room to take a cup of tea with the gayest belle of the town, or else, perhaps, to debate with grave Senators on the affairs of State. Could this have been meant? Certainly not. This is the least possible of all mean ings that could be attached to the term. Men will choose their own company in whatever state of society you may choose to place them. This is the last vestige of liberty with which they are willing to part, and any state of society which forbids a man this privilege, I shall neither contend for nor against. In what, then, can this political equality consist? Does it consist in each man having an equal voice in the civil government of his country? This is what I conceive it to be. But this is exercised originally, and only so. After the elements of society are once organized in the least, after some one has exercised the privilege (which belongs equally to all) of nominating a chairman or a president in any meeting of the citizens--after that moment-after the choice of that chairman has been approved, much of the authority, which till then was equally exercised by all, is now confided to him. If this meeting adopt a constitution for the regulation of their conduct, a constitution which any soul of them had the privilege of proposing, then and thereafter that constitution is charged with much of the authority which, till then, had existed only in the people. Thus, by public decrees and constitutions, the people deposit a certain portion of their own power with particular individuals, and these individuals have, then, a right which the multitude has not, of making laws and administering government. Rights, it will be observed, are delegated to them. They are not made a privileged class. We have no orders of

society. No privileged classes. We have a plenty of classes, and this class is one of them. It is made their business and their duty (they might have declined if they pleased) to attend to public matters. It all arises from the necessity of the division of labor. All cannot rule, nor can all be ruled. All cannot plow, nor can all sow, nor reap. No more can all neglect such employments, else the race would become extinct. Each has his business to perform, his part to act. It is a duty he owes to the rest as well as to himself. In this way, all are equally dependent, equally necessary, to the body politic. Hence, all have an equal right to govern the whole where that right has not been previously conveyed away. This is Political Eqality.

POLITICAL ECONOMY.

Prof. Perry defines Political Economy to be the Science of Exchanges, or, in other words, the Science of Value. This does not accord with my notion of the science. Exchange and value have much to do with political economy, and play an important part; but it seems to me to be rather the science of producing National Wealth; that is to say-public and private resources.

The questions which political economy professes to answer, or ought to answer, are such as these: What are the best methods of supplying a given society with all its material needs? Under the circumstances, is agriculture essential? If essential, how can it be

encouraged? May it be encouraged at the expense of manufactures? Or is it better to leave both to the natural laws that govern action? Will the erection of railways be advantageous? Or may the capital expended on them be laid out to better advantage? If the means of intercourse and transportation are sufficiently subserved by water in the particular case, and if capital expended on railways would be wasted, would the employment of such surplus capital in the erection of steam engines and machinery be beneficial so as to multiply the forces of production? Or, would it be better to invest it in commerce with foreign countries? And, if the same amount of wealth could be created by each course, which would be the preferable in the long run, as affecting the future well-being of the State? Is the encouragement of the fine arts calculated to promote the physical or material prosperity of society?

In short, we expect political economy to tell us the effect of all measures and all pursuits on the general supply and distribution of material resources, and consequently, upon the national well-being, so far as material resources are concerned.

To produce national valor, military science is to be consulted; national virtue, moral science; national intelligence, educational science; but the secret of national wealth must be sought in the science of political economy. The study of all these sciences may be necessary to understand the entire necessities and well-being of a State; for intellectual and moral development and military power may be as essential as wealth and resources to the national prosperity and glory, and each of these aspects of social great

ness may be but necessary complements of the others all being required to produce that symmetrical completeness which alone can produce true national aggrandizement.

Professor Perry, adopts Frederick Bastiat's definition of value as the relation between two services exchanged. He also dilates on the excellency of the word "service" for explaining the principles of politi cal economy. But I think he uses the word service ambiguously, namely, both for the efforts or labor by which one performs a service, and for the utility which it subserves to him who receives it. Thus, we say: A rendered service to B, which was of great service to him; i. e., A performed a labor which was of great utility to B. These ideas are very distinct the one from the other. The same labor may be of great utility to-day and no utility to-morrow. Now, the value to me is the utility to me.

Professor Perry defines utility to be the capacity which any thing or any service has to gratify any human desire.

FENIANISM.

Whilst equal representation and industrial privileges are to be sought in every legal way, political separation or independency for Ireland is a delusive dream. Effort in that direction will only injure the Irish cause. For, think: the British Empire is the most powerful in existence. It embraces the earth, and all its power would be put forth to prevent an independent kingdom so near its heart as Ireland.

It

is as if Lombardy (or Cisalpine Gaul) had attempted independence in the height of the Roman power. When the British Empire goes into disintegration (which it will at some future time) Ireland may be independent. But that catastrophe is not to be expected, not even wished for, now. The centers of civilization are not so distributed, nor are its forms so perfect as to make it desirable. America, perhaps, might be the gainer, for she is now subservient to the financial supremacy of England. But the world would be an immense looser, and in the general loss, even America would participate. Ireland could not anticipate much benefit from such a cataclasm. She would be deeply involved in it.

But at all events, whoever seeks to make Ireland independent must aim at nothing short of the destruction of the British Empire, whatever other consequences may ensue. That is the necessary objective.