunting is pursued will be understood when it is related that, on a recent occasion, a small working farmer objected to his crops being destroyed by fox-hunters, and instructions were promptly given, "you must get rid of that fellow, you know."

Stranger events have, however, happened than any I have yet related. At the moment it is difficult to say who will be "got rid of." It looks as if a struggle had commenced of which "the survival of the fittest" may be the result. We have now to determine whether the fairest portion of God's earth is to be occupied by landlords, gamekeepers, and vermin, or by the children of men to whom it was originally given. A catastrophe has occurred like that which happened to the horse which died just as his economic master had reduced his rations to a straw a day. The system of the monster