too, and delights to raise an innocent smile, even though at his own expense. Now and then an incidental touch recalls to us some of the happy nonchalance of Mr. R. L. Stevenson, whose earlier books we should fancy the author has read, if he has not studied them. Possibly more serious readers will feel too keenly that the account is too long for the amount of information conveyed; but the author does not aim so much at seriously conveying instruction as at amusement and humorous by-play, in which he does so far succeed.

POLITICS, SCIENCE, AND ART.

Principles of the Commonwealth. A Treatise. By EDMUND LAWRENCE. William Ridgway.

Mr. Lawrence's treatise is ambitious. He endeavours to set forth principles under which all possible questions relating to the modern commonwealth could be determined, and he draws his illustrations from remote historical periods as well as from more recent times. His reading must have been immense, and generally he has done not a little to digest it. But sometimes he is very abstract and doctrinaire, and summarily settles a question without reference to patent practical considerations. He does not believe in modern education, and is half-sceptical of schoolboards; he is all on the side of the landed proprietors, and lectures Stuart Mill on the unearned increment,' which he declares to have no existence; though when we think of the case of the Duke of Westminster, and a large part of western London, we fancy certain facts are in favour of Mr. Stuart Mill. He does not seem to be aware of the real origin of copyholds, or, knowing it, does not choose to go so far back, as Professor Pollock's recent work would have aided him to do, not to speak of Mr. Seebohm's. We fancy he is sounder on the right of property in the produce of the brain than on that of property in land. His definitions of law, and his strictures on the origin of law, natural and artificial, are good and suggestive, and he has some very good passages on 'Taxation' and the 'Regulations concerning Public Health." His reference to continental countries and to America show that he has carefully studied not only constitutional history, but the recent political developments, and has the power to make general statements effective by example. But sometimes, we do confess, that bold general statements, unbacked up by illustrations, do puzzle us, as when we are assured that there is a constant enmity observable between territorial and spiritual aristocracies; and a sympathy, nearly as constant, between the latter and the common people.' Do we read aright, or does Mr. Lawrence assert that the English Lord Bishops have invariably shown sympathy with the people? This puzzles us as much as a great deal Mr. Lawrence has to say about the relation of Church and State. Especially is this true about Scotland. If Mr. Lawrence had carefully read Mr. Taylor Innes' book, titled 'The Law of

Creeds,' he could scarcely have written many of the misleading sentences that he has written at pp. 27–29, and it is clear that he does not exactly catch some of the bearings of the Veto Act. He says that 'under the system of patronage a body of clergy had been reared, not inferior in virtue to any in the whole world, and probably more beloved by their people than any other which ever existed.' And this is actually meant to cover the period of 'moderate' ascendency, when a cold morality, alike destructive to doctrine and to earnestness in parochial work, was preached on Sundays, and when, from Monday till Saturday, the clergy engaged in such debauches as justified Burns in his poetic strictures, and is well mirrored in the autobiography of Carlyle of Inveresk. This style of thing is all of a piece with such an assertion as: 'In objecting to the patronage of the crown, the popes were able with truth to say that it had been often and mischievously abused; but it does not appear that any such accusations were ever made against the patrons of livings in Scotland. Indeed! we could almost wish that Hugh Miller were still alive to give Mr. Edward Lawrence some facts and a bit of his mind. Or did Dr. Chambers, or Dr. Candlish, or Dr. Guthrie, play the part of fantastic fools before high heaven? He says again, a few pages afterwards, that the leaders of 1843 carried with them a great portion of the virtue and a majority of the zealousness of the Church; but they left behind them a great preponderance of the intelligence and the culture.' Indeed! and the names of Robertson and Lee and Story, et hoc genus omne, for intelligence and culture are to eclipse those of Chalmers, Candlish, McCrie, and Moncrieff. It is, as Artemus Ward says, 'too much.' Only a partizan, and what is more, a half-informed partizan, could have written this: The historical Church reeled under the shock of the amputation; but it cannot be doubted that by this time, far longer than a generation since the event, it has redeemed its position in the affections of the best part of Scotland, while the new religious society has declined, and is declining, and has already sunk to a low intellectual ebb.' Indeed! we say once more; and we suppose the proof is to be found in the improved finances of the Free Church, and in the conditions of the Highlands and islands. and in the politic removal of that patronage which had produced, as Mr. Lawrence holds, a clergy of such a virtuous and spiritual type. Really, Mr. Lawrence must forgive us; his book has the merit of producing controversy, and it may succeed by it; but he should be sure of some of his facts, and show less of partizanship in some of his inferences. If we were to be severe in minor matters, we could notice the incorrectness of many dates; the Penge murder, for example, took place in 1877, not 1879, and the person whom he says was 'absolutely unconnected with the crime,' was at least accessory after the fact. The muse of history could hardly smile over some of Mr. Lawrence's statements, nor could she exactly, as Sterne says of the recording angel and that memorable oath, drop a tear and wipe out some of his errors.

Contemporary Socialism. By JOHN REA, M.A. Isbister and Co., Limited.

Mr. John Rae, who has for some time past devoted himself to a study of socialism, has in the volume before us given the results of his investigations. He is very clear in his classification, distinguishing socialism, on the one hand, from democracy, which is essentially political, while socialism (as the existence of one section of socialists prove) may be un-political or even anti-political; and, on the other hand, from nihilism in its various forms. His general review, by way of introduction, is all that could be desired; and certainly his sketches of the leaders, especially of Lasalle and Karl Marx, are marked by knowledge, insight, and considerable biographical tact. Of America he speaks with fulness; though, notwithstanding that at one place the vast increase of socialism in America is noted, at another it is said that this increase is confined wholly to the German immigrants, Some questions might be asked regarding the leading points in the chapter on Christian Socialism, but we have no space. As a phenomenon of the day, Mr. Rae looks at socialism fairly, and does something to account for it, though it is clear that his sympathies hardly fit him for doing some aspects of the matter full justice. To many, the concluding chapter on Mr. George and his theories will be found of especial interest. Mr. Rae's reply to Mr. George is as clear and conclusive as anything we have yet seen, viewed from the side of political economy, pure and abstract; but complete as the reply seems logically, there remains one point to which Mr. Rae has certainly not addressed himself with the decision th t is so marked in other places. It is this: What of the immense areas of waste land which are now to be met with in this admittedly over-populated country, which at the will of certain individuals are now devoted to purely personal purposes-of sport, pleasure, self-aggrandizement in many forms? Is it for the good of the nation that such areas should remain as they are, or should increase, whilst the pressure of population becomes more intense, and the demand for foodsupplies wax greater and greater? The legal theory of land-tenure is that all is held in the last resort of the Crown; that the best protected proprietor is only a tenant for life, with no power just to do what he likes with his own; and the question may well enough be argued whether change is not for the national benefit, taken on the whole. Mr. Gladstone has most unmistakably committed himself to this definite position in consistency with the whole tendency of his legislation. Another point is, what of the vast number of the entailed estates which are so hampered that their possessors have no capital adequate to do the land justice? In a certain artificial aspect Mr. Rae's argument as to increase of value through the application of capital directed to make the vast areas referred to suit their purpose, holds just as much as it does in respect to arable and pasture land; but would he here hold fast by his abstract political economy argument, and go with it to all the dangerous extent it would lead him, and say that there are no other and broader considerations

involved in the matter? We should be glad if Mr. Rae would take early occasion to make this thoroughly clear: he might do a great benefit to all concerned if he would. The Duke of Argyll and such writers may bring the wisdom of Solomon itself to bear on the question; but they cannot be quite impartial with respect to the baby' that is before them to be judged. The truth is, it is their own baby, and they must start with preconceptions fatal to perfectly fair views. Just as well go to a brewer or a publican for a dispassionate and disinterested judgment on the liquor laws. They get their fortunes by it; and this, in the words of the old song, 'nobody can deny!"

Dynamic Sociology. By LESTER F. WARD.
Appleton and Co.

New York: D.

This recent contribution from the other side of the Atlantic to the science of sociology deserves the careful consideration of all interested in the important question of how far the doctrines of Evolution can be applied to man in his association with his fellows around him. It is indeed an able but unsatisfactory work, and gives proof, if proof were needed, how impossible it is for our scientists in the present day to look even at the most complex conditions of existence save from the standpoint of Darwinianism. It is the most thorough application of the prin ciples of atheistic materialism to the questions of the genesis and past, present and future course of society that has lately appeared. In one passage the writer says, Mind is found only at the end of the series, and not at the beginning. It is the distinctive attribute of the creature, and not of the creator. It resides in man and not in nature.' And yet we venture to say that this work is likely to do more to influence thought in favour of a theistic philosophy than many a one written in defence of it, for it reveals clearly to a careful reader, with some training in the discussion of such problems, how imperfec:ly pure Darwinianism can solve the mystery of the universe.

The writer begins with a fairly accurate sketch of the philosophies of Comte and Spencer, and some acute criticisms of their defects, but scarcely appears to acknowledge, perhaps does not himself realize, how much he is indebted to the synthetic philosophy; indeed the whole book is little more than an adaptation of the principles of Herbert Spencer developed on their dynamic side to the conditions of social life here and in America. Starting from the elementary postulates of motion and matter, both eternal, without beginning or end, by the action and interaction of molecules upon each other, the inorganic world is formed by a kind of primary aggregation in accordance with laws revealed and illustrated in chemical relations. Organic compounds are produced by a secondary aggregation of these inorganic ones, and we reach the laws of biology. Lastly, a tertiary aggregation of these organic forms give us the genesis of society and the laws of the social relations.

In this, indeed, there is little that is new; but in the second volume, which we think the more valuable, we get a clever and well-constructed

application of these principles to sociology. Opening with a discussion of the reciprocal relations of man and the universe, the writer discusses the following six problems:

A. Happiness, that is, excess of pleasure or enjoyment over pain or discomfort, is the ultimate end of creation.

B. Progress, that is, success in harmonizing natural phenomena with human advantage, is the direct means to happiness.

C. Dynamic action, that is, employment of the intellectual, inventive, or indirect method of creation, is the direct means to progress.

D. Dynamic opinion, that is, correct views of the relation of man to the universe, is the direct means to dynamic action.

E. Knowledge, that is, acquaintance with the environment, is the direct means to dynamic opinion.

F. Education, that is, universal distribution of extant knowledge, is the direct means to knowledge.

The writer specially claims for this scheme completeness, and tries to show that we have in the first term, Happiness, the absolutely ultimate end incapable of serving as a means to any ulterior end, and in the last term, Education, we have the absolutely initial means incapable of being made an end to any anterior means.

He further argues-and this is specially important-that the several proximate ends constitute true means for securing the next respective higher ends, and therefore need not be pursued as ends in themselves, so that the entire series above the initial means may be safely left to take care of itself, and the total social energy be concentrated on the initial means; that all power expended on any of these proxim te ends is lost so long as any power can be laid out on a more remote one; and that success for the same energy expended will be proportional to the remoteness of the end toward which it is directed, so that the highest economy is only secured in directing it to the most proximate end, which is the initial means. This part of the work abounds with suggestive statements that often throw a new and unexpected light on the questions under discussion, and few persons at all fitted by previous study for the consideration of them will feel the time has been lost that they have given to a critical reading of these volumes.

Property and Progress; or, a Brief Inquiry into Contemporary Social Agitation in England. By W. H. MALLOCK. John Murray.

Mr. Mallock has discussed the subject of socialism, dealing chiefly with the teachings of Mr. Henry George and Mr. Hyndman in precisely the style and spirit that we should expect. He affects impartiality; he is keen at making points, and sometimes he misses the point where it would be a credit to him if he could only say that he did not know it. His tone of superiority which makes him able to lecture everybody would be offensive if he were not really a smart writer, with a brilliant laculty of antithesis and illustration. Of course he allows that Mr. George is in earnest,