expect from the acquisition of a few colonies the complete amelioration of social grievances or golden mountains of material wealth. For, compared with the great achievements England and France have made in the field of colonization, the desires of Germany can only appear very modest. We know very well that there is no new America or India to be discovered, and that no territory stands any longer open to us that can be compared with the plains of North America. We know also that no trans-oceanic country will for a long time be able to offer to the German emigrant the advantages he finds in the United States. No German colony will ever have the attractive power of North America. But there is a remnant of emigration fields where European races have not yet established a preponderance, and commercial fields which promise rich work for European civilization for generations yet. If we Germans, owing to our Continental situation, have but little prospect of becoming a predominantly seafaring nation, yet that very Continental situation compels us to assert in season, and with all our might, our national right to trans-oceanic possession and acquisition. The colonial acquisitions which England has for decades been making every year, and whose present extent far exceeds the bounds of what even England's colonizing power can use for generations, do not deter us, but rather confirm us in the opinion that we have actually nothing to fear from the jealousy of certain ill-advised English politicians. Of this the latest utterances of the English Prime Minister, Mr. Gladstone, give us the most complete assurance. At a time when a new continent of the extent of Africa has been opened up, and when this has been largely the fruit of long and laborious toil on the part of German pioneers and men of science, it would be self-renunciation for an active, hardworking nation like the Germans to fold their hands on their breast and look idly on, while all the civilized nations of Europe were securing to themselves shares in the work to which by interest and honour they are called. Germany has sufficiently proved since her reconstruction that she respects foreign rights and seeks nothing but peaceful competition; but she has also shown that she is not disposed to suffer any violation by others of her own equal right to the same advantages. It is therefore a just cause of surprise that a part-only a small part, I am sure-of the English press should have countenanced the idea that this colonial movement in Germany contains the germ of antagonism against any State or people in the world, except the savage tribes and rude States of the South. These too anxious politicians are particularly zealous in assuming an antagonism against England. I should like much to satisfy them on this head, especially as the danger so often arises only out of the anxiety. Since what time has any civilized European tribe set up a doctrine of monopoly in colonization ? Or what nation would not injure itself if it sought to exclude every other from the promotion of civilization? Can we even rationally speak of antagonism in fields that are not yet opened up, that are, so to say, not yet existing for us, and which can only promise to be of any use and importance even for England when English or German or other European labour has opened them up for European needs and commodities? Can we speak of rivalry in countries like Africa, America, or Australia and the islands of the South Sea, when the whole resources of Europe will not for any visible time be equal to develop them to the extent of which they are capable. Only unreason can propagate such ill-grounded opinions without reflecting how even the flattest absurdities can stir up, though it may be for a short time only, popular excitements which might cause serious disturbances to the political and economic relations of whole States. It is desirable that such disturbances of public opinion should be opposed in time both in England and in Germany. All the more so because this subject is now before the most competent tribunal possible. For one of the chief aims of the Conference summoned at the instance of Germany for the settlement of the Congo question is the timely prevention of any possible rivalries in the field of colonization by fixing on all sides the interests and rights of each Power. The colonization question is not in principle of a national, but of an international character, so far as it deals with presuppositions of international law. And it would give high satisfaction to the representatives of the Colonial movement in Germany, if the friendly Powers succeeded in finding fixed rules for the now very important colonial work of nations. What we in Germany wish is security for our private business operations in uncivilized lands, a security which neither our Government, so far as it is able, nor any foreign Power, can deny to us on principle. We therefore expect from the Congo Conference now sitting, a practical settlement of the questions of the occupation, protectorate, and annexation of uncivilized lands and of the rights to great rivers. The principle on which that Conference has been based is that of complete equality of right among the leading nations of Europe and America with respect to those countries and peoples that have not yet come under European civilization. The Conference has shown itself disposed to recognize the task proposed by the King of the Belgians' Association, which consists in this-to organize the basin of the Congo politically, and to open it to European civilization. Every people in Europe will share in the advantages of the new African State in the measure in which its special capacities and culture fit it to do so. Germans, French, English, Portuguese will acquire in the new Congo State the importance which they can win by their trade, their labour and capital, their colonization and cultivation of the land itself. The river Congo throughout its whole basin will, as a matter of international law, bear no specifically national character, but will be English, German, or French, just as far as private labour will make it so. We expect to see this principle applied to the remaining tasks of the Conference also. What has been done for the Congo cannot be refused to the Niger; and the same principle of the common interest of European civilization must serve to furnish the basis for settling the other questions which concern the political relations of European Governments with uncivilized countries. The German has hitherto been willingly received as a fellowlabourer in all English colonies, and we have rejoiced at the frequent recognition in the English press of the capacity and industry of German colonists. Relationship in language, character, force, and endurance renders a union of Englishmen and Germans in some sense easier than a union of either with Latin or Slavonic races. It would therefore be all the more foolish to encourage groundless and aimless jealousies between the two German races in a field where the labour of the one can only support that of the other. The noble and useful task of civilizing savage countries and peoples cannot possibly be the occasion of jealousy, but only of competition. And as England has never thought of excluding German labourers or merchants from her ports, mines, or coffee plantations in Asia or Africa, so now she will not try to hinder Germany from acquiring colonies of her own. Besides, it seems to me that the expectations entertained outside of Germany of immediate practical results from the present movement are often extravagant. We in Germany have as yet neither the means nor the intention of undertaking a great colonial crusade. Our aims are more modest. But we do desire, not only in a private but also in a political form, justice and protection in foreign lands for whatever we may acquire by our own labour, capital, or intelligence. This desire is too just to awaken anxiety in any country of Europe. BARON VON DER BRÜGGEN. CONTEMPORARY SOCIALISM: Le Socialisme Contemporain. Par EMILE DE LAVELEYE. Contemporary Socialism. By JOHN RAE, M.A. London: TWO WO works have lately made their appearance, each with this heading, and both are exact and full. The merits of M. de Laveleye, both as an interpreter of social phenomena and as an economic philosopher, are very high and are fully recognized. Few persons who write on social questions have the art of clearness and the gift of thoroughness to the extent that M. de Laveleye possesses those faculties, and his work, "Le Socialisme Contemporain," is characterized by the literary merits for which he is so distinguished. Mr. Rae bas supplied the English reader with an excellent work, in which the tenets of the authors whose career he handles are stated justly and reviewed with fairness and temper. Both authors have dealt with these topics as the historians of mental and moral philosophy have been accustomed to examine the subjects which they treat. They have thrown the exposition of certain prominent opinions which are identified with certain names into a set of biographies of opinion. Naturally, M. de Laveleye deals generally with the Teutonic phase of socialism. Mr. Rae has apparently followed the same lines, but, as it appears to me, independently. The latter writer has also undertaken an exposition and a criticism of Mr. George's work, which, under the name of "Progress and Poverty," has been extensively read and reviewed by English and American writers. It is sufficient to say that both works are well worth a careful perusal. But it will be obvious that it is impossible, in the brief limits of a review like the present, to deal fairly with two books in which a very great amount of personal opinion is condensed, carefully stated, and conscientiously weighed. It will be sufficient for the present purpose if one attempts to deal with the general question as fairly and distinctly as possible. The word "Socialism" is in the last degree ambiguous, or, if my reader pleases, elastic. In one sense it includes not only all critical investigations into the progress, the arrest, and the retrogression of civilization, but any effort which individuals, governments, or communities make in the direction of detecting social mischief, and in providing remedies against that which they discover. It is possible to include under the socialist hypothesis any religious movement which has intended to benefit humanity generally, any theory of the philosopher, from Plato to Herbert Spencer, which disputes the excellence of present arrangements, and propounds more or less drastic remedies for discovered and reputed evils, and any effort which Governments and Legislatures have attempted and carried out with a view to controlling and modifying individual action. In short, all that people call Altruism may be called Socialist action. The disinterested teaching of religion, the purposes of an active benevolence, the perseverance with which men have given themselves to public ends, the self-denying energy of missionaries, the labours of men like Sharp, Clarkson, Howard, Macaulay, Wilberforce; the spirit which founds and maintains almshouses and hospitals, which supplies lifeboats, which insists on justice to inferior races, and even resents cruelty to animals; the temper which makes men gentle to the young, the sick, and the weak; the impulse which urges delicately nurtured women into the work of hospital nursing, and even into that of the Genevan Red Cross; the courage with which physicians risk health and life in the midst of infection and contagion, and a thousand other efforts too numerous to recapitulate, are part of that enthusiasm which may not be a complete corrective to selfish egoism, but is, it will be found, a singularly efficacious palliative of it, and a powerful check to that further development or other aspect of the Socialist impulse which seeks to effect by force that which it despairs of achieving by a generous and spontaneous effort. It cannot be denied that selfish and personal purposes have over and over again materially aided the progress of human societies and of civilization in general. But they have aided them indirectly, unconsciously, unintentionally, and therefore have no merit, and can claim none. The genuine progress of human civilization is due to disinterested and self-denying labours on the part of those who have looked for no reward beyond the satisfaction of duty or conscience, or, if you will, of an overpowering and overmastering sympathy for others. Of course, it is possible to allege that any social virtue may be referred to a personal end, that the just, the generous, the benevolent and the beneficent among men, are as much the creatures of a personal constitution and an irresistible motive as the reverse characters are occasionally said to be. But whatever be the analysis which people make of characters and motives, few |