France, are hundreds of thousands of anarchists, and their startling creed has been carefully thought out by some of the ablest men of the day.

Anarchists are the radicals of Socialism. They dislike and distrust all government, for they deny that even a majority has a right to coerce a dissentient minority. They would place the means of production in the hands of the workers by abolishing altogether the right of private property. All things would be held in common; all men would work or be idle as they pleased, subject only to the authority of public opinion. There could be but little crime, because most crimes are against property, or are due to brutish ignorance, which would be quickly stamped out in a socialist state. Some form of penal law would no doubt be necessary, especially at first; but in a highly civilised community violence of any sort is very rare, and the force of public opinion is exceedingly strong. Every one would recognise the necessity for work, and, since a moderate amount of work is natural and pleasant to man, the productive activities of the community would not be interfered with; but every one would be free to do what he pleased, and as much as he pleased.

That anarchy is a perfect ideal no one can seriously deny. But the high moral and intellectual development which it necessitates, seems to us rather far away when we consider the selfishness of the middle and upper classes, and the ignorance of the proletariat.

A good many people think that the present system will be replaced by collectivism, and this will in due time be followed by anarchy. Perhaps this is the most probable path of development for society. But, on the other hand, it is wisest always to aim at the highest ideal, to accept nothing less than the best possible. And at present too many socialists act and speak as if their highest conception of society were an all-reaching, everpresent government.

One form of Socialism we have not yet referred to. It is the paternal system, patronised by Prince Bismarck, by which an oligarchic bureaucracy showers favours on an obedient people. To this we will apply a quotation much in vogue just now, Non ragioniam di lor ma guarda e passa!

There are three ways in which the socialist reformation may come to pass: viz., Revolution, Legal Force, and Moral Force.

The first is cordially expected by many ardent spirits amongst the Socialists; but it is thoroughly un-English, and is utterly contrary to the feelings and habits of the greater part of the people. As things stand at present, a revolution is absolutely impossible, and we earnestly hope that it will ever remain so. The solidarity of the nation is constantly increasing. A wide and genuine franchise gives to every section of the people a voice in public affairs. The workers are masters of the situation, and if they knew their

wrongs, and the remedy for them, they could effect the revolution by legal means at the next general election. This is the second way of which we have just spoken, and in our opinion it is by far the easiest, and that by which the change will come about. Already we have a tincture of spurious Socialism in all our legislation. The Government is interfering already in countless ways in the concerns of private people, and is attempting to obtain for all some of the advantages of the wealth hitherto enjoyed by the rich alone. But there is a matter of far more importance than these. The right of capital to exact rack-rents has been restricted in Ireland, and soon will be in Scotland; and thus the fundamental principle of Socialism has been again unconsciously admitted by our Legislature, as it had been before in the Poor Law and the Factory Acts. Englishmen are proverbially illogical in their legislation. But the logic of facts moves John Bull sooner than any other form of argument, and the benefits of the Land Act in Ireland promise soon to be very palpable facts.

The third method of reformation, the moralization of the capitalists, is recommended by the Positivists and by other ardent religionists. Let us teach the owners of capital, they say, to hold their wealth as trustees for the good of all; when they learn the sin of luxury and the selfishness of idleness, they will forsake that eager struggle for money which blinds them to the unhappiness they are causing, and to the emptiness of the objects they are seeking. There will then be no need to invoke the force of law, much less the violence of revolution, for the attainment of the well-being of the State.

We have nothing to say against this method, but we cannot look to it with much hope whilst the acknowledged exponents of morality, the bishops, and clergy, and teachers of Christianity, ignore with one consent the economic aspect of their religion; whilst Christian parents bring up their children in loving admiration for wealth; whilst religion is associated with going to church; and since the rich go to church far more regularly than the poor, whilst it is obvious to all men that Christ was mistaken when He spoke of riches as a hindrance to those who desire to enter the kingdom of heaven. So long as bishops and wealthy philanthropists continue to read placidly the burning words of Christ, "Woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation. Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger," so long we cannot feel hopeful that the teachers of religion will be leaders in the economic reformation of society.

It is often remarked that every one admits the evils of the present system; that the question is whether Socialism or some other scheme is the best cure for them.

We have attempted in this paper to show that Socialism is not a fantastic scheme propounded by thoughtless enthusiasts as a means of relieving existing distress, but that it is an ideal con

dition of society, founded upon clear deductions from admitted ethical principles, and absolutely necessary for the well-being of the community.

No nation can flourish permanently if it violates the laws of justice towards its citizens. A living, growing people must struggle towards true freedom and justice, as a plant towards the sunlight. When that struggle ceases, decay and death are beginning. He who said Fiat justitia, need not have added the qualifying clause. A wider knowledge of men and things would have told him that such a result could never follow his action. What is just never has been and never will be inexpedient. The laws of right and wrong may be differently understood in various states of society, but in spirit they are unchanged and unchangeable. We have contended that Socialism is the best realization of them which we can at present aim at. If this be so, Socialism will come, whether we like it or not. If we prepare the way before it, and receive it gladly, it will come to us peaceably, and as a welcome friend. If, on the other hand, we harden our hearts, and close the gates of our minds against the truth, it will come upon us none the less, but as a destroying angel, with fire, and bloodshed, and confusion. On us, of the upper and middle classes, rests the burden of this choice, and of this choice only. For some day, somehow, true justice to all, true freedom for all, will surely come.

"What we believe in waits latent for ever through all the continents,
Invites no one, promises nothing, sits in calmness and light, is positive and
composed, knows no discouragement,

Waiting patiently, waiting its time."

A. FABIAN.

THE GARRICK OF THE NORTH.

"Out, out, brief candle!

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more!"

SOME years ago, I "picked up" at an old bookstall, in the Market Place at York, a rare and valuable etching of Mrs. Siddons, together with a rude outline proof engraving of a tall, slender, angular, remarkable-looking, dark-complexioned young man, with very pronounced features.

The man was attired exactly like Mr. Irving as Eugene Aram, in the dark-coloured coat, vest, and continuations of a hundred and thirty or forty years ago, and the resemblance was so striking, that had it not been for the faded and discoloured paper, evidently more than a century old, on which the plate was printed, I should certainly have set it down for an admirable likeness of that popular

actor.

After vainly endeavouring to ascertain the original, the plate was consigned to one of my numerous portfolios, with the Siddons, and other curios.

A few months later, in overhauling my treasures for the delectation of Charles Reade, I directed his attention to my "mysterious man in black." After carefully inspecting the plate for some time, Mr. Reade, who knew everything, turned to the adjacent bookshelves, and taking down a volume of the memoirs of my eccentric predecessor, Tate Wilkinson, published in 1790, he read as follows::

"I am now speaking of an exuberant flower of the drama, possessed of voice with melody, and merit, to an eminent degree. He had strong feelings, and tears at will; and had he been a few years under the correction of a London audience, and attentive to his good advisers, he would, in all probability, long before this, have been in his meridian, perhaps at this time a setting sun.

There is a coarse picture at York, in the print shops, which is not only very like his person, attitude, etc., but is what a picture of real worth should be. It is a strong conveyance, without giving elegance, which he by no means ever attained; though his admirers claimed for him what he certainly had not. The said trifling print does not make him outré as to awkwardness, but it exactly conveys Frodsham's manner and mode as an actor."

"Rely upon it," said Reade, "this was the unfortunate Frodsham, the Garrick of the North, as Hamlet."

Mr. Reade was right, for I afterwards discovered, beyond all doubt, that this rude engraving was the "counterfeit presentment" of the eccentric genius, who out of sheer obstinacy and false pride fretted his fiery life out on the boards of the Yorkshire theatres when, according to the general testimony of his contemporaries, had he consented to put his " Pegasus in harness," and to serve under the banner of Garrick (undoubtedly the greatest genius of that or any other age, not only as actor and manager, but as tutor), the pupil would have run his master hard in the fight for fame.

Prior to his debut in York, little is known of the subject of this sketch, save that he was supposed to have had a university education, that he was a gentleman by birth and breeding, and that he was reputed to be the scion of an ancient family of the town of Frodsham, ten miles from Chester. Whether this was his real patronymic, or whether, like many actors of the present day, he assumed a stage name, it is now difficult to say. The coincidence of names, though remarkable, is by no means impossible, since the late Mr. Gomersal (the Napoleon of Astley's, so humorously embalmed in the Bon Gaultier ballads) informed me that he was born at the village of Gomersal, near Leeds.

Although but a youth of one-and-twenty when he joined the company of players on the great Northern Circuit in 1758, Frodsham must have either had considerable previous experience, or great natural aptitude, or both, inasmuch as a year after his arrival he had acquired possession of nearly all the principal parts in tragedy and comedy. To be sure, it took some time before an antediluvian actor named Crisp, who had played Hamlet over half a century, could be induced to cede the Prince of Denmark to the youthful tragedian; and for a considerable period after that, this obstinate old gentleman barred the way to Richard, Lear, Sir John Brute, etc. Frodsham, however, did not, as the players say, act "a bad line of business." Besides Hamlet, Othello, Macbeth, Romeo, Edgar, Richmond, Jaffier, Castalio, Álexander, Lothario, Osmyn, Young Norval, in tragedy, he played Benedict, Lord Townley, Young Mirabel, and Don Felix in high comedy; and of lighter eccentric characters, Bayes, Marplot, Dick (Apprentice), Lord Hardy, Colonel Balby, Plume, Sir Callaghan O'Brallaghan, and Captain Macheath (with the music), all of which he enacted for a rural guinea a week.

A guinea a week for "tragedy, comedy, history, pastoral, pastoral comical, historical pastoral!" Only think of that, young gentlemen, you who step out of universities, marching regiments, or counting houses, or perhaps from behind counters, and air your pretty faces, and fine clothes, and too frequent imbecility, at two, or three, or four, or five guineas a week to begin with,