way by the industry becoming less overstocked. But the process is severe on individuals; and for this reason, if for no other, the State should be careful not to encourage too many small occupiers to embark in this branch of the agricultural industry. It does not seem probable that any attempt will be made to restrict competition by imposing duties on foreign imports. Taxes on imported food may be considered necessary for the benefit of the country as a whole; but they seem to be the last form in which the principle of tariffs will be acceptable to the nation. As a body, urban wage-earners are opposed to any such taxation, because they believe that it would result in higher prices for food and a consequent reduction in the real value of their wages. They may be open to conviction on a point which is certainly open to argument. But the issue need not be raised here. All parties would certainly agree that foreign producers ought not to be brought into the English market on more favourable terms than home producers obtain. Yet this is what, as English market-gardeners contend, our English railways do for foreigners.

The point is intricate; but to home producers of vegetables, fruit and flowers, some of which are lowpriced and perishable and therefore require cheap and quick delivery, it is one of great importance. It is mentioned now, because there is a favourable opportunity to investigate all the circumstances which militate against the prosperity of small holders, and to remove any artificial obstacles to their success. No one suggests that the English Railway Companies are acting illegally; on the contrary, as the law stands and has been interpreted in the courts, their action is justified. It may even be admitted that the policy of the Companies is to the interest, not only of their shareholders, but of the consumer. The grievance is a grievance of home producers. Put shortly, it is this. English market-gardeners, raising their produce for a home retail market, are told by the railways that, in tendering their goods for carriage, they must conform to conditions which are suitable, and indeed necessary, for the foreign producer who grows for a wholesale export trade. If they can, and do, so conform, then they will receive the same favourable treatment as the foreigner; if they cannot, or will not,

then the foreign produce is carried at cheaper rates, and in quicker trains. The result is that the advantages which greater proximity to the market should give to home producers are reversed in favour of the foreigner. Instead of enjoying the natural advantages of time and distance, their produce costs them more to carry, and takes longer in delivery. Fair competition is a useful stimulus. But the unequal competition created by the policy of the English railways is, say the home producers, a crushing handicap.

Foreign produce is admittedly carried over English railways at more favourable rates than English produce. But the answer of the Companies is that the imports arrive at the English ports in concentrated form, great in volume, regular in quantity, and securely packed. If the English produce were tendered under the same or similar conditions, it would be carried at the same favourable rates. As a matter of business management, the answer is reasonable. As a matter of law it is complete. No charge of undue preference can be established against a Railway Company in respect of rates on the carriage of foreign produce, provided that the same rate would be given for 'the same or similar services' in the carriage of home produce. But the hardship is that the two traffics are so inherently different in conditions that the services in respect of them must inevitably be dissimilar. The character of a wholesale export trade is essentially different from that of a retail home trade. The former is necessarily collected, combined, and concentrated on the ship which brings it to the port served by the English railway. Necessarily, also, it is tendered to the Railway Companies for delivery at great centres in large quantities, at regular intervals, and packed so as to stand transhipment. None of these conditions are natural to home produce, raised in small quantities on detached holdings, consigned not only to large but to small consuming centres, and packed for short journeys without transhipment. To compel home producers to pay higher charges for carriage, or to conform to the conditions which obtain cheap rates for the foreign importer, is to handicap the English market-gardener in his competition with his foreign rival. No doubt the packing is often inadequate ; and more might be done by combination to tender larger

quantities with greater regularity. But, as has been already pointed out, one secret of success for an individual market-gardener is the discovery of the best market. To combine or cooperate with his neighbour is to betray his secret and to lose the advantage of his superior intelligence or enterprise. It is difficult to suggest any remedy except that of an import duty, especially when both shareholders and consumers benefit by the foreign trade. On the other hand, the severity of foreign competition is undoubtedly increased by the differential rates against home-grown produce. Nor is it a complete answer to say that a great part of the imported produce does not compete with home-grown supplies, because it arrives before the English stuff is on the market. The favourable rates at which the seasonal imports are brought into the country prevent home-growers from creating a competitive home trade by means of forcing under glass. If the number of market-gardeners is to be multiplied, we cannot afford to close by artificial means any possible source of earning a livelihood which is naturally open to the industry.

The second point is that of capital and credit. Not only to small holders but to the whole agricultural community, there could be no more inestimable boon than facilities for obtaining cheap money or cheap credit. At the present moment, when Finance is turned topsyturvy, the point seems inappropriate. But, though the cheap money of to-day would have seemed extravagantly dear two years ago, cheapness is a relative term, while the principle remains the same. In every part of the British Empire, except Great Britain, systems of giving cheap credit to farmers have been established by the State. Every civilised nation in the world, except Great Britain, has a more or less elaborate system of the same kind. The legislatures of other countries are largely occupied in perfecting their existing systems. In 1914, for example, Saxony, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Portugal, the Ottoman Empire, the State of Massachusetts, Argentina, and Costa Rica, framed more or less elaborate statutes regulating or extending their previous provisions for employing State credit on behalf of agriculturists. The persistence with which some form of crédit foncier occurs all over the world is a striking proof

of the need for such assistance. The equally remarkable absence of any institution of the kind in Great Britain is a good illustration of the neglect of agriculture in this country, and of the difficulty that an industry, in which only a small proportion of the population is interested, experiences in gaining a proper share of attention from the public or from Parliament. The neglect is the more remarkable because, under the system of the crédit foncier which is more or less adopted in the majority of countries, no loss falls upon the State. On the contrary a profit is generally made. The State borrows at the lowest rate of interest which its credit can command, and lends at a rate sufficiently high to defray the costs of administration and provide a margin against loss.

Money must be put into land, before any money can be got out of it; and, owing to the uncertainties of the seasons, agriculturists ought to have capital enough to wait till they can average their returns over a period of years. For years past the land has been bled white of agricultural capital; to-day it is in consequence, starved and anæmic. To this depletion of money various causes have contributed. During the years of depression, it was calculated before the Eversley Commission of 18931897 that landlords and tenants had lost 800,000,000l.; and that capital has never been replaced. The superior attractions of other investments, the impoverishment of rural landlords, the disappearance of the old country banks, and political disquietude, have helped to increase the drain. of money from the land. Cheap credit is essential for the regeneration of rural England-for more intensive cultivation, for drainage, for the break-up of pasture, for rural housing. The State is in the best position to create it, without risking a loss of principal or interest, and with the prospect of great dividends in the improvement of national health, national contentment, national character, and national safety. It seems inconsistent with the present spirit of the People, that the boon should be withheld on account of class hatreds or party prejudices.

Art. 9.-FOUR YEARS OF THE CHINESE REPUBLIC.*

1. Constitution-building in China. By Prof. L. R. O. Bevan. 'North China Daily News and Herald,' 1910. 2. The Japanese Empire and its Economic Conditions. By Joseph Dautremer. Fisher Unwin, 1910.

3. Financial and Historical Review of the Chinese Revolution. Far Eastern Review.' Shanghai, April, 1912. 4. La Chine et le Mouvement constitutionnel (1910-'11). By Jean Rodes. Paris: Alcan, 1913.

CHINA at the present moment is weaker than at any previous period in her long history, while Japan, already a first-class Power, is steadily increasing her power and enhancing her prestige. This statement of an incontrovertible fact, the relevancy of which will be seen later, will serve to introduce a study of recent events and developments in China, undertaken with the hope that it may bring to light the reasons for the failure of the Chinese people to make effective use of the opportunities for progress and reform presented by the abdication of the Manchu rulers early in 1912.

Political consciousness is not an indigenous growth in China. The system of government that prevailed throughout the Manchu régime was in theory autocratic. With the exception of the Taiping Rebellion, which was ostensibly anti-dynastic, the risings which occurred from time to time were usually protests against unduly heavy taxation. There is no evidence that there was any desire on the part of the bulk of the people to take a personal share in the government of the country. So long as the exactions of the governing classes did not exceed a certain limit, the people were indifferent to the form of government. Had it been possible for China to evade all diplomatic intercourse with Western nations and to interdict the residence of foreigners in China, it is probable that the development of political consciousness among the Chinese would have been long delayed. The political convictions that inspired many of the revolutionaries in 1911-12 were not indigenous. The belief

* This article was written and despatched from China some time before the death of Yuan Shih-kai on June 6 (EDITOR).