development through the progress that was made by the English realm, and recognised that a national policy for the realm as a whole was generally beneficial.

There was a general aspiration after national prosperity because it offered some security for that self-determination which so many people are trying to secure for themselves now. National prosperity on the basis of national power was an object which the nation had in view all through the domestic differences of the seventeenth century, and which it pursued with extraordinary success. The fear of the encroachment of Spain was set at rest by the result of the Armada, but a fear of the overweening power of France took its place. England had only been a fifth-rate Power in the time of Elizabeth, but the persistent national will built up a national prosperity which at the Battle of Trafalgar gave her a maritime supremacy which seemed to render it unnecessary to pursue national prosperity or national power any longer.

Without discussing the question whether this indifference to national power was not carried too far, and exposed us to terrible risks of being actually if not formally subordinated to the machinations of another world Power, it is worth pointing out that a new and worthier aspiration was put forward during the closing years of the eighteenth century, and has come

more and more to the front during the nineteenth through the efforts of philanthropists on the one side, and through the struggle of trade unions to improve the standard of living. The end in view with all of us in the present day is the wider diffusion of the mastery over physical comfort which the industrial revolution has brought within our reach, and national prosperity is no longer sought for as a means to increase political power over other nations, but as a means of improving the conditions of life of our own people.

National prosperity is not a thing that can be left to take care of itself in the present day, when commerce is no longer chiefly concerned in facilitating the exchange of native products, but so many nations are rivals in the manufacture of industrial products, and ready to engage in cut-throat competition with these rivals. However, national prosperity is no longer to be sought for or valued as a means of increasing political power as against other nations, but as a means of securing greater and more widely diffused political welfare at home; and there are two different methods which are suggested as means for bringing the increased possibilities of the age of invention to bear on the condition of the masses.

The best hope of an immediate remedy seems to lie in some effort at levelling down, so that those who have more of the good things of

life than they can enjoy should be forced to forgo some of them, and the wealth thus obtained be distributed so as to relieve some of the masses from the miseries of their condition. There are, of course, great practical difficulties in deciding what is too much and how it is to be taken away, and to whom, in particular, among many claimants, it is to be given. But the proposal itself seems to be quite inadequate the level which could be provided for the masses generally would not afford a satisfactory standard of life. There is the danger, too, that the process of levelling down would not only affect some individuals, but also react upon society at large. It is to be feared that a substantial and habitual levy on wealth might remove much of the incentive to diligence and enterprise in society, so that there would be a diminution of national prosperity and a decrease in the amount available for the maintenance of the standard of comfort.

On the other hand, the effort to maintain the human energies which are available in society opens out the possibilities of continued progress, which can be used more and more for improving the standard of life. Every increase in the productive power of labour or of machinery sets labour free to cater for some other human requirements. As the masses of population develop more varied powers of enjoyment and new tastes, they will put forth new requirements and

desire new elements in their standard of comfort, and it is only by an increase of the productive power of society that these new requirements can be met in whatever form they may show themselves.

Co-operation for common objects is essential if the standard of life is to be maintained and improved. There are many among us who may be caught up and carried away by enthusiasm for a common aim, and who give a direction to the general will, but there is likely to be need for political authority to remove hindrances from the attainment of a common aim, and to bring pressure on the recalcitrant and the laggards, so that they shall not prevent its accomplishment.

SUBMISSION to authority is, as we have seen, essential to the life of any State-without it there can be no corporate action, and no persistence in a settled policy either as regards internal affairs or the relations with other people. It is requisite in every kind of State-in the tribe or clan, where there is a patriarchal head; in the city, where a citizen is elected by his fellows to hold sway; in a monarchy, or in a great empire; none of them can hold together in act unless there is recognition of authority and submission to it. A community is merely weak where there is no possibility of a settled policy and no reliance on effective action. The submission may be extorted, or it may be freely rendered, but no community can dispense with it; the claim to it has been asserted in its most extreme form by the Bolsheviks, who have protested loudly against other forms of government.

The modern democracy differs from other forms of government, not in dispensing with authority, or by regarding the citizens as men who can do as they like, but by trusting the citizens themselves to exercise authority; and thus the democratic citizen is not only a subject, but he himself helps to exercise sovereignty in the State. He is called upon not only to be a good subject, but to have the virtues of a good monarch.