PERSONAL LIBERTY..
Tan style of the author of this work is so involved, and his method of argumentation, although seemingly exact, and almost aggres- sively teolmical in ite terminology, is in reality so unphilosophical and loose, that we have some difficulty in stating the precise thesis which he purports to uphold ; but we believe it to bo that the true basis of Liberty and Justice is the fact of Personality as revealed in the Christian religion alone. We regard this as a pecu- liarly dangerous proposition ; for, in the first place, all ecclesias- tical history teaches us to beware of the folly of identifying any theory, however plausible, with the essential truth of Christianity. When such a theory breaks down, its failure is felt by its followers to involve the failure of the Christianity with which it has been associated : an inference which is quite as inevitable as it is false. In the second place, the difficulties arising out of this particular theory are so numerous that we cannot consider it as even printh facie a satisfactory solution of the great problem. It ie true that the author generally manages to make it yield the answers he wants from it, but he needs eo many assumptions and logical short-cute to produce the required results that our " will-to-believe " is taxed unduly in trying to follow him. He assumes ; he assumes that children are the property of their parents; he assumes that " the Person " does not exist for agnostics; he assumes that "it is impossible to get rid of the idea of Personal Right or Liberty— whether that Right relates to property or anything else—without the abolition of the Family, the Nation, and Religion." He tells us that we would not "regard as charitable a thief who gave away the goods he had stolen." He toile us that " the Board and Church School system in the best thing that can be attempted at the present, and if the nation is actuated by the right spirit, there will be pro- gress in the right direction ; if by the wrong spirit, the system will become not only more colourless, lifeless and mechanical, but it will also become more universal." We do not any that these state- ments are wrong ; but there are so many earnest and quite intelli- gent persons who would be vehemently provoked to deny thorn that we do not think they ought to be taken for granted we are humbly of the opinion ourselves that even a Board School system is unlikely to become " more universal."
Conclusions such as these are not calculated to inspire con- fidence in the theory from which they spring. They would make us doubt, even if the whole logical process by which they are arrived at were perfectly clear ; and it is anything but clear. At times the author seems almost.—to adopt Mahbub Ali's picturesque imagery—to have " muddied the Well of Inquiry with the Stick of Precaution." We quote one sentence as an example of Mr. Fell's worst manner :- " By qualifying the right of the Person to self-development, or the realizing of his capacity, by adding that any particular capacity before it can be realized, must first be esteemed by certain other Persons as ' contributing to social good' or 'social Well-being' is to take away with one hand what had been given with the other, and to prepare the way for any and every form of repressive and absolutist legislation."
Now that we have read it twice and transcribed it once, we believe we know what it is intended to mean ; but we have not yet been fortunate enough to discover its grammatical construction, if it has any.
We regret we are not able to render a better report of Personal Liberty,• for the subject is interesting and important, the author's intentions are excellent, and he has evidently not spared labour in preparing his book for the public. He makes incidentally many wise and pungent remarks on modern tendencies and forces ; but he will have to clarify his thinking, simplify his style, and consider more dispassionately the views of his principal opponents before he can contribute a work of importance to philosophicth literature.
Previous page
