EQUALITY 



483 



the most important for our present purpose — such 

 countries as Belgium, Holland, Italy, Switzerland. 

 Well, Belgium adopts purely and simply, as to 

 bequest and inheritance, the provisions of the 

 Code Xapoleon. Holland adopts them purely and 

 simply. Italy lias adopted them substantially. 

 Switzerland is a republic, where the general feel- 

 ing against inequality is strong, and where it 

 might seem less necessary, therefore, to guard 

 against inequality by interfering with the power 

 of bequest. Each canton has its own law of be- 

 quest. In Geneva, Vaud, and Zurich — perhaps 

 the three most distinguished cantons — it is iden- 

 tical with that of France. In Berne, one-third is 

 the fixed proportion which a man is free to dis- 

 pose of by will ; the rest of his property must go 

 among his children equally. In all the other can- 

 tons there are regulations of a like kind. Ger- 

 many, I was saying, will interest us less than 

 these freer countries. In Germany — though there 

 is not the English freedom of bequest, but the 

 rule of the Roman law prevails, the rule obliging 

 the parent to assign a certain portion to each 

 child — in Germany entails and settlements in fa- 

 vor of an eldest son are generally permitted. But 

 there is a remarkable exception. The Rhine coun- 

 tries, which in the early part of this century were 

 under French rule, and which then received the 

 Code Xapoleon, these countries refused to part 

 with it when they w r ere restored to Germany ; and 

 to this day Rhenish Prussia, Rhenish Hesse, and 

 Baden, have the French law of bequest, forbid- 

 ding entails, and dividing property in the way we 

 have seen. 



The United States of America have the Eng- 

 lish liberty of bequest. But the United States 

 are, like Switzerland, a republic, with the repub- 

 lican sentiment for equality. Theirs is, besides, 

 a new society ; it did not inherit the system of 

 classes and of property which feudalism formed 

 in Europe. The class by which they were set- 

 tled was not a class with feudal habits and ideas. 

 It is notorious that to hold great landed estates 

 and to entail them upon an eldest son, is neither 

 the practice nor the desire of any class in Amer- 

 ica. I remember hearing it said to an American 

 in England, " But, after all, you have the same 

 freedom of bequest and inheritance as we have, 

 and if a man to-morrow chose in your country to 

 entail a great landed estate rigorously, what could 

 you do?" The American answered, "Set aside 

 the will on the ground of insanity." 



You see we are in a manner taking the votes 

 for and against equality. We ought not to leave 

 out our own colonies. In general they are, of 



course, like the United States of America, new 

 societies. They have the English liberty of be- 

 quest. But they have no feudal past, and were 

 not settled by a class with feudal habits and ideas. 

 Nevertheless it happens that there have arisen, 

 in Australia, exceedingly large estates, and that 

 the proprietors seek to keep them together. And 

 what have we seen happen lately ? An act has 

 been passed which in effect inflicts a fine upon 

 every proprietor who holds a landed estate of 

 more than a certain value. The measure has 

 been severely blamed in England ; to Mr. Lowe 

 such a " concession to the cry for equality " ap- 

 pears, as we might expect, pregnant with warn- 

 ings. At present I neither praise it nor blame it ; 

 I simply take it as one of the votes for equality. 

 And is it not a singular thing, I ask you, that while 

 we have the religion of inequality, and can hard- 

 ly bear to hear equality spoken of, there should 

 be, among the nations of Europe which have po- 

 litically most in common with us, and in the 

 United States of America, and in our own colo- 

 nies, this diseased appetite, as we must think it, 

 for equality ? Perhaps Lord Beaconsfield may 

 not have turned your minds to this subject as he 

 turned mine, and what Menander or George Sand 

 happen to have said may not interest you much ; 

 yet surely, when you think of it, when you see 

 what a practical revolt against inequality there is 

 among so many people not so very unlike to our- 

 selves, you must feel some curiosity to sift the 

 matter a little further, and may be not ill-disposed 

 to follow me while I try to do so. 



I have received a letter from Clerkenwell, in 

 which the writer reproaches me for lecturing 

 about equality at this which he calls "the most 

 aristocratic and exclusive place out." I am here 

 because your secretary invited me. But I am 

 glad to treat the subject of equality before such 

 an audience as this. Some of you may remember 

 that I have roughly divided our English society 

 into Barbarians, Philistines, Populace, each of 

 them with their prepossessions, and loving to 

 hear what gratifies them. But I remarked, at 

 the same time, that scattered throughout all these 

 three classes were a certain number of generous 

 and humane souls, lovers of man's perfection, 

 detached from the prepossessions of the class to 

 which they might naturally belong, and desirous 

 that he who speaks to them should, as Plato 

 says, not try to please his fellow-servants, but 

 his true and legitimate masters, the heavenly 

 gods. I feel sure that, among the members and 

 frequenters of an institution like this, such hu- 

 mane souls are apt to congregate in numbers. 



