of the Methuen Treaty we drank ourselves to victory in the mantling wines of Oporto, and if today we could only get to Berlin upon a diet of bracken fronds and rhubarb leaves, it might be less pleasant, but we should all do it. There is, however, some little danger of confused thought upon this subject, especially since the food question has been taken up by our old friends the Capitolian geese. We understand that at one time Lord Devonport had the advice of several eminent men of science; but one by one he showed them all the door, and took the daughter of the vine to spouse in the shape of Mr. Kennedy Jones, whose chief education has been in what we might call the Northcliffe laboratories. Since the advent of this gentleman the Ministry of Food has moved in its Pindaric way from one astonishing statement to another. Food has always been a favorite subject with the crank, for the disordered mind not infrequently proceeds from the disordered stomach, and in the present case it would seem as if all the Food cranks in the world had been concentrated in the Ministry and instructed to preach their doctrines to a helpless and bewildered nation. And the worst of it is that every statement made is hailed by the Northcliffe Press as if it were an established scientific discovery on which life and victory depend. If this goes on we predict that the digestion of the British people will be infallibly ruined, its youth stunted, and its life embittered.

Thus, for example, we see it stated that the nation could live on its waste, and the Northcliffe Press has been lashing itself into a fury over the fact that a slice of bread was recently found on Hampstead Heath. Now, as a matter of fact, this subject of waste was very carefully investigated by Dr. Atwater, the greatest authority,

perhaps, in the world upon such subjects, and the results were published by the Agricultural Department of the United States. He found that the waste in the average family was quite small: in bread it amounted to about 1/2 per cent. Even in the British Army, where the waste of food used to be rather distressing, it was found on experiment to amount to only about 212 per cent. Then we are advised that we can do with half the amount of food if we only chew it double the time! We suppose that there may be some grain of truth somewhere in all the extravagances on this subject of mastication. But, generally speaking, custom and instinct are sound enough guides. Waste of time and energy in chewing will be the only result for most people who follow such advice. Where there is most waste is in fat, a very valuable food, because it clings to the plate; but the amount of fat which goes away with the gravy would not save the nation. As to bread rations, the Food Controller's allowance is probably sufficient for well-todo people who can afford to eat substitutes or lead sedentary lives; but we are informed on excellent authority that the ration contains only one-third of the sustenance which a working man needs and half what is required by boys and girls. Careful experiments show that, the human machine is in this respect much like other machines: the work is in proportion to the fuel consumed. A brain-worker is at liberty to underfeed himself as much as he likes, and the poet may cultivate literature on a little oatmeal. But if you reduce the workingman's diet you reduce his output, and so the saving of food in his case is of doubtful utility. As for boys and girls their natural appetites are a guide to health, and we tremble to think what the plea of patriotism, added to the incentive of economy, may produce in the rising

generation. It will be a bad economy indeed to stunt the growth of our children.

Now we do not write this article to damp the national ardor in this matter. On the contrary, we think that much might be done if scientific minds were applied to the problem. Our warning is against the Capitolian clamor which in this case is only encouraging the enemy and bemusing the nation. The problem as it appears to us is largely a problem of substitution. It might almost seem as if Lord Devonport and Mr. Kennedy Jones had never sat down and thought the subject out. What is the position? England has become too much devoted to meat production. There are probably fifty million head of stock of all kinds and at least sixty miliion poultry in this country. This is not only an enormous reserve, but from the food point of view a somewhat wasteful reserve. It might be better to reduce our herds by killing at a younger age and dispensing with the ceremonial fattening, which adds a little to the quality of meat at a great expense of feeding stuffs. Lord Devonport, on the contrary, by his maximum prices for wheat, his meatless days, and his disastrous experiments in fixing the price of cattle food, has almost forced both the farmer and the public to consume more cereals, the one to feed itself and the other to feed his cattle. We should rather encourage the killing of meat, and then there

The London Post.

would be more cereals for human consumption. As to cereals, this country imports mainly wheat, of which it gets five million tons from abroad and grows 1.6 million tons; it produces one million tons and imports 600,000 tons of barley; it grows three million tons and imports 800,000 tons of oats; it grows 72 million tons of potatoes, 25 million tons of swedes, 10 million tons of mangels, and 260,000 tons of beans and peas; and it imports 22 million tons of maize and 100,000 tons of peas and beans. These figures show that there is no cause for alarm if the situation is handled with

knowledge and good sense. We suggest that Lord Devonport is not the man for the job. His experience is the experience of a wholesale and retail grocer on a great scale: the concern with which he was connected is typical of Free Trade England. It is an example of the multiple shop: it imported wholesale from abroad and distributed through a vast number of retail stores. Lord Devonport thrived on Free Trade, but English agriculture did not thrive upon Lord Devonport. And to run such a system successfully did not require any knowledge of science, of agriculture, or of human nature. We suggest that this matter ought not to be entrusted to such hands: it is much too dangerous and delicate. What we need we might obtain from our new Board of Agriculture.

Everyone who wishes to see Germany beaten and brought to submission must rejoice without reserve at the glorious success of Italian arms. After the British and French offensives it was Italy's turn; and nobly has she risen to the occasion. The record of Italy has been exceptionally good

throughout this war, good from the moral, the intellectual, and from the military point of view; and we have not the least doubt that she will come out of the struggle one of the greatest and most respected of all World Powers.

To take first what we may call her

conduct from the ethical or moral point of view. We must always remember that at the start of the war Italy was most awkwardly, even cruelly, placed. She was a member of the Triple Alliance, and her ties could not altogether be regarded as a dead letter in 1914. By this alliance she was necessarily entangled with Germany, and, besides, her trade and financial relations with that country were intimate and valuable. The German moved beneath the surface of things in large parts of Italy no less than he did in England. Moreover, Italy had in power at the start of the war a Government tinged with a pro-German element, guided by an extraordinarily astute manager of men and parties-an "old Parliamentary hand" if ever there were one, a balancer among balancers. By going in with the Central Powers in 1914 or 1915 Italy, it is certain, could have secured pledges quite as ample as any the Entente could make her; and as Germany, on the whole, was greatly in the ascendant in 1914 and 1915, it may well have seemed "better business" to go in with the Central Powers than with the Entente. We know what Bulgaria decided in a like position. In fact, there were some astute Italians who doubtless desired this course, whilst there were many others who insisted that at least she should remain neutral-stand by and get what she could out of the war when the others were spent. The narrow view of self-interest and the obligation or tradition at least of the Triple Alliance urged that Italy should stand out altogether if she did not go in with the Central Powers. But Italy swept aside all such mean calculations and entanglements, and, despite the fact that her treasuries had been heavily drawn on lately by the war in Tripoli, she boldly went in on the side of the Entente at the close of May two years ago.

It was an heroic resolve, which must put her forever in the forefront of nations who have struck for right and justice regardless of the peril to themselves.

We say, "Bravo, Italy!" when we recall that grand decision of hers in May 1915. And Italians, we are sure, will understand it is no fulsome compliment we pay them in duty bound. There is a real and fervent enthu- ' siasm over Italy's war record among her friends and admirers in this country. Those who feel about Italy here have not chosen to profess very loudly and often; yet they feel deeply:

Open my heart and you will see
Graved inside of it, "Italy."

Then, intellectually, we know of no country better worth following today than Italy. We have not hidden our view that she has long been the most reasoning, cool-headed, safest authority and adviser in many matters relating to the Balkans. The Balkan question, scorned of the ignoramus and deadhead because of its complexity, is one of extraordinary charm and interest. Because we are bound to concentrate on the Western Front and reach a decision there it does not follow that the Balkans are not important, and Italy's attention to them is invaluable. People now see Italy, too, has been, on the whole, sound about Greece, though we shall not go into that question now. Nor can we resist the strong feeling that had the Entente adopted Italian views in this matter from the outset it would have saved men and saved money and saved prestige. The Entente has not done strikingly well in those regions, but for that we must not blame Italy.

Italy then, if we examine her record, comes out of the struggle well on the intellectual as on the moral side. And today what a magnificent military feat is hers! Fighting

against some of the most difficult country for an offensive in Europe, and against the picked divisions of a proud old army which we all fell into the careless habit of belittling in the earlier phases of the war, the Italians have made amazing progress towards Trieste. Today they stand on the slopes of Hermada and menace the arms of the Central Powers on the Adriatic. The Austrians claim to have taken many prisoners, and we shall not question that the Army of General Cadorna has steeled itself to sacrifices.

But it has made a wonderful advance and is threatening the enemy in a most vital spot. Trieste is within ten miles, and beyond lies the great naval port of Pola! A glance at the country in which this has been done is enough to assure one that when Angelo started with his dagger to engage Weiss priess, the first swordsman of "the old army," he had scarcely a more desperate task than Italy when she hurled herself against Austria among these strongholds. More valor and more skill have not been seen since the war began. We owe homage and gladly pay it to this great The Saturday Review.

Ally. The Adriatic has been a calamitous sea for the Allied cause, but now there is an earnest of Italy coming by her own, and the clouds begin to lift. We all know her goal and her just and inevitable claims. They were set forth in her demands to Austria so far back as December 1914, when she insisted that the cowardly and brutal invasion of gallant Serbia came under the operation of the seventh Article of the Triple Alliance, and they have been restated clearly enough lately in General Cadorna's official circular to his troops. They are based on no petty greed for "acquisitions." They include, no doubt, strategical positions, which, as Mr. Asquith has implied in speaking of the war generally, cannot be overlooked. These are supremely essential if we are to have peace in the future. We have not the least fear that Italy in her hour of triumph which is certainly coming, and in the Risorgimento that must crown it, will prove ungenerous towards any Ally of this country, including Serbia. All will be well whilst Italian arms prevail and when the resettlement of the Adriatic is effected.

Mr. Balfour's return to his own country after the most successful of Missions from one great people to another, is closely followed by a fresh proof of the unity of purpose between England and the United States. President Wilson has made a communication to the Russian Government which is in fact addressed to the common sense and to the conscience of every individual citizen of the Allied democracies. We trust that it will be spread broadcast and without delay amongst the great people to whose rulers it has been in the first place directed,

because we cannot easily conceive anything better adapted to scatter the clouds of untruth and of sophistry with which the enemy has been seeking to darken and confuse them. There are newspapers in Russia which have followed the traditions of the autocracy by suppressing the news of the American registration, and have mentioned the great speech of M. Ribot in the Chamber and the solemn affirmation by that body of the war aims of France, only to insinuate that neither represents the voice of the French people. They are doing an ill service

to the cause of liberty, and we rejoice that Mr. Wilson has spoken out in a fashion which cannot be hid. The wonderful success of the registration shows how thoroughly his fellowcitizens are with him. They have answered the impudent suggestion of a German newspaper made only a few days ago, that in their hearts and consciences they know "Herr Wilson's war" to be frivolous, superfluous, and immoral, by "hurrying enthusiastically to the Colors," as that journal rightly predicted they would do in a cause which they knew to be just. Mr. Wilson addresses Russia with the directness with which he has spoken to Americans. In his exposure of German intrigue, as in the statement of his own policy, he is downright and clear. In the more recent phases of that intrigue-phases which unhappily have found a good many dupes in Russia-he rightly discerns the desperate and unscrupulous efforts of a ruling caste which is playing for its last stake. Writing before the latest British victories, he was already able to point out that the war "had begun to go against Germany." Defeat means the downfall of the caste at home and the destruction of the power they have misused abroad. This is the result which they are eager, at all costs and by any means, to avert. That is why they are courting men whom they despise and simulating democratic beliefs which they detest. But the real objects of such schemes as the Stockholm conference and of their patronage of Socialist diplomacy are to keep a firm grip of their predominance in Germany and to pursue their boundless plans of aggression "all the way from Berlin to Bagdad and beyond." For nearly half a century they have woven a "net of intrigue" against the peace and liberty of the world. "The meshes of that net." President Wilson declares, "must

be broken" and so broken that never again can it be rewoven or repaired.

The German Government, "and those whom it is using to their own undoing," are anxious for pledges that the war shall end in the restoration of the status quo. Of course they are, and Mr. Wilson with remorseless hand strips off the rags of righteousness under which they seek to hide their motives. They want the status quo because the status quo enabled them to lay their plans and to make their preparations for this war, and because its restoration would enable them to begin at once making ready for the "next war," to which they already look forward. With one accord the Allies have vowed that this status must be so altered as to defeat their purpose. Mr. Wilson sees quite clearly the means by which this vow can be fulfilled and the errors which would make it vain. Twice over he insists that no settlement is possible until the wrongs that have been done are undone, until due safeguards are taken to prevent their repetition, until necessary readjustments are made-until, in short, practical questions are settled in a practical way. That, he points out, is the only way in which they can be settled. "Phrases will not accomplish the result." "Remedies must be found as well as statements of principle that will have a pleasing and sonorous sound." But the settlement is to be a settlement based upon principle, and the principles which Mr. Wilson names are, it need hardly be said, in general accordance with those for which in Europe the Allies have been fighting all along. Sovereignty is not to be forced upon any people against their consent; changes of territory are to be made solely for the advantage of the inhabitants; indemnities are to be limited to payments for wrongs done, and readjustments of power to those which will tend to the