sidered in anticipation of a possible new election for the Reichstag. If there is to be a dissolution it will not be long delayed, and everything should be prepared for so probable a contin

gency.

It is especially necessary that these elections should not be entered on without careful preparation. Given the dissolution, the question at issue will be no longer the simple question of the fate of the military programme, it will involve also the fate of the Chancellor, and deal with an absolutely incalculable political future. On this point the electors must not by any means be kept in ignorance. The fall of Count Caprivi will be the fall, not merely of an isolated statesman, but of a sys

tem.

In the present Chancellor of the Empire is embodied the idea that a guiding statesman of the German Empire, following only the bent of his own genius and sense of duty, and the wishes of the monarch, can place himself above parties, without continuing to intrigue, a la Bismarck, against popular representation. This military-honorable absolutism, clothed in parliamentary forms, must sooner or later be shattered, just as the Bismarckian-diplomatic-unscrupulous absolutism was. Count Caprivi might have earned for himself an honorable record in German history if, realizing the impracticability of the prescribed course, he had simply guided the Ship of State into the smooth water of constitutionalism. That would have been a statesmanlike measure of the first order. Instead, he is simply affording his predecessor an unexpected, malicious triumph. With his downfall we shall enter on a new phase of our political development.

Bismarckian methods could no longer be followed out even by Bismarck himself. In later years, they achieved no solid results. Count Caprivi, too, will fail to transmit his measures to his successors.

What adventurous attempts will be made to hinder the Reichstag from acquiring a direct influence on the Government, it is impossible to forecast. Of one thing, however, we may be assured, that the defeat of the present Chancellor would be the signal for the Prussian Junkers to assail the Emperor with the most extravagant proposals.

If the next Reichstag proves preponderatingly Liberal, one may hope that the vain desires of Junkerdom will inflict no very serious damage. But if the electors show themselves indifferent, or wanting in decision, and content themselves with a simple rejection of the military programme, they will afford ample occasion for the conclusion that the German people are not yet ripe for self-government, and must continue to be kept in order with the police-staff of absolutism.

All the more is it imperative on us advanced Liberals, in the event of its coming to a dissolution, to stake the last man and the last penny to secure a favorable election.

WHO

THE ARMY PROPOSALS.

Preussische Jahrbücher, Berlin, November. HOEVER reads the German papers now-a-days, and hears the discussions of the people, must believe that the world is being turned topsy-turvy. The Government contemplates putting forward a monstrous proposition to which scarcely any party in the Reichstag is willing to lend its support. How can the Government hope that a Bill so generally unpopular, can be pushed through the Reichstag? And what will be the position of the Government if it fail in so fundamental an undertaking? The strengthening of the army by nearly 100,000 men is a measure which a Government can and will adopt only when it is thoroughly convinced of its unavoidable necessity. If we could prudently confront the dangers of the future with our present army, the Government which has done so much for the industrial prosperity of the Nation, would surely avoid the imposition of such heavy burdens unnecessarily. But if, reviewing the international conditions, it deems an increase to the army necessary, it dare not waive even a fraction of its demands. The responsibility for one lost battle

is so terrible, that no sacrifice, no difficulty, no strife may be shrunk from to wring a constitutional support from the opposing forces. Under our Constitution, the responsibility rests primarily with the Government; but the Reichstag shares the responsibility, although in a secondary degree, and woe to those who, accepting these positions of responsibility, show themselves too weak to make timely provision for future war: the curse of the Nation would rest on them in time and through eternity. For a Government and a King, who have committed themselves to a demand for an additional 100,000 men to strengthen the army, there is no retreat. If they drop the measure while convinced of its necessity, they are guilty of unpardonable weakness. If they withdraw on the admission that it is not absolutely necessary, they expose themselves to the grave charge of trifling with the industrial and political forces of the country. How are we to escape from this dilemma? The Government-not merely the Chancellor-can not retreat, and in the Reichstag there is no prospect of the adoption of the

measure.

Happily the situation is not quite so desperate as it appears. The Reichstag is no longer divided into the two great camps of the Government and the Opposition. Naturally the Government has been drawn into the most intimate relations with the Conservatives and the Moderates, but there is no party which holds it its duty to rally to the support of a Government measure. The natural attitude of all parties to a measure of which they do not yet know the merits, is to oppose it. It was not to be expected that any party would give the measure its enthusiastic or unqualified support. The principal opposition is a mere outburst of physical energy; the majority, while criticising details, withhold their decision. When the proposed measure shall be authenticated and placed in every hand, and the Chancellor of the Empire, in the name of the Emperor and associated Governments, shall earnestly and impressively lay before the responsible representatives of the people the causes which impel the Government to impose these heavy burdens, showing that it is necessary to save our people from grave impending or future peril, a very material change will show itself in the attitude of the Reichstag.

But to secure a thoroughly earnest support to its measure, it is necessary that the Government shall make such concessions to the Reichstag as that body shall deem necessary to the maintenance of the fundamental principle of constitutional rights. In so far as the provisions of the Bill have been made known, it contains many points calculated to make an unsatisfactory-a very unsatisfactory-impression. It is

not my purpose here to go into details, only I venture to say here and now, emphatically, that, as the measure now stands, or appears to stand, it cannot pass. It exhibits, however, essential features that may be modified without danger.

Army statistics are naturally made the basis of army-reform measures, but statistics may be misleading. In our case they embrace not only the young men fitted for active service but their fathers and even grandfathers also. The same difficulty besets any attempt at a comparison of our own forces with those of rival nations; but that numbers are of overwhelming importance in war goes without saying. "Battle is a divine ordeal," says a French proverb, but we know by experience that the dear God shows a decided bias in favor of the strongest battalions. The problems, "How many men have the French? How many have the Russians? How many have the Dreibund," although interesting by way of illustration, have practically no definite value, because, apart from mere numbers, there are numerous other important factors to be considered in all their bearings before we can arrive at a reliable estimate of the comparative strength of the opposing forces. Moreover, in war it is necessary not only that our strength should equal that of the enemy, but that it should surpass it if possible. The one safe basis of action, then, in view of the existing international position is to raise our mil

itary force to the highest point which our political and economical conditions admit of. France was so utterly and disgracefully defeated in 1870 because she was wanting in the intelligence and self-sacrifice necessary to make adequate provision for war in time of peace. It was in 1867 that the French Chamber rejected Marshal Niel's proposal for army-reorganization, and one Deputy laid down the maxim that those nations are most powerful which most reduce their military forces, as they thereby augment their resources. They want to convert France into one great barrack-yard!" "Take care," said the Marshal, "that you do not convert it into one great grave-yard."

EVE

SOCIOLOGICAL.

LABOR TROUBLES AND THE TARIFF.

CHARLES J. HARRAH.

Engineering Magazine, New York, December.

VER since the Tower of Babel was left in an unfinished condition, the question of the value of labor is the one which has most occupied men's minds, and which is most distasteful to the contemplation of all men. At no time heretofore has this question assumed in this country the proportions attained this year, and at no time has it become so necessary for both employer and employed to give it sober thought and consideration.

During the past year we have seen civil war waged in four distinct sections of the country; troops have been called out, martial law proclaimed, and indictments for treason, murder, and conspiracy found by grand juries; lives and property have been destroyed and reckless threats made of still worse to come and all this in the midst of the greatest nation in the world and in an epoch of unparalleled prosperity. Surely there must be some cause for these tragedies and some remedy.

The cause is easily found. Dissatisfaction at the wages offered, and the folly of a handful of ignorant demagogues on the one hand, and on the other tyrannical assumption of power and woful want of tact on the part of subordinates, which necessitated the endorsement of superiors of orders which would never have been countenanced by them if submitted to their approval beforehand. That the remedy for this state of affairs should be martial law and criminal indictments no thinking man would ever admit. Troops cannot be maintained for any period of time at the expense of a State for the purpose of permitting a corporation to mine coal, to run a railroad, or to operate a steel-plant. Nor will a striking switchman, a miner, or a plate-roller care much about the consequences of a trial for treason in the presence of hungry wife and children. But by such a trial the ignorant demagogue who has brought about all the trouble, is raised from a loudmouthed brawler to a hero in the eyes of his fellow-men, and, no matter what the result of his trial, he has attained the pinnacle of his ambition.

It is at such periods, when the different trade-unions could exert such a beneficent effect upon both employer and employed, that the leaders almost invariably give proof of their total incapacity to deal with the emergency. Conciliatory efforts on the part of employers are regarded as proofs of weakness and met with demands which cannot be conceded without injury to personal dignity. Nevertheless, these tradesunions are a necessary guard for the protection of the men against the encroachments of employers.

It seems impossible to find a remedy without an appeal to Federal legislation. There are three measures on the side of the men and three on the part of the employers, the passage of which would prove beneficial.

First, as to employers. The way to keep English mechanics from coming here to compete with Americans is to permit them to stay at home. This can be accomplished by

the removal of such customs duties as are now depriving then of work by shutting down their mills. The effect of the reduction or removal of prohibitive duties would be to open to us the markets we have closed against ourselves, to reduce the cost of manufacture, and extend production and consumption by lessening the price to the consumer, and thus increase the number of the employed by the extension of production. Steady employment at low wages is in the end far more remunerative to the workers than higher wages with the certainty of periodical shut-downs.

The second necessary condition is an honest currency. If the existing Silver Coinage Law is not repealed, it must inevitably result in a depreciated currency, and rob the wage-earners for the exclusive benefit of the silver-mine owners.

The third condition is the most important, and also by far the most difficult to impose. As the Federal Government is strictly responsible for the employer's rascality in paying his workmen in debased money, so it is also responsible for the action of the dishonest merchant in selling adulterated goods; for the tariff has not only fostered, but it has actually put a premium on adulteration. Let shoddy be taxed and wool made free, and not only will the manufacture of shoddy be discontinued, but the farmer will sell his wool at better prices than ever before.

Now for the side of the men.

The most efficacious way of increasing the earning power of each individual man is for him to decline to accept any labor except at piece-work prices. Then the skilled mechanic will not be placed on a level with the clumsy artisan.

The second condition should be the adoption of the eighthour system. The present hours of work are too long and leave too little time for healthful amusement. Under the eight-hour system a greater number of men could be employed the mills working three turns of eight hours.

The third condition is arbitration of all disputes, whether strikes, lockouts, or disagreements of any kind. The establishment of a tribunal of arbitration would defeat infamous conspiracies on the part of employers, and would also prevent men from taking advantage of any critical state of the market, or of the conditions of a contract, to make onerous or unjust demands on the employer.

FOR

SOCIAL DERELICTION IN FRANCE.

PAUL LEROY-BEAULIEU.

L'Economiste Français, Paris, November 12.

OR a long time past we have been pointing out the signs, which have been getting more and more accentuated, of the desertion of their social duties by those who are bound to perform them. The perils which accumulate therefrom increase every day. Our Government does not perform its essential and principal function, which is to protect every one's liberty and property, to cause the laws to be executed, and to enforce the judgments of the judicial tribunals.

The explosion in the Rue des Bons-Enfants, with the five deaths it has caused, is a frightful event, especially as coming after five other explosions, analogous, though less fatal, in the same year.

This catastrophe, moreover, is still graver on account of all the circumstances which have produced it, than by itself alone. It is a symptom of a sort of social decomposition, of which the Government and a great part of the press, without regard to parties, are the unconscious accomplices.

During the last ten years, it has been the fashion, in ninetenths of the journals of all shades of opinion, in the professions of faith made by candidates for a Deputy's seat, even in drawing-rooms, somewhat in professors' chairs, but especially in the Chamber of Deputies, to aid in spreading the falsest, most disturbing, and most exciting ideas about the organization of society and pretended social injustice.

Instead of looking at society as the necessities of the

nature of man and exterior nature form it; instead of making an exact and equitable balance-sheet of the incontestable progress accomplished and which continues to be accomplished every day; instead of searching patiently and loyally for gradual measures which may help, in time, the amelioration of all classes of society without exception; instead of holding on energetically to work, to saving, to the spirit of combination and initiative, to the practice of free association, to the successive application in the different departments of life and work of the discoveries of science, every one or most every one keeps on repeating, like the flock which bleats, that society is badly organized, that it has classes which are disinherited and oppressed, that the turn of these has come, that you must trouble yourself about the "humble" only, that the present age should be "the age of pity," and so on, ad infinitum.

All this nonsense, which ought to creep into empty skulls alone, nowadays fills nearly all heads, and is poured forth in obscure, but sonorous and exciting, phrases from all mouths.

By preaching to people that they are unfortunate and unjustly treated, they end by believing it. As many persons are not resigned to misfortune and injustice, it results that some bigheads believe that it is permissible to do anything against that society which everybody declares to be badly organized.

That there are natural laws for the economic organization of society is something about which no one appears to care. That wages cannot be raised much without an increase in the productive power of the workman; that capital cannot become bold and enterprising, and consequently employ and pay workmen, save on the conditions of having guarantees of security and, exposed as it is to frequent losses, of retaining for itself the profits it realizes when it is well directed and seconded by favorable circumstances—all this is no longer thought worth considering by frivolous people, who talk about a thing which they have never studied.

That employers are men as respectable as the workmen, and even generally, when they have, as is frequently the case in France, made their own position, a little more intelligent and a little more energetic than the average workman; that the employers have as much right as the workmen to the protection of the law and the police, all that seems now relegated to a place among the superstitions of bygone days.

Laws are made by which the employer is treated like a suspicious person, almost like a malefactor. It is assumed that he is naturally an inhuman being. After having thus held him up to the general hostility, surprise is expressed when some illbalanced brain makes a revolting attack on a class of men who are systematically pointed out as fit subjects for public hatred.

The malady in France is a general malady, which has largely increased for some years, and particularly for some months past. It is at the same time a political and social malady. From a political point of view, the evil consists in the Government being composed of people who appear to retain naught but the empty title of Minister, without performing any of its functions. They are men who every day capitulate wholesale and retail, who retain no effective authority, and who contribute towards weakening more and more justice, the police, and the administration.

From a social point of view, the evil consists in a flood of excessive and frivolous sentimentality, resembling that which was the fashion towards the end of the thirteenth century, and which has culminated in disasters, in forgetfulness of all the natural laws on which production and the division of products rest, in constantly increasing concessions, in actions and words, in Socialism, in the adoption of its formula by a crowd of light-headed people and seekers for popularity.

If a salutary change does not take place in the ideas of the Government and the public, if there is no return to a general understanding of the energy necessary in the practice of public and private duties, if people continue to indulge in lamen

tations over the pretended injustice of the social organization; if they continue to excite by words and imprudent promises among the great mass of the people a hope of greatly altering this organization; if they do not clearly proclaim that there is no possible way of improving the condition of society except gradually and by one step after another, as has always been the case, and that Socialism is a pure chimera; then there is every reason to fear that moral anarchy will keep on growing, and that we are at the beginning only of disturbances of every kind.

FALLACIES OF MODERN ECONOMISTS.
ARTHUR KITSON.

Popular Science Monthly, New York, December. F modern sciences, none stands more discredited by the The cause of this becomes apparent when we consider the contradictory nature of the theories taught by modern economists, the utterly discordant answers given to social problems, and the extreme divergence of the paths proposed for reaching social happiness.

We are informed by one economist that the cause of all, or nearly all, crime and misery is the system of private ownership in land; another attributes it to the profit-system, another to industrial warfare engendered by competition, another to privileges granted by governments to favored classes and individuals, another to the drink-traffic, etc. The remedies proposed are equally varied. One school says nationalize the land; another, confine taxation to land; another,nationalize all the instruments and means of production; while another prescribes a system of coöperation. One favors the enlargement of the powers and scope of the Government, and another insists on the annihilation of all governments. Small wonder, therefore, that the reader should lack faith in the teachings of a system whose doctors so thoroughly disagree.

Mr. George contradicts his own argument on several points in different parts of his book. State Socialism and philosophical Anarchism are generally supposed to be antipodal to each other; the one achieving its results by the welding of men into a rigid whole, the other dividing society into its units. The one has a single eye to the freedom of the individual, and trusts to luck as to the destiny of society; the other sees only the social union and equality of all, trusting to chance to take care of individual freedom.

If human experience is to be taken for anything, neither Socialism nor Anarchism can work out as their advocates would have us believe. Economics is not an exact science. We have not yet arrived at that point where we can predict events. The fact that among economists there are so many contradictions, shows the want of a scientific basis for their theories. One cause of the disagreement among modern economists is the misapplication of the law of induction. Inductive reasoning is safe only when conducted on proper lines and carried out to the fullest extent. The interminable contention between the schools of free trade and protection is largely due to this kind of imperfect reasoning. "Your theories are all very fine," exclaims the protectionist; "but we prove our case by facts, cold facts." And, carefully examining his collection of instances, you find them to consist of a specially assorted lot of isolated cases that apparently favor his theory. all others being carefully avoided or rejected. We are told that high wages are a necessary consequence of high protection, while free trade produces low wages. Now for the proof! In the United States, a protective country, wages are higher than in free-trade England! The free trader naturally asks why the protectionist confines his instances to just these two countries. If inductive reasoning is to be applied, why not collect every possible instance? The results would be: Russia, Germany, Austria, France, Spain, and Italy, are all "protected" countries -some highly protected. Wages in each of these are far lower

than in Great Britain. Again, in the free-trade colony of New South Wales wages have been, and I understand are still, higher than in this country, and in parts of Africa, where no tariff exists, wages are extremely high. On the other hand, in China, where "protection" has existed longer than in any other country, and where it has reached its highest state of consistency, wages are lower than anywhere else on the globe. Once more:

Cold facts" show that the standard of living

and rates of wages among English workers have been and are much higher under free trade than they were under protection. Society is not so much one machine as a multitude of small machines, each acted on by various forces, the resultant of which is an unknown and interminable quantity. It is impossible to draw a complete dividing line separating producers from non-producers; nor can we draw a line separating capitalists from laborers. If we accept the basis laid down by economists for the determination of "rights," we cannot escape from the system known as profits. I contend that much of the present evils afflicting society is due to too great a prevalence of Nature's laws, and to too little practice of the moral law. So long as reformers endeavor to work out their respective systems by an appeal to the so-called science of political economy, and persistently ignore the moral phase of the question, so long must society wait in vain for the realization of its dreams.

Is there, then, no solution to the great social problem of poverty? In my judgment the parent of most of the prevalent misery is overlooked. The cause is the parents themselves. If that part of society whose common condition is poverty did not make themselves so cheap, they need be in no such condition. While bountiful harvests of children continue with such exasperating regularity, we must expect to see the worst part of humanity cast out and trodden under foot, literally left to rot as useless, so long as society is as it is. Why should men make themselves so cheap? If ever the doctrine of “restriction" needed enforcement, it is here, by restricting the supply, and so enhancing the prices of men. Involuntary pauperism and its attending evils will cease whenever the demand for men runs ahead of the supply.

Professor Huxley has exposed at length the baselessness of the theory of "natural rights." The rights we prize so dearly are, in fact, artificial rights—man-made, granted, and secured by society. The natural condition is slavery. The civilized, the artificial, is freedom.

The attractive force that has drawn so many to study these social questions is human affection. I believe that the ground, and the only one, upon which permanent results can be built will be an ethical one. When every one is governed by his noblest impulses, in place of selfish instincts, poverty and misery will begin to disappear.

Too soon,

This king, which ultimately proved such a monster, was enthroned by Mr. Thomas Attwood, M. P., a Birmingham banker, who began the Chartist movement as a step towards the establishment of a one-pound paper currency. however, this gentleman found that it is one thing to create and quite another to subject. The thing he had created to assist him with this paper-money chimera soon revolted from him and scouted his idea. He preached activity at first, and with mob-kings activity is merely a fine name for violence,-and

when he saw how active his offspring had become, he counselled peace. It was then too late. The Chartist king was firmly seated upon his throne, and words alone were incapable of deposing him.

The Chartists drew up a petition to Parliament, setting forth their demands. The roll of paper was three miles long, and it contained no less than 1,250,000 signatures. It was about four feet in diameter when rolled up. It was girded round with hoops and drawn in a van ornamented with ribbons and banners, and was conveyed by Chartists with rosettes in their bosoms, to the house of Mr. Fielden, Panton street, Haymarket, on Tuesday, May the 14th, 1839. If nothing more had been produced than this, it would have been enough to show that the Chartist king had a million and a quarter of subjects at his back, ready to do his bidding.

A Chartist was once told by a gentleman that the army, yeomanry, and police, which were just then being generally inaugurated, would render all the efforts of the Chartists ineffective. To this the son of violence replied that the forces would be of no use, as the people could "Moscow," by every man setting fire to his own house! This was the doctrine of anarchy with a vengeance, and a development of the Chartist movement which, it may be safely assumed, its sponsors had not taken into consideration.

At the National Convention, held in London in May, 1839,

a certain Dr. McDowall reminded the audience of what the people of France effected by the pike, and said that the pike was an excellent instrument for obtaining the gun. The blaze of the rocket brigade would soon be followed by the glare of of the rural blaze. The incendiary doctor was right. In a short time the country towns and villages were aflame. The rural mind had caught alight, wrongs were to be righted; the poor were to change places with the rich, the pike and the torch were to work wonders. And work wonders they did, though not the wonders the Chartists had looked for.

Women were not passive onlookers in the game of disorder. They were as bellicose as the men and did not wait for the men to give them the cue. At Newcastle, the Chartists advised their members to withdraw their money from the saving banks to buy pikes with, no doubt,—and also hinted at a refusal to pay rent. The ladies of Newcastle wanted no further incitement. When the owners called upon their tenants for the May-day rent, the answer came in the true Chartist vein, "Wait till Moonda, and then we'll see whether t'hoose is yors or mine." This was not only a refusal to pay rent, but it was a threat to steal houses as well, which was one of the boldest schemes that even a Chartist dame could have premeditated.

If the weapons of Chartism were of a dangerous kind the literature and oratory of the order was no less vigorous. The eloquence that speakers impart to any great movement, lawful or lawless, in time takes a place in the literature of that country in which the movement occurs, and becomes historical.

With such chaste orators to plead his cause, the mob king stood in no danger of lacking recruits. Perhaps one of the best and noblest who seemed to be won over to his side, and who, at least, was found to speak up for the Chartists, was Lord Brougham, The Edinburgh Reviewer," who made a poet of Lord Byron owing to his severe criticism of the "Hours of Idleness."

In July, 1839, the mob king had loosed his myrmidons in the streets of Birmingham, and gave them the rein. They assembled in the Bull Ring of the town, in which they were created by Mr. Attwood. It was perhaps fitting that the place where they were hatched, should have a taste of their quality; should have a practical illustration of what the mob king and his monsters were capable of doing.

The first thing a mob does is to attack institutions that represent money. In the Bull Ring at Birmingham, the first order given was to extinguish the lights. This was speedily

1

done; the lamp-heads were smashed, and the posts broken down. Then the regular looting began. The shops of obnoxious persons—and shopocracy always incurs the hatred of mobs were unceremoniously entered, and the goods thrown into the ring. To break down the shutters and doors, the merry men of the Chartist king had torn up the palisading from around the Nelson Monument, and with these iron weapons they battered in the defenseless timber. When the pile of pillage reached the height of a miniature Ossa, the torch was applied, and, as the flames rose high and lit up the Bull-Ring with a frightful giare, the Chartists rent the air with their cries, as though they were cheering for a great victory.

Victory indeed; the victory of madness over the rational creature! From firing plunder to firing houses in which people are unsuspectingly sleeping is only one step in the stride of anarchy, and this step was taken by the Bull Ring rioters. They took the torch to several houses, and ruthlessly set them ablaze; and when a two-horse fire-engine drove up, the firemen were compelled, on pain of death, to lash their horses off and leave the tenements to burn, and the inmates to escape the best they could. What fine work for a king and his men! The damage done by the mob ere it could be checked amounted to a sum of £40,000.

Sentences of transportation upon some of the Bull Ring rioters did not quite stamp out the power of the Chartists. The mob king pursued his now slowly conquering way from John o' Groat's to Land's End. Although he issued printed instructions to his followers as to how to burn houses down, with a "spoonful of vitriol, a spoonful of turpentine, and a spoonful of saltpetre mixed together," his reign was fast drawing to a close. To overthrow a dynasty like his was one of the greatest victories in mob warfare.

most prodigious wit" [See THE LITERARY DIGEST, Vol. V., No. 15, p. 402], Bacon habitually presented copies of his philosophical works to Matthew, and in another letter addressed to him in Spain, Bacon speaks of his great works the " Advancement of Learning," the history of Henry VII, and the Essays. As "wit," in the idiom of the time, stood in general for intellect, I contend that in the sentence quoted, there is no reference to any other than the philosophical works. If the statement be not thus general, the reference is undoubtedly to Galileo. Sections 5 and 6.—In the case of great contemporary writers, marked by depth of thought, knowledge of the world and man, a wide range of subjects, and a mastery of language, we may multiply parallelisms. We may collect parallelisms between Robert Greene and the Promus; e. g., Mrs. Pott compares Promus, 477, "All is not gold that glisters," with the Merchant of Venice," All that glisters is not gold"; Greene (Metamorphosis) has it, "All is not gold that glisters." We have in the Promus, 945, "I will hang the bell about the catte's neck": for this Mrs. Pott finds no parallel in the plays. We have in Greene, "Tush, cannot the cat catch mice, but she must have. a bell hanged at her ear?" Mrs. Pott's parallels to the Promus are for the most part vague, and, worse than this, she often misses Bacon's point. This topic was long ago anticipated by Dr. Samuel Johnson, an unrivaled critic in universal knowledge of English literature. He says (Preface to Shakespeare, p. 36):

There are a few passages which may pass for imitation, but so few that the exception only confirms the rule; he obtained them from accidental quotations or by oral communication, and, as he used what he had, would have used more if he had obtained it.

Section 7.-The argument here is, Bacon speaks much of flowers, and the author of the plays speaks much of flowers. Therefore, etc. But the author of the plays was a poet, and all

SHA

HAKESPAERE holds the title to the property and he cannot be lightly ousted from possession. The onus lies upon the claimants; it is for them to invalidate the title of the possessor and make good their own, by evidence and matter of fact. I confine myself herein to the evidence, such as it is, adduced by the claimants for Bacon. If this evidence be worthless, the claimant has no case.

Sections 1, 2, and 3.-The intellect and learning of Bacon, and the learning and eminence of his family, are undisputed. The suggestion that if he wrote for the stage he might probably have concealed his authorship from motives of interest or -ambition, is a matter of opinion and conjecture; when it is proved that Bacon wrote the plays, it will be time enough to imagine motives for concealment.

Section 4.-It was impossible that the "token" acknowledged by Sir Toby Matthew, was the folio of 1623; the date of the "token' was April 9th, and that of the folio was the 8th of the following November. As to the sentence beginning "The

* A very full digest of this whole elaborate discussion was begun in THE LITERARY DIGEST, Vol. V., No. 12, p. 316, and continued in No. 15, p. 402; No. 16, p. 432; No. 20, p. 540; and No. 25, p. 679. The discussion is further continued in Vol. VI., No. 3, p. 63; No. 4, p. 91; and No. 5, p. 120. The above are by Mr. Edwin Reed; the articles in Vol. V. being devoted to an argument in favor of the claimant, and those in Vol. VI. to a brief for the defendant. Dr. Nicholson now comes into the discussion with his brief for the defendant. The sections of Mr. Reed's brief for the plaintiff which are now specially traversed, may be found in Vol. V., Nos. 15 and 16. Tbe discussion will be continued next week.

speak of flowers. Moreover, the phenomena of flowers and trees are so full of beauty that the mere statement of the facts is poetry. Take, for instance, a chapter from Pliny, Nat. Hist. lib. xvi., 40. The prose of the philosopher is an Horatian ode without metre.

Section 8.-The contents of the old box found in 1867 are straws grasped at in lack of evidence. From the loose and misleading statement in the plaintiff's brief, it might be supposed that we have here the handwriting of Bacon. Not so. In this old box, found in Northumberland House, Strand, there lay, among other things, a rough MS. book, somewhat injured by fire, having a paper cover inscribed with a list of contents, as follows: