but has for the most part stopped for want of technical knowledge at the recognition of the effect of this on prices.

Some time ago, it was pointed out in a short article entitled 'The Delusion of Super-Production'* that the sum of the wages, salaries, and dividends distributed in respect of the world's production was diminishingly able to buy that production at the prices which the capitalist is by his system forced to charge. 'Profiteering,' in the sense of charging exorbitant sums in excess of cost, is a mere excrescence on the system. If the producer could be imagined as making no profit at all, the difficulty would still exist, quite possibly in an exaggerated form. That is why the policy of more and yet more production at prices fixed on a basis of cost and profit is a mere aggravation of the prevailing difficulty. Because the available purchasing power would absorb a decreasing proportion of this production it must be either exported or wasted, and both of these lead straight to war, the supreme waster.

Now, habits of thought are so powerful in their influence that at first sight a statement that the correct price of an article may be a low percentage of its cost is apt to induce both disbelief and ridicule. But if the matter be attacked from the other end, if it be realized that an article cannot be sold, nor can its exchange through export be sold, unless its average price is considerably less than cost; that if it cannot be sold the effort expended in making it is wasted; that if it is exported competitively every economic force is driving the community irresistibly toward war; it may then be agreed that it is worth while to consider whether the accepted principles of price-making are so sacred that a

*Reprinted in THE LIVING AGE for January 18,

1919.

world must be brought to ashes rather than that they should be analyzed and revised.

The analysis has been made; and although the methods by which the results are arrived at are too technical for description in an article of this character, it may be said that the purchasing power of effort at this time should be certainly not less than five times its present return, and most probably very much more. In other words, with wages at their present level the cost of living ought to be one fifth or less of what it is. The essential facts on which this statement is based are that production is overwhelmingly dependent on tool power and process; that tool power and process are a cultural inheritance belonging not to individuals but to the community, being largely the result of work done by persons now dead; and that in consequence the equitable return for effort includes a dividend on this inheritance which is immeasurably larger than the direct payment. Just as the time-rate of production has diverged from that possible to a community without tools, processes or education, so to a corresponding degree has the present economic system become inequitable an unsoun".

It is a matter of simple fact that men do not in the mass act together for ethical conceptions. That is why a strike can always be settled for the time on a money basis; and the only demand which will not be so disposed of is one which promises more purchasing power by its success than its opponents can in the nature of things dispose of, because such a demand will utterly divide them. But any demand which savors of the perpetuation and extension of a bureaucracy which is already highly unpopular will alienate not only the general public but the organized worker.

The English Review

BOLSHEVISM is a many-headed monster. At a fête recently given by Léon and Anatolia Trotzky, there was food in abundance, wine sparkled in the glasses, and music was provided by a gypsy orchestra. Suddenly the sound of the instruments ceased, and the musicians shouted to the merry guests:

'Why should you be the only ones to dance? You are behaving like the bourgeois. It is our turn now!'

OUR readers will be interested to learn that the Temple fountain has been restored to its original simplicity by the removal of the modern ornate additions, and that it now appears as Dickens knew it and described it in Martin Chuzzlewit. In the Dickensian of March, 1917, Mr. Robert Pierpoint contributed an illustrated article on the vicissitudes of this favorite picturesque Dickensian spot, giving its history and describing the varying forms the fountain had taken since Dickens immortalized it in association with Ruth Pinch and her lover. The change will be particularly pleasing to Dickens lovers, while general approbation will be expressed at an ‘improvement' which will add further charm to one of London's beauty spots.

THE uneasiness of the Upper House of the British Parliament at the growth of its own membership by recent creations of peers was voiced recently by Lord Balfour of Burleigh, who asked for a return of the peerages granted by each administration since 1880. Lord Curzon, who said he had no objections to the giving of such a return, admitted that the rate of creations had been accelerated during recent years. He recalled that when Queen Anne ascended the throne there were 188 members of their Lordships' House. When George III succeeded in 1762 there were 227, when George IV succeeded in 1820, 372, and when Queen Victoria succeeded in 1837, 439. After the long reign of Queen Victoria there were on

the accession of King Edward 591 peers, and when he was succeeded by the present sovereign there were 623 peers. At the present moment there were a little over 700 peers, members of the House of Lords. During the past 100 years there had been 330 additions to the peerage and over 100 of these additions had been made during the last 18 years. Acceleration became more pronounced under Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman. Deducting the Irish and Scottish peers and the bishops, there were 256 peers to a population of 11,000,000 in 1815, or one to every 43,000; in 1834 there were 454 peers, or one to 41,000 of the population, and in 1918 there were 626 peers, or one per 60,000. They saw, therefore, that the proportion of peers to population was not increasing.

As visitors to the British Museum will notice, there is a 'certain liveliness' in the neighborhood of the Elgin marbles. A fragment of the frieze of the Parthenon, recently discovered in a garden rockery at an Essex country house, has just been presented to the nation, and is in process of being reunited to the broken Elgin slab and placed in its proper position in the Museum. That position is open to some criticism as being very much lower than the original position on the walls of the Parthenon, where Athenian visitors, standing inside the Doric columns to study the frieze, must have had it high above their heads to meet which the sculptor carved his figures in bolder relief toward the top. But, of course, the only really satisfactory position for the frieze is on the Parthenon, itself, or, at least, in the little museum which the Greeks have built a few yards away. More people enjoy it here, but no one enjoys it to the full. The story of how this particular fragment was 'excavated' by James Stuart in the fifties, shipped to Smyrna, where it was lost, 'acquired' (goodness knows how!) by a naval captain, who fetched it to England, and finally

buried and forgotten in the garden rockery may be read in the second volume of Archæologia. But it is painful enough reading and affords a very curious commentary on the excuse usually put forward for the depredations of Elgin and others, namely, that it was desirable in the interests of art to bring away the treasures of ancient Greece to a country where they would be so much better appreciated!

SINCE the fall of the Bastille there has been no such memorable 14th of July as that which was celebrated in Paris on July 14. Tens of thousands of people exclaimed, 'After forty-seven years!' and repeated the words in rapturous delight. For the chains which had barred the way under the Arc de Triomphe ever since the Prussians had marched beneath had been removed, and it was now the turn of the victorious soldiers of France. The night before crowds had kept vigil at the cenotaph erected in the Place de l'Etoile in memory of those who had fallen in the war, beneath the legend Aux Morts pour la Patrie. In the morning there was another brief ceremony. Before ascending the tribune President Poincaré deposited a wreath at the foot of the monument to the dead. M. Clemenceau did the same. A simple poilu now stepped forth. To the tributes of Chief of State and Head of Government he added a I wreath in the name of all the soldiers of France, and was followed by a sailor and two graceful girls representing Alsace and Lorraine. Then came hours of intoxicating triumph and the realization of the dream which has haunted France for nearly half a century. The great march was led by a thousand mutilated men whose way was strewn with flowers. Then came the two heroes of the war, Foch and Joffre, riding side by side. Then came an American contingent led by General Pershing. These were followed by the Belgians, and then came the British. A naval band played ‘A Life on the Ocean Wave,' as the representatives of the navy led the forces of Great Britain. Marshal Haig received a great ovation all along the line. After the khaki came the Italians, and then the Japanese. But it was France's day, and the Allies were represented only by small contingents,

and the great body of the procession was composed of French soldiers. The music of the bands was drowned by the continuous shout, Vivent les poilus!' M. Clemenceau fairly summed up the feelings of his countrymen when, in reply to M. Poincaré's congratulations, he said: "There is not in history a finer moment for our country.'

CERTAIN Germans are very much exercised over the possibility of Hanover once more uniting itself to the British Crown. The Oberbürgermeister of Hanover, one Leinert, has with huge seriousness attributed the unrest in Hanover to 'British intrigue.' The Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten deals thus with the matter: 'England would expect an independent Hanover, naturally under English protection, to provide English agriculture and industry with potash. If Hanover became a free state under English suzerainty, the potash question would be very easily solved for England. The English know also that if Hanover were proclaimed a free state, the port of Bremen would in one form or another become an English port. A free state of Hanover under English tutelage would mean for England a firm footing upon the Continent, and thus allow her to establish and shift the famous European balance of power according to her own interests. An English province would become interpolated in the German Empire like a wedge and break the connection between East and West. Leinert emphasizes the fact that England will support every moves ment toward independence. Leinert doenot know whether a Guelph delegation is actually at The Hague, but he declares that at the time of the outbreak of the revolution, when he was elected President of the W. S. Council in Hanover, the Guelphs, in particular Baron von Wangenheim, requested him to proclaim the Prussian province of Hanover a free state. Leinert flatly refused to do so, and threatened the Guelph party with arrest. Leinert does not conceal his opinion that the intricate political situation and the economic distress of the Hanoverian people would find a fertile soil for an Independence movement. Leinert cannot say whether the Duke of Cumberland and the former Duke of Brunswick

have a finger in the pie, but he is convinced that there are English agents in Hanover. If England was not playing a part in this affair, the Independence movement would have no prospect of succeeding. As things are today, the worst is to be feared. In Leinert's opinion a free state of Hanover means the end of the German Empire.'

IN several of the Berlin newspapers are to be found interesting extracts from a book about to be published by Admiral von Tirpitz. The Admiral can see nothing good in the revolution, and regrets the fall of the Kaiser. The guilt of the war he lays at the door of the ex-Chancellor, Bethmann-Hollweg, who, he complains, kept the Chief of the General Staff, the Prussian War Minister, and the Chief of the Admiralty Staff away from Berlin when the tremendous decision was being made. Speaking of the weeks which preceded the war, the Admiral declares that it was the policy of the German Chancellor at the same time to push on hesitating Austria against Serbia, and at the same time to localize the conflict. He continues: 'As I have since learned with a shock from an official communication, it was known in Berlin as early as July 11 that the Entente had advised Belgrade to yield. Bethmann-Hollweg thereby had the means peacefully to unravel the knot in his hands. From the fact that the Entente did not want the war, however, Bethmann-Hollweg drew the conclusion that Germany could take any liberties and force an invasion of Serbia without regard to the Entente. The Austrian ultimatum was to be so highly peppered that, as Zimmermann, the Foreign UnderSecretary, expressed it, Serbia would be unable to swallow it.' Von Tirpitz further declares that Bethmann-Hollweg learned the essential contents of Austria's ultimatum on July 13, whereas Zimmermann, Bethmann-Hollweg, and Von Jagow had so far all denied that the ultimatum was known in Berlin before its dispatch. Von Tirpitz says that his first impression was that the ultimatum was unacceptable for Serbia, and would bring about a world war, and he wrote his deputy in this sense from Tarasp, where he was on leave. He says

that he saw at once that Great Britain would enter the war. Von Tirpitz acknowledges that by her pressure in Belgrade, Great Britain proved that she did not want war on Serbia's account. Great Britain had helped Austria to a big diplomatic success. He continues: 'Bethmann-Hollweg considered it diplomatic to incite Austria and in the eyes of Europe to pretend that he knew nothing. This equivocation was not only unworthy, but extremely dangerous. Bethmann-Hollweg assumed that Vienna would not give way, but that Europe would not observe that it was we who struck the table with the Austrian fist.'

THE great procession on Peace Day through seven miles of the streets of London by detachments from the armies of all the Allies was the most splendid and thrilling spectacle ever witnessed in England. The Americans led the line and the appearance of General Pershing as he rode at the head of three thousand men was everywhere the signal for a storm of cheers. Then came the Belgians, followed by the Chinese. The Belgians were hailed with special enthusiasm. Indeed it may be said that all along the route the crowd seemed specially anxious to greet those who had suffered most, and for that reason both the Belgians and Serbians were cheered with exceptional heartiness. After the CzechoSlovaks it was the turn of the French soldiers, led by the Commander-in-Chief of all the Allied Armies, Marshal Foch. Then came the soldiers of Greece and Italy and Japan, with Portuguese, Polish, Rumarian, and Siamese contingents. The British naval force was headed by Admiral Beatty on foot. Finally, it was the turn of the British Army with Marshal Haig riding at their head. Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, and South Africans were all loudly welcomed, but even a more exultant roar was reserved for the representatives of the 'Old Contemptibles,' the survivors of the original Expeditionary Force. Along Constitution Hill there were special stands for the widows and orphans of the war. And it was to these mothers that the great soldiers and sailors turned instinctively in their triumphal march toward their King - deaf for the moment to the plaudits of

their countrymen, minds thrown back to the times of great sacrifice, in never-flinching response to the call, which had recurred during the five years of strife. Bravehearted women! There was no need to be ashamed when you furtively clutched the boy or girl at your side one understood; and the boy and girl understood too. On the north side of the Mall was another stand with men who had been maimed in the war many of them had lost an arm or a leg. They waved their crutches and cheered with the rest. The King took the salute standing on a dais in front of Queen Victoria's monument, at the head of the Mall. One after the other as they came the great leaders of the Allied host, Pershing and Foch, Beatty and Haig saluted and then dismounted and stood by the dais of the King. Everything went off as it was planned and without a hitch. The weather was fair till late in the afternoon, and even when the rain came in the evening it was quite unable to damp the enthusiasm of the crowds who stood in the Park to wonder at the fireworks.

THE following account of the preparations being made for the Kaiser's trial is clipped from the columns of the Times:

'William II of Hohenzollern, formerly German Emperor, as he is described in Part VII (Penalties) of the Peace Treaty, will be tried by five judges, one appointed by each of the following Powers: The United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. As the trial is to take place in London, the English Judge will presumably be president of the tribunal. He has been publicly arraigned for a supreme offense against international morality and the sanctity of treaties. He will accordingly be tried for his action in causing the violation of the neutrality of Belgium and Luxemburg, which Prussia had guaranteed by treaty.

"The Allies had a very good reason for limiting the indictment to these specific counts, and in not arraigning him for his general conduct on the eve of and during the war. They are determined that the course of justice shall not be defeated by the law's delays. Warned by the example of the impeachment of Warren Hastings,

which dragged on for years, the Allies have decided that the Kaiser and his counsel shall not be given the opportunity of calling a multitude of witnesses and presenting a mass of documents covering the whole range of the most crowded years of the Kaiser's activities. For he will be allowed the counsel of his choice, German or other. One of the reasons for constituting a special tribunal is to assure him the guaranties essential to the right of defense.

"The trial will be unique. There is no precedent for it, and the only parallel of any kind in modern times for the trial of a foreign sovereign on English soil is the case of Mary Queen of Scots. There has hitherto been no code of international law making provision for a case of this kind. The Peace Treaty has, however, filled the gap. The tribunal is instructed to be guided in its decision by the highest motives of international policy, with the view to vindicating the solemn obligations of international undertakings and the validity of international morality.

'Again, there are no rules of procedure yet in existence. It should not, however, take long to frame these. A committee of the Allies will shortly be appointed to see that Germany carries out the terms of the treaty. This committee will appoint a number of commissions to deal with different branches of the treaty. One such commission will be entrusted with the execution of the Penalties section, and it is understood that Great Britain will be represented on it by one of the English Law Officers, Sir Gordon Hewart, and Sir Ernest Pollock. The commission will take all the necessary steps to insure that the tribunal is properly constituted, and that it is in a position to exercise its high functions.