Narcissus intercross freely, but we need only concern ourselves here with three: N. Ajax, or the Trumpet Daffodil; N. Poeticus, with fine rounded white perianth segments and small red or red-rimmed crown; and N. Triandrus, with white bellshaped cup and reflexed segments. From the various subspecies and varieties of N. Ajax the three main divisions of Self-yellow, Bicolor, and White Trumpet Daffodils have been derived. Among these there are several types of trumpets; some are flanged with lobed or undulating margins, as in Obvallaris, Emperor, and Lord Roberts; in some the mouth is widely expanding and frilled and serrated, as in Maximus, M. J. Berkeley, and that finest of all the Self-yellows, King Alfred. Among the Bicolors there is further the straight, unflanged, and more or less smooth-edged type of trumpet, as in Grandis, derived probably from N. Muticus; and, lastly, among the whites we have the most beautiful of all trumpets in Mme. de Graaf, with rolled back rim, and still unsurpassed in refinement of form, though the flowers of Peter Barr and the new Pearl of Kent are larger and of a purer white.

These varieties of Trumpet Daffodils, crossed by N. Poeticus, have given us the intermediate races of Incomparabilis, Leedsii, Barri, Nelsoni, &c., with white or yellow perianth segments and cups of varying size and form, long and narrow, or short and rounded or spreading, fluted, crinkled, or smooth. Sometimes, too, they are deeply rimmed or wholly suffused with scarlet or orange, as in the varieties Lucifer and Will Scarlett. In the Leedsii section the whole flower is often pure white. By crossing these intermediate races again with N. Poeticus further varieties have been produced, chiefly remarkable, as in Firebrand, for the intense colouring of some of the smaller cups. N. Poeticus itself has been largely improved in substance and form, and a deeper red infused into the crown. The crossing of the beautiful little bellflowered Triandrus Albus and its fine variety Calathinus with the Trumpet Daffodils has given us some exquisite white and primrose snowdrop-like flowers with delicate smooth-edged

trumpets of beautiful form, some tending to incurve at the brim, and we may expect to get among these varieties some with semi-globular cups like the enlarged flowers of some of the Cape heaths. Besides the work that has been done in perfecting the form of the trumpet, and infusing more orange and scarlet into the cups of the intermediate races, the perianth segments have been broadened and stiffened, and the whole flower increased in size and substance, Van Waveren's Giant, the largest variety yet in existence, measuring as much as six inches in diameter, and two and a half inches across the mouth of the trumpet. But though we already have so many fine varieties, there are yet endless possibilities in store, for the improvement of the Daffodil is only just beginning, and thousands of seedlings are being raised every year. Perhaps the most ambitious of the breeders' aims at present is a Daffodil say a King Alfred-with a scarlet trumpet. We may not see it, for the raising of Narcissus seedlings is slow work, and each step means eight or even ten years. But the wonderful improvements already effected in this and many other plants, of which but a mere outline has been possible here, warrant us in our assurance that the Scarlet Trumpet Daffodil will eventually be attained, and in the gardens of some future generation, with the Black Tulip and the Blue Rose and many another flower that to-day is but an ideal, will witness to the skill and patience and enthusiasm of the plant-breeder.

ARTHUR J. BLISS.

THE NEED FOR SOCIAL

REFORM IN RUSSIA

A CONTRAST BETWEEN THE SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE RUSSIAN AND EUROPEAN PEASANT, AND SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WITH WHICH THE FORMER IS FACE TO FACE

I

HE peasant of Western Europe enjoys the reputation of a

conservative, engrossed in his own agricultural business, and not playing an active part in the political life of the country and the eager struggle for those broad social reforms which are the aims of the Labour Party. The Western European peasants have acquired such a political reputation because they have not suffered from an insufficiency of land; and, up till now, as a consequence of the absence of the congestion of their field of action and thanks to the help of science, they have been able to realise, to a very great degree, their natural desire for the improvement of agriculture and their own personal fortunes. They have concentrated their attention and resources on agricultural exploits; in this respect they have made considerable progress, and have acquired a good position, while the more enterprising have made themselves into small landed proprietors. In Russian society there exists a broad-spread opinion that the Russian peasantry will become a similarly conservative class when their crying need for more land has been satisfied, either by purchase from the Government, or from private landowners, and when the place

of the old Bureaucracy has been taken by a Constitution under which the peasant will receive the full rights of a free citizen, and will become more developed and more advanced. When these reforms are effected, then the peasant will feel himself sufficiently strong to improve his position by his own personal work; he will give up politics to the freer class, and the struggle for the broad social reforms to the Labour Party, and he will only take part in political life in so far that he, once in five or six years, will record his vote for some or other Parliamentary candidate.

In order to answer the question how far possible is such a supposition, it is necessary to know whether there is much hope that the Russian peasant, by his own personal labours, can attain that position of comparative wealth which is enjoyed by at least a part if not all of those Western peasants who, besides agriculture, have hardly any other occupation, and who form an immense majority of the agrarian population. The Western European peasantry has attained comparative prosperity, thanks to many causes and to culture, political and economic. We cannot here discuss all these causes, but let us consider the chief one of a purely economic character.

Only a short time ago, in many countries, the peasant was not only a tiller of the land but also an industrial trader; in the summer, he and his family occupied themselves with various forms of field work, and in winter manufactured raw products into finished articles (such as cloth, rope, &c.), destined either for their own use or for sale. But the development of a country receiving financial help from capitalists brought gigantic factories and works, covered the land with a network of railways, and brought steam and machinery into extensive use. Such a development of a country little by little wrested from the peasant first one then another of his winter occupations. At the present time in a large number of the great States a large majority of these peasants for whom agriculture represents their whole means of livelihood, buy in shops almost all the necessities for their

dress, their implements, and home requisites; in a few isolated places the old régime still goes on, but every year the homespinning of cotton, yarn, &c., diminishes. In proportion to the advance of this process of the freeing of the peasants from absorbing winter occupations—or, as it is called, the process of dividing manufacture from agriculture-the labour of the peasant becomes more and more restricted, and finally it remains only that of field agriculture. This process of diminution and eventual complete destruction of the peasants' winter occupations is naturally accompanied by a lowering of their incomes and a corresponding lowering of their welfare. So we see that in order to stop this pauperising of the agriculturists and to raise their incomes, it is necessary to reform agriculture so that the labour of the farmer is in constant request the whole of the year. Thus, if the peasant could produce farm-products for sale not only in summer but also in winter, and would not be exposed to the diminution of his income (which we have shown to be a natural consequence of the destruction of his winter occupation of a purely industrial character) we would see the entire cessation of these winter industries. Such a problem presented itself in due course to the European peasant; the Russian agriculturist has also long been face to face with it. But whereas the Western peasant solved this problem well for his own interests and attained a comparatively high level in the scale of prosperity, the Russian peasant remains before it in a helpless condition and is forced to content himself with the income earned only in the summer months and every year approaches nearer and nearer to absolute beggary. Such a difference in regard to the above problem between the Russian and the European peasant does not depend on the disparity of their capabilities, but on the different conditions under which they severally have had to live. Let us here pause for a short time to consider the various economic reasons for this fact.

The advantageous condition for the development of the peasant agriculture in the West is dependent, though it seems