The Press.
London, England, 1858-01-16 00:00:00

r7f7o--

3Eittraturt.

Political Progress not necessarily Democratic;
or, Relative Equality the True Foundation of
Liberty. By James Lorimer, Esq., Advocate
London : Williams and Norgate.
Tuxe work is of no ordinary ability, and, if we
mistake not, will attract considerable atten-
tion when Lord Palmerston redeems his
pledge of giving the country a new Reform
Bill.
Our author, like all other publicists, is not
proof against the seductions of system. He
has his theory, which he maintains in an ab-
solute and uncompromising sense, which, as
is the case with all absolute theories on
politics, it requires only a practical view of
the subject to see is greatly overstrained.
His theory is, that legislation is determined
by the spirit of the people, and not in any
degree vice versa. "Law, then," he says,
" and the institutions of the State being the
" result of the national spirit, to endeavour to
"regulate this spirit by legislation is to mis-
" take an effect for a cause." Before discuss-
ing the soundness of this theory it is as well
to come to an understanding as to the use of
the terms employed :
By the expressions " United Will," " Spirit of the
People," "Common Consciousness," and the like, the
writers whose opinions we have adopted are very far from
meaning the will, the opinion, or even the feeling of right
and wrong, of the numerical majority of the inhabitants
or even of the citizens of the State. On the contrary, it is
quite consistent with their views, and is indeed contem-
plated by both, that the sum of the influences, instead of
coinciding with, should stand over against the sum of indi-
vidual sentiments, and still that the institutions of the
State should be the expression of the former, not of the
latter.
But (says our author), as the State can never take
cognisance of individual importance directly, the principle
of classification becomes indispensable.
Now, without going further, we have here,
we think, materials out of the author's own
mouth to circumscribe the unlimited scope of
his theory. The " sum of the influences "
that is to say, the rum of individual impor-
tances--constitute, he says, the spirit of the
people. Now, here is something which is to
take cognisance of them. This something—
this State—must therefore be different from
the spirit of the people ; and as it has to take
cognisance of it, it must be, if not of superior
authority, at least independent of it ; and as
it is only after cognisance is taken by some
"principle of classification" that the spirit of
the people comes into existence, the " State "
must be anterior in point of time to it, and,
a fortiori, to all legislation, which being the
effect of the spirit of the people presupposes
its existence in a state of recognised activity.
SLortly after Mr. Lorimer says :
By this recognising the identity of the sovereignty and
the general will, we get rid of all those troublesome ques-
tions regarding the limits of State interference which have
so much divided political inquirers.
But these troublesome questions are not so
easily laid; and as it is clear that the " Sove-
reignty" here means simply the " State," Mr.
Lorimer cannot get rt 3 of the questions in the
way he proposes, for, so far from identifying
the sovereignty and the general will, he has
demonstrated their separate existence. And
this separate existence ones determined can
never be logically destroyed the two may
harmonise in their influence, but they never-
theless remain two agents. Moreover, the
harmony betwixt the spirit of the people or
the general will and the State varies with the
stage of civilisation ; and in the earlier history
of all nations it is the antagonism betwixt the
two, rather than their agreement, which is the
leading feature in history.
But, instead of mystifying ourselves with
philosophical terms, lei, us adopt plain lan-
guage. Let us call the State, the Government,
the spirit of the people, public opinion, and
legislation the Acts of Parliament passed from
session to session : then it is plain that none of
these influences are omnipotent, but that they
act and react on one another. Undoubtedly
in general public opinion leads the way and
Ministers profess to follow it ; but sometimes.
with or without the concurrence of Parliament,
Government goes in the teeth of public
opulion, which afterwards turns round and

h\ib.