one continually resolves itself into the restriction of another. In any case, then, the mere fact of society existing obliges us to admit the necessity of laws, not designed, indeed, to limit the freedom of any one person, except so far as this limitation tends on the whole to the greater average freedom of all. Thus the evolutionists aim, not so much at directly maximising happiness, as at maximising liberty of action, which they conceive to be equivalent to the means of greatest happiness. The principle of equal freedom is therefore put forth as an all-extensive and sure guide in social matters. It would lead me too far to attempt in this place to inquire whether the present course of industrial legislation, and the remarks to be made upon it in the present volume, are really reconcilable with this principle. I am inclined to think that the reconciliation is not impossible; but that, when applied to the vast communities of modern society, the principle fails to give a sure guiding light. So intricate are the ways, industrial, sanitary, or political, in which one class or section of the people affect other classes or sections, that there is hardly any limit to the interference of the legislator.

I do not think that such interference, applying, as it would do, only to the simpler physical conditions of the body, can be said, in a reasonable point of view, to diminish freedom. As physical conditions become more regulated, the intellectual and emotional nature of man expands ever more freely. The modern English citizen who lives under the burden of the revised edition of the Statutes, not to speak of innumerable municipal, railroad, sanitary, and other bye-laws, is after all an infinitely freer as well as nobler creature

than the savage who is always under the despotism of physical want. He is far freer, too, than the poor Indian who, though perhaps unacquainted with written law, is bound down by the most inflexible system of traditional usage and superstition. [It is impossible, in short, that we can have the constant multiplication of institutions and instruments of civilisation which evolution is producing, without a growing com plication of relations, and a consequent growth of social regulations.

The doctrines of evolution, moreover, are yet so young and novel, being, indeed, no older than illustrious philosophers yet living and working among us, that it is hardly to be supposed that the full bearing of such doctrines should yet be appreciated, even by their originators. It is easy to perceive that in many a primitive community little legislative interference is needed, because the people, by long-continued trial, have settled down to a mode of life approximately perfect according to its circumstances. There long tradition is legislation, and often legislation of the most strict and minute kind. Evolution has had time to work its full effects; we see it accomplished, not in progress. But all is different with a great modern manufacturing community, the whole mode of industry and life of which has been invented or profoundly modified within the memory of men yet living or but lately dead. Tradition is in such a case broken and dispersed. New conditions of life have to be discovered and tried. Evolution is doubtless at work, but the question arises whether the very legislation which we are about to consider is not the manifestation of evolution. Based, at any rate, upon trial and experi

ence, it is but the multiplying of the good tendencies, and the quick elimination of the bad. It is an attempt to save needless suffering by making the few teach the many, so as to bring individuals into conformity with their environment without the blind striving of individual action.

The Metaphysical Incubus.-It is futile to attempt to uphold, in regard to social legislation, any theory of eternal fixed principles or abstract rights. The whole matter becomes a complex calculus of good and evil. All is a question of probability and degree. A rule of law is grounded on a recognised probability of good arising in the opinion of the lawgiver from a certain line of conduct. But as there almost always occur cases in which this tendency to good is overmastered by some opposite tendency, the lawgiver proceeds to enact new rules limiting, as it is said, but in reality reversing, the former one in special cases. Lawgivers, as well as philosophers, delight in discovering euphemisms adapted to maintain the fiction of universal principles. When the principles fail to hold good, it is said that the cases are exceptional. It is a general principle that a man may do as he likes with his own property. It is an exception when a railway company forcibly takes possession of his land.

I venture to maintain, however, that we shall do much better in the end if we throw off the incubus of metaphysical ideas and expressions. We must resolve all these supposed principles and rights into the facts and probabilities which they are found to involve when we inquire into their real meaning. The right of

a man to dispose freely of his labour means the recognition by the Legislature that in the majority of cases a man is the best judge of his own interests in disposing of his labour. In a number of cases specified in the statute books, the Legislature recognises an opposite state of things. The principle of the freedom of trade stands on the same footing; it is a probability of advantage which, however, must be set aside in case of greater probability of evil. The indefeasible right of a squire to his ancestral acres rests, of course, upon the like considerations. All depend ultimately upon the salus populi, which is the only lex suprema

The question may well arise, indeed, whether, according to the doctrine here upheld, there is really any place at all for rules and general propositions. If a general law may be limited by a particular law, and that again by a further and more limited exception, we should get down eventually to individual cases. When followed out, this is the outcome of the Benthamist doctrine. Every single act ought to be judged separately as regards the balance of good or evil which it produces. Practically, too, the doctrine is often recognised as true and necessary. Many Acts of Parliament give discretionary power to the Secretary of State, so that he can. deal with each individual case according to its merits. Under the Factory and Workshop Act of 1878, extensive powers of relaxing the directions of the Act are given to the Secretary of State. Many of the sections contain a clause beginning, "Where it is proved to the satisfaction of a Secretary of State,” etc. Thus section 43 gives power to allow the period of employment to be between 9 A.M. and 9 P.M. in certain cases.

C

It will be easily seen, however, that legislation becomes impracticable when it runs into too much detail. Not only is discretionary action likely to be abused, but the time and trouble spent in obtaining it form a considerable obstacle. There arises a distinct advantage in being able to know how other people will act, and whether they are or are not acting rightly. Even under a system of general rules, such as are most of those contained in the statute-book, legislation is so complex that only those who give themselves wholly to the study can be acquainted with any considerable part of it. The statute-book, again, can never really contain the whole of the law, as the definitions of terms, the conflicts of clauses and acts, the complex evolution of unforeseen cases, necessitate numberless decisions which practically add themselves to the text.

Inferential Results of Legislation. Among the most important effects of a legislative act must be placed the expectations which it creates of future similar or apparently similar acts. People are always reasoning, well or ill-usually ill. Accordingly, every conspicuous act which is done becomes a precedent, on which many future claims are based. In courts of law where that metaphysical entity justice is administered, judges are obliged to act upon precedents. The expectations raised and the actions guided by one decision must be justified by a like decision in similar circumstances. This is done even when the particular decision is regretted by the judges and allowed to work evil in itself. It is impossible, however, that law can be administered otherwise than by reference to precedents, and the only