of the sums so expended, and of the compensation paid for existing rights to the waste land, being charged on it when reclaimed as a perpetual quit-rent, redeemable at a moderate number of years' purchase. The state would thus incur no loss, while the advances made would give that immediate employment to the surplus of labour of Ireland, which, if not given in this manner, will assuredly have to be given in some other, not only less useful, but far less likely to repay its cost. The millions lavished during the famine in the almost nominal execution of useless works, without any result but that of keeping the people alive, would, if employed in a great operation on the waste lands, have been quite as effectual for relieving immediate distress, and would have laid the foundation broad and deep for something really deserving the name of social improvement. But, as usual, it was thought better to throw away money and exertion in a beaten track, than to take the responsibility of the most advantageous investment of them in an untrodden

one.

When the formidable difficulties in which the government of this country is becoming more and more deeply involved by the condition of Ireland, shall be met instead of evaded, by men capable of rising superior both to their own indolence and prejudices, and to those of others; we may hope to see, from the present lazy, apathetic, reckless, improvident, and lawless Ireland, a new Ireland arise, consisting of peasant proprietors with something to lose, and of hired labourers with something to gain; the farmer attached to peace and law by the possession of property, the latter through the hope of it, while the agriculture of one-half of Ireland would be conducted on the best system of small cultivation, and that on the other half on the best principles of large farming, and combination, and labour. Would it be too much to hope, that when the number of hired labourers was duly proportioned to the soil on which they were employed, and a peaceful clearing' had made the country safe for English capital to dwell in, the rate of wages would be sufficient to establish a tolerably high standard of living--and the spirit of saving, fostered by the desire of acquiring land, would prevent that standard from being again depressed through an imprudent increase of population?

We quote this, rather as an exemplification of Mr. Mill's style and manner of applying his principles, than as altogether approving of all his suggestions. That the claims of the landowners to the waste lands of Ireland, which are entirely the offspring of unjust legislation, should be instantly abrogated, and the land given up to the people in full property, is indispensable and just; that the government should take measures to share it fairly amongst the Irish, assuming that the ownership is due to them, as a small compensation for the evils it has-we had almost said wantonly-but certainly with unexampled and even brutal ignorance, inflicted on them; but putting them in quiet possession, and securing them as far as possible in quiet possession, it should leave the

draining, and all other necessary labour, entirely to the people. Though we differ on minor points from Mr. Mill, we cordially agree with him on the principle of allowing the Irish to seize and hold the waste lands as property, as one of the best-perhaps the only means by which the regeneration of Ireland can be safely begun. It will be the removal of the hand of landlord tyranny. It will first emancipate a part, and then the whole, of Ireland from the injurious restrictions of the British government-it will be the return, so far, to a natural system of society, or an approximation to freedom, and will pave the way for the growth of a town population, and the extension of all other productive arts, as well as agriculture, without which there is no steady and enduring progress in society, and no security for civilization. Mr. Mill deserves the thanks of every honest politician and every good man, for his earnest and enlightened advocacy of the best interests of the Irish.

In the same excellent spirit, and with similar clear and eloquent statements, Mr. Mill discusses the remedies for low wages, which he finds chiefly in the labouring classes imposing, of their own free-will, restraints on population, in education making them better acquainted with the economic laws, and in measures of colonization. The information and instruction given on this topic are admirable, but rather too remote in their effects to be of much present usefulness. They have this defect, too, that they imply restrictions on one class almost exclusively, and carry with them by implication the principle, that productive industry is always to be under the control of the middle classes.

In a very practical spirit, too, Mr. Mill discusses the incidence and effects of taxation, and the grounds and extent of government interference with various portions of society. Though we differ from some of his views on this part of the subject, we cannot deny to him the merit of discussing it clearly, and ably supplying some of the best arguments we have yet met with, for the interference of government with matters in which we reject its claim to interfere. Such an extensive work offers many points for controversy, but we do not propose to enter into that, nor even to enumerate the differences of opinion between us. We pass on to a subject which we regard as of great importance, and which should, we think, on Mr. Mill's plan, of improving society by the application of economic truth, have peculiarly engaged his attention.

Low wages in England, and the vast destitution of the cottier population of Ireland, are obviously but parts of a great disorder that at present affects all Europe. It is now universally admitted, that the evils of France, which have led within the

memory of living men to three or more great revolutions, are social rather than political, and hence mere political changes, substituting one form of government for another, one set of rulers for those of a different name or title, have given and can give no relief. Not that it is asserted or meant, that the distribution of political power and the form of the government have no prescut influence over the welfare of society; and far less is it asserted or meant, that the distribution of political power and political organization is perfect, either in France or in any other part of Europe. But the acts of statesmen having long been subjected to the control of public opinion, which is more enlightened on politics than economical science, political tyranny, such as flagrant violations of person and property, and even flagrant violations of religious feelings, has been a good deal checked; and it seems to be generally agreed, that further political changes merely, are not sufficient to meet the existing evils of society. We ask for political changes, as a means of getting social improvement. The progress of every part of society is not simultaneous. At one time, literature, as in the reign of Elizabeth,and at another, mathematics, as in the time of Newton,-and at another, mechanics or chemistry, as at the end of the last and the beginning of the present century, jump a-head, and the other parts of society afterwards reach an equal or similar stage of progress. For a long period, forms of government and political institutions have commanded attention, and being successively much changed, if not improved, it is now the turn of the masses to interest the intellect and the heart, and it is generally admitted, that their wretched condition can only be amended by some improvements in economical and social relations, rather than by changes in the form of government, or the distribution of political power. At present, it is perceived that imperfect social relations are the causes of political evils; and it is of more importance, therefore, now to amend those social relations, to bring them forward on a level with the general progress, than merely to change political institutions without a certainty of amending them.

When the distinction between social and political institutions is fully analyzed, it results that the latter are directed principally to maintain the right of property, whatever that may be, which exists in a community; while the social arrangements,at least, those which most concern the masses-are directly dependent on that right of property; and hence, all political changes which are subordinate to preserving that right unaltered, have little or no influence on the social relations of men; and the poor continue after, as before, any great political change, in the same abject condition. At present, the degrada

tion of the masses is the plague of all Europe. It is the source of the Revolution in France. There are, it is asserted by M. Leroux, 8,000,000 beggars in that country. It is heaving all Germany into convulsions. It is the cause of rebellion in Ireland. It excites perpetual uneasiness and alarm in England, which are daily augmenting. It rouses philanthropy into activity. Its existence is evidenced by 2,000,000 paupers, and an increase, last year, of 14.84 per cent. of commitments for crime in England and Wales.

The great problem for the present age to solve is, how the social and economical condition of the masses is to be raised. A different distribution of political power may have some tendency to improve it, but the consequences of political revolutions abroad, and of our own Reform Act, do not much encourage us to place our trust exclusively in such movements. We must look elsewhere for hope and confidence. If we could not trace to very distinct causes, the aggravation of the condition of the multitude since 1845, we might be inclined to say, too, of the free-trade measures, that we could not trust to that source for improvement; but, knowing the existence of those other causes of deep distress, such as the failure of the potatoes, the measureless and profligate extravagance of the government, the prodigious miscalculation and avarice of our great capitalists, we still rely on the abolition as speedily as may be, of legislative restrictions on honest industry, as one means of improving the social condition of all.

But with the exception of a general recommendation to accomplish freedom for industry, which has grown into an enduring principle, and daily extends its influence, and augments the number of its votaries, we are not aware that political economy, or any branch of the social sciences, has suggested any feasible scheme for raising the general condition of the masses. Compulsory division of the soil as in France, a rigid monopoly of it, with a restrictive succession and entails as in England and Ireland, poor-laws and workhouses, criminal laws and prisons, home colonization and colonization of the wastes of the world, improved agriculture, and extended manufactures, though all praiseworthy as far as they go, are obviously inefficient. They have been tried, and failed. For this great social disease, political economy, we think, supplies no remedy. It is as much the opprobrium of the science as consumption is of medicine. Here and there, particularly in the writings of Mr. M'Culloch, there are some warnings of mischief from the division of property in France, from the rapid increase of manufacturing towns in England, and generally there are warnings in all political economical writings, against the effects of an increase of popula

tion; but none of the political economists foresaw, any more than the statesmen of France and Germany, the convulsions that are shattering all the political institutions of Europe, and they are not likely, therefore, now to suggest a remedy for the social causes of those convulsions. Believing that even the great political commotion we now witness, has its source in social arrangements, it is a great reproach, we think, to all the political economists of Europe; it is the disgrace of their science, that these convulsions have been allowed to come upon us unprepared, and that, now when they have come, politicians and political economists can find no better cure for them than the creation of a new felony, and the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in one country, and the establishment in another of a state of siege and military law.

Though Mr. Mill is not superior on this point to other political economists, and suggests no adequate remedy for the evils of a very poor and degraded multitude, his work has the merit of enabling us to see and to tell the cause of the insufficiency of political economy to guide society out of its difficulties. With the exception of some eulogies on security of property as necessary to production, which may be safely asserted without approving of entails, and of 6s. for working fourteen hours during six consecutive days, political economists have slurred over the question of property, and made it no part of their science. Mr. Mill departs from the beaten track, and begins his book on Distribution, by treating through three chapters on Property. The subject is far too delicate for a fearless popular discussion, and we only wish to borrow from Mr. Mill, the proofs that the distribution of wealth has always been discussed by political economists in subserviency to an existing right of property. He says in his preliminary remarks, that unlike the laws of production, those of distribution are partly of human institution, since the manner in which wealth is distributed in any given society, depends on the statutes or usages therein prevalent.' He dwells on the same subject in his chapter of Property, Book ii. Chap. 1

The distribution of wealth is a matter of human institution solely. The things once there, mankind, individually or collectively, can do with them as they like. They can place them at the disposal of whomsoever they please, and on whatever terms. Further, in the social state, in every state except total solitude, any disposal whatever of them can only take place by the general consent of society. Even what a person has produced by his individual toil, unaided by any one, he cannot keep, unless it is the will of society that he should. Not only can society take it from him, but individuals could and would take it from him, if society only remained passive; if it did not either interfere en masse, or