premises will be fairly valued, and if the occupier cannot raise money to purchase them at once, arrangements will be made by which the municipality will become the owner, and will either let it to hint with the option of purchase, or will allow him to pay for it by means of a terminable anuity, as is now clone by building societies, but extending over a longer period, so that the total rent he will pay will hardly exceed the rent he has hitherto paid to his landlord. Every year's rent thus paid will give him a property in the house, which property will be transferable or saleable at any time; and he will, after the first year or two, be virtually the owner, and able to make any additions or improvements with as much confidence as if it was his own freehold. When the value of the house is fully paid, he will be in the position of a perpetual leaseholder from the State, at a ground rent, subject to revision, along with all other rents (but never separately), about three times in a century." Experience alone can prove whether this would be a better system for the tenant than the present, but it is only the substitution of "one" landlord for the many. It does not leave land free for generations unborn, as Mr. George says should be the case; on the contrary, it perpetuates the present system-viz., " that those who get first possession of the land keep it." It must be so, however hard it may seem to the last comer; if all the seats are taken at the banquet-table, upon his arrival, lie must stand aside. Hard? Yes, it seems so; but how can you alter it?

We hear a great deal about the "increased value" of land. It is pleasant to be the owner of anything that increases in value; but the people's advisers, however good their intentions, do not