This is no reason why a nation with a medium density of population, such as France, should consider the stagnation of its population as a circumstance in itself wholly insignificant, and one not calling for any special notice. This stagnation, for reasons to which we have already called attention at the commencement of this review, is sufficiently regrettable. But the question arises how is it to be remedied? The cause of it lies in the new mental condition of the population, and it is very difficult to change by laws or regulations the mental condition of a people.

Certain suggestions have been made which are absolutely ludicrous in themselves---such for example as the special taxation of the unmarried. This was tried under the Romans, but without effect. Moreover, when the law presumes to punish persons for acts which are in themselves morally lawful, then it strikes at the liberty of the subject. It would soon be found that the generality of the persons unmarried had very good reasons for remaining so, either infirmity, weakness of constitution, want of position, poverty, and sometimes they would be actuated by moral considerations of the highest order. A government, therefore, which would be illadvised enough to adopt such an absurd system of taxation, would very speedily be swept from power by the force of public indignation.

And, moreover, it is not in the insufficiency of marriages that the evil lies. In France there are almost as many marriages as elsewhere--at the present time the proportion is in the ratio of 7.4 to every 1000 of the population-as compared with 7.8 in the period comprised between 1821 and 1830. The French marriagerate is higher therefore than the Belgian, where there are 7.1 marriages only per 1000 inhabitants-but in the latter country the infant population is much greater.

The evil consists in the small number of children to each family -the number in France being one, two, or three, where foreigners have four, five, and six. Does it therefore follow that it is necessary to give a bounty to those persons in France who have six or seven children? This is another very doubtful remedy. In the first place it is not the sixth or seventh child whose birth it is desirable to encourage, it is rather the third or fourth. Families consisting of six or seven children are so very rare that if they had an additional one or two it would result in but an insignificant increase to the population, and to give bounties to the third or fourth child it would be necessary, in order that the rewards should be efficacious, that an addition of hundreds of millions of francs should be made to the budget. We are, however, very far from saying that it would not be possible by judicious and inexpensive measures, by a good use of scholarships, of dispensations from military service and other expedients, to reduce to some extent the burdens of large families.

We are by no means disposed to recommend the re-establishment of so-called tours, that is official foundling receptacles, as we regard these as both immoral and inefficacious, but we are at the same time quite prepared to admit that charitable societies might establish them under certain circumstances, if they were disposed to devote their time and their money to this object.

The true remedies, or rather the useful palliatives, are to be sought elsewhere. It is above all necessary to modify the spirit of our primary education, and more particularly of the teachers in our public schools; the school itself should in a far lesser degree stimulate the ambition of the pupil, the desire to put forth the whole strength in the endeavour to succeed in the race of life, and to attain a high standard of material well-being. The scholastic aim ought to be rather directed to the inculcation in the minds of the pupils, if not of contentment with their lot, at least of more modest ideas, and of resignation to manual labour. The primary school of the present day, by the shortsightedness of the teachers, the folly of the scholastic programme, and the wild ideas that appear to have taken possession of those who have control of our educational system, is rapidly leading to a general déclassement, to universal ambition-and ambition is certainly opposed to the contraction of marriages, and the voluntary acceptance of the burdens of a family.

It is above all necessary to curtail the time that children are kept at school, to adapt it to rural or industrial occupations in such a manner that families may derive some advantages from the labours of their younger members. Formerly, both in the urban and rural districts, children as young as 7 or 8, or at least 10 or 11, performed certain allotted tasks. We admit that this is rather an early age for a child to commence work, but in any case attendance at school should not be obligatory after the child has reached the twelfth year; in no case should the factories and workshops in those countries which have experienced the need of an increased population, be closed to the child who is over 12 years of age-and this is what our neighbours the English, philanthropists certainly, but infinitely more practical than ourselves, have thoroughly realised. In the same way laws prohibiting married women, and those who are enceinte, or have recently been confined, from working, are instrumental in diminishing the population. To return however to the scholastic system, there is no doubt that discipline should certainly be relaxed in the rural districts, and more especially at the harvest time, and that classes composed of children of a certain age should be allowed to absent themselves in

summer.

A kind of ridiculous pedantry would seem for some years past to have found its way into everything. It is useful to know how to read and to write, and to have some knowledge of history and geography, but to acquire these rudiments it surely is not necessary to devote long years of study and application; and, moreover, it is infinitely more useful that men should acquire at an early age a taste for those things which are to occupy them all their lives, that families should increase, and that the population should not be enfeebled. The regulations respecting apprenticeship, by reason of the introduction of too much idealism, are also becoming inept. It is desired that the apprentice should not render any personal service to the master, but then apprenticeship becomes too burdensome, and there is an end of the system.

Again, it may be asked if all the young girls who have adopted liberal or semi-liberal careers are not more or less condemned to celibacy? It would be curious to have a census enumeration of public school-mistresses, married and single, and of females holding government appointments. We are of opinion that the proportion of unmarried women occupying these positions is much greater than in the generality of females, the reason being that the majority of young girls who are appointed to these posts frequently look down upon the simple workman or peasant, and moreover as they are frequently being moved from place to place, they have not the same opportunities of contracting matrimonial alliances as others.

We need hardly point out that it is far from our intention to condemn either education in general, or that of women in particular, but rather is it our desire to point out simply what appears to be necessary to improve and to modify its tendencies. Every age is

characterised by its particular craze. The present craze is for education, unlimited and injudicious, and for philanthropy equally unlimited and injudicious, both absolutely superficial. By their aid we have succeeded in producing a mental condition and in creating certain social circumstances which are most unfavourable to the growth of the population.

In conclusion, we may observe that the most efficacious remedy is, for a country like France, which has many attractions for foreigners, to obtain the naturalisation of from 50,000 to 100,000 aliens annually. By this means the number of inhabitants would be increased, and the reproductive power of the country would, at the same time, be largely augmented.

THE END

BY

JOHN R. COMMONS.

12mo. pp. 258. $1.25.

"To a better understanding of the economic problems of the day Professor Commons offers a valuable contribution." Philadelphia Record.

"This work of Professor Commons will be of value to the science of economics both from the theoretical standpoint and in its practical aspects. His reasoning is clear, and free from mere logomachy (a rare thing in works of this kind), and his conclusions are of an eminently practical character. "- Public Opinion.

"One of the best-known writers of the day is Professor John R. Commons of Indiana University, and his just-published treatise on 'The Distribution of Wealth' is sure to attract attention. Clear-cut and vigorous in style, he cuts a clear line through a tangled jungle of conflicting opinions, leaving no doubt whatever as to his own views, which he defends with clear logic and at the same time a due regard for the opinions of others."-Boston Daily Advertiser.

"A very notable contribution to the literature of political economy is the volume by John R. Commons of the Indiana University. It is, in fact, applied political economy. The author is not content with making clear his theory of wealth and its distribution, but goes on to discuss some of the every-day phenomena connected with distribution. There is much that is stimulating and suggestive in this book even to the reader little skilled in the niceties of economic discussion. Its author has not lost himself in the verbiage of pure economics. He is ever discussing some problem of vital importance, of live and present interest. His chapters on the factors in distribution is particularly clearly reasoned and suggestive. The book deserves a place in the library of every one interested in current social and economic topics."Chicago Times.

MACMILLAN AND CO.,