each one of them individually for that higher and nobler existence hereafter to which He has taught us to look forward, but is also preparing the way for making human society by degrees better and happier than it has been. But it is quite consistent with this belief to believe also that this nation may be in danger of bringing upon itself, by its misuse of the great advantages it has enjoyed, heavy calamities and much suffering for all classes of its people, together with the forfeiture of the high place it has held in the world for two centuries. History records many instances of nations having fallen from high prosperity by their own faults, and shows how, while the world as a whole has been advancing, they have suffered from their follies or their crimes. It has been more commonly by the former than by the latter that nations have brought evil upon themselves. Their most signal calamities have been produced by their having trusted too much to the prosperity they have enjoyed, and by their having failed to read aright the signs of the times so as to provide wisely against coming dangers.

Whether England may not add another to the list of nations that have thus fallen is a question which cannot be considered without solicitude by serious observers of what is going on around us. There are sufficient symptoms of approaching, perhaps of not very distant, evil to create anxiety. As the corruption which at length caused the fall of Rome was said to have begun with the destruction of Carthage, by which the republic was delivered from almost fatal danger, and raised to the height of power and prosperity, so possibly it may be with us. England came with great glory and with an increase of power that left her with little to fear from her enemies from the struggle for life of the revolutionary war, and in the last forty years, since industry has been relieved from the trammels of protection, and the discoveries of science and the inventions of mechanical ingenuity have been so successfully applied to the work of production, she has made an almost unparalleled advance in wealth and prosperity; but we may reasonably doubt whether this floodtide of prosperity may not here, as formerly in Rome, have had an unfavourable influence on the national character. The great increase of wealth may have unduly stimulated the desire for it, and created a 'haste to be rich,' to the detriment of former habits of patient and honest industry.

Nor can I help observing another, and a not less alarming resemblance between what is now going on here and what happened formerly in Rome. It was in the conflict of parties, and by the conduct of the leaders of these parties contending for ascendency, that the checks which the old constitution of the Roman republic had imposed on the power of mere numbers were successively broken down and the absolute dominion of the numerical majority of the people in the government of the State was established. The abuses and evils which followed were such that men were glad to

find a refuge from them in imperial despotism, which in its turn led to other abuses and to the final fall of the nation. In England also it has been the rivalry of political parties that has already carried us very far towards the establishment of unbridled democracy, to which another step is, it seems, now to be taken. What is to be the end? Will England proceed in her present course and sink at last, like other nations before her, under the calamities to which it is likely to lead? Or will the country even now rouse itself and insist that the great question of a change in the system of representation shall not be made the sport of contending parties, but that a serious and well-considered attempt shall be made to effect a reform in the House of Commons by correcting its real faults, and bringing it under the command neither of money nor of numbers, but of intelligence, that it should be so altered as to answer the idea of what a representative assembly ought to be which seems to have been entertained by Mr. Mill? Or lastly, is parliamentary government altogether to break down, and to make way for some other mode of government as yet unthought of? There are signs that not only in this, but also in other countries, that system of government which we have valued so highly is indeed failing. Professor Goldwin Smith contends that it ought to do so because parliamentary government, or, in other words, government by parties, is unsound in principle. Perhaps he may be right, and this system of government may have served its destined purpose, and may now have to give place to some new and better one. The future defies conjecture, but I feel firmly convinced that in one direction or another, for good or for evil, great changes are impending. I earnestly pray that they may be for good; whether they shall be so, and whether this great nation is to emerge from the dangers that surround it, in order to make a fresh start in a career of improvement and prosperity, will depend upon the generation now entering into the business of life. If they have the courage, the virtue, and the wisdom required to meet the difficulties they will have to face, all will be well; if not, those of us whose days are fast coming to an end may rejoice that we shall be taken from the evil to come.

GREY.

THE

NINETEENTH

CENTURY.

No. LXXXVI.-APRIL 1884.

THE PROPHET OF SAN FRANCISCO.

THERE are some advantages in being a citizen-even a very humble citizen-in the Republic of Letters. If any man has ever written anything on matters of serious concern, which others have read with interest, he will very soon find himself in contact with curious diversities of mind. Subtle sources of sympathy will open up before him in contrast with sources, not less subtle, of antipathy, and both of them are often interesting and instructive in the highest degree.

A good many years ago a friend of mine, whose opinion I greatly value, was kind enough to tell me of his approval of a little book which I had then lately published. As he was a man of pure taste, and naturally much more inclined to criticism than assent, his approval gave me pleasure. But being a man also very honest and outspoken, he took care to explain that his approval was not unqualified. He liked the whole book except one chapter, 'in which,' he added, 'it seems to me there is a good deal of nonsense.'

There was no need to ask him what that chapter was. I knew it very well. It could be none other than a chapter called 'Law in Politics,' which was devoted to the question how far, in human conduct and affairs, we can trace the Reign of Law in the same sense, or in a sense very closely analogous to that in which we can trace it in the physical sciences. There were several things in that chapter which my friend was not predisposed to like. In the first place he was an active politician, and such men are sure to feel the reasoning to be unnatural and unjust which tends to represent all the activities of their life as more or less the results of circumstance. In the second place, he was above all other things a Free Trader, and the governing idea VOL. XV.-No. 86. NN

of that school is that every attempt to interfere by law with anything connected with trade or manufacture is a folly if not a crime. Now, one main object of my 'nonsense' chapter was to show that this doctrine is not true as an absolute proposition. It drew a line between. two provinces of legislation, in one of which such interference had indeed been proved to be mischievous, but in the other of which interference had been equally proved to be absolutely required. Protection, it was shown, had been found to be wrong in all attempts to regulate the value or the price of anything. But Protection, it was also shown, had been found to be right and necessary in defending the interests of life, health, and morals. As a matter of historical fact, it was pointed out that during the present century there had been two steady movements on the part of Parliament-one a movement of retreat, the other a movement of advance. Step by step legislation had been abandoned in all endeavours to regulate interests. purely economic; whilst, step by step, not less steadily, legislation had been adopted more and more extensively for the regulation of matters in which those higher interests were concerned. Moreover, I had ventured to represent both these movements as equally importantthe movement in favour of Protection in one direction being quite as valuable as the movement against Protection in another direction. It was not in the nature of things that my friend should admit this equality, or even any approach to a comparison between the two movements. In promoting one of them he had spent his life, and the truths it represented were to him the subject of passionate conviction. Of the other movement he had been at best only a passive spectator, or had followed its steps with cold and critical toleration. To place them on anything like the same level as steps of advance in the science of government, could not but appear to him as a proposition involving a good deal of nonsense.' But critics may themselves. be criticised; and sometimes authors are in the happy position of seeing behind both the praise and the blame they get. In this case I am unrepentant. I am firmly convinced that the social and political value of the principle which has led to the repeal of all laws for the regulation of price is not greater than the value of the principle which has led to the enactment of many laws for the regulation of labour. If the Factory Acts and many others of the like kind had not been passed we should for many years have been hearing a hundred bitter cries' for every one which assails us now, and the social problems which still confront us would have been much more difficult and dangerous than they are.

Certain it is that if the train of thought which led up to this conclusion was distasteful to some minds, it turned out to be eminently attractive to many others. And of this, some years later, I had a curious proof. From the other side of the world, and from a perfect stranger, there came a courteous letter accompanied by the present of

a book.

In spite

The author had read mine, and he sent his own. of prepossessions he had confidence in a candid hearing. The letter was from Mr. Henry George, and the book was Progress and Poverty. Both were then unknown to fame; nor was it possible for me fully to appreciate the compliment conveyed until I found that the book was directed to prove that almost all the evils of humanity are to be traced? to the very existence of landowners, and that by divine right land could only belong to everybody in general and to nobody in particular.

The credit of being open to conviction is a great credit, and even the heaviest drafts upon it cannot well be made the subject of complaint. And so I could not be otherwise than flattered when this appeal in the sphere of politics was followed by another in the sphere of science. Another author was good enough to present me with his book; and I found that it was directed to prove that all the errors of modern physical philosophy arise from the prevalent belief that our planet is a globe. In reality it is flat. Elaborate chapters, and equally elaborate diagrams are devoted to the proof. At first I thought that the argument was a joke, like Archbishop Whately's Historic Doubts. But I soon saw that the author was quite as earnest as Mr. Henry George. Lately I have seen that both these authors have been addressing public meetings with great success; and considering that all obvious appearances and the language of common life are against the accepted doctrine of Copernicus, it is perhaps not surprising that the popular audiences which have listened to the two reformers, have evidently been almost as incompetent to detect the blunders of the one as to see through the logical fallacies of the other. But the Californian philosopher has one immense advantage. Nobody has any personal interest in believing that the world is flat. But many persons may have an interest, very personal indeed, in believing that they have a right to appropriate a share in their neighbour's vineyard.

There are, at least, a few axioms in life on which we are entitled to decline discussion. Even the most sceptical minds have done so. The mind of Voltaire was certainly not disposed to accept without` question any of the beliefs that underlay the rotten political system which he saw and hated. He was one of those who assailed it with every weapon, and who ultimately overthrew it. Amongst his fellows in that work there was a perfect revelry of rebellion and of unbelief. In the grotesque procession of new opinions which had begun to pass across the stage whilst he was still upon it, this particular opinion. against property in land had been advocated by the famous Jean Jacques.' Voltaire turned his powerful glance upon it, and this is how he treated it :-1

B. Avez-vous oublié que Jean-Jacques, un des pères de l'Eglise Moderne, a dit, que le premier qui osa clore et cultiver un terrain fut l'ennemi du genre humain, 1 Dictionnaire Philosophique, 1764, art. 'Loi Naturelle.'