learn their lesson, as Mr. Fisher and Mr. McGowen seem to have learnt theirs. In Victoria, indeed, the State Ministry, still "Liberal," may be said to have the lesson by heart; in Queensland Mr. Denham is a slow learner, but then his opponents are for the most part recalcitrant dunces. Australians in general have, perhaps, too little respect for "vested interests "—which, after all, in so new a country, cannot have been long vested; for the sanctity of parties they have no respect at all; and no party that does not justify its existence by actively forwarding Australian interests has any chance of substantial support. Nor will any party obtain such support for any longer than its activity lasts.

Note now what interests the public considers Australian; for in that respect the change since Federation—in the last few years, indeed—is very marked. Up to 1904 or 1905 the average Australian had a very limited outlook. He had spasms of Imperialism, of a sort. He was eager about the South African War, partly from love of adventure, but partly also from a genuine affection for the Mother Country, a sense of race, and indignation at the Kruger ultimatum. The only advantage which England took of that emotion was to persuade Australia's Ministers into altering the naval agreement in a way which Australians disliked intensely. Another spasm followed the Chamberlain proposals for preferential trade. England dallied with them and dropped them; and the Australian, having done his share of preference-granting, found nothing left to do till England should alter her mind. In neither case had any feeling of necessity been the motive of his actions. But from 1906 onwards that feeling has grown-the feeling that the Empire is not merely a grand thing to talk about or a reputable institution to be connected with, but a necessary of life, which must be maintained and developed by the incessant activity of all its members. Australian Imperialism, in fact, is becoming self-interested. The old comfortable belief that it was convenient to be under British shelter, and that when we felt strong enough we could walk amicably out of the shelter, is gone; the new insistent conviction is that we, like all other parts of the Empire, cannot do without the strength of our mutual cohesion, that the active

factor in that strength must diminish if we depend for it on Britain alone, and that security lies only in developing the same active factor in each of the Dominions, so that each may in the first place take over the responsibility of local defence, and in the second fit itself to share in the general responsibility, and thus to claim a share in determining what responsibilities shall be generally undertaken.

I do not suggest that the average Australian voter, if you asked him to explain himself, would give this detailed explanation of his feelings. I am certain that this is the explanation, and that he will find no fault with it. The effect shows itself in his keenness about defence, both military and naval, as in the interest he is already beginning to take in all proposals to increase with exceptional rapidity the population of the Commonwealth; but also in the resentment he displays when outsiders suggest that the new squadron is a step towards separation, and the unfeigned amusement with which he has always greeted the suggestion of American journalists that he has some idea of asking the United States to stand between Australia and Japan.

Australia, it must be remembered, is always better than its Ministries. The big movements-for Federation, for the war contingents, for compulsory military training-have been forced on the politicians by the people, and Ministries and parties exist under the same duress. In Mr. Deakin's last Ministry there were reactionaries who held to the " apron strings" type of Imperialism; in Mr. Fisher's Ministry there are, probably, reactionaries who still hanker after the "cut the painter" type of anti-Imperialism. Both kinds of reactionary matter less. every day. They retard, but cannot check, the movement towards sane and reasoned Imperialism. This quiet but irresistible pressure from outside is of great value in Australian political life. It emphasises and strengthens the influence of the better men, and the saner, less partisan ideas of the responsible men. It forces men out of office, as Sir Joseph Carruthers was forced while his party was still safe in power, if they set themselves against the healthy public will. It schools politicians, as it schooled the Fusion, if they conceive that politics is a game to be played among themselves. And, now that the public has found its basis for a belief in the Empire as a necessity, it will

ensure that neither Ministerial vagaries nor Oppositionist nagging -should either show themselves in the face of an Imperial crisis-will debar Australia from co-operating as may be most fitting in such measures as the needs of the whole Empire may demand.

In quite another fashion the recent history of the Commonwealth is proving to be of Imperial interest. Australia has been enjoying much prosperity for some years-practically ever since the break-up of the great drought of 1902. And there have not been wanting in any one of the good years warning voices predicting dry weather and poor seasons. This year, when we stood amazed at the golden disclosures of the Federal Budget, the voices were louder than ever, and stronger than ever the insistence of our gloomier critics on the necessity of saving out of this abundance for the lean years to come. Now of a sudden stands up the Commonwealth meteorologist to tell us that we have been having lean years without knowing it. In Victoria, he says, the rainfall for the period 1903-10 was barely up to the average, 1907-8 being especially droughty. Over most of New South Wales 1904-5 and 1907-8 were dry years, and in the coastal districts not a single year's rainfall has reached the average. So long a dry period has never before been known. Our prosperity, in fact, has come to us in spite of the seasons, not because of them.

What, then, is the cause of it? Mr. Hunt gives a comfortable answer. In the first place, the increase in the world's white population and the Europeanising of many Asiatic tastes have enlarged the market for our products and kept up the prices. In the second place-and this is the important answer -we are learning to master our climate. Ever since white men first settled in Sydney, the weather has been Australia's tyrant. For this the physical configuration of the country is in part responsible. A land with no upland reservoir of perpetual snow, over a great part of whose lowlands the porous soil affords no natural water storage, must always be more at the mercy of its unpredictable climate than countries which have real mountain ranges and a compact soil. But the perhaps unavoidable concentration of early settlers on woolgrowing, which needs holdings

66

of great area, exaggerated and prolonged the superstition that you can't fight the weather." At last, with the spread of wheat-growing and the division of great stations into manageable farming areas, a change has come. The landowner has found it worth his while to fight, and has pressed all sorts of weapons into his service.

We have benefited [says Mr. Hunt], by the lessons of such droughty years as those of 1888 and 1902; we are benefiting by the mistakes of pioneers in putting land to unsuitable uses. The capabilities) of soil and seasonal distribution of rains are better understood. The adoption of dry-farming methods and of drought-resisting wheats has given payable crops in spite of poor rainfall in many districts. The use of artificial manures has opened up vast cereal areas, such as the mallee and Pinnaroo country.

In the better control of the rabbit pest, the conservation of water and fodder, the tapping of the artesian basin, &c., may be found other answers.

...

The locking and damming of the Darling is obviously one of the first great works to be undertaken. . . . Our eastern mountain chain is honeycombed on its western slopes with natural reservoirs waiting for dams to imprison periodical tropical rains.

Only a short time ago I met a landowner who is flourishing, year in, year out, on eleven inches of rain in the west of New South Wales, on land which ruined several of his predecessors with a rainfall of half as much again. He has taken the trouble to master his problem.

Note what this means to the Empire. Canada and Australia, tariff reformers have always said, are inexhaustible natural focd-stores within the Empire. Their opponents, grudgingly admitting that Canada does grow some wheat (a supply which, by the by, Free Traders were very willing a few months ago to see diverted outside the Empire), have repeatedly maintained that Australia was drought-stricken half its time and was quite untrustworthy as a source of any food-supply. When the figures of the last few years were shown them, they said, "Wait for the lean years." If, then, it turns out-as Mr. Hunt says it does— that these years of prosperity have been lean years, another anti-Preference argument is dead.

CORRESPONDENCE

THE DANGER OF DRUGS

To the Editor of THE NATIONAL Review

SIR,-I would like to call your attention to a matter of urgent public importance which for some mysterious reason is rarely or never discussed in the press, though all the materials available for controversy are to be found in almost any issue of any daily newspaper. Hardly a week goes by without one's reading that another victim has succumbed to an overdose of veronal. Then follows the usual homily of the Coroner, who comments on the ease with which veronal can be purchased, with some pious expressions that the law should be amended as regards the regulation of the sale of these dangerous and harmful drugs. In one district alone there have been of late many cases of death connected with veronal.

Now, how much longer are we to wait for rational legislation on this subject? For years past we have been informed that a law will shortly be passed, and so the years slip away and we are still waiting and likely to wait.

No strong voice has been heard against the use, or rather the abuse, of drugs as against, e.g. drunkenness, probably because, like the proverbial bunch of carrots on the end of the donkey's nose, the supposed legislation is said to be in front of them.

I should like to point out that in Germany, which is a thoroughly practical nation, the sale of such drugs as sulphonals, veronals and trionals, are strictly prohibited, for a paternal Government is fully alive to the dangers of selfdrugging and wisely protect their public.

There is said to be an International Conference going to meet some day to study the whole question but in the meanwhile, why cannot a law be passed in this country much on the lines of that obtaining in Germany. All dangerous drugs should be under medical control. What would be thought of an Admiralty which allowed a captain of one of His Majesty's ships to disperse his explosives all over the ship instead of keeping them in the magazines under proper supervision? That man would be considered a lunatic, and would be quickly relieved of his command. The crew would live in a constant state of danger. Should it not be the same as regards deleterious drugs. Should not they be under proper medical authority?

Again, as regards made-up prescriptions containing poisons like morphia, &c., there should be a law passed that prescriptions once given should only hold good