individuals from the artificial bands which our political system has cast about them, the question of what has been called the "independence of individuality" should be viewed on every side. Many thoughtful minds regarded with great dread the destruction of a system sanctioned by long tradition, whereby the choice of representatives was left to the dictation of a few, and the establishment of a method of election which allowed every man to be his own master and guide. They foresaw the evils which have since been felt. One of the most profound thinkers of late times, reasoning on such a change, thus puts the argument:—"It is in no way necessary, for the sake of becoming free, to pull down the whole edifice of society, with akk its time-hallowed majestic sanctities, and to scatter its stones about in singleness and independence on the ground. Yet assuredly it would not be more absurd to call such a multitude of scattered independent stones a house, than to suppose that a million, or twenty millions, of independent human beings, each stickling for his independence, and carrying out this principle through the ramifications of civil and domestic life, can coalesce into a nation or a state. There is need of mortar—there is need of a builder—yes, of a master builder: there is need of dependence, coherence, subordination of the parts to the whole, and to each other."[1]
Doubtless there must be the working plan,—there must be cohesion of material,—but what is the true cement, and where is the master builder? It had been proved too sadly to mankind that their rulers had no divine inspiration to guide thenm in their office, and that they worked with the untempered mortar of the follies, the passions, and the vices of the people. Three thousand probationary years passed over the world,—the times of history or historic fable,—
Thebes and Pelops' line,
And the tale of Troy divine.
The long ages of trial for the heroes and mighty princes who
- ↑ Guesses at Truth, 2nd Ser., p. 267.
