while the profits would be more divided. By degrees undoubtedly, the capitalist being a very clear-sighted person, would accept the situation, which would. still leave him and his children in a far better position than would have been possible for him had he lived a hundred or even fifty years ago.

On the whole, the advantages would greatly outweigh the possible drawbacks, and this is the only direction in which a part of the policy of the Socialists also falls in with the past policy of the State, the views and sometimes the practice of enlightened business men, as well as the suggestions of some economists, including John Stuart Mill. We cannot go the impossible length of the St. Simonians and other reconstructors, who would abolish inheritance altogether this, though not so chaotic in its consequences as the abolition of interest, would equally run against human nature in one of its deepest part, the sentiment of family, and family affection; so that it would be impossible to carry out the law; but we can and should limit inheritance.

Mill has in this connection suggested a plan that would have more extensive consequences, for which the times are hardly ripe. He suggests that the power of bequest should be free, but that the amount that any one heir or legatee should be permitted to take should be limited by law to a moderate competence. In reality, this, while leaving the power of bequest apparently free, would restrict it, because if the testator's intentions were not allowed to be carried out, he would not be free to leave as he pleased, and they would not be carried out if he bequeathed

the bulk of his property to his children, while the State declared the children could only inherit a certain amount. Let us, however, consider the consequences of the idea.

A rich parent dies, and leaves four children, together with personalty to the extent of say half a million. The State has declared that none of the children can inherit more than a competence. This we will suppose to be 1000l. a year. 25,000/. is all that each will be allowed to take, supposing interest to be four per cent. They cannot all together take more than 100,000l. The State comes in for the remaining and much greater portion, unless the testator has made other bequests.

What, under such a law, would be the likely course of the parent? He can leave his wealth as he pleases, to individual or corporation, but he cannot give more to any individual, however dear, than a limited amount. The result, though difficult to follow, will be important and far-reaching. The ordinary motives to great and long-continued exertion are weakened. The greatest of all motives, namely, to provide for the interests of a family, is not indeed weakened, nor the motive to work for wealth so far as it ministers to his own luxury or ostentation or power during life, but the motive to exertion after enough is made for these purposes is absolutely removed. When he is worth a quarter of a million, he has little motive to work to leave half a million, because the first gives him all he wants; and certainly after he has made the half-million, he has little inducement to work for another half. The result would probably be a remis

sion of effort, or early retirement, or greater unproductive consumption in the latter part of his life, unless indeed we suppose a great moral change to have come over his character, which makes him desirous to work as hard as ever for the general good; unless he is satisfied to give higher wages to his hands, or anxious to give more contributions to public objects. No doubt by fixing high the amount that each one might inherit, or rather, what comes to the same thing, by not lowering the existing unlimited amount too much or too soon, objections to this view of Mill's may be met, and as Mill also recommends increased taxes on inheritances, the practical results of the two views would not be very different. On the one plan, by the State reserving a fraction, say one-tenth, the testator would be left free to dispose of nine-tenths; on the other, he could only leave up to a certain sur. to any person, but he might leave to that amount to as many persons as he pleases, and presumably to corporations to a still greater amount. The important practical matter would be, in the one case not to fix the State's portion too high, in the other not to put the competence allowed by Mill too low, so that under either scheme we might go on without any considerable solution of continuity in the sphere of industry.

And here the conclusion comes in view that all speculation in social matters always brings us to, -that all proposed changes in legislation, or in practices, presuppose, to make them effective, a moral or psychological change in the individuals. If you could change men's motives, the springs of their action, you could change all the rest. If you

But when the

way the reAnd contem

could get men to desire to live and labour for others, as the Positivist motto is; if you could really get them to love their neighbour as themselves, as Christianity commands; if men were the sort that Mill thinks they will become, these laws would be efficacious, for they would only anticipate the desires of men. Even then they would be useless, as men would do the thing proposed without the law. The law at present should not be far ahead of the best men's practice, or moral feeling at least; it should not be ahead even of the feeling of a considerable minority, for the majority, if they cannot get the law altered, will then try to evade or stultify it. sentiment and the practice turn the former desires, the law may be passed. poraneously the preaching of the moralist is required. He may urge with effect, as Mill does, that the son's happiness would be better consulted by a moderate competence than a large fortune, of no use save to give dangerous power or to command to satiety heaps of intrinsically worthless things, which receive their value from a mere perverted taste and opinion. Of course there is at present not much use in preaching this doctrine to the generality. But a great change has come over many, and the value of immaterial and comparatively uncostly things is beginning to be discovered, especially by the son of the capitalist. Culture, art, science, literature have begun to appeal to feelings in his breast; above all, he who will be the future industrial chief has been meditating about the social and moral sides of the great economical questions, and he is disposed to

take a different view from his father or grandfather. The mind and the moral sentiments of his age and country have embraced him, are pressing on him. He cannot escape them, happily does not wish to do so. And from this young man, when he comes to fill his father's seat, considerable things may be expected. I think he will be called on to take a large part in the solution of this labour question. I expect he will rise to a higher conception of his function, and that he may make it for the first time, though for less pecuniary reward, a really great one, by accepting its moral as well as its other responsibilities. And it may be noted that Mill is ready to allow to him much more than a competence, though he also looked -a little prematurely as I think-for his early disappearance, or his transmutation into the salaried manager.

VI.

BUT what of our friends who used to meet in Trafalgar Square under the black flag-the genuine unemployed, as distinct from the loafer, the mendicant, and the thief-the men who have worked, who are able and willing to work, but who can find no work? Strange to say, this obscure man out of work constitutes the crux of our civilization, and the future of society may depend on how it disposes of him, how it deals with him. His cause is in our time the cause of humanity, the social problem turns round him, and we must hush all fine talk about progress, love and life for others, freedom,