The employment of all! Why is not bills of exchange go for gold, and the gold every man employed? Because the supply not being in existence, perhaps having gone of labour is greater than the demand. Why into a foreign country through the operation is the supply greater than the demand? A of the exchanges, the holders have to submit hundred answers present themselves to the to enormous sacrifices, which means, they minds of your various readers. I would have to pay high premiums on gold, which answer it at once, and boldly - because there means a high rate of discount. That money is a want of money; because this nation should be symbolical, and not have intrinsic has insanely tied down illimitable production value, I will attempt to prove by another to limited money, instead of allowing money argument: and here let me say, that if we to keep pace and expand with production. are to make a commodity into money, no We have made gold, a scarce metal (the commodity is so convenient as gold: but my happy consequences to arise from its recent argument is, that no commodity can make a almost miraculous plenty will be touched on money; for money is merely a shadow, and hereafter), our money; and money being legal should increase with production and disaptender, that is, the only instrument which pear with consumption. As soon as a pair the law recognises as a legal discharge of of boots are made, the money should come into debts, taxes, and wages, and all production existence; as soon as the boots are sold, the being resolvable into this money, such produc- money should disappear. To make this tion is dwarfed and arrested by money's assertion good will require another paper, comparative scarcity: for I lay it down as an and I wish it to go for no more than an axiom, that much production, or many com- assertion at present. But my argument is modities and little money, is cheapness, and this:-If a commodity can make a money, cheapness is unremunerative price; and un- then gold, being the most convenient, can munerative price is depressed trade, languid make a money, and we then insist that the demand, and intermittent employment of bullionists carry out their principle and give labour. Cheap commodities inean dear us a gold money-a money of gold (allowing money: cheap money means dear commo- silver as small change), and nothing but dities. I advocate cheap money: I wish to gold. Don't eke out your system by resortsee commodities dear. Gold is a dearing to one symbolic money. Gold, gold, money; to it I trace all our commercial evils. I would abolish gold money, which is money of intrinsic value, and would substitute paper money, which is cheap money, and for the following reasons:-Because money is in its very nature representative, as a bill of lading s representative of a cargo. Any man olding a bill of lading, though only a piece paper, is deemed to be the owner of the cargo worth thousands, representative, like the penny postage stamp, which in itself, though not worth the hundredth part of a farthing, is nevertheless representative of the potentiality of carrying a letter from Dover to Galway, and would be taken by any Another argument against gold money is e as the representative of the copper penny. this--and if I make my case good against Let me dissipate an erroneous idea which gold, I make it good against all intrinsically pervades the minds of all those who have valuable money, because gold is the best of et paid attention to this subject. A bill of commodities, if we are to have a commodity exchange is not money; it is only a promise-namely, that the proper weight of a to pay money; and in times of panic-the sovereign is 5 dwt. 3 grs., and that sovetouchstone of our system-is convertible reigns are coined to that weight and no aly into gold, or its certificate, Bank of more. But, unfortunately, if the sovereign, England paper. Panic means this-that in being transferred from one bag to another, widers of some four hundred millions of from one pocket to another, from the opera nothing but gold. If a merchant has a thousand pounds to receive, let one of his clerks follow him with a wheelbarrow; let every man see that his pocket is well sewed; let your leather bags be capacious; let the worship of Mammon be sincere and undivided. Do not recognise flimsies, put away far from you dirty rags. Above all, the fourteen millions of debt which the nation owes to the Bank of England, and which is issued as paper money, without any base of gold, must be withdrawn, and let the panic come on. If your principles be sound, adhere to them, and never fear the consequences. tions of the sweater-who is as naturally the product of gold money as vermin is of filth-from the abrasion of one coin against another; I say, if the sovereign loses one thousandth part of a grain, it is not longer legal tender; the government refuses it for taxes, the banker throws it back to you, with a supercilious air, over the counter, and you find yourself with a piece of bullion certainly, (and what is the value of bullion now, after Californian and Australian discoveries!) but without money. Your only alternative is to take your piece of bullion, which was only coined last week, and with it go to the cambist and pay him a heavy per centage to find you a coin of the proper weight. If a thing is wrong in principle, it is wrong in all its details. There is not a detail in gold money which is not objectionable. J. H. 66 Social Economy. WOULD COMMUNISM PROMOTE THE HAPPINESS OF MAN? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-V. latent energies of the mind; but by removing this, the Communists would remove the very element which has contributed so signally to liberalize the intellect, and would render the community a realized Castle of Indolence. "HOMO" tells us that wealth is being present enviable condition? It is an everymonopolized by the few, and that the labour-day observation, that rivalry draws out the ing classes, from unprecedented hardships, caused by the introduction of machinery, are sinking in the scale of social being. We wonder Homo" should have propounded two such heresies, contradicted alike by history and individual experience. Competition is opposed to monopolies of every kind; this is its prime recommendation. The guilds and corporations by which monopoly sought to perpetuate its existence are yielding to competitive influences; and our working men, so far from degenerating, are earning for them. selves niches in "Fame's proud temple." Surely evils enough exist in society without resorting to fictitious ones to swell the amount. "Homo" would have done more eminent service to his cause had he devoted himself to a refutation of our statement relative to man's attachment to private property, than by asking whether a mere attachment conferred a claim to possession. We think the inference was plain, that where all manifest attachment to private property, all, when they have a choice, will adopt it. This inborn attachment to private property must render nugatory every attempt to establish From "The Age and its Architects," universal Communism; handfuls of men, "Homo" quotes a very forcible statement of moved by the same impulses, and actuated evils, which partially, at least, do exist in by the same principles, may agree to sacrifice society; even in that statement, however, that inborn attachment for a greater good, co-existents and consequents are confounded. and may establish small communities, but It cannot, for instance, be proved that the the same can never be predicated of men in two million paupers, criminals, and vagrants, nations; it is impossible to inspire them are chargeable to the influence of competi- with that unanimity of object and that tion. The evils which are attributable to subordination necessary to the evolving of that cause are the purchase-price of our the Communistic idea: this, in the words of advancement; and we hesitate not to say, I. F., would imply a "total renovation of that rather than endure the sluggishness to human nature and usages." In confirmation which Communism would reduce us, we of the opinions we have enunciated on this would infinitely prefer the present state. subject, we quote the following luminous What, after all, but competition, could have remarks from a review in Chambers's brought our mechanic-arts, our manufac- Journal of one of Carlyle's “Latter-day tures, and, above all, our literature, to their | Pamphlets." "In this essay, if he (Car lyle) makes any positive suggestion at all, it is, that nations should be governed by an aristocracy of wisdom, 'captains of industry, real, not sham rulers. The few wise will have, by one method or other, to take command of the innumerable foolish.' Very good as a proposition in the abstract, but how are we to get at these Solomons ? how to ensure their due succession, once we have begun with them? and, above all, by what practicable means are we to induce the innumerable foolish' to become the docile and obedient flocks of these sagacious shepherds? Until Mr. Carlyle favours mankind with a business-like recipe how to catch heroes and set them to work, and more especially how to catch masses of people and indoctrinate them with a feeling of obedience, nations to all appearance must be content to jog on with their present plans of government, and make the best of them." practice, lose much of their fair proportions. Its superior reasonableness is the only claim of the competitive state on our sympathies. We believe private interest to be as necessary to the existence of society, as gravitation is to the existence of the material universe. We admit that the Communist's system of social organization, on a cursory view, appears a feasible scheme; we are, however, satisfied, from a close investigation of the subject, that it is impossible for man, at his present stage of progress, so to abstract himself from his private interests as to render it practicable, and that were his nature so far perfected as to admit of its being reduced to practice, it would fail to enhance or to perpetuate his happiness. The evils of the present social state, so far from being aggravated, as "Homo" would have us believe, are being gradually eradicated; they are working their own cure; men are seeing it to be their interest so to control the competition existing among them, that it must soon assume a milder form. But to return to "Homo." Unless he is prepared to deny that the fear of want and the desire for supremacy are the motives by which men are actuated, he makes out no As there are some points of resemblance case in favour of Communism. That degree between Communism and Louis Blanc's of development is still a long way off in organization of labour scheme, we may be which conscience and reflection shall be pardoned for alluding to it here. The cause the sole motive-sources; and until we reach of its failure was this. All the workmen that degree, Communisin must remain an were equally paid; the only guarantee sought unrealizable theory: the fear of want and the to ensure their hearty co-operation being the desire for supremacy will clamorously inter-principle of honour; but, quite in accordance pose to prevent its adoption. But for the sake of argument, let us suppose the stage in man's progress anticipated by "Homo" attained. As that state is the very highest to which it is possible man, as man, can reach, it is clear Communism would be impotent to effect any further improvement-innovation could make no advance; besides, a system which had led to a result so happy, ought not to be abandoned for any merely problematical good. We may remark, that if the constitution of the present social form were theorized on, it might be rendered quite as attractive as Communism, and far more rational. Social theories, when reduced to with the principle laid down in Negative Article II., it was found that, for want of strict surveillance, the less skilful workmen trifled away their time-the others, exasperated at the unfairness of these loungers, abandoned the scheme in disgust. As we are not likely to have another opportunity of writing on this subject, we take our leave of it, in the fine words of Cowper : "Farewell, all self-satisfying schemes, All well-built systems, philosophic dreams, Deceitful views of future bliss, farewell." AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-V. THE ability of Communism to promote the happiness of man is not necessarily connected with the question of the abstract, right or wrong, of private property. The contrary is a mistake of some of its sup J. N. porters, who needlessly thus open up an abstract argument, which, under the terms entitling the present discussion, might be left undecided. We are not discussing the right of private property, but the ability of common property to promote human happi ness. What source, then, is there of human happiness so sublime and sacred as that of religion-as that of the venerative association of the will of man with the will of God bringing heavenly harmony to earth? What form of faith, also, is so reverend in its recognition of this as that of Christianity in its purest acceptation? And what the ology so established by internal evidence, so perpetually the pioneer of progress, so consonant with the highest culture, as that of the teachings of Jesus? As the religion of Christ, then, is admitted as the highest source of human happiness, temporal as well as eternal, all discussion among its disciples, as to the promotion of human happiness, should evidently commence with the consideration of how far any proposed plan for promoting the happiness of man was accordant with Christianity and sanctioned as a duty of religion, or work of piety and virtue. First and foremost, thus, we should inquire whether Communism is accordant with Christianity, and whether, therefore, it is a religious duty or worthy work, if we would truly test its claim to the title of a principle promotive of the highest human happiness. Christianity is shown to be in accordance with Communism from the evangelic narratives. Christ himself appears to have had no personal possessions-not even a domicile of his own. He was entertained by his friends and disciples, and ministered to of the substance of others. By his precepts he proclaimed the true wealth to be that of spiritual possessions, not things for the body; and showed the impossibility of serving two masters-Mammon and God. By his actions he showed that universal love, which is the spiritual counter-part of material Communism. The whole design of his life was the individual manifestation of that which should become the example of collective humanity. That he himself might not have organized collective Communism (for we cannot absolutely say that he did not do this), is humanly accounted for by the brief period of his ministry, by the preliminary necessity of preaching his doctrines, and by the fewness of his followers previous to his death and resurrection. However this may be, that he nevertheless preached the spirit of Communism is clearly to be inferred from its being the first form which his faith took-from its being the organized condition in which his church was originally constituted. Immediately after his ascension, we find assembling for prayer his chief male and female disciples (probably about thirty in number), and learn that they abode together in one house. That at this time all Christ's disciples dwelt thus in common, does not, however, necessarily follow. Soon after Peter addressed about 120 persons, then the number of the disciples, but with whom, of course, the degree of faith would determine the extent of duty. We gladly admit thus, that christian Communism is not compulsory, but voluntary-not outwardly forced, but inwardly constrained. The case of Ananias and Sapphira further evidences this. That. however, which may not be physically enforced, may still remain a moral duty and pious performance. Hence the praise of Barnabas, who sold his property at Cyprus and distributed to the poor. Hence from Ananias none was required or all. Thus, after Pentecost we find some three thousand souls who continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers; and we learn that all that believed were together, and had all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all, as every man had need." Still later in the record we read, that "the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul; neither said any that ought that he possessed was his own; but they had all things common."-" Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Such were the acts of the apostles; and after reading these, all must surely admit that the first Hebrew Christians constituted a Communist church, and that it is so far, at least, fairly proved, that Christianity and Communism were primitively connected and accordant, and held mutual relations to each other, like those of soul and body. It may be objected, however, that such a state was designed only to meet the peculiar circumstances of the Jerusalem church; and that thus it was confined, by temporary and local limitation, from the practice of the church at large. This objection is evidently without the support of analogy. The commencement of a religious system is generally the pattern of its extending course. The truth is, that instead of Communism having been locally limited to the Hebrew church, it was circumstantially impossible in the first foundation of the Gentile churches. The Hebrew customs had already recognised the herty of the Essenian communities before the coming of Christ; but the laws of the principal Gentile nations were jealously and violently opposed to the admission of the right of association, as an imperium in imperio. Still the spirit of Communism, although the full form was impossible, was zealously inculcated during the apostolic period among the Gentile converts as well as the Jews. The Diaconate, indeed, was instituted, to superintend a fair distribution of the common stock between the Gentile and Hebrew widows in the Jerusalem church itself. Hence, also, the frequent appeals of Paul and Barnabas on the generosity of the Gentiles, to send assistance in support of the Communist church in Judea. Thus St. Paul declares, “Let no man seek his wn, but every man another's wealth.*** For the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof." Not further to multiply extracts, let the reader especially refer to Paul's description of the members of one body in their several relations, and to his beautiful definition of equality, both addressed to the Gentiles, as evidently perfect expressions of the spirit of Communism. Well, also, both as to Jew and Gentile, does John Wesley answer the objection, that christian Comanism had only a temporary character. To say," he writes, in his commentary on the communion of goods, recorded in the 4's," that the Christians did this only till the destruction of Jerusalem is not true, for many did it long after. Not that there was any poitive command for so doing; it was Bended not, for love constrained them. It was a natural fruit of that love wherewith ear member of the community loved every other as his own soul. And if the whole christian church had continued in this spirit, this usage must have continued through all ses. To affirm, therefore, that Christ did | not design it should continue, is neither more nor less than to affirm that Christ did not design this measure of love to continue." "I see," he adds, "no proof of this." In this conclusion we most cordially concur. History supports, moreover, Wesley's brief remark, that the primitive christian Communism continued long after the destruction of Jerusalem. At Pella, the christian Zoar, it was continued in practice, and from thence was received by the Nazarenes and others, with whom it may be traced downward to the fourth century.* 64 Leaving the apostolic age, and passing to the patristic period, we first find many testimonies to the consonance of Christianity with Communism from the writings of the fathers. St. Clement says: Brothers, the usage of all the things in the world should be common to all men; but, alas! iniquity has caused one to say, Behold my possessions! and another, Behold mine! and it is thus among men that private property was established." In the General Epistle of St. Barnabas, a work probably of this period, it is also declared: "Thou shalt communicate to thy neighbour of all thou hast; thou shalt not call anything thy own; for if ye partake of such things as are incorruptible, how much more should you do it in those that are corruptible?"† St. Benedict, of course speaking only in reference to moral authority and doctrinal duty, thus strongly declares, "None should have property. All things, as it is written, should be commou to all, nor should any one assert or presume anything to be his." Trenæus likewise writes: "Whereas the Jews consecrated a tenth, they who live under the liberty of the gospel give all to the Lord's use." St. Ambrose declares: "Nature has given all things in common to all men. Nature has established a common right, and it is usurpation which has produced a private claim." Justin Martyr writes: "We who loved nothing like our possessions, now produce all we have in common, and spread our whole stock before our indigent brethren." Tertullian adds: "We Christians look upon ourselves as one body, informed as it were with one soul; and being thus incorporated vol. ii. p. 274, et seq. Consult Eusebius, Hist., iv. 4; Gibbon, + Horne's "Apocrypha," ch. xiv. ver. 16. 1821. |