etisation of silver in Europe has essentially been an immense measure of contraction of the former circulating medium, with the consequent great inconvenience of a general fall in prices as measured in gold (the result of which may, perhaps, go a long way to account for the existing wretched state of trade throughout the world), it is open to question whether, after all, Europe may not have eventually to seek an understanding with America, to endeavour to fix a relation between the value of gold and silver coins all the world over. This might help to lift us out of a great difficulty in India. Therefore let us not judge too hastily in this matter. The last word has not been said yet about silver, the Paris Conference notwithstanding.

THE FUTURE OF FOOD.1

AFTER the first flush of satisfaction over Mr Bear's consoling essay on 'The British Farmer and his Competitors' has died away, it may be useful to ascertain what the interesting little book has really contributed towards a solution of our farmers' difficulties. With the conclusion no one, I suppose, will find fault, "that, whatever else Parliament does for the benefit of agriculture, or leaves undone, there is one thing needful above all others — a system of land tenure based upon just and enlightened laws." There will perhaps be a difference of opinion between landowners and farmers as to what laws are just and enlightened, but there is more than one

1 Contemporary Review, December 1888.

allusion scattered through the volume, as, for instance, on page 140-"The enormous tax levied on the people of the world by those who have got possession of the land, and are so able to appropriate a very large proportion of the earnings of every community, especially in cities and towns, is one great cause of the depressed condition of the people everywhere" -which points to sufficiently radical alterations. Further, there is the excellent recommendation of the extension of co-operation by farmers, both for the purchase of what they require and for the disposal of what they have to sell. That is a suggestion at once businesslike and to the point; and perhaps it would be demanding too much from any gentleman writing in this year of grace 1888, to expect him to refrain from the remark that he "cannot conceive of any more legitimate use of public money than the devotion of a moderate sum" to the purposes which he has particularly in view. Clearly, as Sir William Harcourt has said, we are all Socialists now." It is possible to sum up Mr Bear's positive beliefs in a sentence-Reduction of rents (where not already sufficiently conceded); security for

66

farmers' capital; reduced railway rates; cooperation in buying and selling; and better education in agriculture. Now it is obvious that none of these things can, or will, be done in a hurry. It is doubtful whether that part of the programme which is dependent on legislation will ever be seriously attempted so long as a Conservative Government is in power, and, thanks to our friends the Liberal Unionists, there is no great likelihood of a change before 1892 or thereabouts. But after the last thirteen years of bad times, another four or five years without material alteration of conditions for the better is a serious outlook for our agricultural interests.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Depression of Trade estimated the capitalised loss of income by owners of agricultural land and their tenants in Great Britain at £740,000,000 in 1885, compared with ten years before. If that was the loss in 1885, what must it be to-day? Again, in the ten years from 1871 to 1881, the percentage of the whole population supported by agriculture decreased from 17 per cent to less than 14 per cent, and the next census for 1891 will certainly show

a considerable further reduction. When we remember that thirty years ago at least 24 per cent were so supported, and when we stand face to face here in London with this most menacing increase of our urban population at the expense of our rural population, in a country which is admittedly so peculiarly well fitted for agricultural pursuits as Great Britain, it must make the boldest hold his breath. Fortunately for our peace of mind, it is difficult for us to realise-it is impossible for us to have an ever vivid consciousness of our terrible and growing dependence on the world outside for the daily bread of our 38,000,000 of people. If we were not gifted with a plentiful lack of imagination, we should not sleep well o' nights. It would be like "feeling the squirrel's heart beat," and would end in the wrecking of our nervous systems. But the grim hard fact is always there, and every day it becomes more and more painfully obtrusive. It is therefore very natural that any hopeful and consoling view such as Mr Bear's is grasped at with avidity, and it is perhaps an ungracious task to look at it too critically. But in this, as in all other things, the only