190 ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 



conduct. But the influence of Godwin was reinforced in the forma- 

 tive period of Shellej^'s career by such an imposing array of radical 

 and subversive theories gathered from a variety of sources, that it would 

 lead to a most incomplete result to confine ourselves solely to a con- 

 sideration of the English philosopher's opinions. 



A brief review of the tendencies of thought in England and France 

 during the XVIII. century will assist us in our conclusions. 



To England is due the honour of originating the theories that 

 dominated that century of great ideas. Locke threw into the arena 

 ihis strongly fortified negation of innate ideas, with the necessary con- 

 sequence that all human qualities, intellectual and moral, were held to 

 arise from sensation and from reflection acting upon sensation. 

 Stripped of the orthodox theism which Locke had been careful to pre- 

 serve, this new philosophy developed into the naked materialism of the 

 Encyclopedists. 



Again, Locke, and with Locke, Hobbes, was responsible for the 

 fertile theory of an original compact whereby society was first con- 

 stituted. Clothe this idea in the resounding paradoxes of Rousseau, 

 and you are led irresistibly onward into the volcano furies of the 

 i'rench Eevolution. 



They were days of much significance in the history of French 

 thought when Voltaire landed in England in 1726, still stinging with 

 the unmerited disgrace of a whipping and the Bastille, and when 

 Montesquieu, some three years later, sought a peaceful refuge there 

 for the indulgence of his philosophical meditation. They left their 

 country with vague inclinations and unformulated tendencies of 

 thought; they returned enriched and emboldened by fruitful contact 

 with English ideas and with English institutions. Voltaire nourished 

 his mind at the sources of Deistic thought, while Montesquieu, keenly 

 scrutinising our system of popular government, elaborated the more 

 sober theories of his admirable political writings. 



These two great names dominate the earlier movement of reform 

 in France. Neither displays a spark of tlie incendiary fervour of the 

 later revolt. In the sphere of politics the more specious and inflam- 

 matory doctrines of Eousseau were soon to be substituted for the calm 

 deliberations of Montesquieu; while Voltaire, who still lived and desired 

 to dominate the new period as he had dominated the old, threw the 

 reins on the neck of prudence, and spurred into the fray in the fore- 

 front of battle. Yet even he, the self-constituted captain of revolt, 

 was rudely jostled by the fiery youth who pressed about him clamouring 

 for a more uncompromising leader. " That poor deist Voltaire, he 

 still believes in G-od." This phrase, spoken in scorn and pity, reveals 



