be shifted, and what was unsafe, if not treasonable, in liberal home rule may be represented as perfectly innocent under tory auspices and guidance. Of course, an agreement to this kind would enable the tories to overthrow the liberal ministry. Only, in that case, the tories would be just as dependent on the Irish members, as much at their mercy. It is many years since the Irish members held the balance of power in the Commons, but the exciting events of the Parnell era have not faded from the general memory. To the Irish members home rule is the sole issue; they have had to wait and exercise patience, but now they will have another opportunity to advance their cause. However, insistence on a home rule bill from the liberals would only hasten the general election, since the house of lords would never approve of such a bill from the liberal party. It might pass a tory home rule bill without demanding another election, but it would make no such concession to the liberalradical, labor and Irish coalition.

T

By George Willis Cooke

HE great fact in the development of civilization during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was the growth of the state in a manner to give it a controlling position in human affairs. It was a period of revolution, of struggle of state with state, of internal discords and reconstructions, and of conflict of class with class in the attempt to secure control of national institutions. Wars were frequent, and sometimes involved the whole of western Europe. At first they grew out of religious differences or dynastic jealousies; but later they were the result of class struggles or demands for the advancement of trade.

When we fully recognize the extent to which survivals of tribal and feudal institutions continued through the sixteenth century we will not be surprised that it required more than two centuries to give the state permanent foundations and security. Many of the first settlements in the American colonies were on the communal basis of common land. It is not a question of any importance here that this feature of the settlements was soon abandoned; but the frequency with which it was at first adopted as the one natural method most desirable shows unmistakably the ex

*Copyright, 1910, by George Willis Cooke.

Articles of this series already published have been: I. "Maternal Society and Its Institutions," which appeared in the September CHAUTAUQUAN; II. "Paternal Institutions in Greece," October; III. "Roman Law and Early Christianity," November; VI. "Woman under Feudalism and Chivalry," December; V. "Woman and Domestic Economy," January; VI. "Individualism and the Renaissance," February.

tent to which it survived in all the most progressive countries of Europe. To whatever extent feudalism had been modified, there can be no doubt that it remained a controlling influence as regards land, social precedence and political power, which it does even to the present time. The church was reformed, but it reorganized for a more vigorous extension of its authority and influence; and as a result it regained its power in Spain, France, Italy, southern Germany, and elsewhere. Throughout the seventeenth century it seemed doubtful if the reform movement would be able to sustain itself, many forces being combined against it.

The civil war and the Commonwealth in England, with the restoration and the revolution rapidly following each other, show the extent of the struggle in that country for the supremacy of the state. The origin of parties, their contentions with each other, the agitations over religious questions, the conflicts with regard to labor and class interests, indicate the revolutionary processes necessary to the getting rid of even a part of feudalism. In France there were the wars of religion, the weaknesses and the scandals of Louis XIV and Louis XV, the excesses of the nobility and the growing wretchedness of the peasantry, and the resultant revolution. During all this period Italy was the scene of struggles between the neighboring states for its possession, and divided within itself because each city and fief persisted in retaining the old feudal methods of administering its affairs. In Germany the feudal influence remained complete, making it impossible that its little states should unite for a genuine national life. The peasant wars for class recognition and their brutal suppression, the hundred years' war of religion, and the succeeding struggles for the extension of territory within its limits on the part of various nations, were but phases of the attempt to make the state an effective force in civilization.

Then came the great explosion in France at the end of the eighteenth century, as a legitimate result of what had gone before. It was succeeded by the dictatorship of Buonaparte, and his downfall before the growing power of Great

Britain. If there followed a period of peace, it was because manufacturing and commerce were growing, rather than because men were satisfied with the autocratic power made rigid in the reaction from the revolutionary era. The labor agitations in England, the discontent and changes of dynasty in other countries, only prepared the way for the last great revolutionary movement of the middle of the nineteenth century. Even yet feudalism controlled governments, and the peoples were thought to be the property of rulers, worthy only to be dealt with as individual whim might dictate.

The changes thus briefly hinted at indicate the long period of struggle passed through in order to secure for the state a permanent character and power. Where local or feudal influences were in control, as in Italy and Germany, the consolidated state came at a very late period. In England the early influence of Parliament, and its modifications of autocratic authority, gave the state a definite character in the seventeenth century. In France the failure of the national Parliament, known as the States-General, gave opportunity for the growth of absolutism in state and church alike. The king, nobility, the higher churchmen and the rich bourgeois formed an aristocratic body with interests separated from those of the nation. While these classes did not always agree with each other, they united to tyrannize over the rest of the nation, and ignored the growing miseries of the people whom they plundered. A natural and legitimate result of these methods was the revolution, which gathered force throughout the eighteenth century, and swept away all who had opposed the true interests of the state and its normal development.

It is a complete misreading of history which assumes that it was the skeptical philosophy of the eighteenth century in France which caused the revolution. More substantial causes must be found for such a momentous event. These may be found in the autocratic rule and the depravities of the kings, in the vast wealth and shameless bigotries of the churchmen, in the absenteeism and luxurious living of the

nobility; but, most of all, in the excessive taxation, the neglect of manufacturing, and the famished condition of the peasantry. Agriculture was neglected, and the artisan class banished for religious reasons, by excessive taxation or other restrictive measures.

One characteristic of this period was the rise of the middle class in England and the bourgeois in France. It included those devoted to manufacturing and commerce, the bankers and capitalists, and all who bought and sold for the sake of profits. Governments were dependent on this class for financing their many wars, and much was done to protect and promote its interests. After the period of great geographical discoveries it was assumed that wealth consists in the precious metals, and every effort was made to retain them from passing to other countries. Money and wealth were regarded as one and the same. Accordingly, that kind of foreign trade which would bring money into a country was encouraged, manufacturing was thought more important than agriculture and mining, and government directed its efforts to the promotion of these results. Towards the end of the eighteenth century machinery came into rapid use, owing to the awakening of a remarkable spirit of invention.

In the early part of our period commerce was encouraged as an aid in promoting military power; but during the eighteenth century a change occurred, commercial enterprise took the lead, and wars were then fought almost wholly for its promotion, the extension of colonies or the control of commercial opportunities. To a large extent it was the commercial or bourgeois class represented in the progressive movements of the eighteenth century, which demanded larger freedom and the cessation of autocratic power. As yet the wage-earning or proletarian class was not recognized, and had not fromulgated its demands. It felt its poverty and its misery, but was too ignorant to make effective its protests, although in the revolution they began to find voice.

Throughout the period from the beginning of the