which, for all human beings, has its natural limits. We may easily, indeed, have too much or too little of it; we can only have it in degree, but without some degree of it we cannot exist.

Our author, we think, would have saved both himself and his readers some embarrassment, by simply using the term in this plain old-fashioned sense, instead of accepting and trying to re-define it in that of the latest political declamation.

From the two following chapters, on Socialism and Cooperation, the most successful perhaps in the volume, the latter of them in particular containing a variety of useful information, we make the following extracts.

"In an association founded on the principle of equality, there is no possible guarantee that every member shall perform his assigned part of the labor. It has been asserted, that, in the adaptation of the work to the capacity and the inclination of each individual, such a guarantee may be found. But this is to answer an objection by a false assumption. The work best suited to a man's capacities is not always agreeable to him. Nor is there any rule or measure of the capacity for, or the value of, different kinds of labor. Hard work to one is easy to another. A man may be apparently idle, and yet may be doing more than any of his busier associates. In such a society, it must be finally left to the conscience of every one to do his part, and the conscience is often a very unenlightened, and always a very fallible counsellor. Judg ing from experience, it must happen that an association of this kind would often prove only an encouragement to idleness. The least industrious would reduce their associates to their own level: they would not be raised to the level of their better companions.

“In an admirable little pamphlet published by the Marshal Bugeaud in 1848, when theoretical fancies of this sort were producing most dangerous effects, an account is given of a community established by himself under highly favorable circumstances for its success, on this principle of common interests and fraternity. The experiment was made in Algeria, and was fairly tried. The result was decisive, and he closes his account of it as follows: 'Absolute equality does not belong to this world. It is God himself who has determined this, since he has created men so different in power, in intelligence, in activity, in inclinations. The Socialists, afflicted at seeing misery often at the side of ease, and even of riches, pursue the chimera of perfect equality. They believe to have found it in association; they are deceived; they will obtain only an equality of misery.'" pp. 70-72.

After noticing the support given by so thorough a political economist as Mr. J. S. Mill to the principle of association, he thus describes an attempt of the kind in Paris.

"As early as 1834, an association of jewellers was formed in Paris. It was at first a partnership of two individuals; but the number of associates gradually increased to thirteen. The chief principle of their association was that of mutual confidence, founded on a general conformity of sentiments and similarity of judgment. The members had the same rights, and all were under the authority of a chief elected from among themselves. The salaries or wages were not equal; and, in the yearly division of the profits, each associate received a share in There was an inalienproportion to the amount of his annual wages. able and indivisible capital contributed by the different members. The number of members was increased by the election of new associates from among the workmen who had been employed for not less than six months in the workshops of the society. They were not chosen until the members had had full experience of their good conduct and character, and were assured that they held the Roman Catholic faith. This association, which, from its long existence and continued prosperity (for it was at a recent period in prosperous existence), has been brought forward by the supporters of the system as a proof of the good results of cooperation, does not seem to differ in any essential respect from a common partnership of numerous partners. There is certainly nothing in it which can be looked to as promising any special advantages to the great body of workmen, even of a single trade; and it may be well to observe, that, although called an association of workmen,' it is rather an association of masters, the united capital of the associates enabling them to employ workmen who have no share in the profits of the concern. That an association of this kind, established under favorable circumstances and conducted on equitable and sensible principles, may secure the comfort and independence of its members, does not admit a doubt; but the limits of its usefulness are very narrow." pp. 87-89.

We must add a curious passage quoted by the author in a note.

In the first Report of the Society for promoting Working Men's Associations, published at the close of 1852 in London, occurs the following passage: The Society has for some time past determined to discourage advances of money to bodies of working-men about to start in ociation, unless they have first shown some sign of preparedness nge from their old life, and have subscribed some funds of

their own. This has been done, because it has been found very necessary to have some proof that men have foresight and self-denial before they should be encouraged to associate. Working-men in general are not fit for association. They come into it with an idea that it is to fill their pockets and lighten their work at once, and that every man in an association is to be his own master. They find their mistake in the first month or two, and then set to quarrelling with everybody connected with the association, but more especially with their manager; and, after much bad blood has been roused, the association breaks up insolvent, or has to be re-formed under very stringent rules, and after the expulsion of the refractory members." pp. 113, 114.

The crying evil, as it appears to us, of the present system of unrestricted competition, is not so much the distress of the workmen as the extreme slovenliness and badness of their work. The joy and satisfaction of making really good things is destroyed by the criminal eagerness to make them to suit the market. The love of art, which, quite as much as virtue, is its own reward, used in the old times to penetrate down as far as to the meanest manufacture of kettles, for example, and pots. With us, on the contrary, the miserable truckling to the bad taste of the multitude has gradually stolen up into the very regions of the highest art-into architecture, sculpture, painting, music, literature. Nay, has it not infected even morality and religion? And do we never hear spiritual advice, which in fact bids us do as little good, and get as much applause for it, as we can;- and above all things, know the state of the market?

So far as coöperative societies or guilds would remove this evil, they would be of great use. But let it not be forgotten that the object of human society is not the mere "culinary one of securing equal apportionments of meat and drink to all its members. Men combine for some higher object; and to that higher object it is, in their social capacity, the privilege and real happiness of individuals to sacrifice themselves. The highest political watchword is not Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, nor yet Solidarity, but Service.

The true comfort to the soldiers, serving in the great industrial army of arts, commerce, and manufactures, is neither to tell them, with the Utopians, that a good time is coming, when

they will have plenty of victuals and not so much to do; nor yet with the Economists, to hold out to them the prospect of making their fortune;- but to show them that what they are now doing is good and useful service to the community; to call upon them to do it well and thoroughly; and to teach them how they may;- and all this quite irrespectively of any prospects, either of making a fortune or living on into a good time.

We are not sure that our author would quite coincide with us in a comparative disregard of physical discomfort, privation, and suffering. Yet we think he would join us in the belief that the real want of the present time is, above all things, the distinct recognition and steady observance of a few plain, and not wholly modern, rules of morality.

It is very fine, perhaps not very difficult, to do every now and then some noble or generous act. But what is wanted of us is to do no wrong ones. It may be, for instance, in many eyes, a laudable thing to amass a colossal fortune by acts not in all cases of quite unimpeachable integrity, and then to expend it in magnificent benevolence. But the really good thing was not to make the fortune. Thorough honesty, and plain undeviating integrity- these are our real needs; - on these substructions only can the fabric of individual or national well-being safely be reared. "Other foundation can no man lay." Common men, who, in their petty daily acts, maintain these ordinary unostentatious truths, are the real benefactors of mankind, the real pillars of the state, are the apostles and champions of something not to be named within a few pages of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, the Solidarity of the Peoples, and the Universal Republic.

We will take leave of our author by a quotation from his last chapter, called "the Future." It follows after some considerations on the prospects of the various nations of Europe.

"The prospect before our own country, bright as it is on many sides, opening before the view the noblest field of progress, is yet darkened by some threatening clouds. The prosperity that we have enjoyed may continue, and may extend with every year. But the rapid gains in material wealth which have been made during late years; the new

6

There is no

The fate of every na

fields of adventure, enterprise, and speculation, which have been opened, have given to the period a character of haste and excitement which leads to inconsiderateness and irreflection. It is time to pause, to draw breath at least, and look around to see whither we are hurrying. It is for us to remember that national prosperity depends on national character, and that long-continued prosperity may have the effect of weakening and of finally depraving that character. The popular declamation of the present day-the talk about manifest destiny,' 'natural boundaries,' geographical extension,' and such other topics is one sign that this effect has already been in part produced. such thing as destiny in the affairs of a nation. tion depends, under God, upon its own acts; and if its acts partake of that wild, reckless, and unprincipled spirit which such language indicates, its fate is no longer uncertain. Strength may be diminished, and prosperity decreased, by unwieldy stretch of territory. The natural boundaries of a country are those, wider or narrower, within which the people may be best governed; and if to increase in territorial size is to diminish the chance of good government, then that nation is suicidal which chooses to add land to land, and state to state. The principle of self-government will not allow this to be done with safety, for the power of self-government is not to be intrusted to the whole human. The half-savage descendants of the Spanish conquerors and the conquered natives of America are no fit depositaries of this power; the semi-civilized people of the Sandwich Islands are little worthy to be trusted with it.

race.

"But within our existing borders there are questions whose solution is pressing upon us. The great difficulties are those of so dealing with slavery as to bring good out of evil; and of so providing education for the poorer classes, that the destruction of the experiment of republicanism, which is here being tried on a scale commensurate with its importance, shall not be brought about by the ignorance of a portion of our own citizens.

"These questions are too complex to be entered upon here." pp. 130-132.