10 REPORT—1883. 
-student to fix the bearings of the point of knowledge which he has reached, and.to 
estimate the fraction of the ocean of economic literature which he has been able to 
traverse.’ 
To take a third point. Every successive generation, perhaps almost every decade, 
is, as a rule, occupied with some particular branch of economic thought. A short 
.time since Free Trade was the economic point occupying the thoughts of all. 
Everything almost was referred to a Free Trade standard, and was judged accord- 
ingly. For along period, also, there came into prominence the great doctrine of 
laissez-faire. The late Professor Jevons, who joined to vast logical and analytical 
powers of mind a vigorous common sense, which perceived as it were by intuition 
that when once an economic doctrine of that class became separated from the sphere 
of practical application it ran a great risk of becoming entirely vague and indefinite, 
has done more than anyone else to mark out the limits within which that doctrine 
should be applied. After this the relation of Socialism to economic teaching be- 
came, and is now, one of the important questions of the day. 
The vigorous periodical literature of the time, which has taken the place held 
by pamphlets to our fathers and grandfathers, supplies a fairly good test of the 
subjects which occupy the public mind; and it is a proof of the prominence now 
_given to Socialism that the numbers published in April last of the ‘ Contemporary 
Review, the ‘Fortnightly, and the ‘Nineteenth Century,’ all three contained 
articles bearing on this subject, as did also the July number of ‘ Macmillan’s 
Magazine.’ Those in the ‘Contemporary’ and the ‘ Fortnightly’ were written by 
M. Emile de Laveleye, the eminent Belgian economist; that in the ‘ Nineteenth 
~Century’ was written by the Rev. Samuel A. Barnett, a well-known hard-working 
clergyman in the east of London; the article in ‘ Macmillan’s Magazine’ was 
written by Mr. Fawcett as a chapter in the new edition of his ‘ Manual of Political 
Economy.’ The views of the subject presented by these writers differ greatly, 
as may be imagined, from each other. M.de Laveleye presents to us the aspect 
under which Socialism appears on the Continent. He admits that the material 
condition of the population is preferable to what it was in the Middle Ages, but 
he looks with great uneasiness to the state of matters in an age in which compe- 
tition rules everything. General dissatisfaction with his lot is the result, M. de 
Lavyeleye thinks, to everyone, with a feeling of want of security as to the future. 
“Tt is not the case that the condition of working men is worse than it was for- 
merly. They haye benefited from the greater cheapness of manufactured goods, 
they are in many places better housed, they are generally better clothed, and their 
furniture is better. But itis the sight of the inequalities existing in modern life, 
‘the loosening of the ties which formerly united class with class, which induces the 
bitterness of feeling closely allied with Socialism, Anarchy, and Nihilism, and 
causes the desire for ‘the destruction of everything, states and churches, with all 
their institutions and their, laws—teligious, political, judicial, financial, educational, 
or social ’—like the ‘ Fifth Monarchy Men,’ whom we read of during the darkest 
years of the Commonwealth. Universal destruction is the watchword of this party, 
that a new world may be built on the ruins. 
M. de Laveleye, while commenting on these matters, does not apprehend any 
“immediate danger to the present social order, unless one of those great crises takes 
place in which there is a general collapse of power, such as occurred after the breal- 
‘ap of the late Empire in France. The world saw then what the deeds of the Com- 
maune were. May it be long before such an outburst of crime is witnessed again. 
‘But when we consider the existing condition of affairs among the principal nations 
-Of Europe, the severe strain of forced military service, the heavy demands on the 
means of the people to meet the requirements of the crushing debts, national.as 
“well as local, the vast budgets, out,of proportion to the benefits received therefrom 
by the people who pay the taxes, and the increasing weakness of administrative 
“power—imuch as one may regret that such turbulence of spirit exists—one cannot 
wonder that it should spring up. ‘This is a rough sketch of the view presented by 
M. de Laveleye. : 
TIn-our own country these questions usually take a milder form: thoughI could 
find expressions of opinion as strong, or nearly as strong, to lay before you, as those 
