with absolute safety. Till then, it is plain that individual regulation of marriage lies at the bottom of schemes of improvement; so that, were the wage-earner, especially the artisan, induced by greater comfort to postpone marriage to a later date, while fighting in early years for free-trade internationally, he could lengthen his life, cause misery to decrease, lighten the burdens of youth, and easily insure for old age. Thus, no State-pension plan ought to be adopted which does not demand at first considerable contributions from the insurer. With this granted, the system might become a measure of value and of mental relief to thousands of souls; other wise the State, by removing the spur to the maintenance of comfort, will place a premium on selfindulgence.

The cost of establishing "clubhomes," as here advocated, can now be so easily arrived at, that it would only be tedious to enter into its discussion. Lord Rowton's Company, Lord Radstock's Committee, any one of the London Industrial Dwellings Companies, or “The Manchester Labourers' Dwellings Company," could very speedily decide what amount of capital would be required. Such undertakings generally possess powers enabling them to do anything. That a great opening presents itself, we think is shown by the growth and success of improved lodging-houses. There are large profits to be earned. In fact, Lord Shaftesbury, arguing upon his bill, as Lord Ashley, before the House of Commons, spoke "of the cheerful punctuality with which the rents were paid" of model homes, and preferred that they should be undertaken by local authorities," as the temptation to

make inordinate profits had always proved irresistible" to the individual. Still, a personal rather than a machine element seems preferable. The Manchester company above mentioned was established for the purpose of giving every advantage to the "less favoured portion of the community." It does not seek more than a 4 or 5 per cent dividend, while windowgardening is promoted by shareholders interested in the success of the general scheme. The brickand-mortar building of clubs is one thing, but the satisfactory building of character by human contact at a later stage is another thing just as requisite. Comfort has a tendency to produce selfishness, and the world possesses enough Sybarites already.

If, however, no capitalist will examine the question of "clubhomes," local authorities have ample power to establish them at once even to build separate houses or cottages having a garden of not more than half an acre. Lord Shaftsbury's Act, and other Acts connected with labourers' dwellings, have all been consolidated into one, and will be found in chapter 70 of the Public General Statutes, 53 & 54 Victoria, 1890. On page 581 is Part III., which deals more particularly with our subject. Any one may there find how the law provides machinery for setting in action a grand extension of one of the most salutary reforms that the present day could witness-a reform, too, which is not limited to unmarried men. The initiative rests with the rural and urban sanitary authorities. To stir them up is the duty of those who believe in constructive statesmanship. Lord Salisbury and Mr Chamberlain have lately spoken on population and im

proved artisans' dwellings, so that the Unionist party are keenly alive to the sorrows and wants of the wage-earner.

We are aware, moralists may tell us, that the evils attending a delay of marriage would be greater than the present social perplexity. We reply, it would be no greater in the case of working men than in the case of well-to-do men. The manual labourer, feeling himself comfortable, will occupy the same relative position as the mental labourer who is already comfortable. Of course, we do not place more reliance on comfort than experience warrants. Those who impartially move between all classes know that the workman has notions of honour concerning a breach of the seventh commandment which the richer man, to his discredit, does not as effectively recognise. The most licentious

blackguards of the world have been despots and popes, men who possessed riches or were supposed to be shining examples. Democracies carry self-will to blatant absurdity, showing that excessive individual egoism from which springs all corruption; while Aristotle concluded it was more difficult to preserve a democracy than to create one. The animal element in human nature does not respect either persons or the positions of persons. It must be controlled before satisfactory results can be reached. Pari passu, then, with improved material conditions must go improved moral conditions, or advantages gained by the former will be lost. Countless efforts have been made to attain the latter. Philosophy has produced Stoics; primitive Christianity— saints and heroes.

WARNEFORD MOFFATT.

"China is a huge country with a age population; its wealth and reurces are enormous, and its inhabints are energetic and brave. Therere the Chinese will walk round,' erhaps will annihilate, the Japanese." -Current popular verdict in England at the outbreak of hostilities.

"The Japanese have spent years in organising and improving their sea and land forces, and in every department of administration have evinced an admirable aptitude for progress. They have now proved themselves a thoroughly military nation. Not only are their fighting characteristics of a high order, but their strategical science reminds us of Von Moltke, and their army may take rank amongst those of Europe." -Current verdict six weeks later.

Perhaps only those who have had personal experience of the nation can realise the extraordinary power which custom exercises over the whole course of their public and domestic life. All classes regard the slightest innovation not only as hateful but criminal. Utility and progress, whether applied to science or to practical art, they cannot away with. Their reputed astronomical proficiency would have aroused the ridicule of the cotemporaries of Copernicus, and their practice of medicine that of Galen.

IN both of the above cases the remisses are undoubtedly right, at I suggest that the deductions e erroneous. What, then? War ever fertile in surprises; do you tend to weary us with an academal proof of error-to flog a dead orse? No, I reply; but I would oint out a fresh illustration of our nstant tendency to be led astray y the irresponsible chatter of ptimists, and I would urge that ar policy in the Far East should ot henceforth be prompted by at perversity of goodwill which, the case of China, has beguiled s to select the ugliest of nations ▪r our especial favour. As some ort of credentials for my attempt, venture to explain that I have avelled over considerable disnces both in China and Japan, y no means limiting myself to the ast-lines, with the carefully pre-ranged purpose of learning, as ell as with the view of comparg more modern conditions with ose which prevailed when Sir Cope Grant captured Pekin in 860. An objection that my testiony is invalidated by the march E events would not here hold bod. China never "marches," xcept in the sense that she equently progresses backwards.

Their medical science is on a par with the above. The most trivial surgical operation is forbidden, anaesthetics are hated, and physiology is despised. And as regards manufactures, although the Chinese, from contact with Europeans, have had ample opportunities of appreciating the advantages of steam and machinery; although the establishment of a few, a very few, Government factories might imply an acquiescence in principle; although they possess a steam navy and an arsenal at Shanghai, partly worked by machinery, - the evidence of these circumstances is altogether illusory. The establishments are not national, and only exist to

blind Europeans. They are worked by foreigners, who are hired by the nation to carry out that which they despise. Our simplest devices for augmenting the results of muscular action are entirely repudiated by the working classes, who are more than content with the elementary application of the lever, the pulley, and the wheel. Household implements, farm implements, and trade implements are fashioned strictly in accordance with the prescriptions of "olo [old] custom." Why are all your oars, large and small, made in two pieces clumsily lashed together?" I ask. "Olo custom," is the conclusive reply. "Why do you arm all your coast-junks with those useless 2-pounders, when you have plenty of 6-pounders available?" "Olo custom." "Why do you always emboss huge goggleeyes on the bows of your ships?" "Olo custom," as a matter of course-plus, in this case, a championship of its wisdom. "If ship no have eyes, how can see? If no can see, how can walkee ? You number one foolo." Should my reader decline to realise the power and prevalence of "olo custom," he will do well to discontinue the perusal of this paper, for he will pronounce my further facts fallacious and my conclusions inconclusive.

If, on the other hand, my postulate be granted, the hollowness of China's alleged military resources becomes evident. For instance, its population is estimated, somewhat vaguely, but with a probable approximation to accuracy, at a minimum of 350 millions. Were it double this number, of what avail for recruiting purposes, on a sudden emergency, if the levies for the army cannot be concentrated within months? China is practically destitute of every means of communication, save

the shifting water-ways of a few large rivers. I shall have more to say anon about railways in process of inception, or rather alleged conception; but the only lines actually existent are, according to the authority of Mr Curzon's excellent book, 'Problems of the Far East,' the twenty-seven miles from Tien-tsin to Tong-ku, with its prolongation thence in the direction of Manchuria, and a few trumpery local lengths, all of which as little serve for present strategical purpose as would a railway from London to Balham facilitate the concentration of troops in Yorkshire. Highroads, in our sense of the term, the Chinese will have none of, except in areas so restricted, compared to the total extent of territory, as not to invalidate my general statement. "Olo custom ;

we don't want them, we won't make them." Throughout the course of my travels, I failed to discover a single highway, or even track for wheel traffic. There were none in the vicinity of Canton, or Swatow, or Amoy, or Foochow, or Kiu-kiang, or the populous inland metropolis Hankow-Wuchau, or bordering at least six hundred miles of the Yang-tsze-kiang. When exploring the neighbourhood of Chinkiang, I paid particular attention to the isolated path, winding for miles across the open burial district, and furnishing an example of what is called a Chinese road. It was six feet wide, with a narrow breadth of rough paving-stones, and with sharply sloping sides, which in summer are ankle-deep in dust, and in winter knee-deep in sticky mud. It was useful for wheelbarrows and for sweltering pack-coolies; but as a military communication it was beneath contempt. When, in 1860, Sir

Cope Grant marched with his ttle army, not exceeding 10,000 fectives, supplemented by about 000 French, up to the very walls Pekin, the Chinese had had =veral months' grace for the conentration of myriads of levies; at they never appeared in suffient numbers to cause him a oment's disquietude from the reponderance of odds, and the roud capital surrendered to our omparative handful without firing shot from its fortified walls. Assuming, however, the possility that China's enemy were fficiently obliging or dilatory to Amit of the concentration at cerin strategical points of a tithe of er resources in personnel-might not be urged that the dogged ourage of the Chinese taken as dividuals would, together with e force of sheer numbers, counerbalance her inferiority in tactics ad organisation? I should demur such a deduction. Without a oubt a Chinaman upon due occaon is capable of conspicuous fercity, frequently entertains a cynal disregard for his own life— esides the lives of his relations nd friends and patiently enures danger, torture, and death or a consideration. Witness the olid equanimity with which our aid coolies stood in the ditch of e Taku Fort in 1886, unflinchgly supporting on their shoulders e ladder-bridges across which our roops rushed to the assault, while e bearers were shot down in umbers by their own country

en.

a

Chinaman has it not; he is not a fighting man, and he feels no shame in being morally cowed or physically whacked. An angry Chinaman, stimulated by a surrounding knot of his countrymen, made a snatch at my pony's bridle. "Ah, would you," said I, merely raising my slight whip. There was no occasion for the whip to descend on the shoulders, though there was not another Englishman within miles. I have been pelted by a howling crowd outside Chinese temple, and surrounded by a menacing throng inside a Chinese city. The isolated Englishman had but to wheel sharply round and to advance with cheap swagger, and his enemies melted away like snow. The story of the little engagement of "Muddy Flat" at Shanghai shows how absolutely powerless are mere numbers of natives. A large number of Chinese Imperialists, acting against the Taeping rebels, had been encamped on the limits of the British concession, where they behaved in so hostile a manner that our municipal council sent a message to the head mandarin requiring the removal of his troops to a more distant camping-ground, and intimating that, in the event of non-compliance within twenty-four hours, serious consequences would ensue. This message from a few hundreds to several thousands was treated with silent contempt, until the rumour went abroad that, with their characteristic and insensate audacity, the Englishmen meant what they said. Thereupon the mandarin sent a message that we "must wait a little." "Certainly not," was the rejoinder; fixed on 2 P.M., and at 2 P.M. we intend to act." Sure enough at that hour the volunteers, reinforced with some blue-jackets, and

But this sordid sullen inIfference to death is not to be onfounded with the fierce valour E the true soldier, actuated by e fanaticism of fighting, of which apoleon, speaking of civilised roops, said, "Il en faut pour se aire tuer." Il en faut-but the

we