yoo 



POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



able degree of relief and satisfaction 

 at having life's problem so comfort- 

 ably settled for them ; but the guar- 

 antors might be pardoned if they 

 were not in an equally jovial mood. 

 Where liberty comes in for the lat- 

 ter is a question we are not prepared 

 to answer. If it be explained that 

 under such an agreement everybody 

 would guarantee everybody, the an- 

 swer, which every one must feel to 

 be true and sufficient, is, briefly, that 

 that is nonsense. 



A man is a freeman, Mr. Howells 

 says, " if he has the means of liveli- 

 hood and is assured in their posses- 

 sion ; if he is independent of others."' 

 Other similar observations are : " Lib- 

 erty and poverty are incompatible." 

 *'If (a man) has not the means of 

 livelihood in his hand.s, he can not 

 come and go when he will ; he can 

 not command his time, etc." "Lib- 

 erty is for those who have the means 

 of livelihood." Now, with the ut- 

 most respect for the motives of this 

 very able writer, we are coQipelled to 

 say that, in our opinion, he has here 

 written some very mischievous stuff. 

 By identifying liberty with the ad- 

 vantages which flow from a more or 

 less successful conduct of life he vir- 

 tually authorizes, so far as his words 

 carry weight, those who have failed 

 to secure such advantages, or who 

 are not satisfied with the share they 

 have gained, to lay violent hands on 

 the possessions of others. It is deep- 

 ly ingrained in the general con- 

 sciousness that liberty is something 

 which communities and individuals 

 may vindicate for themselves that 

 liberty is not a thing to sue for, but 

 to seize the moment you feel strong 

 enough. Mr. Howells comes for- 

 ward and says : " In wealth consists 

 liberty. You have not wealth, and 

 therefore you have not liberty ; you 

 are not fi-ee men. The only free 

 men in this nation are the men 

 of means, the men whose livelihood 



is secure." Surely this is warrant 

 enough for those who accept it as 

 true for taking, without more ado, 

 the means of liberty ; in other words, 

 for overthrowing violently the pres- 

 ent organization of society. Mr. 

 Howells may say that he does not 

 think much of the present order of 

 society ; but does he see his way clear 

 beyond the chaos which would ensue 

 if his hint were taken ? 



This is an old stoi^y; still, as the 

 attacks on the true principle of lib- 

 erty are unceasing, we do not see 

 how the believers in that principle 

 can do aught else than continually 

 come forward in its defense. The 

 important distinction to be observed 

 is this : liberty is one thing ; what a 

 man can accomplish with his liberty 

 is another. Some men can accom- 

 plish, and do accomplish, much ; oth- 

 ers, whether they can or not. do, 

 in point of fact, accomplish little or 

 nothing. It might not unreasonably 

 be said that such men are not fit for 

 libei'ty, and some of them prove it 

 by getting themselves incarcerated 

 for criminal practices. That, how 

 ever, is another matter. Mr. Howells 

 and others refuse to make this dis- 

 tinction ; they say that liberty is not 

 liberty unless you add thereto the 

 fruits of a successful conduct of life, 

 and that the community ought to 

 guarantee these fruits to every man. 

 We thus get the question into a nut- 

 shell. Mr. Howells and those who 

 think with him must hold that the 

 community could give such a guar- 

 antee and render it effectual ; we hold 

 that it could not, and there the argu- 

 ment must rest for to-day. 



THE NEW NATUBAL EI8T0BT. 



Prof. C. Lloyd Morgan, of 

 Bristol University, during January 

 gave a course of public lectures in 

 New York, under the auspices of 

 Columbia College. The main ques- 



