restriction of personal freedom in bargain and contract is, in proportion to the restraint, for both sides concerned the creation of indefeasible vested interests; in other words, is Communism, the first stage only of which is the negation of individual rights in property. This, if carried out to its issues, is, of course, another word for anarchy; neither rights of property nor rights of any kind remain.

Let us suspend, however, for a moment all thought of "rights," and put a case: A Kentish farmer, let us say, made nothing by his hops last year, perhaps lost five hundred pounds; this year he puts into his pocket fifteen hundred. What would be the result if the employer, still being in courtesy called by the name, were in the unlucky year to say, "I shall make nothing this year by my gardens; your labour must be gratuitous. Indeed, if things be fairly put, since you share in my profits, you ought to share in my losses. You will, in fact, be indebted to me, among you, five hundred pounds, my loss in the transaction on which your la bour is expended;" and if in the good year his people were to say, "You make a large profit this season. The price of our labour must be in such and such proportion?" Suppose an agreement come to, that daily wages,-if they could be daily or in any way stated,should be regulated in this communistic fashion, instead of being fixed at an average, though one with fluctuating limits, which has the advantage of carrying both employer and employed over their "dead points," the times least advantageous for each respectively,-how long could such an agreement hold in practice? To propose a scheme

of this kind is to show its absurdity. Yet this is in effect what the colliers of South Wales, or rather the Union which directs their proceedings, are in reality doing. That wages should be steadily maintained, and increased, in periods of prosperity, is not only "fair,” but natural; that they should decline with declining business is also natural, though many workmen are, now-a-days, coming to hold it not to be "fair." But to concede that the rate of a man's pay is to depend on a periodical scrutiny of the accounts of a firm by representatives of the working-men, is very like yielding a claim to control over capital itself; amounts to making over a share in it as such; with the understanding, by the way, that when capital declines in value, that is, when business is slack, the workman has neither responsibility nor anxiety-except for the absence of his customary gains, or the trouble of going elsewhere to secure themin the matter. Arbitration, if that be acceptable to both sides, must find the materials of its award in something else than what is equivalent to a confiscation of property; namely, in the general state of the trade and the rate of wages preva. lent over a wide area of similar trade pursuits, and a reasonable space of time. All beyond this is artificial interference with natural laws; interference which, however successful for a season, and in a locality, invariably recoils mischievously upon its authors. Those immediately interested in such matters, should not forget, besides, that capital is, in these times, a more movable commodity than formerly, and that the certain consequence of a continuance of the trade contests, which for the last

twenty years, or more, it has been our lot to witness, will be, that money will cease to be employed to the same extent in manufactures and commerce here, and will soon, inasmuch as it cannot easily be idle, betake itself elsewhere.

There is another word to be said on this subject. Till lately the modern system of strikes of labour had for its object a higher payment for a fixed amount of work done; now, however, the element of time, where contract or piece-work is not concerned, figures largely in the question. The cry for advanced wages is, in many cases, accompanied with a demand for a shortened day's work. This can only mean one thing; and one would smile at the simplicity of an employer who should expect that his hands, having obtained their "nine hours," would, being "on honour," see to it that they turned out as much work as they used to do in ten. The indication really is, that the British workman not only intends to have more pay than he has been getting, but, at the same time, to do less in proportion than he has been wont to do. He has a perfect right to make the trial; and provided it be made with certain definite objects in view, there is no one who will not sympathize with the effort. If fewer hours in the mine or the factory, and increased wages, conduce to the moral elevation, the superior self-control, the steady mental improvement of the working-man, the classes next above him will welcome his approximation to their habits, their tastes, their society; and it is certainly desirable that the "dignity of labour" should be felt among all ranks to be a reality, as well as a

fine sentiment. But there are misgivings on this point, which ascertained facts would seem in part to warrant. And, it is to be confessed, if there be signs of a growing indisposition to pay the natural price for life and its necessaries or luxuries, it is not easy to deny that the example, in a different sphere than that of the labouring-man, is almost ostentatiously set.

Assuming that self-indulgence and a taste for display have attended the commercial and industrial prosperity of the last twentyfive or thirty years, among those who have first and most largely shared in it, there is no just reason for wonder or complaint if humbler people try to follow suite. If the capitalist, the manufacturer, the merchant, in these days makes money fast, why should not the hedger and ditcher, the collier, the clerk, according to his power and opportunities, do so too,-that he may spend it in the same fashion? The recent accession of national wealth has not been so conspicuously devoted by the higher classes, on the whole, to objects worthy of the attention of a "Christian" nation, as to rebuke, by contrast, the misapplication of the earnings of such as live by the exercise of sinew and muscle, and the sweat of their brow. That an evil is general is no exculpation of it, of course, in any: but it is only fair to acknowledge that if too many among the working-classes do not make a right use of their greater material prosperity, they are not alone in the condemnation. It is, however, through the sons of toil, the masses, that a general indisposition to work, or a willingness to work only for the purposes of self-indulgence,-the re

To

sult,if not checked by religious educationists and evangelists,-would be likely first to show itself as a disintegrating power in the State. claim rights without undertaking the performance of duties, to seek wealth, and leisure, and enjoyments, without a readiness to pay the customary cost of them, means a spirit that cannot be satisfied; means therefore, when prevalent in a community, the flight of capital, the impoverishment of a country, and the decay of commerce; to say nothing of that internal discord which makes a people a prey to its enemies. Happily, things are not come to this pass as yet. But ill weeds grow apace, and "prevention is better than cure."

THE DEATH OF THE EX-EMPEROR OF THE FRENCH.

the

The demise of the late Emperor of the French is, at present, a theme specially for the moralist: on current political affairs it is likely to have but little influence. The public prints have, of course, re-touched a life with whose leading features every one is familiar; but such hasty summaries as exigences of the daily press call for distort, rather than portray, the wonderful career which has just closed. Between the "Tete d'armée" at St. Helena in 1821 and the "Etiez-vous à Sedan?" at Chislehurst in 1873, there is a connection-a resemblance-which no one can fail to remark, and yet a difference which it is too soon, with funeral dirges still lingering in our ears, adequately to describe. That difference it will be the business of History to set forth; and we almost envy the readers of the tomes which a generation hence will be dedicated to it. On the

whole, the world has in the interval been a gainer, though the condition of France herself only be taken as the standard of measurement for

its progress. The late Emperor has left a distinct mark upon Europe. Notwithstanding a policy which was often on the verge of falsehood and treachery; in spite of grave mistakes-as, for instance, the Mexican affair and the hazarding of a contest with Prussia;—he has left monuments well befitting a sovereign's reign. Early in his presidential or imperial career our own Dr. Cook ascertained that he would allow no persecution on account of religion;" a promise on the whole faithfully kept, "eldest son of the Church" though he was. Italy owes him a debt of national gratitude, whatever were his true motives in driving the Austrians out of Lombardy. France, if victim of the vices of "Imperialism," such Imperialism as he represented, also owes to him that comparatively long course of material prosperity which has prevented her utter prostration under the heel of the enemy whom in an ill-starred hour she provoked; and Paris will long remain the Paris of Napoleon the Third. With England he was in the main on friendly terms, fireeating French colonels to the contrary; a war with Great Britain was at all events his last resourcethough probably in reality his last, in defence of his dynasty. His figure in history in fact will grow as the man recedes from us; and a quiet Kentish village, with its shaggy heath and woods, is closely associated with a name that possibly, a generation hence, will be a spell in France, and therefore a power again in Europe. On the personal faults of the exile who finds a grave in our soil, from the days of the

Carbonari to the coup d'etat of December, and in the slippery times of honour and power which followed, it is not ours now to say a word: heathen maxims and Christian precept are on this point one. But

it is allowable to say that History makes us familiar with men, who, if they gained place and power by unlawful means, have made at least a worse use of it.

London: January 20th, 1873.

THE twentieth of December last was a remarkable day in the Church of England. "It had been agreed upon by the friends of missionary operations in the Church, whether connected with the Church Missionary Society or with the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel, to devote that day to general prayer and supplication to Almighty God for the success of missionary operations throughout the world. The bishops, on being appealed to, readily fell in with the proposal, sanctioned a short service for the occasion, and recommended the observance of the day through out their various dioceses. The consequence was that, for once, the differences that divide the Church into parties were forgotten. Evangelical, Ritualist, and Rationalist were alike forward in the movement, and every church and chapel in connection with the Establishment, was open for the purpose, with scarcely an exception, at one time or another in the course of the day. In many of the churches in London a service was held as early as nine o'clock in the morning; and it was pleasing to observe how readily these were attended by business men in their respective parishes. Many of these early services were followed by the administration of the Holy Communion, and a large proportion of

those who attended remained to participate in the sacred feast. The great cathedrals of the land were, of course, made use of on the occasion. The Bishop of London himself presided at the early service at St. Paul's. Westminster Abbey, and Canterbury, York, and the other cathedrals were thrown open; but the great feature of the day was the multitude of people that met in their own parish churches. It was the Church of England's answer to the sceptical speculations that are now afloat as to the inutility of prayer; an answer all the more effective, that it was quiet and practical; not in mere argument, but in the earnest and hearty adoption of that which sceptics deride as useless."

On this act of public intercession for the success of missionary operations, and for an increased supply of missionaries, the "Times" newspaper has seen fit to comment in a "leader." The drift of its remarks are sufficiently indicated by a sentence or two:-"The simple fact with regard to the Missions of the Church of England is, that they occupy a very inconsiderable place in the interest and even the information of good and zealous Church people. There really is no human enterprise possessing organization, receiving subscriptions, and publishing reports,

that has so little to show for itself in the way of fruits, or in the less palpable influences with which it might be credited....... Upon an occasion, somebody can be produced who can tell of wonders done in some cities or villages in India a very long time since, with a careful reticence as to the last half or quarter century.......There ought, by this time, to be many returned missionaries, and even converts; nor ought they to be ashamed of their position. But who is there who can number among his personal acquaintance a man who has done some years, or a single year, of Church missionary work, in any field?......It is England itself, or the whole people of these isles, that ought to be the missionary. We cannot, or do not, convert our own people. They spread themselves over the world, following everywhere the bent of their own nature, doing their own will, following their own gain; too generally doing and being nothing that a heathen will recognize as better than himself. These preach something and have their own mischievous mission. They preach irreligion and the views that go with it. Their Gospel does its work and reaps its fruit. How can a feeble missionary, who would too often be thought but a poor creature at home, with every advantage in his favour, hope to stem with a few phrases the torrent of profligacy he finds already in possession of the ground? The great work is to convert our masses at home."

The stricture on the Church Missionary Society, and indeed upon all Missionary Societies, of which the foregoing sentences are a specimen, has called forth many replies; and among them is one from Lord Lawrence, who addresses to the

"Times" the following letter. We have pleasure in putting on permanent record the calm, dignified statement of a Christian statesman, who has the advantage of many years' personal observation of the working of Indian Missions, in answer to the journalist who would seem scarcely to have given the subject an hour's thought before beginning to write upon it.

66

SIR,-Although I must leave to others who are more competent to deal with it the consideration in all its aspects of the very complex question of missions, upon which you have recently touched in connection with the day of prayer, it has so important a bearing upon the stability of our Indian empire that I may be pardoned for making a few remarks on the subject.

"A mere enumeration of the countries in which Church of England missionaries are employed would suffice to show that there are no grounds for stating that they give up any race or region as inaccessible. But, instead of referring to Africa, New Zealand, NorthWestern America, and other fields in which the Church of England is labouring, I will restrict myself to India, of which I have personal knowledge. Those who are disappointed at the results of missionary labours in this country must bear in mind that the Hindoos, who form the bulk of the population, have shown such tenacity to their faith that eight centuries of Mohammedan rule had left the masses as strongly wedded as ever to their system of caste and to their religious belief and rites. almost all other countries the Mohammedans had succeeded in proselytizing the people whom they had subjugated, but in India they found a religious system which had

In