the material level of the German masses. However, they have not in the least decreased the Social-democratic agitation. On the contrary, the Social-democrats have preached their doctrine harder than ever and with such success that they are today far and away the largest political party in the empire. They are entirely willing to accept further benefits for themselves and their clients at the hands of the existing state but they declare at the same time that their final end, which continues to be the abolition or rather the absorption of private capital, can never be put through by any group or party except by themselves. They therefore hold fast to their aim of conquering the government-a conquest to be effected by the ballot, be it understood, and not by force.

Meanwhile the most remarkable thing about contemporary Germany is a certain balance of interests. The owners of land and capital, carefully set off against each other, are certainly in control, but the recognition on the part of the state of the economic rights of the workingmen has gone farther than in any other European community. Thus, in spite of a palpable and passionate class division evidenced in the press, at elections, and on the floor of the Reichstag, Germany possesses an economic energy which in variety, resourcefulness, and delicate interaction of its parts has few if any equals.

FINAL SUMMARY.

Before closing let us see what we have got as a result of our rapid review of the democratic development of the last one hundred years. We have seen that democracy does not mean the same thing at all times and in

every country. The United States started out with an agricultural democracy which was both political and economic and which was entirely acceptable till the Industrial Revolution poured an inordinate wealth into the lap of the bankers, railroad presidents, company managers and their numerous allies. We are at present engaged in combating their control but up to date have been unwilling to yield our honored individualist creed, the creed of our pioneers and pathfinders, by which middle class control is in the last analysis secured. Europe having inherited from the Middle Ages a land-holding gentry (though side by side with a peasantry more or less independent) started in with an undemocratic system and envisaged democracy as a possible development not till the rise of the commercial and industrial classes, ready and eager to crowd out the gentry. Wherever the Industrial Revolution has triumphed the gentry has either wholly or in part been overthrown and a middle class regime established, based on a program of human rights involving equality before the law, in opinion, religion, and the vote. But the middle class, through its wealth, intelligence, and culture, has been able to manipulate its program in its own economic interest and in consequence has been obliged to face the waxing antagonism of the working masses. The new problem was everywhere met, after the first unreasoning opposition had died down, with protective and ameliorative legislation, but two European countries, Germany and Great Britain, have gone farther than palliatives and have taken the theoretic stand that the modern state must entertain an economic ideal. They have already by virtue of their Insurance Laws

not insubstantially increased the share of the laborer in the total product of industry. That is where the matter rests. It would be absurd to declare categorically what will take place in the future, but it may be asserted that a larger and not a smaller place will be assigned henceforth to the question of the workers and that its solution must be preceded by such a change in the traditional view of the function of the state as is indicated by the newer legislation of Germany and Great Britain. Specifically as to democracy it seems clear that it has been carried about as far as a triumphant middle class can carry it; if we are to have a democracy chiefly concerned with economic equality-and innumerable signs seem to indicate that such is the coming historical movement-the rule of the middle class will have to be subjected to a gradual change. By the absorption of the middle class into the masses? By the ascendancy of an all-powerful and directive state? By the triumph of the Socialist program? Let a bolder man than the present writer say. In any case uncertain nursery steps looking forward to a modification of middle class rule have already been taken by all the leading industrial countries, and many symptoms proclaim that still greater things are in the wind.

MORE'S UTOPIA.

THE PLEA OF SIR THOMAS MORE, MADE IN 1516, FOR A COMMONWEALTH BASED ON EQUALITY OF

POSSESSIONS.

For the wise man did easily foresee, this to be the one and only way to the wealth of a commonalty, if equality of all things should be brought in and stablished. Which I think is not possible to be observed, where every man's goods be proper and peculiar to himself. For where man under certain titles and pretences draweth and plucketh to himself as much as he can, so that a few divide among themselves all the whole riches, be there never so much abundance and store, there to the residue is left lack and poverty. And for the most part it chanceth, that this latter sort is more worthy to enjoy that state of wealth, than the other be: because the rich man be covetous, crafty and unprofitable. On the other part the poor be lowly, simple, and by their daily labour more profitable to the commonwealth than to themselves. Thus I do fully persuade myself, that no equal and just distribution of things can be made, nor that perfect wealth shall ever be among men, unless this propriety be exiled and banished. But so long as it shall continue, so long shall remain among the most and best part of men the heavy and inevitable burden of poverty and wretchedness. Which, as I grant that it may be somewhat eased, so I utterly deny that it can wholly be taken away. For if there were a statute made, that no man should possess above a certain measure of ground, and that no man should have in his stock above a prescript and appointed sum of money: if it were by certain laws decreed, that neither the king should be of too great

power, neither the people too haughty and wealthy, and that offices should not be obtained by inordinate suit, or by bribes and gifts: that they should neither be bought nor sold, nor that it should be needful for the officers, to be at any cost or charge in their offices: for so occasion is given to them by fraud and ravin to gather up their money again, and by reason of gifts and bribes the offices be given to rich men, which should rather have been executed of wise men: by such laws I say, like as sick bodies that be desperate and past cure, be wont with continual good cherishing to be kept and botched up for a time, so these evils also might be lightened and mitigated. But that they may be perfectly cured, and brought to a good and upright state, it is not to be hoped for, whiles every man is master of his own to himself. Yea, and while you go about to do your cure of one part, you shall make bigger the sore of another part, so the help of one causeth another's harm: forasmuch as nothing can be given to any one, unless it be taken from another.

-More's Utopia (Camelot Series), pp. 112-13.