Many of them have always regarded the amount they guaranteed as a donation to a good cause, and would not wish to be deprived of the honor of having made it practicable. They could hardly have spent their money to better advantage, for, though the pageant has passed, the vision remains, and the fruits of the undertaking will be gathered in the future. Those who enjoy the advantages of literature and travel, who are brought constantly into personal relationships with men and women from all parts of the world, find it so easy to realize life in the Dominions and Colonies that they are apt to forget the difficulty of others in forming any idea of places which they have never seen. Many of these have relatives who have crossed the seas to seek a larger career in the Dominions, and it has been a source of immense consolation and happiness to them to find that the hardships they had imagined are to-day largely nonexistent. The life of the British countries overseas, and the opportunities for making a career in them, were revealed at Wembley as never before, and will, it is to be hoped, encourage many of the young men in our overcrowded cities to try their fortune there; while men and women in every station of life have been inspired by the spirit of Wembley to render fuller and richer service to the Empire.

The Tory Morning Post takes the situation less philosophically, and notwithstanding its anti-Socialist proclivities hopes the Government will relieve the guarantors of their liability. Indeed, according to this journal, it has a moral obligation to do so:

When the enterprise was fairly begun, the Government, owing to circumstances which we need not recall, thought proper virtually to take over the management of the whole affair. Thus, what began as a private ven

ture became a business for which the Government at least shared the responsibility. The exact relative position of the Government and of the guarantors in the conduct of the Exhibition has never been made clear to the public. But if the claim is enforced upon the guarantors, it is probable that a controversy will be aroused which would be far from appropriate in connection with a great Imperial concern. Moreover, unless the Government intervenes and increases its guaranty to the amount required to make up the loss, it will be very difficult to induce men of commerce to support another exhibition.

'COLONEL HARVEY'S MISTAKE' UNDER this title the Westminster Gazette published a series of comments by British business men on Ex-Ambassador Harvey's recent obituary upon England's greatness. The sympathy implied in that obituary is not overlooked, but it is regarded as rather too anticipatory. Mr. Stanley Machin, president of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, said:

I fear Mr. Harvey was not here sufficiently long to appreciate fully our national characteristics. The only part of his statement with which I agree is his calculation of the extent of the burden of the National Debt as compared with that of other countries. Throughout her long history Great Britain has never defaulted, and, supported as the Government in this country always will be by those who bear the burden, she will not default in the future. It is true that we are passing through a difficult time, but will anyone for a moment suppose that Great Britain is played out? Signs of improvement in trade are already visible, and I am satisfied she will again come into her own as a commercial nation and hold her position in competition with other countries of the world.

To this Sir Hugo Hirst, chairman of the General Electric Company, added:

The steel industry may be bad; it is

suffering from the coal industry. But I am satisfied that, with the exception of these, for which good reasons can be given, the rest of the country is pulling itself together wonderfully. Electricity is in the service of every industry, and as such is a very good index; and I can say that not only ourselves, but other electrical concerns, are having record years. Our worst period was passed eighteen months ago. Building is going ahead; wool and cotton are also.

A number of other gentlemen of corresponding prominence expressed themselves to similar effect. Last of all, the Westminster Gazette concluded editorially that:

There was a time, a few years ago, when any British crowd was prepared, at any given moment, to insist, loudly and emphatically, that as a nation we were not downhearted. The doleful picture of 'England's Plight' to-day that Colonel Harvey has drawn for his countrymen in the United States makes us wonder whether the question would be answered as satisfactorily and as confidently now. Colonel Harvey was with us, as Ambassador, long enough to learn something of our temperament. He pays us the compliment, presumably, of taking us at our own valuation. And the conclusion at which he has arrived is that our period of productivity is past, that our prosperity is not likely to be revived, that our national debt is a greater burden than we can bear, that we may not be able to carry out our promises with regard to the payment of war debts, and that we are, in short, on the of verge national bankruptcy.

He says all this, apparently, with every desire to help us, pointing out to AngloSaxon America that the duty of fidelity to the race ranks second only to that of loyalty to the country; but, though we may appreciate his motives, we must decline to accept his facts. We may be heavily in debt, and struggling against difficulties which come upon us from many quarters; but our position is better now than it was a year, or half a dozen years, ago; our investments abroad are increasing; unemployment, even without any visible as

A CHINESE writer declares in the China Weekly Review that education in China has become utterly demoralized during the recent years of civil war, impotent government, and public bankruptcy. Not only is the Government badly in arrears with teachers' salaries and with other appropriations for the maintenance of the public schools, but most of them 'have become so badly managed and the students so insubordinate and lawless that they constitute a serious menace to the moral well-being of the rising generation.'

AMONG the parallels between Communist and Fascist tactics is the eagerness with which both movements propagate their policies abroad. The Bolsheviki strive to bless all humanity with their 'Communist cells' — tiny conventicles of the faith prepared to seize every favorable opportunity to spread the doctrine of Lenin throughout the capitalist world. The Fascisti have their followers under varied names in the principal countries of Europe. The first Congress of Fascisti Resident Abroad has adopted a resolution declaring that its opponents 'Italians who in the name of free thought and free speech libel their own country,' by criticizing its present régime are tantamount to traitors; and it recommends that they be subjected to the following penalties: (1) loss of Italian citizenship; (2) confisca

FASCIST propaganda in France has risen to the dignity of a literature, incorporated not only in newspapers and magazines, but also in books, characterized for the most part by rhapsodic rhetoric and militarist appeal. One of these, Les Combattants, by Jacques Arthuys, in its dedication thus apostrophizes France's Unknown Soldier. 'We refuse longer to be submerged in this universal baseness. Everything that is great is vilely aspersed. Everything that is petty is exalted. Whatever safeguards society is destroyed. The navy is going to the dogs. The army is neglected. Spiritual forces are ridiculed.'

Confessing that the Combattants cannot hope to win elections, this author declares that it is useless for them to seek seats in Parliament or to organize simply for defense. They must go further. "The Combattants regard with equal indifference or contempt all pre-war politicians, who retain the souls of slaves. Who of them is entitled

to our admiration - Poincaré, the traitor? Millerand, who abandoned his post when the editor of a RadicalSocialist paper snapped his fingers? M. Blum? M. Herriot? M. Cachin? No a thousand times no! Let them return to the oblivion that they merit. We must seize power. And let us not mince words in saying this. To seize

1 From L'Ere Nouvelle (Paris Radical daily), November 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30

power does not mean that our cleverest members shall contrive to enter the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate and then pull strings to get Cabinet portfolios. That would be a farce. Parliament corrupts all who enter it. The fighter and the politician have nothing in common. . . . To seize power in our sense is not only to exercise political influence, it is to be the State. . . . And the way to do this is by organized force.'

an action

Another and abler preacher of Fascist tactics, Georges Valois, Léon Daudet's coadjutor on the Royalist paper L'Action Française, has published a book on this subject entitled La Révolution Nationale. He reviews briefly the political history of France during the World War, and argues that her victory, which he attributes solely to her own courage and resources, was made possible by setting up a virtual dictatorship under Clemenceau that he characterizes as 'a revolution approved by an immense majority of the French people.' Therefore, he says, in the present crisis: 'We demand the abdication of the bourgeoisie as a governing class as it believes itself to be, though erroneously in fact. ... Mistress of the State, or apparently mistress of the State, the bourgeoisie has become corrupted.' His theory is that the proper function of the common people is to serve and obey the born ruler, the fighter. 'Col

bert was a citizen. A fighter-king appointed him Prime Minister. The fighter and the citizen made an admirable pair; but the fighter was head of the Government, and Colbert was his second.'

Valois would set up a 'national government,' he implies that no parliamentary government is truly national, — which shall be 'the complete negation of the political, economic, and social philosophy of the nineteenth century.' He describes the revolution he advocates as 'much more than a change of régime by which a monarchy will replace the republic. A national revolution must have a national leader, but it will go beyond putting an hereditary prince in place of a president and leaving liberal institutions in existence.' Instead, it will create an hierarchy consisting of an organized élite which will rule the people as its superior intelligence dictates and not necessarily as the people wish.

Communism and Fascism, divergent as they may be in social ideals and economic doctrines, are identical in tactics. Valois recognizes this: 'In the North, Bolshevism; in the South, Fascism! Fascism and Bolshevism are an identical reaction against the bourgeois and plutocratic spirit. Bolshevism and Fascism alike draw the sword against the financier, the oil king, the pork-packer, who think themselves masters of the world and want to organize it according to the law of money, according to the output of automobiles, according to the philosophy of swine, and to convert the people to a policy of dividends. Both agree in their appeal to force, but Slavic Bolshevism has seized arms to make the accumulated wealth of the Roman world its booty. Latin Fascism has seized arms to protect her producers. . . . Fascism and Bolshevism

are brothers in their common contempt for the bourgeois régime. They are enemies because their strongholds are in the opposite ends of Europe. Moscow wants international revolution so that she may overrun our frontiers. We want national revolution that we may live in peace in our own land.'

Still another preacher of this new gospel is Camille Aymard, editor of La Liberté, who has just published a book entitled Bolchevisme ou Fascisme, Français, il faut choisir! According to the author, only one choice is open to the people of France. people of France. 'Bolshevism or Fascism? That is the implacable dilemma that confronts your generation. That is the question that dominates your destiny. Like the enigma propounded to Edipus by the Sphinx, you must answer it or perish.' A little later he exclaims melodramatically: 'Citizens of France, do you know what awaits you? Do you know that it is revolution?'

as

Among the causes of the revolution he predicts is the popular discontent caused by France's post-war disillusionment. 'Unscrupulous politicians practically all politicians are chose to dope the nation with a dream they knew to be false, to let the country walk like a somnambulist into any abyss that might await her.' He then asks why France is indeed slipping into an abyss just when the rest of Europe is recovering. As we review the history of the Continent since 1918, we are forced to recognize that only those countries that have resorted to a dictatorship have been able to recover from the ruin of war and to work out their own salvation. Austria, brought to the brink of destruction by her futile parliament and Socialist follies, appealed in despair to the League of Nations to save her, and the League sent her a dictator in the person