abolishing the monopoly of the land." But the scheme is that of a dreamer; it is utterly impracticable: "every man the right to choose his acre or two of land where he likes; "you must see at once the absurdity of the proposal. Does experience prove that having the acre or the house makes a man more sober and thrifty? That it would male the labourer more independent, is quite true, but would it be for the national advantage that the State, by a scheme of nationalization, should make its labouring population above the necessity to labour for their daily bread? It is another fallacy to suppose that the wages a man receives will depend upon his being able to obtain the higher, if his necessities do not compel him to accept the lower. This may be true of an individual, but is not applicable to the wages that employers can pay for any largo industry. Increased wages mean higher prices; the higher prices mean a lessened demand, perhaps the loss of an industry, as the higher rate of wages here will enable America, or some other rival, to undersell us, and divert the trade from our shores. The price of an article depends upon the supply in relation to the demand for it; the wages of production must be regulated by the price an article realizes. But in the many schemes for raising the rate of wages it must be remembered that the "cheapest article" will command the market. Buyers will not let sentiment into their bargains. A may tell them that the price does not pay, that a higher price will enable the labourer to have a higher rate of wave; but if B offers for 1s. 6d. what A asks 2s. for, the buyer does not trouble himself as to whether 1s. 6d. will pay; he buys where he is offered the best value for his money. It is the natural law, as