suits, placed in the same condition of life, and in every respect, so situated, as to be without inequality of condition or diversity of interests. The advantages of possessing the control of the powers of the government, and, thereby, of its honours and emoluments, are, of themselves, exclusive of all other consideration, ample to divide even such a community into two great hostile parties."

It is evident from this review that the six great thinkers we have brought under consideration were in substantial agreement on the subject in hand. They believed that the fundamental factors with which the statesman has to deal are the forms and distribution of property and the sentiments and views arising from the possession of different degrees and kinds of property. Upon this generalization, we rest one of two conclusions. We may, upon reflection, decide that the distribution of property is the result of changeless forces inherent in the nature of man, and that the statesman is not a maker but an observer of destiny. 2 Or we may hold that once the forces of social evolution are widely understood man may subdue them to his purposes. He may so control the distribution of wealth as to establish

an ideal form of society and prevent the eternal struggle of classes that has shaken so many nations to their foundations. Man, the servant of fate, may become the master. But

here we pause.

Can the spirit of man be per

manently enclosed in any system? No

Socalism
(with Vote;
Will work
For a time

II

Economic Groups and the Structure

H

of the State

AVING surveyed the theories of our six political philosophers, it is fitting and proper that we should inquire whether there has been in fact a close relation between the structure of the state and the economic composition of society. It would be interesting, if time permitted, to examine the constitution of Athens and to consider such matters as Draco's legislation and Solon's reforms or to analyse the illuminating pages in which Polybius describes the balance of powers in Rome. The results of such a study, pondered in connection with the theories we have just reviewed, could not fail to set in train a fascinating line of speculation. There are, however, limits to this undertaking, and we must confine our scrutiny to the modern state in its historical growth.

In reviewing the history of government in

Western Europe, from the disintegration of the Roman Empire to the opening years of the nineteenth century, we discover that wherever the simple sword-won despotism of the war leader, prince or king, is supplemented or superseded by some form of representation, it is not the people, considered as abstract equal personalities, who are represented, but it is propertied groups, estates. We are told by that profound student of mediaeval law, Dr. Stubbs, that the ideal toward which Europe was slowly working in the middle ages, was a constitution under which each class was admitted to a share of power and control, and national action determined by the balance of forces thus combined.

This was not, as he admits, a conscious design by which statesmen shaped their policies. Many forces and circumstances contributed to the making of the representative system of estates. Sometimes it was the resistance of a particular economic group to royal despotism that won for it a recognized share in the government. An example of this is afforded by the contest which ended in the grant of Magna Carta. The barons wrote their interest into the public law of England, and secured it by obtaining the right of actual par

ticipation as a class in the control of government. At other times kings, especially during wars of conquest or defence, found themselves straitened for funds, and they called upon certain classes or groups of men to fill their treasury. Such, for instance, was the origin of the English House of Commons. To the continued financial necessity of English kings, particularly during the long war with France, was due the extraordinary development in the power of the English Parliament. Whatever the circumstances in each particular case, the striking fact is that we find all over mediaeval Europe what Dr. Stubbs calls,//"National assemblies composed of properly arranged and organized classes."

Of

If we examine the constitution of England in the middle ages we find, in fact whatever the theory, four estates: the clergy, the baronage, the landed gentry, and the burgesses. these, the first three were founded, in the main, upon landed property. The first or spiritual estate in the English constitution com!, prised the whole body of the clergy. The clergy were invited to form a part of ParliaTheir spiritual power ment for two reasons.

was great, and even the boldest kings did not