l position, and be
entirely upset. So a healthy and sound conservative equilibrium is not
disturbed by outside forces, and the State will resume its former
position of stability and rest when the opposing force is withdrawn. But
an unhealthy and insecure conservatism is as easily disturbed as an egg
balanced on its narrow end.

The kinetics of society, that is to say the Radical way of estimating
force, is the party of motion, generally supposed to be the 'party of
progress.' It has therefore many attractions in the eyes of those who
delight in motion, speed, and rushing about. To run at full speed, to
feel the keen air upon one's face, to experience the delightful
sensation of freedom of will, and limb, are joys which cannot be denied.
Such exercise is beneficial to the system, bodily or political. Motion
is the life of all things; it is characteristic of nature; it adores
nature; because it is an emblem and characteristic of life. The
ceaseless rolling of the ocean waves, the swaying of the trees, the
bending of the flowers, the waving of the corn, all these fill us with
pleasure; whereas a flat uninteresting plain, unrelieved by the motion
of terrestrial objects, is depressing to the spirit. So there is much to
be said in favour of motion, and Carlyle has defined progress as 'living
movement.' And men love this 'living movement,' and take up the
Laureate's cry:

'Forward, forward, let us range,
Let the great world spin for ever down the ringing
Grooves of change.'

But, after all, there is a danger in this everlasting motion. We cannot
tell whither this progress may lead. It may be along a safe sure road;
but perchance a precipice may open out before us; and rejoicing in the
acceleration of our velocity, with eyes intent upon some distant heights
of glory and ambition, we may not discover our danger until it is too
late to stop, and a terrible plunge into an unknown abyss of turmoil and
tumultuous waves is the alarming result of an unguarded policy of
unrestrained 'progress.' I recall to my mind the quaint words of Holmes
which aptly illustrate my contention.

'If the wild filly, "Progress", thou would'st ride,
Have young companions ever at thy side;
But wouldst thou stride the staunch old mare, "Success,"
Go with thine elders, though they please thee less.'

Progress and success do not always go together hand in hand; and while
motion is essential to life, it