see and do justice between class and class, as between man and man. In the absence of such a one there is nothing but clashing interests, becoming constantly more antagonistic until it must come, as in France, to a Revolution and a war of classes. Between us and anarchy there is but the policeman, a frail and unsure defence, which might at any time give way.

The idea that in the solution of the great problem of modern society more may be hoped for from the powerful single ruler than from a Representative body, with its chance and shifting majorities, which, in consequence, has no single will or connected principles of action, no continued policy, whose course, on important occasions, is subject to unpredictable accidents, and where the only motive force that can be calculated upon as sure and steady, is class selfinterest tempered by fear, is significant, and may one day bear important consequences, especially if the working classes should become penetrated by it. It is an old idea that, temporarily submerged, has come up anew and is spreading. It was, as M. de Laveleye informs us in his work on "Contemporary Socialism," the notion of Lassalle, who, although Republican in principle, yet expected more for his Socialistic scheme from Prince Bismarck and the Emperor than from any Republican Chamber of Deputies, even though chosen by universal suffrage. An Imperial Socialism is always on the list of political possibilities in France; and it came near to being a reality under Napoleon III., who, at one time, seriously contemplated it. In Germany, there is at present a competition, a bidding for the favour of the working-man,

between the State Socialism of the great Chancellor and the Emperor, which aims at insuring the future of the working-classes; and Revolutionary Socialism, that aims at confiscating land and capital; and it is by no means certain that the majority will not close with the Chancellor's "bird in the hand."

In England, besides Carlyle, one other remarkable man, who, although he climbed to eminence by means of Party, yet always maintained a certain. detachment from it, having within himself the better opinions of both parties, gave expression to ideas favouring Imperial Socialism. This was Lord Beaconsfield, who, in his political novel of "Sybil, or the Two Nations," which deals essentially with the Social Question, shows his sympathies with the working classes, and with the strong sovereign. "Two powers," he declares, "have been extinguished in England, the Monarch and the Multitude;" and he wishes them both restored. Nay even, during his remarkable career, more consistent throughout than detractors allow, he did something in the direction of restoring the power of both, in addition to widening the Conservative political creed. By outbidding the Liberals in his Reform Bill of 1867, he made Universal Suffrage a necessity, by which, rightly used, the multitude may once more become a power; and at his instance the Queen of England assumed the style of Empress of India, which may in time imply more than a merely nominal extension of sovereign authority. In his novel of “Coningsby," he puts into the mouth of one of his characters his own preference for a strong monarch :-" The tendency of advanced

... An

civilization is in truth to pure monarchy educated nation recoils from the imperfect vicariate of what it calls a representative government." He thinks that the power of Parliament, and especially of the House of Commons, will not last. His ideal government is "a free monarchy, established on fundamental laws, itself the apex of a vast pile of municipal and local government, ruling over an intelligent and educated people, represented by a free and intellectual press," and not by a Parliament. The press would discuss and form public opinion which, in its active and administrative aspect should be concentrated in "one who has no class interests. In an enlightened age, this monarch on the throne free from the vulgar prejudices and corrupt interests of the subjects, becomes again divine." . . . "Before such royal authority, the sectional animosities of our country would disappear." Under the system "qualification would not be parliamentary, but personal," and the able and educated would occupy the commanding places, whether in the State, the Church, Diplomacy, or in the Military Service; all which put together, are strongly suggestive of St. Simonism.

But whatever be its actual future, the idea of the capable ruler, seconded by the best ability extant, with the spiritual power separated from the temporal, is the logical outcome of the St. Simonian doctrine. It is that to which it essentially comes when reduced to coherence, as it came with Carlyle, if we suppose him to have got his ideas from that quarter. It is the only form in which, as well as the only means by which, it could be made a reality, as indeed St. Simon himself

H

must have felt when he appealed to the king to take up his project. Cæsar, seconded by capacity, was the sole means by which it could have been introduced and maintained."

IV.

ALMOST Contemporaneously with St. Simon another Frenchman, Charles Fourier, was elaborating a different and, in the opinion of Mill, a more workable scheme of social renovation on Socialistic lines. The work, indeed, in which Fourier's main ideas are embodied, called the "Théorie des quatre Mouvements," was published in 1808, long before St. Simon had given his views to the world, but it received no attention until after the discredit of the St. Simonian scheme beginning in 1832.

Association is the central word of Fourier's as of St. Simon's industrial system. Associated groups of from 1600 to 2000 persons are to cultivate a square league of ground called the Phalange, or phalanx ; and are likewise to carry on all other kinds of industry which may be necessary. The individuals are to live together in one pile of buildings, called the Phalanstery, in order to economize in buildings, in domestic arrangements, cooking, etc., and to reduce distributors' profits; they may eat at a common table or not, as seems good to them: that is, they have life

6 Even Comte, whose economical conclusions are different from the St. Simonians, and who prefers a Republic, yet thinks that a Dictatorship might be temporarily necessary to install his scheme of Positive Polity.

in common, and a good deal in each other's sight; they do not work in common more than is necessary under the existing system; and there is not a community of property. Neither private property, nor inheritance, is abolished. In the division of the produce of industry, after a minimum sufficient for bare subsistence has been assigned to each one, the surplus, deducting the capital necessary for future operations, is to be divided amongst the three great interests of Labour, Capital, and Talent, in the respective proportions of five-twelfths, four-twelfths, and three-twelfths. Individuals, according to their several tastes or aptitudes, may attach themselves to more than one of the numerous groups of labourers within each association. Every one must work; useless things will not be produced; parasitic or unnecessary work, such as the work of agents, distributors, middlemen generally, will not exist in the phalanstery; from all which the Fourierist argues that no one need work excessively. Nor need the work be disagreeable. On the conrary, Fourier has discovered the secret of making labour attractive. Few kinds of labour are intrinsically disagreeable; and if any is unpleasant, it is mostly because it is monotonous or too long-continued. On Fourier's plan the monotony will vanish, and none need work to excess. Even work regarded as intrinsically repugnant ceases to be so when it is not regarded as dishonourable, or when it absolutely must be done. But should it be thought otherwise, there is one way of compensating such work in the phalanstery—let those who perform it be paid higher than other workers, and let them vary it