of letters had alike held up visions of a better day. In ancient Israel, when the kingdom was no longer so glorious as under David and Solomon, when the poor were oppressed and there was great injustice, prophets began to look forward to a new and better kingdom of peace and righteousness. The early Christian writer, John, had a vision of a heavenly city in which God should reign, a city in which there should be no more war. In Greece the philosopher Plato described an ideal city in which rulers would be selected because of their wisdom. Every one should do the work for which he was best fitted, whether it were that of the brave soldier to defend the city, or that of the farmer and laborer to provide food. Women, too, should be educated as well as men and should be given a chance to do whatever they were able to do. In this way harmony and order would prevail. People would be united in the service of the city. It was not the modern ideal of a democratic city, for Plato did not believe in education for all. Neither did he think that the great majority of common people should have anything to do with the government. Nevertheless it was a picture which exercised a tremendous influence over the minds of men and is still full of suggestion for those who are hoping and planning for a better future.

Sir Thomas More lived in the time of Henry VII and Henry VIII, when the "new learning," as it was called, was filling the minds of a few with great enthusiasm. More studied Plato's work and applied it to his own day. He protested against the cruelty with which slight offenses against property were then punished. He urged it would be much better to make some provision for preventing stealing than to use such severity in punishing thieves. "For great and horrible punish

ments be appointed for thieves, whereas much rather provision should have been made that there were some means whereby they might get their living." If it be said that there are trades and farming, he answers that because of the wars which cripple men and use up the wealth of the country, because of the great numbers of "gentlemen" who live in idleness and extort the last cent from their tenants, because of the luxury which calls for a great many needless servants, and finally because of the monopolies by which rich men oppress the poor, there is no fair chance for the common He would do away with class distinctions and have all citizens equal before the law. He would have religious liberty. King Utopus

man.

"made a decree that it should be lawful for every man to favor and follow what religion he would, and that he might do the best he could to bring other to his opinion so that he did it peaceably, gently, quietly and soberly, without hast and contentious rebuking and inveighing against other. . . . And this surely he thought a very unmeet and foolish thing, and a point of arrogant presumption, to compel all others by violence and threatings to agree to the same that thou believest to be true."

In order to have men think of the common good, More desired to do away with private property and have people share their goods. Such a plea as the following must have stirred many to thought of a juster order:

For what justice is this, that a rich goldsmith, or an userer, or to be short, any of them which either do nothing at all, or else that which they do is such that it is not very necessary to the commonwealth, should have a pleasant and a wealthy living, either by idleness, or by unnecessary business; when in the meantime poor laborers, carters, iron

smiths, carpenters and ploughmen, by so great and continual toil, that without it no commonwealth were able to continue and endure one year, should yet get so hard and poor a living, and live so wretched and miserable a life, that the state and condition of the laboring beasts may seem much better and wealthier."

the 18th

century

Again, about the time of our own Revolution, men in At the Europe also were thinking of a better day. Edmund close of Burke, who was our friend, had as a young man written a powerful indictment of what he called artificial society in contrast with natural society. He claimed that the laws, although designed to protect the poor and the weak had really come to give the advantage to the rich because it had become so expensive a matter to carry on a suit. He claimed that those who labor most enjoy the fewest things and those who labor not at all have the greatest number of enjoyments. He held up a picture of two hundred thousand men in Great Britain employed in mines with poor food, wretched health, laboring at constant drudgery, and asked if this were not more shocking than slavery. Robert Burns, a farmer born in a cottage and growing up with the poor, had both a feeling for the common man and a genius to appeal to all men. The rank, he said, is but the guinea's stamp, "The man's the gowd (gold) for a' that."

But it was when the great Revolution broke out in France that the men of letters were kindled to a general expression of the passion for liberty which this aroused in Western Europe. Wordsworth, Shelley, Byron, all expressed various aspects of this great movement. With one it was a feeling of brotherhood, with another the sympathy with the small nation struggling for political freedom, with a third it was a desire to be free

from the oppression of law. All helped to strengthen the foundations of freedom and democracy and to point toward the day which we still await

"When man to man, the warld o'er

Shall brithers be for a' that."

CHAPTER XIV

THE NEW MEANING OF LIFE BROUGHT IN BY

T

LIBERTY

HE struggle for liberty was waged by men some-
times to get something for themselves, sometimes
to get something for all. But out of it came

a great idea about life, namely the idea that every
man should be both free and law-abiding.

The great task of law and government had been to Free and control men and make them conform to certain rules. responsible Some of these rules were no doubt made in the interest of the king, and were oppressive; but most of them were made to preserve order, and to protect men in their rights. When the king and the state took the place of the old tribal customs, the lawyers taught that laws of society came from the king. But gradually, as men gained the right to make their own laws, they began to feel a new reason for obedience. They felt that they were not so much obeying some one set over them as obeying themselves. And this made a new responsibility too. For if men made their own laws it was their duty to make good ones. They could not blame others for what was their own fault.

It can readily be seen that something like this goes on with each one of us as we grow up. At first we obey the words and customs of our elders, just as men do in tribal life. Then we find various rules for conduct which seem to have been set up by some one in authority. We must not meddle with others' prop