it, the profits being divided between the workmen. The Socialists now urge that the extension of this principle would be an important step towards the solution of the social problem - "Poverty." No doubt; but is it fair to the ratepayers, is it wise towards the thrifty, is it politic for the State to step in, and lend or give the money of one portion of the taxpayers, to help another portion whose avowed object is to open shops and accept contracts at lower prices than the present employers, with interest to pay on capital, could offer to take them at? It is also proposed that the Municipality should build and let at cost price workmen's lodgings. State competition, it is argued, would check the "exorbitant profits" of private enterprise, and be a preliminary step towards the socialization of capital, and would bring about a social revolution gradually and without any violent shock or conflict. Nothing short of these or similar measures, it is said, will be accepted by the Socialists as giving any promise of permanent improvement. If practicable, no doubt the scheme would stop the present system of "anarchical free competition," but whether it would rid the highly civilized community, such as exists in London, Paris, or New York, of the misery that now exists, is quite, a different matter. I have no doubt but that Socialists, like other reformers, believe that what they ask for on behalf of the people is founded upon right; but they fail to see that what they ask the State to do for their class can only be done by inflicting a great wrong upon others. They argue that if the State appropriates the land, it is only giving back to the people what has been taken from the people; but one wrong does not justify another, and no healthy conscience can approve of taking property from A to give to B.