Mr. Hirst, editor of "The Economist," London, delivered a very interesting lecture on "The Political Economy of War" last night in Emerson D. He began by upholding Adam Smith's view that war is waste, which is contrary to the popular view. The idea that a battleship is a godsend to the community where it is built, because it employs so many men was shown to have no relation to the economic question in hand. The employment of too many soldiers is also a great evil, because it prevents these men from being productive laborers and makes them consumers of public money. By the example of the Civil, Boer, Crimean, and Napoleonic Wars, conditions are proved to be at least as bad, if not worse, after a war as during it, disproving the theory that one nation gains commercial advantages by destroying the trade of another.

The subject of war loans was then taken up, and Mr. Hirst showed that they differ little from arms and ammunition which are never supplied by neutral nations to countries at war. Wars should be paid for as much as possible by taxes, and heavy taxes should be imposed at the beginning of a war when the people are able to pay them.

After this he made the supposition that England and Germany were at war, pointing out how little would be accomplished thereby, and how difficult it would be to accomplish that little.