of St. Paul. . . . I long for the day when the husbandman shall sing portions of them to himself as he follows the plough, when the weaver shall hum them to the tune of his shuttle, when the traveller shall while away with their stories the weariness of his journey."

The printing press (1438)—the very deus ex machina of intellectual democracy-soon did for knowledge what steam has done for trade: reduced time and distance to their lowest terms in the intellectual commerce of the people. Men no longer had to make long and weary pilgrimages to the homes of learning: knowledge was brought to their very doors. Often with less trouble than was taken, formerly, to teach one pupil by the voice, a teacher now taught thousands by the pen. Little wonder therefore that old things began to pass away and all things to become new. In the cultivation of ideas men discovered themselves, so to say, and were no longer content to be the shadows and echoes of the few in high places. They sought first to deliver themselves from bondage and then to enter into possession of their own. This movement, which in the religious world led to the Reformation, in the political and social world led to the advent of democratic forms of government, and the spread of education.

Hobbes (1588-1679), the great English philosopher, may be said to have started the political revolution from the intellectual standpoint. He had endeavoured to find the rational bases of social and political institutions in Leviathan; and, in so doing, had founded a school of thought which was to change the whole order of things political in Europe. The central idea of his political theory was that the State is based upon a

voluntary covenant between those composing it, in which they give up more or less of their individual rights and powers in order to gain the advantages of collective protection and progress. They, therefore, establish a supreme authority; but still keep the power to resume their natural rights, if this authority fails to secure for them what they have a right to expect. Although Hobbes himself entirely believed in, and upheld, the monarchical form of this supreme authority, other great thinkers, such as Hooker, Locke and Sydney, modified and expanded the principle-which was known as that of Social Contract. Locke (1632-1704) in his Treatise on Civil Government developed from this principle the theory of constitutional government, based on such grounds as: all men are originally free and equal; all should assist and help each other; all the goods of the earth are common to all, in the first instance; only personal labour can give any right of "private property," and only in so far as there is "enough and as good left in common for others".

The principles of liberty of thought, personal freedom and individual responsibility were becoming the commonplaces of philosophy-and even philosophy had become democratised; for just as the great religious reformers insisted that the Bible should be translated into the speech of the people, so philosophers had begun to write in a style which appealed to the average man. Such great thinkers and writers as Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Spinoza, Liebnitz, Kant, Hume and others, all contributed, by their writings, to the intellectual revolution in Europe.

All this led to the ever-increasing belief that it was through human reason that the Divine Will and its

laws were expressed; and, therefore, that man himself was the originator and founder of laws and institutions, and was their master, not their slave. Whilst, during the greater part of the eighteenth century, it was held that government existed for the security and prosperity of the governed, yet it was also held that it could not be, and ought not to be, administered by the people. But this latter notion was being denied; and the French Revolution was the articulate declaration of the belief in the sovereignty of the people, i.e., government of the people, for the people, and by the people. It must be remembered that, throughout the century, the majority of the peasants of Europe were, in effect, absolute serfs. They were compelled to give so much time to working for their lords that they had to cultivate their own land by moonlight. They were not allowed to leave their villages, or marry, without their lord's consent; neither could any of them learn a trade without permission. They, therefore, were as the driest of dry tinder to the sparks of the intellectual revolution which fell upon them.

Speaking of the political theories which were then "in the air," Mr. Lecky writes: "The true causes of their mighty influence are to be found in the condition of society. Formerly they had been advocated with a view to special political exigencies, or to a single country, or to a single section of society. For the first time, in the eighteenth century, they penetrated to the masses of the people, stirred them to their lowest depths, and produced an upheaving that was scarcely less general than that of the Reformation" (Rationalism in Europe). Thus, though monarchs had never done so much, as during this period, in the way of important civil re

forms, or been more earnest and zealous in promoting the well-being of the lower classes; yet the people were determined to abide by their own mistakes in self-government, rather than endure their present disabilities and the dangers and risks of personal governmenthowever benevolent.

Such was what may be called the social and political atmosphere in Europe, in general; whilst in Switzerland, in particular, it was at one of its points of greatest intensity. Though there were far more freemen than bondmen amongst the peasants, yet they were obliged to fight for their rights against two great anti-popular influences in government, viz., "Patriciates," and Guild government "by divine right". During the latter part of the sixteenth century, and onwards, in certain towns and states "it tacitly became the rule that appointments to positions in the councils should be held for life, or even hereditary; in Lucerne, for instance, the son succeeded the father, and the brother the brother. But when the end could not be attained lawfully, unlawful means, such as bribery, were brought to bear. Thus the burghers separated themselves into a distinct class, with the sole and hereditary right of governing the whole state. The road to government appointment was totally barred to all who were not by birth freemen of the city. . . . A purely aristocratic system was gradually formed, or as it was called (after a like system of Rome) a Patriciate'. In Fribourg, for instance, it was determined in 1627 to exclude all families who were not at that time within the pale of the council from holding any public offices; a secret chamber' of twenty-four members elected the great and small councils and all government officials, and completed i

itself; thus the political rights were limited to only seventy-one families. . . .

"From the end of the fifteenth century it became the rule in Zurich and Bern to consult the peasantry and advise with them upon all important acts of government, such as the declaration of war, the conclusion of peace, alliances, taxes, etc. During the course of the sixteenth century, however, the idea gradually obtained that the authorities wielded the sword of protection and punishment in God's name, and that the divine law required obedience from subjects in all cases. . . so [they] tried to destroy the influence of the people, more especially after an exclusive ruling faction had arisen within the cities themselves" (Dr. Karl Dändliker, A Short History of Switzerland). The result of this was that there were constant revolts of the peasants. Such risings, being of small bodies in different localities, were easily put down and the ringleaders severely punished. In 1653 the peasants made common cause with one another and rose in rebellion. This was known as the Peasants' War, and it ended in their complete overthrow.

During the seventeenth century considerable material progress took place. "Outwardly considered, the aristocracy developed an appearance of no inconsiderable prosperity, especially in administration. The general conditions and necessities of the time led to many useful institutions. . . . In Bern, Zurich, Zug, Basel, and even in Soleure, Lucerne, Stanz, etc., public almshouses, hospitals, orphan asylums, improved houses of correction, etc., were established. The governments of Zurich, Bern, Basel and Zug made more extensive provision than formerly for scholastic institutions, scientific col