They simply discomfited; they are aggrieved. attribute their want of success to "ill-luck" or lack of "influence." They grow envious of those "more favoured" people who succeed, and rebel against the decree of a Fate that holds them in bondage, and to which conscience tells them they owe no allegiance. The chagrin of failure— all the more poignant because the effort put forth is honest-begets revenge, and, out of this, comes the desire to destroy a state of society felt to be oppressive. The attack on class distinctions, not only necessary in themselves but really useful to society, is the clumsy, but almost excusable, attempt to destroy something which has been entirely misunderstood because misrepresented. Society needs to be taught that it is only excellent as a whole while it holds together; that its parts are only good and respectable when they discharge their several functions perfectly; and that its several honours are purely relative, never absolute, and in no case something which a man may put in his pocket and carry away when he deserts his post or neglects his duty. It is for the good of society and the State that there should be broad distinctions in respect to property, power, and occupation. A thousand several sovereigns are incapable of producing profits equal to those which may be acquired by the like sum in a lump. A man with a waggon and horses, a steam-engine, or a mill can do many things that are altogether beyond the reach of another without these appliances. A farmer with five hundred acres of land at his command, and capital to buy stock and the best kind of implements, can achieve results that could never accrue from the aggregate labour of a hundred farmers with five acres each. The same principle applies to social station. One man with the vantage position of a leader can accomplish better results with the skill of a thousand heads and the strength of a thousand hands than could be attained by the independent exertions of an equal number of individual efforts uncontrolled. The case of a regiment of soldiers, or a working party of bricklayers, will afford a ready illustration of this fact. No undisciplined crowd could stand against a skilled enemy. No multitude of labourers with bricks and mortar could build a house without some guiding hand to combine their labours. The analogy holds good in the case of the politician who sways a party, the man of "position" who heads some movement for a useful purpose, and the lady of fashion who, by the purchase of a shawl or a dress, revives a trade and sends plenty and happiness into a hundred cottage homes. Unwise and narrow-minded politicians talk of "the rights of property" until it comes to be thought they are striving for some purely selfish object in which those who have no property have no concern. The rights of property are the rights of the poor man as well as of the rich. If this were not the case, they could not have survived the growth of intelligence in this practical country. There are grievances attendant on the distribution of property, but these do not arise out of the system of personal possession; they are the results of its abuse rather than its use. The holders of property sometimes neglect their duty, just as the artisan sometimes neglects his work. These are the defects of personal character. They ought to be repaired, and more quickly among the wealthy and the powerful than among the poor, be cause, when a rich man fails in his duty to Society, multitudes suffer, while, if a poor man neglects his labour, the misery entailed is generally limited to himself and his family. But we do not propose to abolish labour because working men err in their duty; nor is it reasonable to seek to overturn property because the rich are fallible. The remedy for the evils by which the community is oppressed ought to be sought for in the promulgation of right views of principle and duty, not in the destruction of that organisation upon which the body politic depends for life and prosperity. VIII. INDIVIDUALISM. HE would be a bold man who should deny that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is the best, most exalted, and altogether most unimpeachable maxim of a sublime political economy. But he must be bolder still who would have the hardihood to accept the màxim, with all it implies, as the rule of his own particular judgment and policy. The sentiment sounds well, and hurts nobody. On the contrary, it pretends to achieve a surprising amount of good for the world and Society, although sentiment never achieves anything except the discomfiture or disgrace of those who trust in it. Accordingly it is tolerated; but the moment it comes to assume a practical shape, and begins to exert a real influence over interest and conduct selfishly-wise people eschew the sentiment and |