I know of no more appalling example of the power of one life to influence another in far distant periods than that which is afforded by the strange and horrible history of the Maréchal de Retz. A man of noble birth, great wealth, great distinction as a soldier, and high in favour with his Sovereign, he took to the most horrible course of child-murder of which we have any narrative: and when at last driven to confession he made this statement as to the origin of his crimes. "The desire to commit these atrocities came upon me eight years ago. I left Court to go to Chansoncé that I might claim the property of my grandfather deceased. In the library of the castle I found a Latin book-Suetonius, I believe-full of accounts of the cruelties of the Roman emperors. I read the charming history of Tiberius, Caracalla, and other Cæsars, and the pleasure they took in watching the agonies of tortured children. Thereupon I resolved to imitate and surpass these same Cæsars, and that very night began to do so." *

Such a

If imitation be the moral mistress of our lives, she is also the religious mistress of our lives. It would be out of place for me to pursue this thought far. But of one thing there can be no doubt, that one of the mightiest forces in the propagation of religions consists, first, in the love which the founder has awakened in the breasts of his followers, and of those who through them have learned to know, and knowing, to love his character; and, secondly, in the force of the example of that founder, proportioned to the greatness and earnestness of his character, and to the love which he has awakened. statement would be true of great teachers like Confucius and Gautama. Such a statement is emphatically true of the great teachers of Christendom-of St. Augustine or St. Francis; and above all, I speak it with reverence, I believe that what I have said is pre-eminently true of Him whom we honour as our great pattern and example. No life, no personality, has ever attracted such an outcome of love and affection as that of Jesus of Nazareth; no life has ever been lived so worthy of imitation. That imitation which this love has produced has, in thousands of men's hearts, made a change, has literally turned and altered the course of their lives, has converted them-it has literally made them turn away from sin, and so the righteousness of Christ has made them just and holy men. Heaven forbid that I should say that this is all that Christ has done for man, but like Thomas à Kempis, or whoever wrote the "Imitation of Christ," I believe that to imitate Christ is to be holy, and that the desire to imitate Him has been, and still is, a most operative force in human society.

Now, here I cannot but ask my reader to look back with me on the road we have taken; we have considered the mimicry of the monkey,

* Paring-Gould's "Book of Were Wolves," pp. 229, 230.

the pantomime of the child, the force of imitation, conscious and unconscious, over the adult man. Is it the self-same faculty which enables men to imitate the pattern of Christ, and so to grow holy in His likeness? I believe that it is, not because I deem holiness to be anything low or physical, but because I believe that all nature points upwards, as by an unconscious prophecy and forecast, to the development of a moral and spiritual nature. "Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual."

EDW. FRY.

LABOUR IN PARLIAMENT.

[MAY

THO

HOUGH labour representation has not as yet attained any great proportions, it is more than thirty years since the idea first took form in this country. In 1857, my friend G. J. Holyoake, himself an artisan in his youth, and a man who has never lost sympathy and touch with the work-people, was a candidate for the representation of the Tower Hamlets. John Stuart Mill then sent a generous subscription and a letter of hearty approval. The same distinguished Radical supported Mr. George Odger when he, some years afterwards, came forward for Southwark. Both Mr. Holyoake and Mr. Odger were defeated. The same fate befell Mr. Cremer, Mr. Howell, and other labour candidates in 1868, and it was not until 1874 that the late Mr. Macdonald and myself were returned as the first direct labour representatives to the House of Commons. The desire for special representation of the workmen, and the power to give effect to that desire, have alike increased since 1857. The extension of the suffrage in 1885 gave a new impetus to the movement in favour of labour representation, and in the present Parliament there are nine members, including Mr. Cremer and Mr. Howell, who are recognized as coming under the category of working-class representatives. The term "labour representative," though not easy to define, perhaps requires some definition. It is sometimes contended that every member of Parliament who has himself been a workman is entitled to be called a labour representative. That would include men who have been fortunate speculators, who may have become millionaires, and large employers, and would be manifestly too wide. On the other hand, some deny that any labour member has yet found his way to the House of Commons. They maintain that it is not enough for a man to have been an artisan or labourer, but that he must continue to follow his calling when not attending

parliamentary duties; others go so far as to contend that a man is not a labour member who does not continue his ordinary employment even when Parliament is in session. This, in theory, may look well enough, but in practice it is impossible.

The House of Commons has itself practically decided the point. Those whom it has accepted as labour members are, without exception, men who worked at their respective trades, and who still maintain a close connection with large associated bodies of workmen, such associations selecting and recognizing them as their representatives and spokesmen.

I do not intend to discuss at length the question of labour representation in Parliament. I may be asked, however, whether the principle of special representation is sound, and whether there is sufficient justification for it in the circumstances of our time. Are not class members and class legislation evils to be avoided rather than benefits to be sought? Are there any reasonable demands of the workmen that would not be readily conceded by the House of Commons even if there were not a single direct representative of labour in that assembly? I frankly admit-indeed, I confidently assert that the sound doctrine, true for all time wherever representative government exists, is to select the candidate because of his character, his personal fitness, his general political agreement with the electors, and his ability to give effective expression to their opinions and convictions. The qualifications here enumerated are essential and vital; they are of much greater moment than the social status or the position in life to which the candidate belongs.

These sentiments are neither original nor profound. More than fifteen years ago, in my first speech, when responding to a requisition inviting me to be a candidate for the House of Commons, I declared that the workmen did not ask for class representation, but they resented class exclusion. I controverted the opinion, which had then, as it has now, its advocates, that labour members should not be politicians, but only class representatives, and I contended that while in a great industrial centre the candidate should thoroughly understand labour questions, still the one true principle was to select a member on the grounds of his personal character and his fitness to represent his constituents. The only justification for re-stating these commonplaces is that they are not unimportant, and they are too often ignored alike by candidates and by electors.

The best member, therefore, I repeat, is he who is free from class bias, who looks at every question on broad grounds of justice and humanity, who will speak and vote for what is right, though it may cut prejudice against the grain, and may militate against his own interests. Such members we have-mine-owners, railway directors, large employers of labour, who can be just and humane even when Mine Regulation Bills

Not only are

and Employers' Liability Bills are under consideration. these men in the House of Commons, but they come in increasing numbers, and there were never so many of them there as now. Do these admissions destroy or even weaken the claim for labour representation? I think not. The ideal to be aimed at is one thing, the actual realized is another. It may be desirable to get rid of classes and class distinctions. To abolish class animosities and class prejudices is certainly devoutly to be wished.

Officers of the army

But classes we have, and class representation. and of the navy, members of the legal and of the medical professions, railway directors, manufacturers, and mine-owners, bankers, financiers, and landlords, abound in our legislative assemblies. They assert the claims and they share the prejudices of the class or profession to which they belong. Only the few can wholly emancipate themselves from the prepossessions of their birth and their surroundings. Moreover, special knowledge is needed quite as much as good-will; and labour has certainly taken a higher position since working-men entered Parliament than it occupied before. When equality of fortune is established, or when men generally have emancipated themselves from class bias, then class representation will no longer be requisite. Meanwhile it is not only defensible, but it is necessary that the opinions, the interests, yea, even the very prejudices, of the workmen. should find forcible expression in Parliament.

This view will not perhaps be seriously contested. The House of Commons should be as far as possible a faithful reflex of the nation. The labour members cannot complain of their reception by the House. Whatever its faults and failings may be-and it has many that assembly is, so far as its own members are concerned, thoroughly democratic. It believes in, and practises, equality, and is free alike from condescension and from arrogance. Let a member know in substance what he is talking about-let him talk straight at the House-not up to it, still less down to it-and the House will accord him a fair hearing and will make generous allowance for his bluntness and inaccuracies of speech. Probably there is no place in the world where social position counts for less than in the British House of Commons. It may be unfair in its judgment of a man, but it never measures him by a mean standard; it estimates him by his character and ability, not by the extent of his possessions, and cares just as much or just as little for a peasant as for a lord. The same cannot be said with equal truth of any other assembly of English

men.

It cannot be contended that the work-people-who, according to Comte, are not so much a class, as the nation-have ever pushed to an extreme their demand for special representation. They have, indeed, always stopped far short of their legitimate claims. Whatever their