diffuses political knowledge in a form less abstract and more readable than the philosophers give it, it could as well exist and the journalist as well be paid in a Socialist State as now, unless, indeed, all political parties were merged in a common Collectivism, when fewer journalistic organs would be needed, though it is possible that the journals, in the meantime, might have developed other functions. So long, at any rate, as parties and sects and separate interests exist, there will be journals needed, and the launching of these must be left to private enterprise, as the remuneration of the labourers, to the subscribers. The mere bookmaker who produces an article that has all the outward semblance of literature would still exist, if the demand for his peculiar wares continued. The playwright would probably command good wages in a Socialist community, if, as is not unlikely, the demand should increase for what he produces, for, though the art is not of the first order, it seems that owing to the need of rapid production and novelty, the power and the secret of production to suit the public taste is confined to a limited number. The story-teller,and even the novel-writer who occasionally rises to true literature, if they should possess qualities widely appreciated, would probably fare well. Of the forms of literature whose pay at present is surest and best, the daily article, the weekly sermon, the novel and the play, the second is paid largely by the State, the other three, and sometimes the sermon, by the consumer, and they could all in future be paid as well as now, if the consumers should be as numerous as now, as desirous of the commodity, and in par

ticular if they should have as much means to pay for it under Collectivism, the last condition being, as we have seen, a very doubtful point.

And the Church? What is the attitude of Socialism to the Church? According to Schæffle, Socialism is antagonistic to the Church, and "out and out irreligious." And this in general is true, and for the antagonism to the Church there are reasons, one being that most of the leaders of Socialism do not believe the doctrines taught by the Church; another and a stronger one being that Socialists consider the Church identified in interest with the rich and ruling classes. It is against her in the Socialist records that she has not shown herself the friend of the poor or of the working classes. Her chief function, they think, has been that of a moral police in the interests of the propertied classes, for which function there will be no place in the Socialist kingdom.

But though Socialists are in general hostile to the Church, there is no reason why they should be hostile to religion or to Christianity. On the contrary, the principles of the Gospels and of Socialism are one and the same, and if the Socialists only knew it, and made the most of the fact, it would constitute the strongest plank in their platform. On the other hand, the Church might find a place in the Socialist State, if she laid the emphasis of her doctrine on the Gospels and the Sermon on the Mount, rather than on the Pauline Epistles and her own later dogmas and accretions, and not improbably individual clergy, like Maurice and Kingsley in the past and others in all Christian communities at present, may in future see

reasons to do so, and if many do, and especially those who have influence in Church Government, then the Church might subsist in such possible Socialist State and even receive endowment from the State. And so of course she might, and probably would, if the many in such a society believed in her teaching.

Especially if the Church should assist Socialism to become an established fact so far as possible. But the chances are that she will not or cannot take a side in her collective capacity, while permitting individuals to do so who can adopt the Socialist's programme. The Church, at least in England, is in a perplexing situation with regard to Socialism, as was shown by her somewhat oracular deliverances at the Pan-Anglican Congress (1887), at which a number of propositions were laid down by a committee specially appointed to report on the subject, which simply cancelled each other, leaving a zero result as her collective counsel to individuals, while collectively not committing herself on the Social Question and Socialism. Perhaps after all it was the only thing she could do, and the wisest thing under very difficult circumstances, which require her to conciliate the working-classes on the one hand, and on the other not to alarm the interests of property-the powers that be, and the powers that may be. Perhaps also

an insufficient comprehension of the question, its delicacy and complications, had something to do with the ambiguous and mutually destructive deliverances of the Congress with regard to it.

III.

A POINT remains to be considered. The Collectivists have not clearly indicated their conception of the State, as such, nor of Government under a Collectivist Social system, and yet this is the most vital point of all. In Plato's Republic the wise were to rule, the brave to protect the community; in More's Utopia, in like manner, the wisest formed the Government; with the St. Simonians, also Capacity was to direct-who are to be rulers under the new Socialism, and of what kind is to be the Government ?

Though the Collectivists are rather reticent on the point, we can see clearly that of logical necessity the government must be essentially democratic: whether the executive authority be delegated to a chosen one, so as to form a kind of Democratic Cæsarism, or whether it be conferred on a body, remains uncertain, though the tendency of their principles is to the latter. That it must be democratic may be inferred further from the principles of Karl Marx, as also from the name of Social Democrats that German, English and American Socialists most affect.

In the Collectivist State an aristocracy resting on the ownership of land will, of course, be impossible : for like reasons a plutocracy could not exist, since capital as well as land will be collectively owned, and the highest salaries only moderate in amount. The Capitalist in all his forms, whether the great employer of labour, the great distributor, the great financier or monopolist, will have disappeared. There will be no

aristocracy, whether of land or money. The classes will have found their level in the masses, the former being brought down, the latter somewhat exalted, and if any distinction of rank remain (and some, it would appear, is to be allowed) it must have reference to difference of capacity.

But there must still be, we should imagine, a governing class, though not hereditary. There must be, if not legislators (the Socialists affirming that few laws will be needed, and that these will require the general sanction), at least administrators as now; an adminis tration let us say, composed of some ten or a dozen Ministers or Secretaries of State for the principal departments of State activity, as War, Finance, Justice, Education, the Colonies (if any connection be retained with them), Trade, Agriculture, etc. There must also be permanent Under-Secretaries of the Executive Government, there must be Judges and a Chief Justice; and as the functions of the State will be greatly extended to embrace all industries-agricultural, mining, manufacturing, carrying—there must be new Ministers and Secretaries, new Heads of Departments, new Generals, in addition to the officers and private soldiers in the industrial armies. Who are these different Heads to be?

Karl Marx, the founder of Collectivism, has not designated who are to be the governors, nor how they are to be found, but presumably they will be the most capable, as with the St. Simonians. Still it is a pity that neither he nor his followers have been more explicit on this important point.

Mr. Gronlund, indeed, denies that there will be