on the introduction of every new labor-saving engine. The poor seamstress is hardly yet persuaded that the sewingmachine will not take the bread out of her mouth, instead of the ache out of her bones. It is worth while, therefore, to give the testimony of an independent, earnest thinker on this subject:

"Until the introduction of machinery," he says, "the individual had carried on his work mechanically, as he learned it from his forefathers; but he was as much enslaved in his work as he was by the power of the guild. But now came machinery, the various spinning and weaving machines, the steam-engine as a universal motive-power, and finally the railroad as an absolute means of communication. Not only because labor through these means increased in value, not only because a very much greater satisfaction of human needs now became possible; but because the individual now learned to recognize a whole new class of wants, is the machine of high social importance. Machine work takes the place of manual labor: it relieves man from constant toil, and makes him free in relation to work. This sounds a little paradoxical, when we look at the unfortunate operative, who seems, through the division of labor, to be reduced to a mere machine, or the screw of a machine, and whose labor has reached the lowest grade of involuntary slavery. But we must remember, that the direction of the industrial spirit is to reduce the amount of handiwork to its lowest possible point; so that, at last, the time will come when manual labor amounts to almost nothing, and every individual can give the greatest portion of his time and power to the development of his own individuality. In face of machinery, man does not appear as a single workman, but as an inexhaustible creative power; and this relation to work is the only one conformable to his nature."

The story of the period following the final fall of Napoleon at Waterloo is that of a dreary struggle between diplomacy and treachery on the part of the princes, and a confused and illregulated desire for freedom and constitutional rights among the people. The people had zeal and enthusiasm on their side; but they lacked unity and discipline. They differed in regard to the special objects to be gained, as well as the means of attaining them. Their vices and virtues alike stood in their way; they trusted in the promises of their princes,

who never scrupled to deceive them to any extent; and they condemned any lawless action of their own number, although justified by the severest suffering. On the other hand, the princes and their supporters, the re-actionists, were very clear in their aims, and entirely unscrupulous as to the means employed. If one looks only to success in his immediate object, it is a great convenience to get rid of conscience. Metternich was never troubled with any; or rather he held it like the Gorgon shield, always turning it towards his foes, but never, by any chance, looking upon it himself. The murder of a supposed Russian spy, the playwright Kotzebue, by a young enthusiast, whose conviction of the justice of his deed was so perfect, that he thanked God for it on his knees in the public street, struck a holy horror to the hearts of all re-actionists; but they quietly bore the imprisonment of numberless citizens on suspicions which the government knew to be entirely without foundation. They imagined conspiracies, and imprisoned conspirators, until at last the very thing they pretended became true.

When the Bourbon government had purged the army of all its anti-Bourbon members, no less than ten thousand officers being dismissed; when all the institutions of the Revolution-even the most benevolent and useful, like the celebrated Polytechnic School and French Institute- had been destroyed, - then the ultras boasted that the return to the times of 1789 was accomplished. But their triumph was short. The element of legislative reform was at work, and soon the elec tive franchise was extended to eighty thousand voters; and, in 1818, the old hero of the Revolution, Lafayette, took his place in the Chamber.

It is almost ludicrous to turn from the powerful struggles of the first French Revolution to that of 1830, fought on the middle ground for the supremacy of the "bourgeoisie," and led by that incarnation of policy and intrigue, Louis Philippe. Instead of the fierce mockery of St. Guillotine, and the horrible Carmagnole, what pleasant anecdotes of Louis Philippe's condescension! and what tender care of the wounded of both parties by his pious family! The people, who had fought the

battles in the streets on the glorious three days, were indeed somewhat astonished to find, that the result of the whole matter was only a new king. But who could at once find fault with a monarch so affable and familiar? A citizen-king was a novelty: it was worth while to see what might be its result.

"Whoever would listen to him might receive the assurance, that the North-American democracy was his political ideal, that his deepest affections clung to the Republic. He treated Lafayette and Lafitte, to the latter of whom indeed he mainly owed his crown, as his most intimate friends; and he affectionately pressed the hand of every citizen he met (first guarding his own from too close contact by a kid glove) with the same hand with which he wrote, in all submission to the Emperor Nicholas, that he had only climbed the throne in order to stop the progress of the revolution, and at least to save the remnants of legitimacy. With the same zeal with which he tried to convince the Parisians that he was king in spite of his Bourbon origin, he assured the cabinets that he stood at the head of France, because Bourbon blood flowed in his veins."

Contemptible as this double-dealing and hypocrisy appear, they mark the progress which the people had made since the days when kings and nobles looked upon them as beings of another race. The hypocrisy of Louis Philippe acknowledged the sovereignty of the people, as much as the honesty of Lafayette or the philosophy of Jefferson. The aim of Louis. Philippe was to establish a state without foundations; to rule it, not according to natural law, but by compromises. Le juste milieu was the true path, though it were midway between right and wrong, between heaven and hell. Le fait accompli settled all questions, although le fait were a deed of cruelty, injustice, and crime.

Yet, although the reign of Louis Philippe had powerful support in the wealth and industry of France, it was far from tranquil. The seeds of revolution were sprouting everywhere. Lyons uproars, attempts at assassination, secret conspiracies, were constantly occurring. It was evident that the government was sustained only by the dread of change. But

much as repose was needed, the price was too dear. Louis Philippe's fortune did not let him die on a throne. He presumed too far on the endurance of his nation, and they thrust him out of the place to which they had raised him.

As property became the ruling, and perhaps the tyrannizing, power, during the epoch succeeding the downfall of the legitimate Bourbons, we naturally find the revolutionary spirit re-acting against this undue influence, until even the extreme point of protest is reached, in the maxim of the French socialist, that "property is robbery." Social reform became the great problem. Political and personal liberty were to some extent secured; but the free right of labor, and the maintenance of physical existence, were questions which agitated the community. No longer demanding merely that government should cease to interfere with work, the workman claimed that government should provide work, and its ample reward. This is only possible in the sense that government should regulate all the work of the community and distribute all the proceeds, which only perfect wisdom or absolute tyranny can do. If, according to the doctrine of absolutism, all its land belongs to the king, and all the people also, then government is responsible for the fruits of the land and the results of labor; but, in the epoch of individual freedom, how can we demand from government the results of that industry which it has no power to compel or control? The advocates of association maintain, that, under favorable circumstances, industry will be so attractive, that all will labor for the common good with as much zeal as each one now does for his But this pleasing theory by no means meets the wants of the present time, when many clearly intend to consume as much, and to labor as little, as possible; and others are entirely unfit to work to any advantage. The laboring classes of our Southern States, before the war, made no complaint of want of work; but they were cheated of its results. So was it with the French subjects of absolute power. The evils of competition and isolated labor, which Dr. Springer feels so keenly, are a re-action from this forced union of capital and labor. He says,

own.

"With a faith hostile to nature and destructive to the soul, disappeared also the order of the hierarchy in state and church; with scientific ignorance, the narrowed form of labor. All the movements of the universal life were infused with the breath of freedom; all nearly concerned the right of individuals. But this freedom is rather a release from the old than the perfected form of a new political system, which may rule the world for centuries. . . Religious toleration, the ascendency of national feeling over political interests, the merely formal freedom of labor, the isolation of individuals and nations, are necessary steps from the form of society in the middle ages towards a new one; but they are not the new one, since they lack definite form and universal principles. . . . At any price, humanity will overcome her present isolation and division, and change the critical spirit of the time into a productive one. Already has this longing received a determined name, and the need has called into life many attempts to satisfy it. The social reform to be actualized in the new era forms the long-desired, positive side of the revolution, the last result of all the present struggle."

The aim of this reform is to attract men into a new unity, grounded on the essential laws of their nature, instead of binding them into a false and unnatural union by the outward pressure of arbitrary power. This is the ideal of a government, -unity of action with individual freedom. It is a distant future to long for, but it is also a present good to work for; for every right effort in any direction helps forward the grand consummation. It can never be obtained while the rights or well-being of any nation, class, or individual, are postponed to those of another.

This great movement underlies every partial reform of our times. In Hungary and Italy, it demands national independence; in England and France, education and bread for the working classes; in our country, social and political equality for the subject races, free schools for the South, and the equality of woman before the law. The universality of the claim shuts out all hope of speedy attainment. A sect may be quickly established, and do its narrow and special good with success, while the great truths of religion and morality, ever more widening their influence, are scarcely recognized as the motive-power of the world.

VOL. LXXXIII. -NEW SERIES, VOL. IV. NO. II.

16