to God,' that God may be all in all.' Still, I cannot help being struck with an impression that Mr. Huxley appears to cite these terms of Micah, as if they reduced the work of religion from a difficult to a very easy performance. But look at them again. Examine them well. They are, in truth, in Cowper's words

Higher than the heights above,

Deeper than the depths beneath.

Do justly, that is to say, extinguish self; love mercy, cut utterly away all the pride and wrath, and all the cupidity, that make this fair world a wilderness; walk humbly with thy God, take His will and set it in the place where thine own was used to rule. 'Ring out the old, ring in the new.' Pluck down the tyrant from his place; set up the true Master on His lawful throne.

There are certainly human beings, of happy composition, who mount these airy heights with elastic step, and with unbated breath. Sponte suâ, sine lege, fidem rectumque colebat.19

This comparative refinement of nature in some may even lead them to undervalue the stores of that rich armoury, which Christianity has provided to equip us for our great life-battle. The text of the prophet Micah, developed into all the breadth of St. Paul and St. Augustine, is not too much-is it not often all too little?-for the needs of ordinary men.

I must now turn, by way of epilogue, to Professor Max Müller; and I hope to show him that on the questions which he raises we are not very far apart. One grievous wrong, indeed, he does me in (apparently) ascribing to me the execrable word 'theanthromorphic' (N. C. p. 920), of which I wholly disclaim the paternity, and deny the use. Then he says, I warn him not to trust too much to etymology (p. 921). Not so. But only not to trust to it for the wrong purpose, in the wrong place: just as I should not preach on the virtue and value of liberty to a man requiring handcuffs. I happen to bear a name known, in its genuine form, to mean stones or rocks frequented by the gled; and probably taken from the habitat of its first bearer. Now, if any human being should ever hereafter make any inquiry about me, trace my name to its origin, and therefore describe the situation of my dwelling, he would not use etymology too much, but would use it ill. What I protest against is a practice, not without example, of taking the etymology of mythologic names in Homer, and thereupon supposing that in all cases we have thus obtained a guide to their Homeric sense. The place of Nereus in the mind of the poet is indisputable; and here etymology helps us. But when a light-etymology is found for Hera, and it is therefore asserted that in Homer she is a light-goddess, or when, because no one denies that Phoibos is a light-name, therefore 19 Ovid, Metam. i. 90.

the Apollo of Homer was the Sun, then indeed, not etymology, but the misuse of etymology, hinders and misleads us. In a question of etymology, however, I shall no more measure swords with Mr. Max Müller than with Mr. Huxley in a matter of natural science, and this for the simple reason that my sword is but a lath. I therefore surrender to the mercy of this great philologist the derivation of dine and diner from déjeuner; which may have been suggested by the use of the word dine in our Bible (as John xxi. 12) for breakfasting; a sense expressed by La Bruyère (xi.) in the words, Cliton n'a jamais eu, toute sa vie, que deux affaires, qui sont de dîner le matin, et de souper le soir.

But, Mr. Max Müller says, I have offended against the fundamental principles of comparative mythology (N. C. p. 919). How, where, and why, have I thus tumbled into mortal sin? By attacking solarism. But what have I attacked, and what has he defended? I have attacked nothing, but the exclusive use of the solar theory to solve all the problems of the Aryan religions; and it is to this monopolising pretension that I seek to apply the name of solarism, while admitting that 'the solar theory has a most important place' in solving such problems (N. C. p. 704). But my vis-à-vis, whom I really cannot call my opponent, declares (N. C. p. 919) that the solarism I denounce is not his solarism at all; and he only seeks to prove that certain portions of ancient mythology have a directly solar origin. So it proves that I attack only what he repudiates, and I defend what he defends. That is, I humbly subscribe to a doctrine, which he has made famous throughout the civilised world.

It is only when a yoke is put upon Homer's neck, that I presume to cry hands off.' The Olympian system, of which Homer is the great architect, is a marvellous and splendid structure. Following the guidance of ethnological affinities and memories, it incorporates in itself the most diversified traditions, and binds them into an unity by the plastic power of an unsurpassed creative imagination. Its dominating spirit is intensely human. It is therefore of necessity thoroughly antielemental. Yet, when the stones of this magnificent fabric are singly eyed by the observer, they bear obvious marks of having been appropriated from elsewhere by the sovereign prerogative of genius; of having had an anterior place in other systems; of having belonged to Nature-worship, and in some cases to Sun-worship; of having been drawn from many quarters, and among them from those which Mr. Max Müller excludes (p. 921): from Egypt, and either from Palestine, or from the same traditional source, to which Palestine itself was indebted. But this is not the present question. As to the solar theory, I hope I have shown either that our positions are now identical, or that, if there be a rift between them, it is so narrow that we may conveniently shake hands across it.

W. E. GLADSTONE.

THE

FALLACY OF IMPERIAL FEDERATION'

AWHILE ago (say some thirty years or upwards) the cry, and the just cry, of Colonial reformers was, free institutions for the Colonies. The complaint came from Canada, New South Wales, New Zealand, that an Englishman had only to remove to a Colony to find that instead of carrying with him (as the common law averred to be his right) as much of law and liberty as was consistent with the unity of the Empire, he became subject to the despotism of a Governor in whom were vested all or nearly all the powers which in England were divided between the Sovereign, the Houses of Parliament, and the people. To meet these grievances, free constitutions have been bestowed on the Colonies-so free that they have become entitled not only (as was just) to settle their own internal affairs, but further (which was not expedient, even if just) to impose protective duties on imports from other Colonies and even from the Mother-country.

The situation being thus completely changed by the concession of the greatest measure of independence to the Colonies and the least reservation of control by the Mother-country, a new set of reformers have started up, who are not satisfied with the fact that the Colonists are loyal and loving subjects-anxious to identify themselves with the Mother-country by standing by her in war and contending with her in all peaceful pursuits, even in games; something more, they say, is wanting a scheme of Imperial Federation. If you ask what is meant by Imperial Federation, that, you are answered, is matter of detail, and the inquiry itself indicates a 'parochial mind' in the inquirer hostile to Federation. If you venture to press a further question, But, apart from detail, what is the principle of Federation?' you are referred to the Constitution of the United States. There will be found both principles and details capable of being adapted to a system of Imperial Federation.

The object of the following pages is to inquire, whether the expression Imperial Federation' does or does not indicate any system of government capable of practical application to the relations. between the Mother-country and the Colonies; and further (to make the inquiry exhaustive) whether, apart from the subsisting ties. between the Mother-country and the Colonies, there can be con

6

structed any legal ties-Federal, National, or Imperial-capable of binding together more closely the component parts of the British Empire. The importance of distinguishing between the expressions, Federal, National, and Imperial will appear in the sequel, but it will be sufficient here to state that in the following pages Federal tie' means an obligation binding on several communities in their corporate character; a 'National tie' is an obligation carried down to the members of a community in their individual capacities and not in respect of their corporate membership; while 'Imperial,' as applied to ties, or rights as they would more properly be called, refers to those. obligations and sovereign rights which regulate the intercourse of a. nation or an empire in its international relations or dealings with other sovereignties. Now we shall have an admirable case for practically testing the nature of the ties which can be created between various communities if we can find an example of a system of communities which, having adopted at first the loosest bond that can be said to make a system of communities one nation, has subsequently constructed the closest political union of which an assemblage of States is capable, without sacrificing their local powers.

We shall thus have the whole compass, so to speak, of political ties brought under review; and if none of them will fit the case of the Mother-country and her Colonies or improve the relations between them, it will follow that no legal ties can be found, whether under the name of Imperial Federation or otherwise, which can be recommended for adoption by Great Britain and her Colonies. The example will not be less conclusive if it is derived from a country the institutions. of which were based on the dismemberment of an empire; for hence may be learnt possibly some lessons as to how such a catastrophe may be avoided in the future, and the several members of an empire be more closely compacted together. Such an example exists in the American Confederacy and the American Constitution.

On the thirteen revolted American Colonies acquiring their independence after the war with England, they found themselves provided under their charters with efficient governments for all local purposes, but each Colony was an independent State, having no legal connection with any other Colony. The common tie of supremacy exercised by the Mother-country had been broken, and they presented towards foreign countries the aspect of a cluster of thirteen independent Republics incapable of any common action except through the impracticable process of obtaining the assent of thirteen governments to any proposed course of policy. To extricate themselves from this intolerable position, a convention of delegates from the States was held, and after a delay of three years Articles of Confederation were finally accepted in 1781 by all the States. These articles formed the thirteen colonies into a Confederacy, to be called the United States of America.'

The scheme of the Confederacy was to establish a Congress consisting of delegates from the component States, and to vest in Congress the sovereign powers of declaring peace and war and regulating the intercourse of the United States, in their corporate capacity and as a single nation, with foreign Powers. The expenses incurred by the United States were to be defrayed out of a common treasury, to be supplied by requisitions made on the several States. This Confederacy was altogether federal-that is to say, the laws were federal, inasmuch as they affected the States only in their collective capacities, and could only be enforced against individuals in each State by the State itself. The structure of the government also was wholly federal, inasmuch as the delegates were chosen by the State legislatures, and not by the individual inhabitants of the State. The defects of the Confederacy-that is to say, of federal power-soon became apparent. Congress was utterly devoid of all coercive authority to carry its laws into effect.

Every breach of the laws involved a state of war, and military execution became the only instrument of civil obedience. Such a state of things can certainly not deserve the name of government, nor would any prudent man choose to commit his happiness to it.1

Again

A still more striking defect was the total want of power to lay and levy taxes or to raise revenue to defray the ordinary expenses of government. Requisitions were to be made on thirteen independent States. The consequence was, that though in theory the resolutions of the Federal Government were constitutionally binding on the members of the Union, yet in practice they were mere recommendations, which the States regarded or disregarded at their option.

Story sums up the whole question as follows:

There was (in the Confederacy) an utter want of all coercive authority to carry into effect its own constitutional measures. This of itself was sufficient to destroy its whole efficiency as a superintending government, if that may be called a government which possessed no one solid attribute of power. It has been justly observed that 'a government authorised to declare war, but relying on independent States for the means of prosecuting it, capable of contracting debts and of pledging the public faith for their payment, but depending on thirteen distinct sovereignties for the preservation of that faith, could only be rescued from ignominy and contempt by finding those sovereignties administered by men exempt from the passions incident to human nature '—that is, by supposing a case in which all human governments would become unnecessary and all differences of opinion would become impossible.3

The impossibility of maintaining the integrity of the United States under a system of government which could only be carried into effect through the medium of the subordinate communities, soon became apparent; and in the year 1787 the Convention was

Federalist, p. 74.

2 Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, chap. ii. p. 96. 3 Ibid. p. 94.