depends on the vast deposits of iron-ore which occur in the narrow district of Briey-Diedenhofen, on both sides of the FrancoGerman frontier. The opening of these deposits has caused a rapid increase in the production of iron-ore in both countries. The progress in the production of iron-ore among the four principal iron-producing nations of the world is depicted in the following table :

Iron-ore Production-Tons.

In Germany In France In United In United

In 1870 the United Kingdom produced considerably more ironore than Germany, France, and the United States combined. In 1910 Germany and Luxemburg-the two are joined together, because Luxemburg belongs to the German Customs Unionproduced practically as much iron-ore as the United Kingdom and France combined. Between 1890 and 1900 Germany produced per year regularly from three to four times as much iron-ore as France, but since then France has begun exploiting energetically the ores of the celebrated Briey district, and the result has been that French iron production has quadrupled since 1900, while German iron production has grown by only 84 per cent. during the same time. The jealousy of the German iron and steel magnates of the rapidly increasing iron industries of France has, no doubt, been one of the causes of the war. In 1913 France produced considerably more iron-ore than the United Kingdom. While France's production of iron-ore has quadrupled since 1900, her production of iron has increased at a much slower rate, because she lacks the coal required for smelting it. The German handbook of the iron trade previously mentioned states:

"The development of the French iron industries would have been a more favourable one if Eastern France did not lack coal. At the present moment (this was written in 1912) Germany furnishes already more than half of the coal used in the French iron-ore district."

If coal and iron occur in districts separated from each other one must either bring the coal to the iron or the iron to the coal. As, roughly speaking, three tons of coal are required for smelting

a ton of iron, it is as a rule cheaper to take the iron to the coal districts and not the coal to the iron districts. Natural conditions. and the manipulation of customs tariffs and freight rates by the German Government have compelled the French iron-ore producers to sell constantly increasing quantities of their ore to the Germans, who have smelted it in the famous Ruhr district, where excellent coal abounds. The handbook of the German iron trade informs us :

"The French iron-ore is sold in constantly increasing quantities to the Ruhr district. This process has been greatly favoured by applying the Minette ore railway freight tariff to the railway stations on the French frontier." While the Germans have smelted the bulk of the iron-ore produced in Lorraine in the Ruhr district, they have treated part of it in Alsace-Lorraine itself, where the production of iron has increased from 222,070 tons in 1872 to 2,908,230 tons in 1911. They were able to do this because coal can be carried very cheaply by water all the way from the Ruhr coalfield to the iron mines of Alsace-Lorraine. The importation of German coal into Alsace-Lorraine has increased steadily and very greatly from year

to year.

The official facts and figures supplied in these pages clearly prove that the Germans have not succeeded in gaining the affections of the inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine, that, on the contrary, they have estranged them and have caused hundreds of thousands to exile themselves, to turn towards France. The outbreak of the present war led to a further exodus of Alsatians and Lorrainers to France on the one hand and to more severe measures of repression and persecution on the part of Germany on the other. In view of the official record of the relations between the Alsatians and the Germans, in view of the fact that the Germans have treated the inhabitants of the two provinces, not as lost brothers, but as irreconcilable enemies, it is obviously idle to assert that Alsace-Lorraine is historically a German land and that its inhabitants are Germans by race, language, descent, and sympathy, and that they are satisfied with their lot and wish for no change of government. The Alsatians and Lorrainers have indicated, not merely by words, but by deeds, that they wish to be reunited to France, and if the principle of nationalities and of democracy has any meaning, it follows that their desires should be fulfilled at the peace.

The loss of Alsace-Lorraine has never been forgotten by the people of France. Most Frenchmen and most sympathisers with France desire, for sentimental reasons, that Alsace-Lorraine should be returned to France. However, there are also very important practical reasons in favour of that policy. In 1871

Since the

Germany, inclusive of Alsace-Lorraine, had 41,000,000 inhabitants, and France, without these provinces, had 36,000,000 inhabitants. Before the outbreak of the present war Germany had 67,000,000 people and France had 40,000,000 people. Peace of Frankfort the population of the one country has increased by 26,000,000 and that of the other by only 4,000,000 people. Germany's population has increased since 1871 with amazing rapidity owing to the enormous development of the German manufacturing industries. Their wonderful expansion has chiefly been due to Germany's wealth in coal. On the other hand, France's population has remained almost stationary because France lacks coal. If France should regain Alsace-Lorraine she would receive 2,000,000 new citizens. There would then be 42,000,000 Frenchmen as against 65,000,000 Germans. However, she might in addition obtain millions of further citizens if the possession of Alsace-Lorraine was coupled with provisions which would enable France to develop the manufacturing industries of the country, and particularly to exploit the vast iron-ore fields of Alsace-Lorraine.

Coal and iron are the twin foundations of modern manufacturing. Both are equally indispensable in war. Coal and iron provide arms, munitions, ships, and military supplies of every kind, and their possession and exploitation lead to a vast increase of population, as I have previously shown. It will probably be better for the people of the world if by far the largest ironfield of Europe should be not in Germany's hands, but in the hands of France. The loss of her largest ironfield to France would undoubtedly weaken Germany's military power, but it would not correspondingly increase France's strength, unless that country was given at the same time a sufficiency of coal wherewith to smelt the iron ores of Alsace-Lorraine. The two provinces contain apparently little coal. Close to them lies the Saar coalfield, which Prussia detached from France after the Napoleonic wars. Many Frenchmen demand the return of the Saarbrücken and its coal mines in addition to that of Alsace-Lorraine. However, the possession of the Saar district, though valuable for sentimental and practical reasons, would not benefit very greatly the French iron industry and France's general industries. The Saar coalfields are comparatively unimportant, and the coal is poor in quality and not very suitable for smelting. Therefore the Germans have treated the iron-ore of French and German Lorraine with coal from the Ruhr district. They have smelted it partly in the famous Dortmund-Essen coal district, partly in

(1) "The Future of France-and of Civilisation." THE FORTNIGHTLY REVIEW, February, 1918.

Alsace-Lorraine itself. They could transport coal cheaply from Dortmund to Lorraine because the two districts are connected. by waterways. In a table previously given it was shown that between 1872 and 1911 iron production in Alsace-Lorraine had increased from 222,070 tons to 2,908,230 tons. In 1911 AlsaceLorraine alone produced as much iron as did all France in 1904. If the stipulations of the peace should enable France to obtain all the Ruhr coal she requires, she could at a stroke double her iron production, and might create in Alsace-Lorraine a manufacturing district similar to the celebrated Rhenish-Westphalian district, where on an area no larger than a small English county six million people live. The population of the two provinces might be doubled and quadrupled within a few decades.

If the peace should bring to France the invaluable gift of a sufficiency of coal, not only the industries of Alsace-Lorraine, but of all France, would flourish as never before. If, on the other hand, France should receive at the peace only Alsace-Lorraine, the iron-ore contained in the country would be of little value to the French nation. It would merely enrich a few mineowners and provide work for some thousands of miners. The iron-ore of Diedenhofen and of Briey would either remain unutilised or would have to be exported for smelting. As the Ruhr coalfield is most conveniently situated, France would be absolutely dependent on Germany's coal for the prosperity of her industries, and the German Government would undoubtedly exploit that position to the utmost. It would strive to develop the industries of Germany and to stifle those of France, and the consequence would be that Germany would continue to grow rapidly in wealth, industrial strength, population, and warlike power, while France would remain stationary and would in course of time become Germany's vassal.

By receiving Alsace-Lorraine with an adequate supply of coal France would obtain an actual increase of 2,000,000 inhabitants and a potential increase of many millions of her population. An ample supply of coal would double and quadruple the population of Alsace-Lorraine, and would undoubtedly speedily increase the birthrate throughout France, while the loss of her iron and the stagnation of her iron industry would tend to limit the increase of population in Germany. The economic factor alone might create a healthy balance between the two countries.

POLITICUS.

FOOD AND COMMON SENSE

[Since writing the following pages I have heard of many instances of gallant and uncomplaining endurance of rationing troubles, so that some of the remarks on excessive diet may seem unsympathetic. I would therefore, as a preamble, recall a remark found in the diary of a subaltern in Ladysmith and written during the siege. "We have now been a week on half rations everybody I have met say they are the better for it." Also it should be borne in mind that if there has been excess in the past, a rather sudden check will be attended with discomfort, though in reality bringing improved health. I have had in mind a time of peace and habits of peace which are not unlikely to recur if opportunity is given.]

THE prevailing impression of a vegetarian is that, at the best, he is a nuisance to his hostess; and that at the worst-i.e., when he talks about food-he is a bore. The genial influence of Lord Rhondda is dissipating the former opinion, but the latter holds. its ground. Not without reason. Why should a burly Briton brought up on a generous meat diet be lectured to by a man foolish enough to prefer cabbages, who can only defend his crankiness by declaring that his health is better than ever? As if anyone cared whether it is or not. One thinks of the expressive word "chortle." A vegetarian is sometimes tiresome because he "chortles" about a trifling matter. Then there are misgivings felt by others, not resting on prejudice, but on broad and sane views of human nature. Men of big minds concern themselves very rarely with diet, and almost as rarely with health, which is best secured if not dwelt upon in thought. One cannot imagine any undeniably great man being immersed in such a subject. There is also a deplorable tendency, noticeable in the sect, to harangue; on unsavoury topics, too, such as the shape of apes' teeth and the length of a tiger's intestinal tract, and so forth.

So, for one reason or another, those who like to think of themselves as "plain" men are apt to give the vegetarian a wide berth. Foenum habet in cornu.

Now the only valid rejoinder to this sort of criticism is that the cranks in question have discovered something which would be of service to the community if it were known, and that there is no way of making it known except by somebody talking. As to the stress of the times in which we live, we have reason to believe that so far from being an argument for silence it is the very contrary. We have heard ominous and weighty forecasts. about the prospective shortage of food all over the world, but