approximately true, are obtained by generalization from these intuitive individual judgments. We are now, then, to examine some one of these individual judgments; and we are to see whether its truth could possibly be admitted by those who accept Determinism.

My mother, who has been throughout life my most faithful and self-sacrificing friend, dies. Under the impulse of my grief, I am led to reflect on my past conduct to her; and I bitterly reproach myself for the many many instances in which I have repaid her love by selfish neglect. A philosophical friend, however, assures me, for my comfort, that on every such occasion my self-indulgent conduct was infallibly and inevitably determined for me, by my circumstances external and internal; that I had no more power to pursue any less selfish course of action, than a football has power to trace a path of its own, different from that impressed on it by physical agencies. If I could bring my mind to believe this kindly-intentioned Determinist-and if I brought home his theory to my feelings and imagination-I should be no doubt entirely relieved from my whole burden of compunction. At the same time, it is in the very highest degree improbable, we think, that I could possibly lay any such flattering unction to my soul my intimate sense of my past freedom would be too strong to be overcome by sophistry however plausible. But whether I do or do not repose trust in my Determinist friend, on either alternative our conclusion equally holds. It is simply impossible for me to believe that my conduct on these various occasions was wrong and blameworthy, if I realize the doctrine that I had no power of acting otherwise. In other words, the notion of moral evil cannot be reconciled with Determinism. For the truth of this statement we appeal to all human beings who are able to understand it, be they virtuous or vicious, cultured or rude.

This was the argument on which we rested, in those episodical sentences of ours which Mr. Hodgson (p. 247) cites. That with which he credits us (p. 248) is entirely different, though we should be quite prepared on occasion to defend it. The argument, however, which Mr. Hodgson ascribes to us, implies (if we rightly understand him) the Existence of God. But, as we have already more than once pointed out, we are advocating the Free Will doctrine as a premiss for the establishment of Theism; and we must not therefore assume Theistic doctrine in the course of our discussion.

The more we consider the doctrine of Free Will, the more strongly we feel (1) its absolute certainty on grounds of reason;

and (2) its incalculable importance, as peremptorily disproving those philosophical tenets on which contemporary antitheists rest. We are very desirous, therefore, of exhibiting it with all obtainable completeness; and we hope in our next philosophical article (accordantly with our previously expressed intention) to consider carefully its extent. "Our own humble view," we said in July, "is that a man's Will is Free during pretty nearly the whole of his waking life." It will be our business next April to defend this proposition; a proposition which throws, we think, important and quite unexpected light on man's whole moral constitution.

W. G. WARD.

T

ART. III-WESTERN SUSSEX.

THE BORDERS OF THE ARUN AND THE ADur.

HERE has been of late years a considerable reaction in favour of home associations and home scenery. Various publications of varying degrees of merit bear witness to this fact. Perhaps the truth is, however, that instead of successive movements in favour of foreign travel and in favour of staying at home, different portions of the community are differently affected at the same time-that there is an outbound portion and a stay-at-home portion. This may be the case, generally speaking, and yet we are inclined to think that since the stoppage-save by the less frequented routes-of intercourse with the Continent, during the Franco-German war, there has been a perceptible inclination on the part of our countrymen and countrywomen either to stay simply at home, or to confine their perigrinations to British soil. This change, if admitted to be real, we are inclined to ascribe to the cause mentioned, under all its aspects. Intercourse was checked only for a time, but Englishmen saw at that disastrous epoch too much of foreign military despotism, too much of its inevitable counterpart, seething socialistic insubordination and hatred of all government, not to have their home love and confidence quickened, and not to believe their country even in its material presentment fairer than they thought it.

Although we believe it merely a cross freshet and not a determined current of artistic taste, the prevalent choice of the "Queen Anne style" in architecture may be taken as a proof that our countrymen at the present time desire to surround themselves with what is English by a prescription of, at any rate, two centuries. The pure and beautiful Gothic architecture introduced among us by the elder Pugin had become so adulte

rated by deleterious admixture from abroad, that native sympathy with the style was lost, and we have witnessed the secession of a considerable number of "Gothic men" to the Queen

Anne camp.

There may be indeed another reason for this. Those who remember the great Wordsworthian movement in letters, who participated in the kindled enthusiasm of that time, those, again, who were engaged in the Tractarian movement of 1830 and downwards, tell us that there is a woful falling off in loftiness of aim and strength of character in the men of our day. And the concomitant of such deterioration would be in art a relapse from Gothic idealism with its necessary accompaniment of imperfection in execution, to what may be perfectly carried out at the sacrifice of the ideal, whilst admitting of much applied gloss of a superficial splendour. In this view of the matter there is, we fear, only too much truth. We may, however, be glad that if we are to have what is commonplace, that commonplace should be English and not foreign. There may appear narrowness in this, but it is, we believe, based upon sound artistic considerations. We shall endeavour in the pages that follow to lay before our readers a tract of home scenery that may, or may not, be already familiar to them, but that is, if we are not mistaken, worthy of a first and even of a second survey of its natural and historical claims upon their attention.

The traveller amid our domestic beauties who has been initiated into belief in the indubitable fact that there are fine things to be seen nearer the metropolis than in Devonshire, or Wales, or Scotland, will find much pleasure-and pleasure for which he is prepared-in the view to be obtained from Leith Hill on the borders of Surrey and Sussex. Hence, according to Evelyn, "twelve or thirteen counties can be seen." Gossip Aubrey only gets as far as ten, adding, "and, by the help of a telescope, Wiltshire.”

Be the enumeration of counties visible from this airy summit what it may, there can be no doubt that even for those upon whom Nature has not bestowed a clearness of vision enabling them to survey a prospect of two hundred miles in circumference, the view is full of beauty. Dennis, the critic maligned by Pope in the Dunciad, is quoted as saying that this view is more extensive than that upon Valdarno from the Apennines, than that over the Roman Campagna from Tivoli, "whilst it surpasses them at once in rural charm, pomp, and magnificence." Eustace, the classical tourist par excellence, finds a resemblance between the hills of Surrey and the minor eminences that skirt the Lombard plain, an analogy that Dr. Thomas Arnold, of Rugby, transfers to the heights of Latium.

These comparisons may be ready and fertile to the minds of those who suggest them. But to us, to liken the view from and the view towards the Surrey hills with foreign prospects, is the employment of a fallacy from which English art of all kinds and grades has long suffered, and, it is to be feared, will long suffer, and which these writers of varying dates employ with unconscious audacity in their estimate of the imperial majesty of Nature herself-viz., that England is to be tutored by Italy, and has virtue not so much by native excellence as by comparison with other lands. There is in this a twofold injustice, an injustice to ourselves and an injustice to Italy. Who, unreasoning national prejudice apart, seriously doubts that Italy has on well nigh every count the advantage over us? Who that has seen the high Alps mirrored in her pellucid lakes; who that has trod for hours upon mountain paths, studded by wayside chapels, in full view of the blushing glory of Monte Rosa; who that has seen rising from the vast sombre plain the pillared edifices of Pæstum; who that has viewed with any fulness of knowledge or capacity of just appreciation the monuments of ancient Rome, the sculptured treasures of the Vatican, and its pictorial adornments by the greatest artist that earth has seen, can doubt that Italy is more beautiful in her scenery, more venerable in her monuments because her civilization is more ancient, and more eminently gifted in the artistic talents of her children than England? Who is there that will not repeat with heartfelt conviction and sympathy the noble apostrophe of Virgil to his native country, and joyfully acknowledge that the mild lustre of Christianity shed upon that delightful land has enhanced her every charm, and lit with sacred fire the lamp of her secular magnificence?

*

But if Italy is greater than England, is England on that account to be despised? Are we to be told in Mrs. Browning's phrase in her " Aurora Leigh" that "the very skies look mean" in a land upon which Nature has been so lavish in her gifts as upon this country? Are there not features of landscape beauty with which persons living in this country are familiar, and that solicit the homage of the visitor to our shores that are wanting even in Italy? Is not spring verdure extended through the summer and even to the confines of the autumn months, in compensation for the moisture of our climate, not a choice beauty, and are not our ghyls and forces and brimming well-heads fairer than the parched torrent-beds of the South? Nay, are not snow and storm themselves, and rent forest boughs, and the surge of the ocean, things not only of warning and peril and

*Georgics, II. 135-175.

reminders of scriptural imagery, but also elements in that beauty which is not the peculiar property of north or south, but diffused through both? Has not Italy itself an added attraction, whether materially or in the language of her poets, in the snows of Soracte, and the foaming billows of Benacus?

Does it not seem then that such comparisons as those instituted above should be thrown aside by us as disparaging other lands by asserting that their fairest prospects are surpassed by ours in extent or "in rural charm, pomp, and magnificence," and our country in this regard, that the South is set up as the standard whereby her heaven-born virtue is to be tried?

The only way in which we can do justice to a country, to a literary epoch, to anything in fact, is by discarding showy generalization, and by examining it in and by itself. The fuller the mind that is brought to the task the better, but the mental vision has in our day more need to be purged than stimulated.

The way then that, according to us, a country should be surveyed is with painstaking accuracy, if only with a view to individual knowledge; and this, and by expounding faithfully to others its natural features, its historical associations, and its monuments of antiquity, if what has been called "the demon of exposition" possess us.

This work is discharged year by year by our archæological societies, amongst which that of Sussex holds an honourable place.

We may note in passing, that it is hardly possible to exaggerate the benefit the unostentatious labours of these societies confer upon the historical student, or the advantage they are the ready-made instruments of bestowing upon the community at large, if they had power given them by Government to preserve for our own and future generations the historical monuments of our country. We should not then have to dread that in a new and unwelcome sense we may "leave Old England on the lee;" when with every castle renovated, every church "restored," by the outpouring of a mistaken zeal; or, on the other hand, with the Cornish Druidical circles overthrown for the sinking of mining shafts, and the Roman via throughout the land eradicated to extend the area for turnips, everything will be as raw and modern as utilitarianism itself could desire or conceive, or the worthy parson in "The Scouring of the White Horse" recognize with sorrow.

The publications of the Sussex Archæological Society now extend to some thirty volumes, and these must be consulted by all who desire to become intimately acquainted with the history of the county. To them the works of their late editor, Mr. M. A. Lower, are useful auxiliaries. In the matter of eccle