Chapter IV (3)

This misconception of the true nature of barter was formerly universal;[356] and being adopted even by the ablest politicians, was not only an immediate cause of war, but increased those feelings of natural hatred by which war is encouraged; each country thinking that it had a direct interest in diminishing the wealth of its neighbours.[357] In the seventeenth, or even late in the sixteenth century, there were, indeed, one or two eminent thinkers who exposed some of the fallacies upon which this opinion was based.[358] But their arguments found no favour with those politicians by whom European affairs were then administered. It is doubtful if they were known; and it is certain that, if known, they were despised by statesmen and legislators, who, from the constancy of their practical occupations, cannot be supposed to have sufficient leisure to master each new discovery that is successively made; and who in consequence are, as a body, always in the rear of their age. The result was, that they went blundering on in the old track, believing that no commerce could flourish without their interference, troubling that commerce by repeated and harassing regulations, and taking for granted that it was the duty of every government to benefit the trade of their own people by injuring the trade of others.[359]

[356] In regard to the seventeenth century, see _Mill's History of
India_, vol. i. pp. 41, 42. To this I may add, that even Locke had
very confused notions respecting the use of money in trade. See
_Essay on Money_, in _Locke's Works_, vol. iv.; and in particular
pp. 9, 10, 12, 20, 21, 49-52. Berkeley, profound thinker as he
was, fell into the same errors, and assumes the necessity of
maintaining the balance of trade, and lessening our imports in
proportion as we lessen our exports. See the _Querist_, Nos.
xcix. clxi., in _Berkeley's Works_, vol. ii. pp. 246, 250: see
also his proposal for a sumptuary law, in _Essay towards
Preventing the Ruin of Great Britain_, in _Works_, vol. ii. p.
190. The economical views of Montesquieu (_Esprit des Lois_,
livre xx. chap. xii. in _[OE]uvres_, p. 353) are as hopelessly
wrong; while Vattel (_Droit des Gens_, vol. i. pp. 111, 117, 118,
206) goes out of his way to praise the mischievous interference
of the English government, which he recommends as a pattern to
other states.

[357] The Earl of Bristol, a man of some ability, told the House of
Lords, in 1642, that it was a great advantage to England for
other countries to go to war with each other; because by that
means we should get their money, or, as he called it, their
'wealth.' See his speech, in _Parl. History_, vol. ii. pp.
1274-1279.

[358] Serra, who wrote in 1613, is said to have been the first to prove
the absurdity of discouraging the exportation of the precious
metals. See _Twiss on the Progress of Political Economy_, pp. 8,
12, 13. But I believe that the earliest approach towards modern
economical discoveries is a striking essay published in 1581, and
ascribed to William Stafford. It will be found in the _Harleian
Miscellany_, vol. ix. pp. 139-192, edit. Park, 1812; and the
title, _Brief Conceipt of English Policy_, gives an inadequate
idea of what is, on the whole, the most important work on the
theory of politics which had then appeared: since the author not
only displays an insight into the nature of price and value, such
as no previous thinker possessed, but he points out clearly the
causes of that system of enclosures which is the leading
economical fact in the reign of Elizabeth, and is intimately
connected with the rise of the poor-laws. Some account of this
essay is given by Dr. Twiss; but the original is easily
accessible, and should be read by every student of English
history. Among other heretical propositions, it recommends free
trade in corn.

[359] In regard to the interference of the English legislature, it is
stated by Mr. M'Culloch (_Polit. Econ._ p. 269), on the authority
of a committee of the House of Commons, that before the year
1820, 'no fewer than two thousand laws with respect to commerce
had been passed at different periods.' It may be confidently
asserted, that every one of those laws was an unmitigated evil,
since no trade, and indeed no interest of any kind, can be
protected by government without inflicting immeasurably greater
loss upon the unprotected interests and trades; while, if the
protection is universal, the loss will be universal. Some
striking instances of the absurd laws which have been passed
respecting trade, are collected in _Barrington's Observations on
the Statutes_, pp. 279-285. Indeed, it was considered necessary
that every parliament should do something in this way; and
Charles II., in one of his speeches, says, 'I pray, contrive any
good short bills which may improve the industry of the nation
... and so God bles your councils.' _Parl. History_, vol. iv. p.
291. Compare the remarks on the fishery-trade, in _Somers'
Tracts_, vol. xii. p. 33.

But in the eighteenth century, a long course of events, which I shall hereafter trace, prepared the way for a spirit of improvement, and a desire for reform, of which the world had then seen no example. This great movement displayed its energy in every department of knowledge; and now it was that a successful attempt was first made to raise Political Economy to a science, by discovering the laws which regulate the creation and diffusion of wealth. In the year 1776, Adam Smith published his _Wealth of Nations_; which, looking at its ultimate results, is probably the most important book that has ever been written, and is certainly the most valuable contribution ever made by a single man towards establishing the principles on which government should be based. In this great work, the old theory of protection as applied to commerce was destroyed in nearly all its parts;[360] the doctrine of the balance of trade was not only attacked, but its falsehood was demonstrated; and innumerable absurdities, which had been accumulating for ages, were suddenly swept away.[361]

[360] To this the only exception of any moment is the view taken of the
usury-laws, which Jeremy Bentham has the honour of demolishing.

[361] Before Adam Smith, the principal merit is due to Hume; but the
works of that profound thinker were too fragmentary to produce
much effect. Indeed, Hume, notwithstanding his vast powers, was
inferior to Smith in comprehensiveness as well as in industry.

If the _Wealth of Nations_ had appeared in any preceding century, it would have shared the fate of the great works of Stafford and Serra; and although the principles which it advocated would, no doubt, have excited the attention of speculative thinkers, they would, in all probability, have produced no effect on practical politicians, or, at all events, would only have exercised an indirect and precarious influence. But the diffusion of knowledge had now become so general, that even our ordinary legislators were, in some degree, prepared for these great truths, which, in a former period, they would have despised as idle novelties. The result was, that the doctrines of Adam Smith soon found their way into the House of Commons;[362] and, being adopted by a few of the leading members, were listened to with astonishment by that great assembly, whose opinions were mainly regulated by the wisdom of their ancestors, and who were loth to believe that anything could be discovered by the moderns which was not already known to the ancients. But it is in vain that such men as these always set themselves up to resist the pressure of advancing knowledge. No great truth which has once been found has ever afterwards been lost; nor has any important discovery yet been made which has not eventually carried everything before it. Even so, the principles of Free Trade, as demonstrated by Adam Smith, and all the consequences which flow from them, were vainly struggled against by the most overwhelming majorities of both Houses of Parliament. Year by year the great truth made its way; always advancing, never receding.[363] The majority was at first deserted by a few men of ability, then by ordinary men, then it became a minority, then even the minority began to dwindle; and at the present day, eighty years after the publication of Smith's _Wealth of Nations_, there is not to be found any one of tolerable education who is not ashamed of holding opinions which, before the time of Adam Smith, were universally received.

[362] The first notice I have observed of the _Wealth of Nations_ in
Parliament is in 1783; and between then and the end of the
century it is referred to several times, and latterly with
increasing frequency. See _Parliamentary History_, vol. xxiii. p.
1152, vol. xxvi. pp. 481, 1035, vol. xxvii. p. 385, vol. xxix.
pp. 834, 905, 982, 1065, vol. xxx. pp. 330, 333, vol. xxxii. p.
2, vol. xxxiii. pp. 353, 386, 522, 548, 549, 563, 774, 777, 778,
822, 823, 824, 825, 827, 1249, vol. xxxiv. pp. 11, 97, 98, 141,
142, 304, 473, 850, 901, 902, 903. It is possible that one or two
passages may have been overlooked; but I believe that these are
the only instances of Adam Smith being referred to during
seventeen years. From a passage in _Pellew's Life of Sidmouth_,
vol. i. p. 51, it appears that even Addington was studying Adam
Smith in 1787.

[363] In 1797, Pulteney, in one of his financial speeches, appealed to
'the authority of Dr. Smith, who, it was well said, would
persuade the present generation and govern the next.' _Parl.
Hist._ vol. xxxiii. p. 778. In 1813, Dugald Stewart (_Philosophy
of the Human Mind_, vol. ii. p. 472) announced that the doctrine
of free trade 'has now, I believe, become the prevailing creed of
thinking men all over Europe.' And in 1816, Ricardo said, 'The
reasoning by which the liberty of trade is supported is so
powerful, that it is daily obtaining converts. It is with
pleasure that I see the progress which this great principle is
making amongst those whom we should have expected to cling the
longest to old prejudices.' _Proposals for an Economical
Currency_, in _Ricardo's Works_, p. 407.

Such is the way in which great thinkers control the affairs of men, and by their discoveries regulate the march of nations. And truly the history of this one triumph alone should be enough to repress the presumption of statesmen and legislators, who so exaggerate the importance of their craft as to ascribe great results to their own shifting and temporary contrivances. For, whence did they derive that knowledge, of which they are always ready to assume the merit? How did they obtain their opinions? How did they get at their principles? These are the elements of their success; and these they can only learn from their masters--from those great teachers, who, moved by the inspiration of genius, fertilize the world with their discoveries. Well may it be said of Adam Smith, and said, too, without fear of contradiction, that this solitary Scotchman has, by the publication of one single work, contributed more towards the happiness of man, than has been effected by the united abilities of all the statesmen and legislators of whom history has preserved an authentic account.

The result of these great discoveries I am not here concerned to examine, except so far as they aided in diminishing the energy of the warlike spirit. And the way in which they effected this may be easily stated. As long as it was generally believed that the wealth of a country consists of its gold, it was of course also believed that the sole object of trade is to increase the influx of the precious metals; it, therefore, became natural that Government should be expected to take measures by which such influx could be secured. This, however, could only be done by draining other countries of their gold; a result which they, for precisely the same reasons, strenuously resisted. The consequence was, that any idea of real reciprocity was impossible: every commercial treaty was an attempt made by one nation to outwit another;[364] every new tariff was a declaration of hostility; and that which ought to be the most peaceable of all pursuits became one of the causes of those national jealousies and national animosities, by which war is mainly promoted.[365] But when it was once clearly understood that gold and silver are not wealth, but are merely the representatives of wealth; when men began to see that wealth itself solely consists of the value which skill and labour can add to the raw material, and that money is of no possible use to a nation except to measure and circulate their riches; when these great truths were recognized,[366] all the old notions respecting the balance of trade, and the supreme importance of the precious metals, at once fell to the ground. These enormous errors being dispersed, the true theory of barter was easily worked out. It was perceived, that if commerce is allowed to be free, its advantages will be shared by every country which engages in it; that, in the absence of monopoly, the benefits of trade are of necessity reciprocal; and that, so far from depending on the amount of gold received, they simply arise from the facility with which a nation gets rid of those commodities which it can produce most cheaply, and receives in return those commodities which it could only produce at a great expense, but which the other nation can, from the skill of its workmen, or from the bounty of nature, afford to supply at a lower rate. From this it followed, that, in a mercantile point of view, it would be as absurd to attempt to impoverish a people with whom we trade, as it would be in a tradesman to wish for the insolvency of a rich and frequent customer. The result is, that the commercial spirit, which formerly was often warlike, is now invariably pacific.[367] And although it is perfectly true that not one merchant out of a hundred is familiar with the arguments on which these economical discoveries are founded, that does not prevent the effect which the discoveries themselves produce on his own mind. The mercantile class is, like every other, acted upon by causes which only a few members of that class are able to perceive. Thus, for instance, of all the innumerable opponents of protection, there are very few indeed who can give valid reasons to justify their opposition. But this does not prevent the opposition from taking place. For an immense majority of men always follow with implicit submission the spirit of their own time; and the spirit of the time is merely its knowledge, and the direction that knowledge takes. As, in the ordinary avocations of daily life, everyone is benefited, in the increase of his comforts, and of his general security, by the progress of many arts and sciences, of which perhaps he does not even know the name, just so is the mercantile class benefited by those great economical discoveries which, in the course of two generations, have already effected a complete change in the commercial legislation of this country, and which are now operating slowly, but steadily, upon those other European states where, public opinion being less powerful, it is more difficult to establish great truths and extirpate old abuses. While, therefore, it is perfectly true, that among merchants, a comparatively small number are acquainted with political economy, it is not the less true that they owe a large part of their wealth to the political economists; who, by removing the obstacles with which the ignorance of successive governments had impeded trade, have now settled on a solid foundation that commercial prosperity which is by no means the least of our national glories. Most assuredly is it also true, that this same intellectual movement has lessened the chance of war, by ascertaining the principles which ought to regulate our commercial relations with foreign countries; by proving, not only the inutility, but the positive mischief, caused by interfering with them; and finally, by exploding those long-established errors, which, inducing men to believe that nations are the natural enemies of each other, encouraged those evil feelings, and fostered those national jealousies, to the strength of which the military spirit owed no small share of its former influence.

[364] Sir Theodore Janson, in his _General Maxims of Trade_, published
in 1713, lays it down as a principle universally recognized, that
'All the nations of Europe seem to strive who shall outwit one
another in point of trade; and they concur in this maxim, that
the less they consume of foreign commodities, the better it is
for them.' _Somers' Tracts_, vol. xiii. p. 292. Thus, too, in a
_Dialogue between an Englishman and a Dutchman_, published in
1700, the Dutchman is represented as boasting that his government
had 'forced treaties of commerce exclusive to all other nations.'
_Somers' Tracts_, vol. xi. p. 376. This is the system of 'narrow
selfishness' denounced by Dr. Story, in his noble work, _Conflict
of Laws_, 1841, p. 32.

[365] 'It cannot, indeed, be denied that mistaken views of commerce,
like those so frequently entertained of religion, have been the
cause of many wars and of much bloodshed.' _M'Culloch's
Principles of Political Economy_, p. 140. See also pp. 37, 38:
'It has made each nation regard the welfare of its neighbours as
incompatible with its own: hence the reciprocal desire of
injuring and impoverishing each other; and hence that spirit of
commercial rivalry, which has been the immediate or remote cause
of the greater number of modern wars.'

[366] On the rapid diffusion during the present century of the
principles worked out by the economists, compare _Laing's
Sweden_, pp. 356-358, with a note to the last edition of _Malthus
on Population_, 1826, vol. ii. pp. 354, 355.

[367] 'The feelings of rival tradesmen, prevailing among nations,
overruled for centuries all sense of the general community of
advantage which commercial countries derive from the prosperity
of one another; and that commercial spirit, which is now one of
the strongest obstacles to wars, was during a certain period of
European history their principal cause.' _Mill's Political
Economy_, 1849, vol. ii. p. 221. This great change in the
feelings of the commercial classes did not begin before the
present century, and has not been visible to ordinary observers
until the last five-and-twenty or thirty years; but it was
foretold in a remarkable passage written by Herder in 1787; see
his _Ideen zur Geschichte_, vol. iii. pp. 292, 293.

The third great cause by which the love of war has been weakened, is the way in which discoveries respecting the application of Steam to the purposes of travelling have facilitated the intercourse between different countries, and thus aided in destroying that ignorant contempt which one nation is too apt to feel for another. Thus, for instance, the miserable and impudent falsehoods which a large class of English writers formerly directed against the morals and private character of the French, and, to their shame be it said, even against the chastity of French women, tended not a little to embitter the angry feelings then existing between the two first countries of Europe; irritating the English against French vices, irritating the French against English calumnies. In the same way, there was a time when every honest Englishman firmly believed that he could beat ten Frenchmen; a class of beings whom he held in sovereign contempt, as a lean and stunted race, who drank claret instead of brandy, who lived entirely off frogs; miserable infidels, who heard mass every Sunday, who bowed down before idols, and who even worshipped the Pope. On the other hand, the French were taught to despise us, as rude unlettered barbarians, without either taste or humanity; surly, ill-conditioned men, living in an unhappy climate, where a perpetual fog, only varied by rain, prevented the sun from ever being seen; suffering from so deep and inveterate a melancholy, that physicians had called it the English spleen; and under the influence of this cruel malady constantly committing suicide, particularly in November, when we were well known to hang and shoot ourselves by thousands.[368]

[368] That there are more suicides in gloomy weather than in fine
weather used always to be taken for granted, and was a favourite
topic with the French wits, who were never weary of expatiating
on our love of self-murder, and on the relation between it and
our murky climate. Unfortunately for such speculations, the fact
is exactly opposite to what is generally supposed, and we have
decisive evidence that there are more suicides in summer than in
winter. See _Quetelet sur l'Homme_, vol. ii. pp. 152, 158;
_Tissot de la Manie du Suicide_, Paris, 1840, pp. 50, 149, 150;
_Journal of Statistical Society_, vol. i. p. 102; _Winslow's
Anatomy of Suicide_, 1840, pp. 131, 132; _Hawkins's Medical
Statistics_, p. 170.

Whoever has looked much into the older literature of France and England, knows that these were the opinions which the two first nations of Europe, in the ignorance and simplicity of their hearts, held respecting each other. But the progress of improvement, by bringing the two countries into close and intimate contact, has dissipated these foolish prejudices, and taught each people to admire, and, what is still more important, to respect each other. And the greater the contact, the greater the respect. For, whatever theologians may choose to assert, it is certain that mankind at large has far more virtue than vice, and that in every country good actions are more frequent than bad ones. Indeed, if this were otherwise, the preponderance of evil would long since have destroyed the human race, and not even have left a single man to lament the degeneracy of his species. An additional proof of this is the fact, that the more nations associate with each other, and the more they see and know of their fellow-creatures, the more quickly do ancient enmities disappear. This is because an enlarged experience proves that mankind is not so radically bad as we from our infancy are taught to believe. But if vices were really more frequent than virtues, the result would be, that the increasing amalgamation of society would increase our bad opinion of others; because, though we may love our own vices, we do not generally love the vices of our neighbours. So far, however, is this from being the actual consequence, that it has always been found that those whose extensive knowledge makes them best acquainted with the general course of human actions, are precisely those who take the most favourable view of them. The greatest observer and the most profound thinker is invariably the most lenient judge. It is the solitary misanthrope, brooding over his fancied wrongs, who is most prone to depreciate the good qualities of our nature, and exaggerate its bad ones. Or else it is some foolish and ignorant monk, who, dreaming away his existence in an idle solitude, flatters his own vanity by denouncing the vices of others; and thus declaiming against the enjoyments of life, revenges himself on that society from which by his own superstition he is excluded. These are the sort of men who insist most strongly on the corruption of our nature, and on the degeneracy into which we have fallen. The enormous evil which such opinions have brought about, is well understood by those who have studied the history of countries in which they are, and have been, most prevalent. Hence it is that, among the innumerable benefits derived from advancing knowledge, there are few more important than those improved facilities of communication,[369] which, by increasing the frequency with which nations and individuals are brought into contact, have, to an extraordinary extent, corrected their prejudices, raised the opinion which each forms of the other, diminished their mutual hostility, and thus diffusing a more favourable view of our common nature, have stimulated us to develop those boundless resources of the human understanding, the very existence of which it was once considered almost a heresy to assert.

[369] Respecting which I will only mention one fact, in regard to our
own country. By the returns of the Board of Trade, it appears
that the passengers annually travelling by railway amounted in
1842 to nineteen millions; but in 1852 they had increased to more
than eighty-six millions. _Journal of Statistical Society_, vol.
xvi. p. 292.

This is precisely what has occurred in modern Europe. The French and English people have, by the mere force of increased contact, learned to think more favourably of each other, and to discard that foolish contempt in which both nations formerly indulged. In this, as in all cases, the better one civilized country is acquainted with another, the more it will find to respect and to imitate. For of all the causes of national hatred, ignorance is the most powerful. When you increase the contact, you remove the ignorance, and thus you diminish the hatred.[370] This is the true bond of charity; and it is worth all the lessons which moralists and divines are able to teach. They have pursued their vocation for centuries, without producing the least effect in lessening the frequency of war. But it may be said without the slightest exaggeration, that every new railroad which is laid down, and every fresh steamer which crosses the Channel, are additional guarantees for the preservation of that long and unbroken peace which, during forty years, has knit together the fortunes and the interests of the two most civilized nations of the earth.

[370] Of this, Mr. Stephens (in his valuable work, _Central America_,
vol. i. pp. 247-8) relates an interesting instance in the case of
that remarkable man Carrera: 'Indeed, in no particular had he
changed more than in his opinion of foreigners; a happy
illustration of the effect of personal intercourse in breaking
down prejudices against individuals or classes.' Mr. Elphinstone
(_History of India_, p. 195) says, 'Those who have known the
Indians longest have always the best opinion of them: but _this
is rather a compliment to human nature than to them, since it is
true of every other people_.' Compare an instructive passage in
_Darwin's Journal of Researches_, p. 421, with _Burdach_, _Traité
de Physiologie comme Science d'Observation_, vol. ii. p. 61.

I have thus, so far as my knowledge will permit, endeavoured to indicate the causes which have diminished religious persecution and war: the two greatest evils with which men have yet contrived to afflict their fellow-creatures. The question of the decline of religious persecution I have only briefly noticed, because it will be more fully handled in a subsequent part of this volume. Enough, however, has been advanced to prove how essentially it is an intellectual process, and how little good can be effected on this subject by the operation of moral feelings. The causes of the decline of the warlike spirit I have examined at considerable, and, perhaps, to some readers, at tedious length, and the result of that examination has been, that the decline is owing to the increase of the intellectual classes, to whom the military classes are necessarily antagonistic. In pushing the inquiry a little deeper, we have, by still further analysis, ascertained the existence of three vast though subsidiary causes, by which the general movement has been accelerated. These are--the invention of Gunpowder, the discoveries of Political Economy, and the discovery of improved means of Locomotion. Such are the three great modes or channels by which the progress of knowledge has weakened the old warlike spirit; and the way in which they have effected this has, I trust, been clearly pointed out. The facts and arguments which I have brought forward, have, I can conscientiously say, been subjected to careful and repeated scrutiny; and I am quite unable to see on what possible ground their accuracy is to be impugned. That they will be disagreeable to certain classes, I am well aware; but the unpleasantness of a statement is hardly to be considered a proof of its falsehood. The sources from which the evidence has been derived are fully indicated; and the arguments, I hope, fairly stated. And from them there results a most important conclusion. From them we are bound to infer, that the two oldest, greatest, most inveterate, and most widely-spread evils which have ever been known, are constantly, though, on the whole, slowly, diminishing; and that their diminution has been effected, not at all by moral feelings, nor by moral teachings, but solely by the activity of the human intellect, and by the inventions and discoveries which, in a long course of successive ages, man has been able to make.

Since, then, in the two most important phenomena which the progress of society presents, the moral laws have been steadily and invariably subordinate to the intellectual laws, there arises a strong presumption that in inferior matters the same process has been followed. To prove this in its full extent, and thus raise the presumption to an absolute certainty, would be to write, not an Introduction to history, but the History itself. The reader must, therefore, be satisfied for the present with what, I am conscious, is merely an approach towards demonstration; and the complete demonstration must necessarily be reserved for the future volumes of this work: in which I pledge myself to show that the progress Europe has made from barbarism to civilization is entirely due to its intellectual activity; that the leading countries have now, for some centuries, advanced sufficiently far to shake off the influence of those physical agencies by which in an earlier state their career might have been troubled; and that although the moral agencies are still powerful, and still cause occasional disturbances, these are but aberrations, which, if we compare long periods of time, balance each other, and thus in the total amount entirely disappear. So that, in a great and comprehensive view, the changes in every civilized people are, in their aggregate, dependent solely on three things: first, on the amount of knowledge possessed by their ablest men; secondly, on the direction which that knowledge takes, that is to say, the sort of subjects to which it refers: thirdly, and above all, on the extent to which the knowledge is diffused, and the freedom with which it pervades all classes of society.

These are the three great movers of every civilized country; and although their operation is frequently disturbed by the vices or the virtues of powerful individuals, such moral feelings correct each other, and the average of long periods remains unaffected. Owing to causes of which we are ignorant, the moral qualities do, no doubt, constantly vary; so that in one man, or perhaps even in one generation, there will be an excess of good intentions; in another an excess of bad ones. But we have no reason to think that any permanent change has been effected in the proportion which those who naturally possess good intentions bear to those in whom bad ones seem to be inherent. In what may be called the innate and original morals of mankind, there is, so far as we are aware, no progress. Of the different passions with which we are born, some are more prevalent at one time, some at another; but experience teaches us that, as they are always antagonistic, they are held in balance by the force of their own opposition. The activity of one motive is corrected by the activity of another. For to every vice there is a corresponding virtue. Cruelty is counteracted by benevolence; sympathy is excited by suffering; the injustice of some provokes the charity of others; new evils are met by new remedies, and even the most enormous offences that have ever been known have left behind them no permanent impression. The desolation of countries and the slaughter of men are losses which never fail to be repaired, and at the distance of a few centuries every vestige of them is effaced. The gigantic crimes of Alexander or Napoleon become after a time void of effect, and the affairs of the world return to their former level. This is the ebb and flow of history, the perpetual flux to which by the laws of our nature we are subject. Above all this, there is a far higher movement; and as the tide rolls on, now advancing, now receding, there is, amid its endless fluctuations, one thing, and one alone, which endures for ever. The actions of bad men produce only temporary evil, the actions of good men only temporary good; and eventually the good and the evil altogether subside, are neutralized by subsequent generations, absorbed by the incessant movements of future ages. But the discoveries of great men never leave us; they are immortal, they contain those eternal truths which survive the shock of empires, outlive the struggles of rival creeds, and witness the decay of successive religions. All these have their different measures and their different standards; one set of opinions for one age, another set for another. They pass away like a dream; they are as the fabric of a vision, which leaves not a rack behind. The discoveries of genius alone remain: it is to them we owe all that we now have, they are for all ages and all times; never young, and never old, they bear the seeds of their own life; they flow on in a perennial and undying stream; they are essentially cumulative, and, giving birth to the additions which they subsequently receive, they thus influence the most distant posterity, and after the lapse of centuries produce more effect than they were able to do even at the moment of their promulgation.