prodigious development can only be accounted for by the many modifications which have crept into economic and social society." He continued: "Modern civilization has its dark side, and that dark side is Socialism, which will not disappear so long as civilization continues to be what it now is. Socialism has not infected Germany only; it has established its headquarters here, and its philosophical and scientific education is pursued chiefly in our land, but it is to be met with everywhere; it is a universal evil.” In the last number of the Revue des deux Mondes, M. de Mazade calls Socialism the social phylloxera.

England alone seems to be preserved from it; but the extraordinary success of Mr. Henry George's recent publication, "Progress and Poverty"-of which I recently spoke in this Review*— is a clear proof that her immunity is at an end. The Quarterly Review, speaking of this work in its last number, says :—

"Mr. George's London publishers have lately reissued his book in an ultrapopular form. It is at this moment selling by thousands in the alleys and back streets of England, and is being welcomed there as a glorious gospel of justice. This alone would suffice to give it a grave importance, but half the story yet remains to be told. It is not the poor, it is not the seditious only, who have been thus affected by Mr. George's doctrines. They have received a welcome which is even more singular amidst certain sections of the really educated classes. They have been gravely listened to by a conclave of English clergymen. Scotch ministers and Nonconformist professors have done more than listen; they have received them with marked approval, they have even held meetings and given lectures to disseminate them. Finally, certain trained economic thinkers, or men who pass for such in at least one of our universities, are reported to have said that they see no means of refuting them, and that they probably mark the beginning of a new political epoch."

What is Socialism? What is the cause of its progress? What are its errors and what its truths? These are the points which I wish now briefly to examine.

To begin: What is Socialism? Inever yet met with a clear definition, or even with any precise indication as to the meaning of this word. People are always Socialists of some special type. Since the passing of the agrarian laws for Ireland, Irish Conservatives have considered Mr. Gladstone as a Socialist of the worst description. Prince Bismarck, the friend of Lassalle and Schäffle, and the author of the abominable proposition to create a fund for pensioning invalid workmen by a monopoly of tobacco, cannot but be tinged with dark-red Socialism. The French Ministers, who recently endeavoured to convey all the railways over into the hands of the State, must also be Socialists; and since the publication of Bastiat's famous pamphlet, it is proved beyond a doubt to the satisfaction of every convinced free-trader and orthodox economist that whoever does not admit perfect liberty of commerce, must be a Socialist and a Communist. Proudhon, the author of the well-known sentence, "Property is theft," far from * CONTEMPORARY REVIEW, Nov. 1882.

wishing to strengthen the power of the State, sought its abolition under the name of An-Archy. Was he not then a Socialist? After the "Journées de Juin" in 1848, Proudhon said to the magistrate, who questioned him that he went to contemplate "the sublime horrors of the cannonade." "But," says the magistrate, "are you then not a Socialist ?" "Certainly I am a Socialist." "What, then, is Socialism?" "Socialism," replies Proudhon, " is any aspiration towards the amelioration of society." "If this be the case then," the magistrate very justly answers, we are all Socialists." "That is precisely my

66

opinion," adds Proudhon.

Proudhon's definition is too wide; he omits two most important characteristics of Socialism. The first is that the great aim of the system is to equalize social conditions; and the second is that it. endeavours to effect this through the medium of the law or the State. The aim of Socialism is equality, and it will not admit that liberty alone could lead to a reign of justice. All reasonable economists recognize the existence of evils and iniquity in society; but they believe that both will diminish from the effects of "natural laws," and as a favourable result of freedom. Christianity condemns riches and inequality with a vehemence nowhere surpassed, but it does not refer us to the State for the establishment of a just administration.

The Socialist is a pessimist. He paints in bold relief the worst side of social conditions, and shows the strong oppressing the weak, the rich crushing the poor, inequality becoming harder and more abominable. He sighs for an ideal in which well-being will be portioned out according to the deserts of each, and as a reward for services rendered.

The Economist is an optimist. He thinks that the man who pursues his personal interest contributes as much as possible to the general interest; and that social order must be the result of free play being allowed to individual selfishness. In his opinion, the only thing therefore to be done is to do away with all obstacles, to reduce to a minimum the power of the State, to govern as little as possible. The world can get on of itself. Socialism takes its stand on justice enforced by law the Economist counts only on personal interest individually pursued.

:

As soon as man had attained sufficient culture to become aware of existing social iniquities, and to be capable of raising his ideas to a more perfect order of things, dreams of social reformation must have sprung up in his mind. At all periods and in every country, when primitive equality has disappeared, there have been Socialist aspirations, in the form of protestations against existing evils, or of utopian schemes for the remodelling of the social order. The most perfect of these Utopias was Plato's Republic, that wonderful quintessence of Hellenic Spiritualism applied to the conception of the State. But the most persistent protest against inequality, and the most ardent aspirations for right and justice, that have ever stirred and roused

humanity came from Judea. The world is still alive to this influence, which has continued ever increasing during all these hundreds of years. Job sees evil triumphing and longs for justice; the prophets of Israel revile the iniquity of their age, and announce a new and better order of things; but it was reserved for the Gospel to express these ideas in language so simple and penetrating that it stirs and transforms the hearts of all who hear and understand it. The good tidings are here announced to the poor: "The last shall be first, and the first last;""Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth;" "It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God;" "The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand; ""This generation shall not pass till all these things be fulfilled." And this transformation ought to take place in this world. All the early Christians believed in the Millennium, and, as a natural consequence of their faith, they established Communism. We all know well the delightful picture traced in the Acts of the Apostles the life in common of the disciples of Jesus at Jerusalem. When the full time had elapsed and it became impossible to look any longer for a Kingdom of Righteousness in this world, the hopes of Christians were turned to the next, to the kingdom of heaven. At all events the thirst for justice and equality displayed by all the prophets and in the Gospel is still to be found in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, who speak in terrible accents. Every time the people take, as it were, the Gospel in hand, and become thus imbued with its teachings,a sort of flame of reform, a levelling influence springs up. When religious sentiment includes a belief in Divine justice and a desire to see that justice carried out here below, then it is quite impossible that equalizing and socialistic aspirations should not spring up along with a strong feeling of condemnation of the present social relations.

The communistic ideas of the Millenarians and of the Cenobites were preached again during the Middle Ages by the Gnostics, by Waldo's disciples, by the Begging Friars, by the Taborites in Bohemia, by the Anabaptists in Germany, and by the Levellers in England.

These notions also led to inspired dreams of a perfect society, as for instance Joachim de Fiore's "Eternal Gospel," More's " Utopia," Campanella's "Civitas Solis," Harrington's " Oceana," and Fénélon's "Salent." As says Dante, St. Francis d'Assisi relieves poverty, which had been wholly abandoned since the days of Christ, and weds himself to it. The convent, from whence the source of all discord, the distinction between mine and thine, is banished, seemed to be the realization of the Christian ideal: Dulcissima verum possessio communis. The dream of all enthusiastic religious sects has always been to transform society into a community of brothers and equals.

When ideas such as these gain the suffering populations, they pro

voke outbreaks and massacres, such as the Jacqueries in France, the insurrection of Wat Tyler in England, and that of John of Leyden in Germany.

Ideas are like microbi: they develop when they find a spot which suits them. Socialism has never found soil so well suited to its spread and extension as at the present day. All tends to this end: religious sentiments, political principles, and economic conditions. No one will contest that Christianity preaches the succouring of the poor and the afflicted; and it is as much against the possession of great riches as the most radical Socialist. It is needless to recall here the many instances where this subject is alluded to in Holy Scripture: the words are in the memory of all of us. Even after the Catholic Church had allied herself to absolute monarchy, listen how she still speaks to her members through Bossuet:*

"I came,' says the Saviour, 'to preach the Gospel to the poor.'-Evangelisare pauperibus misit me. The rich are tolerated if they assist the poor. In the primitive Church everything was in common, so that none should be guilty of leaving another in want. For what injustice, my brethren, that the poor should bear the full burden, that the whole weight of misery should fall on their shoulders! If they complain and murmur against Divine providence -Lord! let me say it-it is not without some appearance of justice; for as we are all made in the same fashion and there is but little difference between mud and mud, why do we see on one side joy, honour, and affluence, and on the other sorrow and despair, excessive want, and often, too, thraldom and contempt? Why should one fortunate mortal live in abundance, able to satisfy his every little useless fancy, while another, every whit his equal, cannot maintain his poor family or even procure for them sufficient food to allay the gnawing pangs of hunger?"

In a sermon on "The Necessities of Life; how to provide for them," we find again the same idea :

"The murmurings of the poor are often just. Why should so much inequality exist? All mankind are but of dust, and the only justification of this difference is the admission that God has recommended the poor to the rich, to be relieved by the latter out of their superfluities. Ut fiat equalitas, as says St. Paul.”

Bossuet only reproduces what may be read on almost every page of the writings of the Fathers. "The rich are thieves," says St. Basil. "The rich are brigands," says St. John Chrysostom; "some sort of equality must be established by their distributing to the poor of their abundance; but it would be preferable if everything were in common." "Opulence is always the result of a theft; if not committed by the actual possessor, it has been the work of his ancestors," says St. Jerome; and according to St. Clement, if justice were enforced there would be a general division of property; private possession being an iniquitous thing.

We see, then, that Christianity engraves very deeply in the hearts * Sermon on "The Dignity of the Church's Poor."

of all ideas which tend strongly to Socialism. It is quite impossible to read attentively the Old Testament prophecies and the Gospels, and then to cast a glance at the economic conditions of the present day, without being led strongly to condemn the latter, as very contrary to the ideal of Jesus. Every Christian who understands and believes his Master's teaching has some Socialistic tendencies, and every Socialist, great as may be his hatred of all religion, possesses some unconscious Christianity. Darwinists and the economists who believe human society to be governed by natural laws which must be respected are the real opponents of both Socialism and Christianity. According to Darwin, progress is effected among living things because those best adapted to circumstances get the upper hand in the struggle for life. The strongest, the bravest, the best armed triumph, and gradually stamp out the weak and feeble, and thus races become more and more perfect. This natural optimism is also the basis of orthodox political economy. In human society, the great end to be attained is the general welfare, and this is best effected by allowing the laws of Nature to pursue their course, and not by endeavouring to introduce plans of reform invented by men. Leave things alone, let things go as they are; with free and open competition the cleverest and most dexterous will gain the first place, and this should be the desire of all. There is nothing more absurd than to employ misplaced charity to save those who are by nature condemned to disappear. By so doing an obstacle is thrown in the path of progress. Make way for the strong, for Strength is Right.

Christianity and Socialism speak in very different terms from these. They declare war against the strong, that is to say, the rich,-and they preach the relief of the poor and the afflicted. They subject the pretended natural laws to a law of justice. We are told in the Sermon on the Mount, "Blessed are they who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled."

It is not easy to understand the strange blindness which leads Socialists to adopt Darwinism, which rejects their equalizing claims, and to refuse Christianity, from whence they first sprang, and which, in many instances, justifies them. At all events it may be safely affirmed that the religion under which we have all been trained, both believers and opponents, draws up the principles of Socialism in most concise terms, and that Socialist doctrines have taken the deepest root in Christian countries.

We will now proceed to examine how it was that Socialism quitted the regions of Communistic dreamings and aspirations and became a political party.

It was at the time of the Declaration of Independence in America and of the French Revolution, when the sovereignty of the people and the equality of all men were loudly proclaimed, that the principle of human