operative Production in England, and a man who, by his sincerity, his wide sympathies, his love of justice, as well as by his powers as a writer, his clearness of thought and of exposition, his wide knowledge, and common sense, has done much to advance the cause of Democracy, as well as to prepare the soil for the reception of Socialistic ideas.

VI.

IN his "Principles of Political Economy" (1848), Mill discusses Communism and Socialism, as they then presented themselves to him, in a broadly catholic and impartial spirit. Whether Socialism or private property, reformed and purified, will hold the future depends, he thinks, on which of the two affords the largest space to individual liberty, which, next to meat and drink, is the greatest need of man, and which, unlike the others, tends to increase. At the same time, the present system reposing on private property will last a very considerable time, and, if it were only freed from its worst features, would have much on its side. He shows us the kind of reforms that he desires, and it is significant to note that they mostly tend in a Socialistic direction, viz. legislation to promote greater equality of fortune, limitation of the rights of private property and of inheritance, the abolition of certain kinds of property. In 1848, the 'date of the publication of his book, a due mixture of the two systems of Socialism and Individualism was his ideal, and one both philosophical and practical.

In 1869, the year of the Congress of Bâle, when

Socialism, having been prosecuted in Germany, had again become militant, and had submitted an advanced programme recommending the nationalization of land and capital, Mill once more returned to the question of Socialism as the most important one of the future. He even contemplated writing a book upon the subject, which, unfortunately, he did not live to finish. Happily, though without all his arguments, we are able to gather his main conclusions, which, however, might have been qualified if he had lived to complete the work. There is not a great advance in his theoretical opinions. The Socialists' indictment he thinks grave and terrible, if true. Though it contains much truth, it is exaggerated. Competition is not an unmixed evil, as the Socialists picture it. It does, however, lead to some evils. In other respects it works altogether for good, and gives workers high wages, just as it sometimes does low wages. The notion of property must be altered in the Socialist's direction. All through history the notion has been subject to change. The capitalist is not a confiscator. He gets his profits on his capital, only on condition that the circulating part of it is given to the workers. He never touches the circulating part, save to give it to them (Fortnightly Review, 1874).

It cannot be said that we have here any great doctrinal change on the whole. His merit is that he tries to hold the scales impartially between Capital and Labour; and as he was an undoubted friend of the working classes, as well as a scientific seeker for the true and good, his words will be likely to have weight with all classes.

In his "Autobiography" he says that the views which he and his wife had come to share would entitle them to be classed "under the general designation of Socialists." And this, though not quite a death-bed confession of faith, yet, as it was written late in life, and intended for the world after his death, must be taken to express his final opinion. He there says: "While we repudiated with the greatest energy the tyranny of society over the individual, which most Socialistic systems are supposed to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society would no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious; when the rule that they who do not work shall not eat will be applied not to paupers only, but impartially to all; when the division of the produce of labour, instead of depending in so great a degree, as it now does, on the accident of birth, will be by concert on an acknowledged principle of justice; and when it will no longer either be, or be thought to be, impossible for human beings to exert themselves strenuously in procuring benefits which are not to be exclusively their own, but to be shared with the society they belong to." Professor Cairnes, indeed, thinks that these views would not entitle him to call himself a Socialist, because he does not advocate "the employment of the powers of the State for the instant accomplishment of ideal schemes, which is the invariable attribute of all projects generally regarded as Socialistic." Now, as matter of fact, I believe that few Socialists at present do look for "the instant accomplishment of ideal schemes" by the aid of the State; certainly even Louis Blanc did not expect that his scheme would

be instantaneously accomplished, while Lassalle, who also appealed to the State, did not expect that the desired Social transformation could take place inside two centuries. However, not to press the word "instant," and letting "Socialism" stand for the more or less gradual accomplishment of ideal schemes by State aid, which is what it generally does signify, Mill certainly was a Socialist, even before writing the Autobiography." In two remarkable paragraphs in different places in his work on Political Economy he gives us his ideal: the chief feature in which is the limitation of inherited fortunes to a moderate competence. He sketches the leading features of Society under his ideal, which he thinks would form a great improvement on the present system. He does not think that this better state could be realized at once, or until mankind were morally improved. But he regards it as an ideal to be striven for, and one that can be brought about in the main only by the State. And as steps towards it, practicable even at the time, he recommends an increase in the land tax, the reversion to the State of future unearned increments in the value of land, and an increase in the taxes on inheritances and legacies. So that Mill must be regarded as having been then a Socialist, and a State Socialist. Only he is a Socialist that expects his ideal to be realized slowly-that is, he is a practical and sensible Socialist, and neither Utopian nor revolutionary.

As regards industry, his ideal is Co-operative Pro3 "Political Economy," pp. 139, 140 (People's Edition), also pn. 454, 487.

duction-the same as that of Louis Blanc, with this difference, that he does not in this case look for the help of the State, and probably because, as he says, those associations that relied on the State were less prosperous than those that relied on themselves, on their own savings, and the small loans of sympathizing fellow-workmen. Like Louis Blanc, he expected much from the principle of associated labour; and he prophesied that the relation of employer and employed would be gradually superseded by partnerships in one of two forms: the first in which the workers will share profits with the master; the second in which the workers will all be partners, the master being replaced by an elected manager. The first is profit-sharing. It is the second form, or Co-operative Production proper, that must be expected to prevail in the end; and he thinks that time nearer than people in general imagine. Private capitalists, as many as remain, will gradually make all their workers sharers in profits. And so with the associations of labourers; for it would never do for themselves to employ hired labourers while trying to break down the principle of hired labour. He thinks with Louis Blanc that these associations. would tend more and more to absorb all workpeople, except those who have too little understanding, or too little virtue, to be capable of learning to act on any system other than that of narrow selfishness. The capitalists, thus finding only bad workmen left with them, would soon begin to think of giving up a hope.. less struggle; they would lend their capital to the