AN AMERICAN MANUAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.* IT is from no

feeling towards Mr. Woolsey savouring of disre- spect, that we venture to call his two goodly volumes "Political Science for the Sea-side." His work on "International Law" has stamped the late President of Yale College as a jurist who has read with exemplary assiduity, and written with exemplary calmness, on the subjects which it was his professional duty to expound ; and certainly, his new work will not take from his reputation. But compared with such works as those of Hobbes —we take them as an example, because Hobbism, already a philosophical revival, threatens to become a practical one—it is a scientific omnium gatherum. This character is partially due to the fact that it is based on lectures which Mr. Woolsey delivered in Yale College between 1846 and 1871. A lecture on an abstract subject is rather an epitome of views which have been expressed on it, than an expression of the lecturer's own opinions. Mr. Woolsey's volumes retain the original characteristics of his lectures. He is much more bent on letting us know what the latest and best-informed writers on his subject, or subjects, have said, than to give suggestions or conclusions of his own. His volumes are, therefore, in the highest degree valuable, as a mine of information as to what authorities have to say on political science ; and as they are provided with an excellent index, any one who, at the sea- side, or wherever he may be in search of rest, wishes for some- thing a little above the average hotel novel, whioh he can glance through in an odd half-hour, will find profit. It is to be regretted that Mr. Woolsey's style is somewhat flat. There is nothing either of the "dry light" of Austin's Jurisprudence, or of the verve of Mr. Bagehot's English Constitution. We have far too much of this sort of writing :-

•

Political Science; Sr. Me State Theoretically and Practically Censidered. By Theo- dore D. Woolsey, lately President of Yale College. 2 Tole. London ; Sampson Low and Co. 1978. "The right of self-defence is limited by the right of the person who makes the assault. If I myself begin the assault causelessly, I can. not plead self-defence for resisting another who defends himself, for he is exercising a right. The only reason for repelling such violence proceeding from an injured party la that the sense of wrong may lest him to go beyond the bound of just self-protection,--that, for instance, he may take life or limb on very slight grounds. This shows tbe dangers attending such a right, and the impossibility of observing just limits under the sway of anger and fear.'

Letting pass the manifestly loose use of the word "right" —the enfant terrible of political, as "free-will" is of theological, reasoners—how limp are such sentences, compared with these

two of Hobbes, taken at random from De Clue!—" What is war, but that same time in which the will of contesting by force is fully declared, either by words or deeds ? The time remaining

is termed peace." Mr. Woolsey is, we fear, as incapable of writing like this, as he is of giving a rhetorical surprise like Mr.

Spencer's description of a picnic as "a temporary return to a state of nature."

Mr. Woolsey's work is valuable, therefore, in the first place, much as a cyclopmdia is valuable. Look to the index for any topic that is of interest within the range of political science, say, " Democracy " or "Monarchy," " Liberty " or "Despotism," "Church and State" or "Liquor Laws," and you may while away a half-hour with the best authors on your hobby pleasantly enough. In the second place, it is valuable as a characteristic expression of the American mind. An ordinary citizen of the United States prides himself on having what

Mr. Edmund Sparkler admired in a woman,—the negative possession of "no nonsense." Yet nowhere do superstitions, sentimentalities, ceremonials, "new departures "in creed and life, flourish in the present day as they do in the -United States. It is as true that there is "no nonsense" about an American, as that Reid's philosophy was "common-sense," or that our

Jingoes, who broke Mr. Gladstone's windows and howled down Mr. Mundella, were "the Party of Order." A perusal of Mr.

Woolsey's book leads to a similar bewilderment. Dip into it here and there, and you will say that if ever a book had "no nonsense" about it, it is this. Expediency is everything ; not what flows from dogma, or chimes in with hypothesis, but whatever is best administered, is best. Mr. Woolsey finds as little difficulty in disposing of Rousseau's contrat, as of Filmer's divine right of kings. Capital punishment he has no love for; but perhaps abolition of it would be "inexpedient," just yet. A State Church—Mr. Woolsey's chapter on the re- lations of Church and State will be read with profit, after a course of Geffecken—is objected to, not on the ground that it violates any cardinal doctrine, but that it does not now serve a practical purpose, does not benefit the community. "Equal rights" fare almost as badly as "natural rights." Writing on the electoral franchise, he supports Mr. Freeman in his contention in favour of a representation of interests rather than numbers. This is typical of the whole book, both in sentiment and in expression :— "It would seem more just to give dense populations less, and sparse ones more, than their arithmetical share, for the latter, consisting ordinarily of tillers of the land, are less able to unite, and to bring a force to bear on the general assembly." The ordinary reader would say that Mr. Woolsey's book is satur- ated with Utilitarianism, as understood by what are popularly known as "practical men." Yet he starts with this, which reads like an Evangelical Confession of Faith in the mouth of a Broad Churchman :—

" We assume the personality and responsibility of man as a free moral being. We assume also a moral order of the world, not founded on utilities that are in such a sense discoverable by man that he could construct a system of laws for human actions upon them, however the Divine Author of the world may have arranged it on such a plan. We discard the greatest-happiness theory, as of no use, nay, as harmful, in the department of politics, and believe that in human relations there must be a distinction drawn between bene- volence and justice. At the same time, we admit that happiness is an end which the individual and the State may rightfully aim at, and an important one, although subordinate to the right, and to the ends contained in the perfection of human nature. We hold also most firmly to a system of final causes running through the moral and social, as well as, and more clearly than, through the physical system, which in the plan of man's nature appear in most wise and beneficent preparations for a good and just society."

The Butler-Kearney party "pooling their issues" for "bread- and-butter," and yet, Diogenes-like, declaring that what they most desire is an honest man, are not more curiously American than is this political philosopher, with • his head of "moral order," and his body of Utilitarianism.

Perhaps the most interesting portions of Mr. Woolsey's book, which are not of the dictionary or cyclopedia character, are

those which treat of questions of political interest in his own country and in England. We are not quite satisfied with his method of treating American questions. His comments on the advantages and disadvantages of democracy as a Transatlantic ex- periment are such as will commend themselves to British Liberals.

But a want of courage is shown in dealing with the question—a " burning " one, doubtless—of the relative authority of the Union and of individual States. Why, too, should Mr. Woolsey not have spoken out on Free-trade ? He is sound enough in his opinions, but he dismisses the subject of a protective tariff in one sen- tence, which is a model of condensation, compared with the rest of the book. Mr. Woolsey's view of our modern Constitutional Monarchy is a careful and, on the whole, a sound one. This may be worth quoting, at the present time :—

" The Premier has, as the representative of the country or of a party, a representative will ; the Sovereign, a formal, official will. The union of these wills secures, through the Constitutional methods, the best Government possible under the Constitution ; and that, as all will admit, a stable, quiet, just, intelligent Government, but not one which promises stability, if opinion should change, and if power should fall into the hands of the unintelligent classes."

Mr. Woolsey seems, however, to place much faith in the relia- bility of Mr. Bagehot's view of the Crown as the " theatrical " pivot of the Constitution. Perhaps " emotional " or " digni- fied " would be a better word than "theatrical." But no harm can be done, so long as the Sovereign appeals both officially and personally to the higher and simpler emotions of the people, so long as—to take the present case—she appears as the impartial Head of the State, as the virtuous leader of society, as the pattern of domestic graces and excellences. The circumstances of the present reign, that have made "loyalty grow into a passion," to use Lord Hartin.gton's phrase, have not injured the Constitution as a whale, or the Crown as a part of it, whatever other circumstances may have done in the past, or may do in the future.