small percentage of variation in the freight of most of the foreign countries at any distance from England would swamp any royalty," - conclusive evidence that royalties have not crippled our export trade. The following table shows the comparative growth of the export trade of this country and certain foreign countries:

The Report of this Commission ought to be carefully studied by every candidate for a mining constituency.

Upon the special taxation of royalties, it may be remarked. that the amount drawn by owners of minerals in the shape of royalties is at present taxed for local purposes in the same way as ordinary rent, and that any additional taxation on such royalties would undoubtedly tend to diminish the profits of mining companies and the wages of miners. If royalties were further taxed the amount of royalties would increase as certainly as would the price of tobacco if the tobacco duty were raised. When the profit from any source falls to be divided among several parties, as in the case of minerals between the proprietor, the mining company, and the miner, and a new burden is attached to any particular share, that burden does not affect that share alone, but spreads itself out and equalises itself over the whole. A tax on royalties would simply diminish the total that there was to divide without seriously affecting the proportions in which whatever there was fell to be divided.

THE THREE F's.

The provisions which bear this nickname are-Fixed or Fair rent, Fixity of tenure, and Freedom of sale.

A fixed or fair rent is that adjusted, not in accordance with the law of supply and demand between free contracting parties, but by a statutory tribunal which makes a bargain for the parties without consulting their views.

Fixity of tenure secures the tenant in the subject of tenancy at the fixed rent (subject to periodical revision) for all time coming.

Freedom of sale gives the tenant right to sell to any third party this right to perpetual possession of the subject of tenancy at the fixed rent.

11890. No information for 1891.

All the three F's were conceded to the Irish tenants by the Irish Land Act of 1881. By the Crofters' Holdings (Scotland) Act of 1886 the crofters got the first and second, but not the third. In both these cases exceptional legislation was applied to meet an exceptional state of circumstances. In both cases a customary tenure had grown up which, so far as regarded the best managed estates, the new legislation did little more than recognise. In both cases, too, most of the improvements had been done by the tenants. Finally, in both there existed a very helpless population, incapable of turning to any other industry, or of finding new homes when compelled to remove.

In regard to the rest of the country, it is widely different, and there does not appear to be any desire, even among tenant farmers, to have the three F's applied generally. The change would deprive farmers of much of the freedom which they at present enjoy, for, of course, where there is fixity of tenure, it must be fixed on both sides, and a farmer with an unprofitable farm would have a millstone round his neck. Landlords, moreover, would cease to have any interest in expending money in the improvement of their estates, and the relation of landlord and tenant would become a purely commercial one, to the infinite detriment of the tenant, who would look in vain for an abatement in a bad year, or for a new cattle-shed, or for the large capital expenditure on buildings and fencing which proprietors are periodically called upon to make. Again, the three F's, if a benefit to anybody, would be a benefit only to existing tenants, not to the tenant-farmer class in the future. The man who desired to take a farm a year or two hence would be in a much worse case than at present, as he would have two interests instead of one to settle with. Nor can any reason be suggested why a man who last year voluntarily took the use of a piece of land for, say five years, at £500 a year, should have suddenly conferred upon him by legislative enactment, whether he wishes it or not, and whether or not the owner of the ground wishes it, a perpetuity in the possession of this piece of land at a rent which may be more or less than £500, as some third party shall determine.

Multiplication of proprietary or quasi-proprietary interests in the same piece of ground is not desirable. Large cultivators can well look after themselves. For small cultivators, Mr. Chaplin's Small Holdings Act has opened up a much more excellent way than the three F's. The three F's (including Free Sale) are just a transfer to one man without payment of so much of another man's property. The two F's (excluding Free Sale) means just the wholesale setting up of a system of little entails, in which the institutes are the sitting tenants.

GAME AND FISHING LAWS.

The game laws used to be complained of on account of their tendency to encourage the preservation of game to an extent injurious to the crops of the tenants. But as tenants now enjoy the right both to hares and rabbits this cause of complaint no longer exists, and the game laws now protect the right, not merely of the landlord but also of the tenant, in the ground game. It is said sometimes that these laws are too severe, but nobody suffers from them who observes the law and respects the rights of his neighbour, and that they are not unnecessarily severe is shown by the fact that it needs them all to keep in check poaching, which often leads to more serious crime. It is sometimes said, however, that the crime of poaching is the creation of the game laws. If there were no game laws there would be no poaching. That is true, and if there were no law of any kind there would be no crime.

Human society, however, is not constituted upon that principle, but recognises that it is necessary that laws should exist for the protection of men in the fair enjoyment of their rights, and that the contravention of these laws should entail punishment. It is sometimes represented that the game laws preserve for a few a privilege which ought to be enjoyed equally by all. But this is not so. If there were no game laws the privilege would be enjoyed by nobody, for in an enclosed and thickly peopled country like this without game laws there would be no game. Abolish the game laws, and so far from there being sport for everybody, in two years there will not be a day's sport for anybody in Great Britain.1

It has been suggested with much plausibility that the true solution of the game question is to abolish the game laws, with all their exceptional provisions, and to substitute for them a simple enactment that game is the property of the landlord or tenant on whose ground it may be for the time. Game, it is said, is now as much dependent for its existence upon the protection and care of the owner or occupier of the land as are flocks, or herds, or crops. Moreover, the right to it has a high money value, and, whether let or not let, that value is taxed. By making it property, and the taking of it by a stranger theft, law, it is said, will only be brought into harmony with. fact, and the public mind will be disabused of the idea that poaching is in a different category from any other crime of dishonesty. There is no reason why the accused who has taken twenty

1 In some States of America stringent game laws are being enacted, it having been found that the absolute destruction of game was a serious loss to the whole community.

rabbits from another's land, and sold them on his own behoof for a pound, should be regarded as a martyr, whilst the accused who has stolen sixpence, or carried off a hen from a poultryyard, is flouted as a rogue.

The considerations which apply in the case of fishing are very similar. There are many waters where trout-fishing is freely allowed to the public, and hardly any of these waters, except in very remote districts, are now worth fishing in, so constant and keen has been the destruction and the scaring of the fish. The well-preserved waters are the only ones really worth fishing in, and there can be no doubt that if these waters were thrown open to all, fish would soon become as rare and as shy as they now are in the diligently whipped public waters. Unfortunately, there is not enough water in this country to provide good angling for everybody. Apart from any question of property or compensation, the problem is whether it is preferable that a certain number of the community should enjoy good angling, or that the whole community should be placed upon the equal footing of having no angling at all.

CHAPTER XXII.

THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC.

THE beliefs which actuate those who agitate for reform of the laws at present regulating the traffic in intoxicating liquors are thus set out in the preamble to the Liquor Traffic (Local Veto) (Scotland) Bill, 1893. This traffic "is the main cause of poverty, disease, and crime, depresses trade and commerce, increases local taxation, and endangers the safety and welfare of the community." On the other hand, it is contended that whilst no doubt the abuse of drink is the cause of much human misery, its use is one of the most general sources of human happiness.

The division of opinion on this question will be found not to follow the ordinary party lines.

I. LOCAL VETO-THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL VETO) (SCOTLAND) BILL-THE LIQUOR TRAFFIC (LOCAL CONTROL) BILL.

The first Bill above referred to, commonly known as Mr. M'Lagan's Bill, is a recently formulated "Permissive Bill" proposal, and was backed by Mr. M'Lagan, Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Lyell, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Dr. Clark, Mr. Munro Ferguson, Mr. Wilson (Govan), and Mr. Birrell. It has been introduced into the House of Commons in several past sessions, and was again before Parliament in the session of 1893.

This measure gives effect to three of the chief reforms suggested, viz.: (1) Complete prohibition; (2) reduction of the number of licences; (3) a provision against the granting of new licences. The Bill provides for fixing the boundaries of districts, and directs a poll to be taken (on the application of not less than one-tenth of the householders in a district) to determine on the adoption or rejection of three resolutions:

1. That the sale of intoxicating liquors be prohibited.

2. That the number of licences be reduced to a certain number, to be specified in the notice of application.

3. That no new licences be granted.

It is of importance to note a wide difference between the Bill of the past session and some of its predecessors. Candidates are asked at meetings whether they approve of the principle of