nities, nay, of themselves; and, finally, by the blotting out of the Old German Empire under Austria, and the establishment of the New German Empire under Prussia. The ruling classes would have none of the kindly reasonableness of Joseph the Second, the apostle of evolution, and they had to be crushed out and ground out of existence by Napoleon and Bismarck, - apostles of revolution, men of blood and iron. And, at this moment, we have in one of the greatest nations of the world an example of the same revolutionary process as distinguished from the evolutionary. In the middle years of this century, Russia, having been steadily developed in ways. more or less rude by the efforts of Peter the Great, Catherine the Second, and Nicholas the First, found itself under the control of a just and kindly czar, Alexander the Second. He accepted the spirit of his time; freed the serfs throughout his vast realm, forty millions in all, and gave them lands; abolished a mass of absurdities, infused a better spirit into old institutions; improved the laws, increased justice, developed local self-government, and prepared the way for a constitution. It was my fortune, as a young man, holding a subordinate diplomatic position at St. Petersburg in 1854 and 1855, to see this transition from the stern beneficence of the first Nicholas to the more kindly beneficence of the second Alexander. Everything seemed moving in the steady, peaceful evolution of a strong constitutional empire, when suddenly, between the extreme votaries of despotism on one hand and of nihilism on the other, all was dashed in pieces; the czar was a mangled corpse in the streets of St. Petersburg; a policy of extreme reaction set in. In Russia, under this system, I have recently lived for two years. Occasionally, those who favor a more peaceful evolution have seemed to gain momentary control, but it seems likely that the progress of Russia is to be by revolution; that the attempt to hold back modern thought by great dams and bulwarks will go on until the flood rises too high and a catastrophe comes, a breaking away of dams and bulwarks under revolutionary pressure, to be followed by successive floods of devastation, reactionary and revolutionary. The question now arises, is this the necessary law of human progress? Must the future of mankind be no better than the past, in this repect? An orator has recently answered this question with a phrase: he tells us that "all great reforms must be baptized in blood." But is this the law of the future? There is much, indeed, to support this view. Take the simplest principles of our Anglo-Saxon liberty-before they could be secured, blood was shed throughout England and throughout the United States; one king lost his head, another his crown; and another, the fairest colonies on which the sun ever shone. Take the simplest thing in religion, the elementary principle of toleration: before it could be established the world had to wade through the religious wars of the sixteenth century, the Thirty Years' war, battles, massacres, and executions innumerable. The possibilities of human unreason are indeed vast, and might lead us to take a sad view of the future, as we are forced to take a sad view of so much in the past; but, on the other hand, there is much to give us hope. The very law of evolution itself seems to encourage us. It would seem to show us that not only better results but better methods may gradually be evolved. This better side of human progress is seen in every country: an early display of it to our race came in Great Britain in 1688; it came again in the year 1832, and it has been shown by various peaceful reforms during our own history. The whole question is a question of price: the development of the race is to go on; the one question is, what price shall we pay for it? Must we still secure it, as so often in the past, by these vast sacrifices, or may it be secured in the future by reason and the spirit of justice? That eminent historian and political thinker, Goldwin Smith, once said, "Let us never glorify revolution." That he was right, the recent history of various countries proves abundantly. Early in the present century, glorification of the first French revolution became a French fashion, a political fad; in this fashion and fad Thiers, Lamartine, and Victor Hugo led. The consequences were the futile French revolution of 1830, the calamitous French revolution of 1848; the monarchy of Louis Philippe, as the result of the first; the tyranny of Napoleon III., the Prussian invasion, the surrender at Sedan, and the - Commune catastrophe, as the result of the second. So, too, throughout the first half of the present century, on this side the Atlantic there was a steady glorification of our revolutionary struggle with England. What was best in it the great constructive part by men like Washington, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, Madison, and Marshall was comparatively little thought of. What was most orated upon in ten thousand little hamlets was the destructive part, -the beauty of resistance to authority, the glory of breaking up an empire, the forcible wresting of human liberties and rights; and verily we had our reward. This glorification of revolution, North and South, helped to promote our civil war. Let us then accept this advice from one who has labored and sacrificed much for human liberty in its best sense; "let us never glorify revolution." What, then, shall we glorify? What shall be the ideal of political conduct? The answer is simple: let us glorify the evolution of a strong moral sense in individuals and in nations; of well-being and well-doing; of clear and honest thinking; of right reason; of high purpose; of bold living up to one's thought, reason, and purpose; let us glorify these, let these be our ideals. And what shall be the aim of practical effort? The answer to this question, too, is simple: let us strive to clear the way for a steady, healthful evolution, for the unfolding of a better future. First, as to the evolution of the individual mar: While every man owes a duty to society, he also owes a duty to himself as a man, and this is not less a duty to society; that duty is the evolution of his own powers, physical, intellectual, moral, religious. The nation, after all, will never be better than the men and women who compose it. Remember Carlyle's great question: "How out of a universe of knaves shall we get a common honesty?" Complaints regarding the low tone of public morality and of corruption in the public service constantly ring in our ears: all sorts of checks and balances are proposed, and these are well; but, after all, until there is a preponderating mass of individuals, each detesting oppression and wrong, each loving right reason, each having in himself a standard of truth and justice, each willing to fight or make sacrifices to maintain this standard, we can hope little for a better evolution as regards the public at large. In this evolution of individuals as bearing upon that of the nation, I would say, that the first thing needed is will-power, exercised first of all in self-control: the great Dr. Arnold gave it as a result of his long and close observation among young men, that the difference between them, which makes them successful or unsuccessful in their after-life, is simply a difference in will-power. Do we not everywhere see this? Do we not everywhere see men, who know better, yielding where they ought to stand firm, giving themselves up to parties, conventions, caucuses, bosses, demagogues? Address ing anybody of young men, I would say, begin here and now your own individual evolution by this cultivation of will-power; for it marks the difference between the strong man and the weak man, between the successful and the unsuccessful. Give yourself the physical basis of will-power, a strong body; give yourself the intellectual basis, a well-trained mind; give yourself the moral basis, standing firm among your fellows here and now for what is decent, right, and just, against the trickster and the boor; standing firm for what is best in yourself, against what is worst in yourself; above all, cultivate your own personal will-power by deciding what is right for you to do, and say, "I will," and on deciding what is wrong for you to do, and say, "I will not; " stand firm by such decisions,firm as a stone wall." That is not so easy as declaiming on what this neighbor of yours ought to have done, or what that public man ought not to have done; but it is better, better for the country, better for you. If you enforce your will on this little kingdom which God has given you, you will find little trouble in enforcing it throughout far greater dominions. Thus under the law of evolution will come the survival of the fittest,and you will be the fittest. Take next the material evolution of the country at large. That a nation like this, comparatively new, must expend a large part of its labor in developing the material basis of its civilization, is certain. All about us we see evidences of this, some in progress by growth, some in progress by catastrophe. In American business, far too large a part thus far seems played by catastrophes. In the record of demoralizing speculation, of financial crises, of periods of wide-spread bankruptcy, we have, indeed, a material progress on the whole, but a progress which is not normal, which costs the happiness and lives of millions, which grinds tender-hearted women and children to powder between its upper and nether millstones, which fills lunatic asylums, which ought to fill prisons. If we do not develop better methods, it is to make the existing American race short-lived, nervous, dyspeptic, sure to die out and be succeeded by races of tougher fibre under that inexorable law, the survival of the fittest. Such results of progress by revolution every one can see by looking about him. Everywhere are efforts to outwit the laws of finance, which are simply laws of nature. France tried this twice, and thought she could become rich by great issues of fiat paper money; as a result, came bankruptcy and poverty; and, to this hour, hatred of any tampering with the currency is burnt into the very souls of the French peasantry. Other nations have committed themselves to financial revolutions in defiance of the laws of nature, and always with the same result. Is it not better to labor for progress by evolution? Would it not be well to have more respect for simple, straightforward, determined, productive labor; less attention to subversive theories, and short, doubtful roads to prosperity; more honor to those who worthily develop agriculture or manufactures, or trade; less deification of phrase-makers, sensation-mongers, stump demagogues, and partisan gladiators? The question has frequently been asked whether our universities and colleges produce their share of business men; and a very high authority in business circles has declared that they do not. But he failed to note one or two points of great importance. First, university graduates, according to a recent authority, form only about one-half of one per cent. of the whole population, while they hold nearly sixty per cent. of the more important positions in the country. Secondly, he failed to note the fact that until very recently our universities trained men almost exclusively for what are known as the "learned professions," and not at all for business in the ordinary sense of the |