It is a commonplace that even rich men looked upon a law-suit as a
dire misfortune, even if they gained the case; and as for a poor one--why,
it was considered a miracle of justice and beneficence if a poor man who
had once got into the clutches of the law escaped prison or utter ruin.

(H.) It seems, then, my son, that the government by law-courts and
police, which was the real government of the nineteenth century, was not
a great success even to the people of that day, living under a class
system which proclaimed inequality and poverty as the law of God and the
bond which held the world together.

(I) So it seems, indeed.

(H.) And now that all this is changed, and the "rights of property,"
which mean the clenching the fist on a piece of goods and crying out to
the neighbours, You shan't have this!--now that all this has disappeared
so utterly that it is no longer possible even to jest upon its absurdity,
is such a Government possible?

(I) It is impossible.

(H.) Yes, happily. But for what other purpose than the protection of
the rich from the poor, the strong from the weak, did this Government
exist?

(I.) I have heard that it was said that their office was to defend their
own citizens against attack from other countries.

(H.) It was said; but was anyone expected to believe this? For
instance, did the English Government defend the English citizen against
the French?

(I) So it was said.

(H.) Then if the French had invaded England and conquered it, they would
not have allowed the English workmen to live well?

(I, laughing) As far as I can make out, the English masters of the
English workmen saw to that: they took from their workmen as much of
their livelihood as they dared, because they wanted it for themselves.

(H.) But if the French had conquered, would they not have taken more
still from the English workmen?

(I) I do not think so; for in that case the English workmen would have
died of starvation; and then the French conquest would have ruined the
French, just as if the English horses and cattle had died of
under-feeding. So that after all, the English _workmen_ would have been
no worse off for the conquest: their French Masters could have got no
more from them than their English masters did.

(H.) This is true; and we may admit that the pretensions of the
government to defend the poor (_i.e._, the useful) people against other
countries come to nothing. But that is but natur