7 6 4 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



would enable me to do something toward the counteraction of the 

 fallacious guidance which is offered to them. Perhaps I may be 

 permitted to add that the subject was by no means new to me. 

 Very curious cases of communal organization and difficult ques- 

 tions involving the whole subject of the rights of property come 

 before those whose duty it is to acquaint themselves with the con- 

 dition of either sea or fresh- water fisheries, or with the adminis- 

 tration of fishery laws. For a number of years it was my fate to 

 discharge such duties to the best of my ability ; and, in doing so, 

 I was brought face to face with the problem of land-ownership 

 and the difficulties which arise out of the conflicting claims of 

 commoners and owners in severalty. And I had good reason to 

 know that mistaken theories on these subjects are very liable to 

 be translated into illegal actions. I can not say whether the letters 

 which I wrote in any degree attained the object (of vastly greater 

 importance, to my mind, than any personal question) which I had 

 in view. But I was quite aware, whatever their other results, they 

 would probably involve me in disagreeable consequences ; and, 

 among the rest, in the necessity of proving a variety of state- 

 ments, which I could only adumbrate within the compass of the 

 space that the "Times" could afford me, liberal as the editor 

 showed himself to be in that respect. What I purpose to do in 

 the course of the present article, then, is to make good these short- 

 comings ; to show what Rousseau's doctrines were, and to inquire 

 into their scientific value with, I hope, that impartiality which it 

 beseems us to exhibit in inquiries into ancient history. Having 

 done this, I propose to leave the application of the conclusions at 

 which I arrive to the intelligence of my readers, as I shall thus 

 escape collision with several of my respected contemporaries.* 



I have indicated two sources from which our knowledge of 

 Rousseau's system may be derived, and it is not worth while to go 

 any further. But it is needful to observe that the dicta of the 

 author of the " Contrat Social," published in 1762, are not unfre- 

 quently very hard indeed, I might say impossible to reconcile 

 with those of the author of the " Discours," which appeared eight 

 years earlier ; and that, if any one should maintain that the older 



* From Mr. Herbert Spencer's letter in the "Times" of November 27, 1889, I gather 

 that he altogether repudiates the doctrines which I am about to criticise. I rejoice to hear 

 it : in the first place, because they thus lose the shelter of his high authority ; secondly, 

 because, after this repudiation, anything I may say in the course of the following pages 

 against Rousseauism can not be disagreeable to him ; and, thirdly, because I desire to ex- 

 press my great regret that, in however good company, I should have lacked the intelligence 

 to perceive that Mr. Spencer had previously repudiated the views attributed to him by the 

 land socialists. May I take this opportunity of informing the many correspondents who 

 usually favor me with comments (mostly adverse, I am sorry to say) on what I venture to 

 write, that I have no other answer to give them but Pilate's, " What I have written I have 

 written " ? I have no energy to waste on replies to irresponsible criticism. 



