(c) Social. Although no country can, in this century, count on escaping the pest of Communism, America's power of resistance is to-day at least as high as that of any other country. A very substantial proportion of her citizens owns a little property in one form or another; and even a very limited amount of property suffices to bring the owner into line with his law-abiding fellow-citizens, as against the Socialist or the transgressor of law. Experience shows that the man who has the grit to make money has generally the grit to protect it. In a riot or a fight the owner of a little homestead or store is worth ten loafers. He has more nerve, a stiffer backbone, and something to lose, which the loafer has not. His sixshooter is of a better quality than that of the loafer, his powder is straighter, and, in short, there is a better man behind the gun. That as time goes on organized labour will, as between labour and capital, obtain a larger share of the profits of industry than it has heretofore received may be accepted as a foregone conclusion. Such a result will probably not be confined to America; but will extend, at no very remote period, to the whole of the civilized world. The question for the investor is-how far inevitable reduction of interest is likely to be associated with insecurity of capital. Many indications point to the conclusion that Communism—always dangerous—is, on the whole, less alarming in America than elsewhere. The singular quietness, with which the whole nation settles down to business after the violent excitement of a contested Presidential election, affords presumptions in favour of a peaceful solution of strikes. The tendency of the people is rather to accept arbitration than to pursue labour quarrels to their ultimate logical result. Appeals ad misericordiam, in cases where the transgressor of law has unduly presumed

on his power to dictate terms, and—in the vernacular language "got badly left," excite very little pity in the public mind. An uprising, which had no foundation in a real grievance and is defeated by unflinching resistance, meets with its fair share of ridicule. The public regards

an unsuccessful striker very much as it regards a player who "bluffs" at poker and is promptly "called." He has met with an opponent with nerve at least as good as his own, and it is plain that, if he was "bluffing," his game is up.

It is thought by many competent observers in this country that, at no very remote interval, the immense evil arising from monetary contraction will be, to some extent, grappled with and perhaps economized. It is beginning to be realized that as the legitimate expectation of gain lies at the root of the liberal employment of capital in industrial enterprise, consistently falling prices carry with them their own special nemesis. It may be doubted whether the confidence with which a higher range of prices inspires the owners of accumulated wealth is not, on the whole, better for the producing communities of the world than a very low range of prices, which marks undue appreciation of gold, and gives to the creditor of several years' standing an undue advantage, and to the owner of unemployed wealth a silent and unperceived increment of power as against property generally.* It is also thought not impossible that the natural shrewdness of the American wage-earner may induce him to see the propriety of submitting to a reduction of wages, if satisfied by fair explanation on the part of the capitalist that no profit can be made at subsisting rates of compensation, provided he is equally satisfied that an increase of wages will certainly follow on the realization of fair profits.

*The Economic Crisis and Its Causes, M. E. de Laveleye, Contemporary Review, May, 1886,

Again, the drift of public opinion is beginning to set in the direction of resistance to "rings," or any type of organization which lives by a policy of cajolery or intimidation and enforces on its members a sliding scale of rewards and punishments. Neither a National League nor a Birmingham "Caucus" could to-day reach its full stature in America. It would be killed by ridicule in its embryonic stage. America tried the experiment in Mr. Tweed's day, and discovered to her cost that a compact organization of irresponsible persons was a luxury altogether too expensive for a democratic community to support. She bequeathes the system as a legacy to England, with her best wishes, as a garment for which she has no further use.

Another very hopeful symptom is the discredit which is beginning to attach to solid votes. Wherever fifty or one hundred members in a representative body are prepared to vote "solid," it is plain that party organization is predominant and personal conviction subordinate. The moral value of a solid vote by the Birmingham "Caucus" or by Mr. Parnell's followers is greatly discounted by the circumstance that personal conviction and criticism are virtually excluded by the operation of an organized scale of rewards and punishments. The solid vote obviously means that party governs, and that patriotism and individual opinion are asleep. In America solid voting is on the decline, as the dignity of asserting independent conviction is becoming more generally appreciated, and the servility attached to "wearing the collar of the machine" is more generally felt.

3. Holding these views as to her place in the international handicap, it can be no matter of surprise that her citizens are willing to put up with some inconvenience for the purpose of making the Country as nearly self-sufficing

as possible. She needs no importation of food. The Mississippi valley and Texas alone, to say nothing of the undeveloped territories, afford her adequate assurance under this head. In the view of the people, it remains to utilize the resources of her area, soil and climate, and the ingenuity and energy of her citizens.

From the Protectionist point of view,-a view which contemplates an indefinitely long period,—it is held to be worth while to protect and nurse a variety of nascent industries in all those cases in which the conclusions of political economy and the relations of environment afford a reasonable presumption of eventual success. It is held (whether rightly or wrongly experience must decide) that within a few years many of these nascent industries will be able to take care of themselves in the competition of nations, provided their infancy is nursed and fostered till they are able to walk or run without assistance. The most ardent Protectionist would scarcely contend that a protective tariff should not admit, from time to time, of wise and adroit readjustment, with a view of relieving raw material of its burdens and modifying, according to circumstances, the duties upon finished products. Commonsense and practical statesmanship may, it is thought, be trusted to deal with each case according to its peculiar merits.

When the Free-trader objects that during this period the consumer suffers, the answer commonly given is that production precedes consumption; that the producer is in turn a consumer; and that, although any specific class of producers forms, at any given time, a minority of the whole community, still the verdict of the whole people is in favour of making the Country self-sufficing. They are willing to make this effort, even at the cost of some incon

venience to the large majority of consumers.

Such a verdict is rendered by a national majority in a population of some fifty millions. It is, therefore, simply an exercise of the popular will in the direction of submitting to temporary inconvenience, for the sake of what is (rightly or wrongly) regarded as a substantial element of future national greatness. However absurd such a view may appear to the uncompromising Free-trader, it can scarcely be pooh-poohed by a candid thinker as futile or unpatriotic.

Great weight is attached in this country to the distinction between the majority of a whole community and the majority of a section or fragment of that community. The majority of the South desired secession. But the majority of the whole of the United States desired unity. Why should the majority of a section prevail over the majority of the whole people, if democratic maxims are to be consistently observed? The uncompromising advocates of Free-trade in England make but slow progress in the conversion of America. These gentlemen, say the advocates of Protection here, have laid down some excellent principles, sound in tendency and full of practical insight. If all the nations of the world would accept their rules, there is no doubt whatever that England would for many years to come profit by such a result. But suppose one successful player proposes the adoption of a rule, and several other players decline to accept it. What then? The value of a rule is indefinitely discounted by the refusal of many players to accept it. Its effect is necessarily subject to the context of circumstances. It cannot be said to be either good or bad when taken away from its correlation with its surroundings; and one of the most important of its surroundings is the consent of many players to its adoption. If England likes to walk alone, she is of course