Kindred Societies in Great Britain.

In England there is the "Land Nationalization Society" under the presidency of Mr. A. R. Wallace, which, since its formation in 1881, has made steady progress. The time for its annual meeting has just passed, and we await with interest the receipt of the report of the year's work. The method by which Mr. Wallace proposes to restore to its rightful owners the land of Great Britain is fully set forth in his work "Land Nationalization, its necessity, and its aims." The idea is to resume the land by Act of Parliament and to allow present owners and their heirs now living an annuity equal to the present annual value. The economic advantages resulting from nationalization would by this scheme be gradually achieved as the annuites fell in, but the social and moral benefits resulting from re-uniting labor to land, from which it has been divorced by the landlords,; from the creation of small homesteads for laborers and the better housing of the workers in the great cities, would be realisable at once. In connection with this Society it is pleasing to note the assistance that ladies are giving to the cause. Mrs and Miss appear frequently in the list of subscribers to its funds, and one lady, Miss Helen Taylor, who is a Vice-President of the Society, delivered more than half of the lectures given under its auspices during the year ending June, 1883. I hope the ladies of South Australia will accept this hint. Then there is the "English Land Restoration League," at whose invitation Mr. George made a most successful lecturing tour through England and Scotland, winning over tens of thousands to the cause, and resulting in the latter country in the establishment of the "Scottish Land Restoration League." At two of Mr, George's meetings close on 2,500 persons joined this Society. There are also several local societies in the Highlands agitating for the restoration of the land to those who have been unjustly deprived of it, and there is the "Highland Land Reform Association," but this limits its aims to securing fixity of tenure, fair rent, compensation for improvements, and to assisting tenants to become owners. But, perhaps, the best evidence of the advance that has been made in public opinion in Great Britain on the land question is afforded by the recent meeting in London to form a National Land Company. This gathering page 4 consisted mainly of influential noblemen and landlords, and among the speakers were the Duke of Argyle—the denouneer of Henry George,—the Duke of Westminster, the Marquis of Ripon, and the Earl of Carnarvon. The object is to form a powerful joint stock company to buy up land in large parcels and subdivide and sell it in blocks of a few acres each, and "to increase largely, and as speedily as possible, the number of landowners, and especially of small land-owners." I should be the last to dispute that among the aristocratic advocates of this scheme there are men actuated by the purest and most beneficent motives, but it needs little penetration to see that in the main it is the outcome of landlords' fears; the apprehension that they will not be able to withstand the assault that is being planned against their position unless their numbers are enormously increased. They seek to create a large body of small landowners to act as earth-works in the defence of their citadel. The success of such a scheme would, there is little doubt, greatly retard radical land reform, but I do not think it will be successful. The cry, coming from such a quarter, to make more landlords will, most assuredly, make people ask whether all should not be landlords. "At times a cause is advanced by its most inveterate and self-interested enemies," In the House of Commons the most notable thing in connection with this movement is the introduction, by Mr. Jesse Collings, of a Bill to restore to the Crown all lands that have been illegally enclosed from commons, road-sides, &c. As I understand it Mr. Collings does not propose to compensate either the robbers or the robbed if the theft took place during the last fifty years; if earlier than that then compensation is to be given, but, I curiously enough, to the wrong party. The agitation in Skye and other islands, and in the Highlands of Scotland, is being vigorously carried on, but except as forming part of the great national movement, it will not, I fear, lead to any permanent marked improvement in the condition of the Scottish crofters; although, probably, the wisdom of the landlords will prompt them to make some concessions of immediate but temporary benefit. One notable feature in the land movement in Scotland is the enthusiastic spirit in which the cause is espoused by the ministers of religion, and there are not wanting signs that it is from Scotland that the first and the greatest pressure will be brought to bear upon the British Parliament. Matthew Arnold says that the danger of the Church of England is "its deference to station and property," so we must not omit to recognise the brave words of the members of the "Guild of St. Matthew," who are doing noble work for the cause. At a recent public meeting two of the reverend speakers, on being taxed with advocating a breach of tbe ten commandments, replied that it was because of their belief in those commandments that they pleaded for the restitution of the land. Let us now turn to