opinion, without doing anything to wound North American susceptibilities, by simply stating the intention of His Majesty's Government to maintain, really and not only professedly, the traditional British policy.

What is this traditional policy? Its earliest formal definition is contained in a memorandum drawn up by Lord Castlereagh in 1818, in answer to the Emperor Alexander's proposal to make the Holy Alliance effective for the guarantee of all 'legitimate rights,' and it is singularly applicable to the latest developments of the new Monroism.

'It cannot be maintained for a moment [he wrote] that States. have a right to intervene in the internal affairs of others to prevent change, whether "illegal" or "legal," for how can foreign States be left safely to judge of what is "legal" in another State? . . . The only safe principle is that of the Law of Nations-that no State has the right to interfere with its neighbours by its internal proceedings, and that, if it does, provided they use a sound discretion, their right of interference is clear.' *

On this principle the Government, recognising the peculiar interest of the United States in the question of the restoration of order in Mexico, may be right in leaving President Wilson a free hand; but they should have made it clear that, in doing so, they do not necessarily endorse the abstract and farreaching doctrine on which he chooses to base his policy. In 1821 Great Britain similarly allowed a free hand to Austria for the purpose of restoring order' in Naples, because she recognised that a successful military revolt in southern Italy imperilled the interests of the Habsburg Monarchy in the north; but, in doing so, she vigorously repudiated the principle of intervention consecrated by the Troppau Protocol, by which it was sought to give a moral' basis to this action. The analogy is perfect; and since appeal is to tradition-which is history-it may be added that the same Government which allowed the intervention of Austria in Naples protested with vigour against the intervention of France in Spain two years later. Each such case must, in fact-as Castlereagh put itbe judged as it arises, on its merits. Great Britain is not concerned with the principles which guide the policy of foreign

* Mem. of Lord Castlereagh. F.O. Records. Continent. Aix. Sept.-Dec. 1818. Enclosed in Castlereagh to Liverpool. No. 13.

States, but with their application. It is inconceivable that the United States will ever attempt to enforce this claim to watch over the purity of Presidential elections in Latin America; imagination boggles at the thought. But, since the claim has been made, it is important that it should be clearly understood that it is based upon a principle which Great Britain never has admitted and never can admit, since it is destructive of all just ideas of national independence. If she follow her traditional policy, she will, after making her general attitude towards the principle of intervention perfectly clear, wait till each case of its proposed practical application arises, and then act as her own honour and interests dictate.

WALTER ALISON PHILLIPS.

THE COMING LAND TYRANNY

I. Report of the Land Enquiry Committee. Vol. I. Hodder and Stoughton. 1913.

2. A Pilgrimage of British Farming. By A. D. HALL. Murray. 1913.

3. The Occupying Ownership of Land. By BEVIL TOLLEMACHE.

4. Rural Denmark and its Lessons. By Sir RIDER HAGGARD. New edition. Longmans, Green. 1913.

5. Rural England. By Sir RIDER HAGGARD. Longmans, Green. 1902.

IN issue of

N the July issue of this Review an examination was made of the results of the land taxes imposed upon the country by the Budget of 1909, and it was shown that these taxes had completely failed in the primary purpose for which they were intended. That primary purpose, according to the declarations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister, was the raising of revenue to meet the cost of Dreadnoughts and Old Age Pensions. Instead of yielding any revenue at all, these taxes after four years' working have involved the country in a net loss of at least £1,133,000. It was further shown in the article referred to that it is impossible to set off against this loss the land valuation which accounts for the larger part of the expense incurred; for that valuation is useless for any purpose except the assessment of these taxes.

In this failure is to be found the true origin of the new land campaign upon which Mr. Lloyd George has started off hot-foot, followed at a little distance and with some apparent reluctance by his colleagues in the Cabinet. When a politician has made a colossal blunder the only way of escaping from the discredit he deserves is to start a new hare; for in the excitement of the fresh chase the public will forget the old folly. So short, indeed, is the public memory that it is even possible to promise over again exactly the same boons that were promised before. In the course of the Budget campaign of 1909 the country was promised that when the new land taxes came into operation the power of the 'dukes' would

be broken, that local authorities would be able to obtain land at reasonable prices for public improvements, that an impetus would be given to the building of houses for the people and to the extension of garden cities, and generally that the land of the country would be more actively developed to the encouragement of industry and the destruction of unemployment.' All these things are promised again to-day, with the same sublime assurance as before; the sole difference is that whereas previously these boons were to be secured by the stimulus of taxation, now they are to be obtained by direct compulsion.

*

From the point of view of the party politician this difference is slight, for in both cases the persons attacked are a small minority of the community and the persons to whom benefits are promised are a large majority. Therefore, so far as the winning of votes is concerned, it matters nothing whether the screw is put upon the landowners by a new system of taxes or by a body of Land Commissioners armed with plenary powers to redistribute private property. The change of method does, however, point to a very considerable change of outlook in the Liberal Party. The land taxes of 1999 were founded on the individualist conception of society; the new scheme is essentially socialistic. Henry George, the apostle of the single tax, believed that if land were sufficiently taxed the bonds which shackle human energy would be burst, and that then individual enterprise, rejoicing in a new freedom, would alone suffice to make farms fertile and cities beautiful and to banish from the world crime and sorrow and disease. All this is set out with rhetorical profusion in Progress and Poverty' and is still accepted with implicit faith by the single-taxers. For a moment they captured Mr. Lloyd George, and hence the Budget of 1909. He has now completely thrown them over, and their resulting anger

'Nothing will extend garden cities more than this Budget. It will have a great effect, not merely in developing land for building, but in doing so on rational lines.'-Mr. Lloyd George, Oct. 22, 1909. 'The greatest provision of all for unemployment, in my judgment, is contained in the Land Clauses of the Budget.'-Mr. Lloyd George, Nov. 20, 1909.

'I believe, and I am not alone in that opinion, that the Land Taxes will have the effect of developing land-of opening up land.' -Mr. Lloyd George, Nov. 4, 1909.

forms one of the interesting side issues in the coming political campaign. Convinced of the futility of taxing land upon its supposed prairie value, Mr. Lloyd George now aims at the direct application of the coercive power of the State. He has ceased to be an individualist land taxer, and has become a socialist land tyrant.

That the word tyranny is not too strong to use in this connexion will be seen from a mere enumeration of the powers which are to be entrusted to the new Land Commissioners. They were set out by Mr. Asquith in his speech at the National Liberal Club on the 9th of December last.

In the first place the Land Commissioners are to have power to fix a minimum wage for every agricultural labourer in England-but not apparently in Ireland, though wages in Ireland are very much lower than in England. This minimum wage is thus defined by the Prime Minister: 'I mean a wage such as to ensure a labourer of average 'industry and prudence reasonable conditions of living, among which I include the ability to pay a commercial or 'economic rent for the house in which he lives.'

Mr. Lloyd George in a subsequent speech at Pwllheli (Dec. 22. 13) amplified this statement by explaining that the minimum wage would not apply to 'old men, who cannot be expected to render the same service as in the days of their 'prime.' Therefore, as regards the labourers the Commissioners are to have the power of deciding whether a man must receive the full wage (or none at all) because he is still in his prime, or whether he can be permitted to accept a lower wage because his powers are declining or because he is not of 'average 'industry.' Whatever the arguments may be for this proposal, it certainly involves a very grave extension of the power of the State over private individuals. The same Commissioners are also to decide for each district of England what it costs a man to live, and presumably to bring up a family. Their views may differ very greatly from the views of the men affected, but their opinion is to have the force of law. Hardly less serious is the interference with the liberty of the farmer. He may be paying, as some farmers undoubtedly do, an unjustly low wage to men who are highly skilled and efficient; or he may be, out of kindliness of heart, or because good men are scarce, employing several inefficient men to do work which