MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.

A

COURSE of reading in History, and also in Political and Social Economy, is indispensable to the young, not only to awaken thought, but to explain the circumstances which have produced the present aspect and condition of civil society. By this species of instruction, we learn that the good order, prosperity, and happiness of the general community, are but a consequence of a lengthened series of struggles between right and wrong, truth and error, ignorance and intelligence. Legends, indeed, tell us that there was once a Golden Age, when all mankind were peace-loving, prosperous, and happy. A poetic fancy. There never was such an age. The further back we pursue our researches, we find that society was the more rude. Among the most enlightened nations of antiquity, there were terrible oppressions and sufferings. Life was nowhere safe. The rule of the sword was almost universal. Slavery, or its modification serfdom, was enforced or submitted to for the sake of protection. All this is taught by History.

Civilisation has been of slow growth, and it is still growing. Contending with barbaric power, it has been again and again retarded-now advancing, now checked and almost destroyed. At this day, it has made considerable progress only in a few favoured spots. The larger portion of the earth's surface is still inhabited by people, little, if at all removed from a condition of savagery. What immense efforts must be made over countless ages before the world at large resembles our

own comparatively happy country! What superstitions to be got rid of! What ignorance to be removed! We have to rejoice in the fact, however, that the course of civilisation is, on the whole, onward. Things are always getting a little better. Where there is intelligence along with a power of self-defence, there is necessarily progress. Where there is a pure Christianity, there is necessarily moral and religious advancement. And on these grounds, what hopes of man's improvement may not be indulged!

Various notions have been entertained respecting the constitution of a right kind of society. The social system which has sprung up through a course of ages, is based on the family compact, along with independent individual exertion. A husband, wife, and children, constitute a family, which is a little sovereignty in itself. An aggregation of families constitutes a community. Thus, the matrimonial engagement lies at the very foundation of our social fabric, and must ever do so. It must also ever lie at the foundation of sound

morals.

Out of the family relationship springs individual action— independent thought, independent exertion. Without this independence, there can be no substantial improvement; for, as already said, it is only by exercise that the faculties are developed and strengthened. In other words, when a young man becomes able to think, he must think; otherwise, he remains childlike in his understanding-outwardly resembling a man, mentally a baby. The desire and the power to think are most surely promoted by self-reliance-the obligation to act an independent part. It is not meant that every man should be altogether independent of his fellowcreatures: that is impracticable. What is required is that, within the sphere of duties, each should be left to depend on the exertion of his own head and hands. No doubt, this doctrine has an air of selfishness; but selfishness may be

productive of good as well as bad ends, and is acknowledgedly allied to enterprise, perseverance, and other useful qualities.

Some speculative writers have alleged that society should consist of groups of families, united in one establishment; the whole members of which are to throw their individual earnings into a common fund, from which all expenses are to be paid. In support of this visionary project, it is urged that, by leaving society to spontaneous arrangement, there comes a time when each nation is distracted by internal disorders. The clever, the industrious, the fortunate, become wealthy, and attain high rank; while vast numbers, either from lack of capacity or opportunity, sink into a state of extreme indigence; and a number become criminals, and prey on the others. There is truth in this rigorous statement of facts; for in every nation there are high and low, rich and poor, good and bad. Nevertheless, such a mingled tissue is referrible to human nature, not to the structure of society. If there be anything wrong, we must seek a remedy in the improvement of man's moral nature, not in subverting the whole social organisation, and in attempting to reunite its shattered parts on new and fantastic principles. For example, allusion has been made to that insane deification of wealth and that extravagance in living which produce so many disastrous results. But we must view this folly as a temporary fashion, which will be cured by better education, as well as a more thorough diffusion of moral and religious principle. That, however, there will always be indiscretions to lament, is to be expected; for human perfection is unattainable, and charity needs ever to be associated with considerations of justice. Nor are present excesses worse than the errors of a past age. In spite of every obstacle, things on the whole are undergoing a change for the better. Within the recollection of the present writer, there have been considerable advances; and every year adds to the number of physical and social meliorations.

Civil society, then, as a result of ages of experience, depends for the spring of its life and activity on the interests and efforts of the individuals composing it. Each person, free by law and usage, is expected to act an independent part, controlled only by social and statutory arrangements. While every

one is free, therefore, he is at the same time bound to give obedience to all existing laws, and respect to all constituted authorities. In consequence of the general freedom which prevails, and in contradistinction to grouping families on a communal plan, society is said to be founded on the competitive principle. No one being interfered with, all are left to compete with each other in industrial enterprise. This, as has just been alluded to, produces considerable disparity in condition; but, all things considered, it is the best arrangement yet devised, and, looking to human nature, it is the only one practicable. Certainly, every attempt to reconstruct society on different principles has come to nought.

The organisation of civil society, though possessing everywhere the same general character, differs in a few particulars in every country. The chief difference consists in the diffusion of privileges. To understand fully distinctions of this nature, we must have recourse to history, ancient and modern. Little can be learned from looking at the present aspect of things. We require to search the records of human progress for the origin as well as for the philosophy of almost every institution.

Throughout Europe, society has generally arisen from similar circumstances. The rudimental germ of every state was a handful of adventurers, who, by military prowess, made themselves masters of the country. The leading men in such enterprises were chiefs with retainers. The principal chief became king; the rest assumed the character of an aristocracy; and the retainers, with the inhabitants whom they helped to subdue, from being at first serfs, finally attained the rank of a free democracy. It was long, however, before this latter

result was achieved. For many ages, the chiefs or nobles holding lands by a military tenure from the sovereign, formed a feudal aristocracy, by whom in reality the whole system of government was conducted. The idea of imparting privileges to the common people was long in dawning on the mindnot only because the nobles needed vassals to execute their will, but because the humbler classes had really no means of an independent existence.

The true origin of general freedom in Great Britain is the crown. From having been companions and assistants of the sovereign, the principal barons were constantly encroaching on his prerogatives. Sometimes the concessions of the crown, as those of Magna Charta, made by King John, were necessary and desirable; but more frequently the nobles were inclined to exact so much power in the state as would have rendered the king's authority a nonentity. The danger of these encroachments caused the monarch to seek aid from the commons. With the view, therefore, of raising up a means of protection in this quarter, he encouraged the building of cities, to whose inhabitants he gave certain important privileges. The civic corporations, therefore, must be viewed as the cradle of freedom. From them sprung much of the present constitution of society. Relying on their privileges, and surrounded by walls, these burgher communities defied the nobles, and sided with the king. From this time, therefore, the feudal principle declined, serfs were gradually emancipated, and ultimately every man was declared to be equal in the eye of the law.

It is necessary to be thus particular, for a notion prevails among the humbler classes that they have been deprived of rights enjoyed by their ancestors. History most explicitly shews that, in early times, the peasantry and operative bodies possessed no privileges whatever. Magna Charta does not so much as mention them. Society, in fact, has been quite a progressive development. Little by little, privileges have been