ing produced by great acts of wrong, or to the belief that

-"to reclaim savage tribes to civilization, and to place the outlying dominions of civilized countries which are anarchical or grossly misgoverned in the hands of rulers who govern wisely and uprightly, are sufficient justification for aggression and conquest. Many who, as a general rule would severely censure an unjust and unprovoked war, carried on for the purpose of annexation by a strong Power against a weak one, will excuse or scarcely condemn such a war if it is directed against a country which has shown itself incapable of good

government.»

But even in such cases he does not allow that wars are undertaken from purely philanthropic motives, holding that

-"the philanthropy of nations, when it takes the form of war and conquest, is seldom or never unmixed with selfishness, though strong gusts of humanitarian enthusiasm often give an impulse, a pretext, or a support to the calculated actions of statesmen. But when wars, however selfish or unprovoked, contribute to enlarge the boundaries of civilization, to stimulate real progress, to put an end to savage customs, to oppression, or to anarchy, they are now very indulgently judged even in the many cases in which the inhabitants of the conquered Power do not desire the change and resist it strenuously in the field.»

The author condemns the systematic, persistent, and deliberate fostering of class, race, and international hatreds by the press, and the falsehoods wilfully circulated to attain this end.

He equally blames the press for venality in the diffusion of falsehood from a desire to create a lucrative sensation, to

gratify a personal dislike, or for purposes of stock-jobbing. He scores the financial dishonesty which, being conducted on a large scale, generally escapes the punishment which surely overtakes the petty criminal, the burglar or pickpocket. In this connection he writes:

"In the management of companies, in the great fields of industrial enterprise and speculation, gigantic fortunes are acquired by the ruin of multitudes and by methods which, though they evade legal penalties, are essentially fraudulent. In the majority of cases these crimes are perpetrated by educated men who are in possession of all the necessaries, of most of the comforts, and of many of the luxuries of life, and some of the worst of them are powerfully favored by the conditions of modern civilization. There is no greater scandal or moral evil in our time than the readiness with which public opinion excuses them, and

the influence and social position it accords to mere wealth, even when it has been acquired by notorious dishonesty or when it is expended with absolute selfishness or in ways that are positively demoralizing."

While the author admits the undoubted moral progress of mankind he yet considers that social morality, both in England and America, has seriously retrograded.

Though some of the passages we have quoted have somewhat the tone of a jeremiad, Mr. Lecky does not hesitate to acknowledge the existence of a vast amount of genuine kindness, self-sacrifice, and heroism; and he recognizes the splendid qualities of courage and endurance, and the love of excitement, adventure, and danger developed in times of war, which, while neither virtues nor vices, blend powerfully with some of the best as well as with some of the worst actions of mankind.

Four chapters of the book are devoted to the discussion of moral compromises, which the author points out are necessary in war, in law, in politics, in statecraft, and in the church.

The "white lies" of society, he says, are so purely matters of phraseology that they deceive no one. Falsehoods for useful purposes he considers justifiable under special circumstances, as the saving of a patient from shock which would probably result in death, or the deception of a criminal to prevent his accomplishing a crime.

Anti-Imperialists of our own country have recently enounced the moral legality of repudiating an oath of enlistment when the service in which troops are engaged is contrary to the standard of right adopted by the individual soldier. Herein Mr. Lecky points out the different standing of the officer and the private soldier, the former having the choice of throwing up his commission, while the latter is held bound for his full term of enlistment. He says that "the strongest case of justifiable disobedience that can be alleged is when a soldier is ordered to do something which involves apostasy from his faith," and cites as a case in point the mutiny of the Sepoys in India. But while he upholds the Sepoys in their refusal to bite the cartridges which, on so high an authority as the testimony of Lord Roberts, were actually greased with cow's fat and lard,—a combination in the highest degree abhorrent to the Sepoy

mind,

he condemns in strong terms the action of John Boyle O'Reilly, who, being at the time a Fenian, and bound by the Fenian oath, entered a regiment of British hussars, "assumed the uniform of the Queen, and took the oath of allegiance for the express purpose of betraying his trust and seducing the soldiers of his regiment."

The nice questions of legal ethics which puzzle so many brains are discussed, and notable instances are cited where the necessity and propriety of moral compromise in the law have been upheld or criticised. Similarly the ethics of party are treated, and the questions of supporting government measures or of opposing them, bargaining, log-rolling, and obstruction are dealt with.

Mr. Lecky roundly condemns the Irish land laws formulated under Mr. Gladstone and afterwards extended by his opponents, and declares that under the United States constitution such legislation would be impossible. While he is in error in stating that "it is beyond the power of Congress to pass any law violating contracts "the Federal constitution only forbidding the States to pass such acts-the methods by which the Irish landlord is deprived of his right to use his land as he pleases savor very strongly of what is forbidden by the Fifth Amendment and by many of our State constitutions, - the impairing of the obligation of contracts and the taking of property without due process of law and due compensation.

The learned author holds that it is impossible to apply the full stringency of private morals to the cases of men holding posts of great responsibility in times Such of panic, revolution, or civil war. must often take measures which cannot be wholly or legally justified. To judge such actions rightly, allowance must be made for circumstances, and a statesman's career must be judged as a whole and not by its least defensible events. In this connection he reviews at some length the coup d'état of Napoleon III, and sums up the varying opinions of its morality and expedience as follows:

"Few things in French history are more honorable than the determination with which so many men who were the flower of the French nation refused to take the oath or give their adhesion to the French government. . . and . . accepted poverty, exile, and the long eclipse of the most honorable

ambitions rather than take an oath which seemed to justify the usurpation. At the same time some statesmen of unquestionable honor did not wholly and in all its parts condemn it. Lord Palmerston was conspicuous among them. Without expressing approval of all that had been done, he always maintained that the condition of France was such that a violent subversion of an unworkable Constitution and the establishment of a strong government had become absolutely necessary; that the coup d'état saved France from the gravest and most imminent danger of anarchy and civil war, and that this fact was its justification. If it had not been for the acts of ferocious tyranny which immediately followed it his opinion would have been more largely shared."

While Mr. Lecky approves the action of Governor Eyre in Jamaica, he unqualifiedly denounces the Jameson raid in the Transvaal, which he describes as "one of the most discreditable as well as mischievous events in recent colonial

history, . . . entirely unrelieved by any gleam either of heroism or of skill"; and though he acknowledges Mr. Rhodes's brilliant services to the empire, he does not hesitate to condemn his methods in the Johannesburg fiasco.

The book contains so much of interest that this paper could be extended indefinitely by quoting striking passages and following its author through the whole scope of his work. Suffice it, therefore, to say that the last seven chapters deal with the subject of moral compromise in the Church; the management of character; money; marriage; success; time; and "the end." In the contemplation of old age the natural reluctance of most men to look Time in the face is alluded to, and the author admits that shrink from what seems to them many the dreary truth, that they are drifting to a dark abyss; " while others count "the thought of the work achieved in the vanished years the most real and abiding of their possessions," saying with Dryden: "Not heaven itself upon the past has power;

་

That which has been has been, and I have had my hour."

The writer's own philosophy of old age and the contemplation of the future would seem to be summed up in the following passage:

"He who would look Time in the face without illusion and without fear should associate each year as it passes with new developments of his nature, with duties accomplished, with work performed. To fill the time allotted to us to the brim with action and with thought is the

only way in which we can learn to watch its passage with equanimity.»

«< The end" of the voyage of life over which this skilled writer has acted as pilot through seventeen chapters, after alluding to the various philosophies of death, human terror of its coming, and the superstitions that have always attended it, re-echoes the thought of the foregoing

passage; and our opening words, in which we compared this book to a chart on which are laid down both beacons and dangers, are borne out in the author's closing sentence:

"The great guiding landmarks of a wise life are indeed few and simple: to do our duty; to avoid useless sorrow; to acquiesce patiently in the inevitable.» AKRON, O. ELFORD E. TREFFRY.

OLOMON has said that "in all labor there is profit." There may be some who will think that the wisest of men and monarchs, like his father, uttered this sentiment "in his haste," and that it is as devoid of general applicability as David's hasty generalization respecting the truthfulness of his contemporaries. It is certain that there is much labor of brain and hand that brings no material reward, and many lives that seem only filled with toil sufficing to keep body and soul together, but devoid of what might legitimately be called "profit;" that is, a margin above and beyond the cost and travail of living. A great deal, however, depends on definitions. It is but a superficial way of looking at things to regard profit as purely material, or as merely the excess over the cost of production. Success is, it is true, largely measured by dollars and cents and by popular applause. But what really constitutes success is not solely effect, but effort; it is what one gets to be, not what one gets to have. Otherwise success is beyond the reach of the multitude of the poor and undistinguished. But experience discloses the fact that riches and position seldom bring real and abiding happiness. They whet the appetite for more, and so the illusive quest goes on, ever striving after but never reaching a satisfying goal. The happiest, the most successful, those whose profit is in character and contentment, are to be found among those upon whose memorial tablets the dates of birth and death are all that is recorded for the information of posterity.

A study of nature and of man makes it evident that labor was intended to be the normal occupation of the race. Her treasures are only to be won from her at the cost of a certain expenditure of labor. The products of the soil cannot be reaped

without the seeds being sown, and this involves the previous labor of countless generations. This series of producers reaches back in an unbroken chain until, in thought, we reach the point at which we can conceive only of the original production of material things by an Almighty Power which endowed the ground and the seed with mutual powers of production and reproduction, and uttered the life-giving words: "Be fruitful and multiply."

It is evident, also, labor being necessary, that there should be some incentive worthy of the expenditure of toil. Few would engage in any occupation were there not some advantage to be reaped thereby. It is right and proper that men should seek for those material gains that are the reward of any legitimate occupation. But

if man be more than an amoeba, if he be endowed with qualities of soul as well as of body, it is not only right, but necessary, that he strive worthily for that profit which consists in the inward satisfaction that springs from the consciousness of duty done, of honest effort effectively put forth, even if the results cannot be reckoned up in dollars and cents. This is profit of the most valuable kind, because it is permanent, and is that which enables the one possessing it to enjoy the better what material gain he may make.

But to come to the real point: Is there such a thing as legitimate speculation? There is. In every business there must be risk, and need for a venture of faith. The tradesman is as much a speculator as the man who deals in "futures" or "puts up" on "margins." But he is a legitimate speculator, while the other is not. Wherein lies the difference? The tradesman makes his mercantile venture after a reasonable effort has been made to ensure honest

success. His venture entails upon him a steady and careful application of sound business principles as well as a large amount of mental and physical exertion. And he proposes to give value for what money he takes in over the counter. The

limit he sets for himself, or that is set by the market, is a fair return for his outlay, enough to yield a competence, not merely the accumulation of wealth by any and every means, chiefly chance. He has constantly to study his constituency and its needs, and to pay a fair market price to secure what it wants.

Now contrast with this the methods of the speculator on "margins." He makes his venture upon no certain previous knowledge. He trusts to hazard. He does not make adequate and continuous effort after honest, decent profit. He sets no limit to his winnings, and his capital is utterly inadequate to his prospective gains. In his selfishness he cares little or nothing whether others are ruined by his success. He professes to buy what he never sees and neither could nor would use if he had it. His prosperity depends upon the activity of his fellow gamblers, and not upon any law of legitimate supply and demand. He does not propose to give value for what he gets, and makes no contribution to the needs of the community; indeed he seeks to make his money out of its necessities, and in proportion to them, but without supplying it with any substantial return. His wealth is unproductive in the sense that it is not used for any public good, or made to serve as capital for the employment of labor or the manufacture and distribution of its products. He seeks to reap where he has not sown, and strives to get something for nothing and to enrich himself at the expense of the community. He gives countenance to the evil doctrine that success is only to be measured by effect, not effort; and is a staunch upholder of the vicious doctrine that the end justifies the means so long as the end is gain. The speculator often makes large profits, but he usually does so at the expense of that inward feeling of satisfaction which marks the man of character, and at the expense, also, of the approval of conscience, which is the voice of God within the soul.

Betting is gambling on a small scale. It is the vice of the many, and unfortunately invades most honest and lawful sports and pastimes. The statement that "a

good deal of money changed hands" is the polite way of saying that a certain number of foolish people have handed over to an equal number of foolish but successful people sums of money which many of the former could ill afford to part with, and some of which was not theirs to use. And they did so, not to possess anything substantial in return, but simply because of a mere difference of opinion as to which man or horse could travel a certain distance faster than another; or whether one human brute could pound another into insensibility in a given number of rounds. The assertion that horse-racing, for instance, is indulged in to improve the breed of horses, is an absurd fallacy. If it were so, racing every day, hail, rain, or shine, and every night by electric light, is treatment best calculated to ruin any decent horse. The statement that "the only honest thing about a horse race is the horse," is much nearer the truth than is the case with many such bits of proverbial wisdom. Why do we see crowds of frenzied spectators rush upon the grounds at some athletic contest to protest against. some decision? It is not that they wish fair play; for their action prevents it. The real truth is that they are the people who have money on the result, and are determined not to lose it if they can prevent it, no matter how. Betting requires. ready money. If it cannot be got by honest means, many a sad case shows that those who must have money to cover up their losses will take what is not their own, intending to settle up some day. But "some day" seldom comes, and in the meantime the unfortunates become more and more involved by further efforts to retrieve their fortunes, and disgrace, if not suicide, is often the only result of all their labor: poor profit, but vigorously demanded and inexorably paid. The gambler or the betting man, despite the false praise of his nerve and skill, is a coward, a failure, and an enemy to society. He is a coward, because he will not labor for labor's rewards, but seeks to get what is another's by false and unworthy means. He is a failure, because he unfits himself for any honest occupation that calls for sustained effort. He is an enemy to society, for he preys upon its weaknesses or necessities in order to furnish himself with what he is too lazy to seek to acquire by honest toil.

The War in

The uncompromising. South Africa and defiant temper of the Transvaal government in its relation to Great Britain, which we dealt with in our last issue, has since then sought and found definite though lamentable expression. By President Kruger's ultimatum to the British government, under date of October 9 last,-in itself a declaration of war,-diplomacy gave place to hostilities and to the armed invasion by the Transvaal and the Orange Free State of British possessions in South Africa. This rash and precipitate action on the part of the Boer Executives of Pretoria and Bloemfontein sadly detracts from the great romance of the pathetic "trekking » era and qualifies one's sympathy for a people who were fain to pose before the world as a simple pastoral community cherishing, with boasted singleness of heart, its own aloofness. That the Boers are neither peace-loving nor docile, we already knew from the history of their warrings with the natives of the country, as well as from their recent contumelious and obdurate rejection of British pleadings and counsellings in the interests at once of justice and of peace. That they are positively unreasoning and doggedly set in their ways we also now see; while their perilous action in resorting to war with a mighty and resourceful nation, in defiance of every dictate of prudence and moral right, shows them to be inexcusably prejudiced and perversely blinded by passion.

Sympathetic, in great measure, as we have been with the Boers, and desiring above all things that peace between them and the Imperial Power in South Africa should not be broken, we felt keenly the shock of Mr. Kruger's ultimatum. Nor have we found it easy to account for his precipitate initiation of the strife, save on the hypothesis that he reckoned on European and possibly on American intervention, and most of all on party divisions in the British Cabinet and

nation that would bar England's resort to the sword. Both of these expectations have so far failed him, notably the latter, since not only has the English Cabinet been of one mind in resenting the defiant ultimatum, but it has practically united the British people in answering the challenge to war. That there were dissensions in the English Cabinet or serious divergences of opinion even in Parliament we now know were vain imaginings, and what differences there were among the political parties were patriotically silenced in presence of the threatened peril to the nation. These facts are a significant answer to the charge that England cherished sinister designs. against the independence of the Transvaal or desired to enter upon an immoral war of aggression. The falsity of this charge may be gathered from the stirring appeal of Lord Rosebery, the great English Liberal, to the British nation, to "close the ranks" of faction in presence of Boer threats and "unite in rescuing our fellow countrymen in the Transvaal from intolerable conditions of subjection and injustice and so secure equal rights for the white races of South Africa."

Nor has the Boer hope of intervention by foreign Powers been justified, if we take as proofs the official attitude of the governments of this country and of Germany, and the utterances of the more influential public men of those nations and the organs of their press. Among the latter there is more or less difference of opinion, though in the great centres public feeling is on the whole favorable to Britain, as may be seen in the utterances of such influential journals as the New York Tribune," "Times," "Journal of Commerce," "Commercial Advertiser," "Journal," » Press," the Brooklyn "Eagle," the Washington "Star" and "Times," the St. Louis "Globe-Democrat," and the Chicago "Times-Herald." All of these journals take the British side of the controversy and uphold what they esteem to