of thinking in which we find the link that makes John Smith more than an objective fact; and my friend John Smith appears to me as possessing shape and weight and colour and all the characteristics of a human body, only at a certain stage in knowledge. At a further stage in knowledge which includes and transcends the first, he is there as my friend. But it is impossible to do justice to such a wide theme in a few sentences.

At a later stage in the book Lord Haldane applies this to problems of political science. The question, for instance, of whether or not such a thing as a General Will exists is a question which need trouble us very little if we realise that what is meant by General Will is just the common aim and purpose which evolves itself from the people and which rests on this identity in difference, on the fact that individuals are not mutually exclusive. True individualism is not to be found except where a man lives the social or group life. This identity of purpose is, as Lord Haldane points out, the ultimate basis on which sovereignty rests. Moreover the progress in conception from human beings as mechanisms and then as living organisms and finally as personalities is an example of the different levels at which Knowledge manifests itself.

Lord Haldane's treatment of the New Realism is of great interest. He exhibits it as the reaction against extreme forms of subjective idealism, which reaction takes the shape of the projection of universals into the non-mental world and a strenuous assertion that what is known is strictly non-mental and independent of the act of knowing. He values this reaction as bringing strength and vitality to philosophical research, and believes it to be but an oscillation in the general progress of philosophical thought. Progress takes place by oscillation succeeding oscillation and reaction following on reaction.'

But perhaps the most interesting chapters on the history of philosophy are those which trace the development from Berkeley and Hume through Kant after which we reach the parting of the ways, the one way giving the development from Kant through Schopenhauer and Bergson, while the other gives the development through Hegel and the modern school of Hegelian

thought. The importance of Kant's work can scarcely be over-emphasised; and yet Kant, not being in bitter earnest with the doctrine that Knowledge is foundational, did not push his work to its conclusion. Questions of the nature of the raw material of feeling and of the 'thing in itself' remained open for him. The fact remains, however, that he changed the whole course of philosophical thought. Schopenhauer, looking further afield, concentrated on the will as the key to the nature of every phenomenon in Nature,' instead of pushing the doctrine of Knowledge to its conclusion. Will, for Schopenhauer, became a sort of thing in itself.' Bergson has followed much the same line, concentrating on Intuition. It remained for Hegel, pursuing the other line, to work out the doctrine of Knowledge in its fulness. No doubt his system suffers from too great rigidity. He attempted to demonstrate the relations of the stages of the real in too cut-and-dry a fashion. But, for all that, the essence of the doctrine of Knowledge is to be seen in Hegel's works in his conception of the Idea realising itself in mind.

'Such, as I understand it, is the Hegelian view of the relation of the cosmos to the completed entirety of Knowledge, the Idea realising itself in mind with the combination of the general and particular moments in its activity. The factors in that activity are the abstractions of universal and particular. The actual is always concrete and is self-developing experience.'

The influence of Aristotle on Hegel was very great, and the essentials of the doctrine of Knowledge are to be found in the works of Aristotle. Whether we accept the conclusions of Hegel or not, he has given us the method; and this is the really important feature of his work.

Without rewriting the book it is impossible to follow Lord Haldane further in his chapters on the relation of the Individual to the State and of Man to God, and all the other principal applications of the degrees of knowledge which he gives. In conclusion we would say that, though the book is far from easy, it will repay any who have the patience and take the trouble to read it diligently. It may be that Lord Haldane is

not always as explicit as one might wish, but this is not entirely his fault. His subject is essentially a difficult one, and nothing can alter that fact. It is also of no use to pretend that his exposition of the physical theory of relativity is a popular account. But the theory is exhibited in a new and original light, and deserves study from any who are interested in its philosophical aspect. Moreover, Lord Haldane has made a successful attempt to explain in language intelligible to the non-mathematician some of the mathematical processes involved, as for example that involved in 'Tensors.' Those who have read the author's Gifford Lectures will find that the thread of thought which runs through the latter is developed and expanded in the Reign of Relativity, and, as before, emphasis is laid on the necessity of describing existence not from below upwards but from above downwards.

Art. 10.-IRELAND.

THE problem of Ireland is still unsolved; it may even be said that it presents greater difficulties than at any previous moment since the Union. It is not our intention now to explore the history of Ireland, to recall ancient Irish grievances, or British mistakes, in the hope that a precise understanding of the past may provide material for a constructive policy for the future. History has its uses, without doubt, for the politician, and he is not wise if he neglect its warnings or its lessons. But the present is never exactly like the past. Tempora mutantur; and the conditions of Irish life, social, religious, economic, are so dissimilar to those of the 18th or 19th century that a study of history is not by itself a sufficient equipment for the difficult task of promoting peace and order in that sadly distracted country. What is needed by the reformer is knowledge of the facts, of the present aspirations, fears, sympathies, of the Irish people, and of the several sections into which they are divided.

The first fact to be faced is the hostility to British rule which prevails over the larger part of Ireland. It is not generally understood in Britain how widespread this is, and how fierce are the passions which it evokes. To inquire into the causes of this, or to find reasons for its aggravation during the last twenty years, during which so many British statesmen have endeavoured to appease it by measures of social reform and British taxpayers have contributed so generously to the economic needs of Ireland, were a useless task. The plain fact is that, although Irishmen do not, as a rule, hate Englishmen or Scotsmen, they do hate British rule and desire for the future to manage their own affairs. This hatred of Britain we believe to be quite unreasonable; but it is a fact. It has been promoted by many generations of political agitators, and of recent years it has been fostered and encouraged by the Roman Catholic Church. There is nothing surprising in this. The priests of that Church are drawn, for the most part, from the ranks of the farmers and small shopkeepers, and they are inspired by the same political and racial prejudices as the people to whom they minister. In the 18th century, the Irish priest, in many cases, received part of his education on

the Continent; and the larger outlook on the world which he thus acquired was a check upon provincialism and parochialism in politics. But the establishment of Maynooth (which received a large State grant) put an end to this. For a century aspirants to the priesthood have been educated together at Maynooth, and they go forth to their work knowing nothing of any larger life, with all the political sentiments which they acquired at home intensified. It could not be otherwise. And, thus, it comes to pass that the spiritual guides of the majority of the Irish people are, for the most part, even more hostile to Britain than the least educated of their flock.

It has often been said, indeed, that the Roman Catholic clergy, or at any rate, the bishops, are really not unfavourable to the British connexion, and that, while they have acquiesced in the politics of their people, they have never been Home Rulers at heart. Such a view is unjust to them. Men in a position of responsibility must be taken to mean what they say; and the members of the Irish hierarchy have, repeatedly, in public and in private, collectively and individually, expressed their sympathy with 'national' aspirations. It is not reasonable to suppose that they consistently exert their great influence in a direction which they disapprove; as it is, indeed, psychologically incredible that they should have been able to emancipate themselves from all the traditions of their childhood and their education. We shall return later to a consideration of their political action; but at this point it is necessary to lay emphasis on the fact that the Irish priests have done more than any other class in the community to inspire the people with a distrust of British policy and, of late, to promote antagonism to British rule. Whether this attitude be wise or unwise is beside the point. Clergy and people are united in hostility to Great Britain; this is the first fact that must be borne in mind.

Why has this hostility been so grievously intensified of late? There are several reasons, but one of the most significant must next be mentioned. When the Great War broke out, it became of the first importance to secure the services of Irish soldiers, and at the same time to quash the sedition which was brewing in Ulster. Ulstermen were very ready to enlist in the Armies of the