by those who can get it, and the survivors of the catastrophe shall live on the wreck of the property that shall remain.

It is remarkable, by the way, that the advocates of the letalone system, are invariably the promoters of political changes. It almost looks as if they desired purposely to keep the people in the most miserable state, in order to compass their political objects.

II. However, people of all classes are beginning to find out that the principle of leaving things to take their chance can no longer be maintained, without arriving at the catastrophe to which we have alluded. The enormous miseries that have accumulated in the country, have convinced all reasonable men, as well as the sufferers themselves, that there must be a change of system. And now arises the danger of reaction; for in the hope of avoiding the evils that beset us, many are inclined to fly off to the contrary extreme. The wildest speculations have begun to be broached. Schemes have been propounded which, if carried into effect, will break up the whole social system, and bring in universal anarchy. One shape in which the reaction has shown itself, is the Socialist or Communist system; a system of universal interference, the exact reverse of the let-alone system. The notion is to do away entirely with personal independence and private interests, and competition, and property, and that all persons should live by rule in one community; not working for themselves and their families, but for the general body. Under this system all things will be changed from what they are at present. There are to be no masters or servants; all are to work for each other. No capitalists or operatives; the two characters will be merged into one. All things are to be in common, even wives and children,-according to the views of the extreme followers of this school.

The Communist or Socialist system is no new invention, but has occupied the brains of enthusiasts in other ages. It is well described by Shakspeare in the Tempest; old Gonzalo says,—

"Had I plantation of this isle, my lord,
And were the king of it, what would I do?

*

*

*

*

I' the commonwealth I would by contraries
Execute all things: for no kind of traffic
Would I admit; no name of magistrate;

Letters should not be known; no use of service,

Of riches, or of poverty; no contracts,
Succession, bound of land;

No occupation; all men idle, all,

And women too; but innocent and pure.
No sovereignty;

All things in common nature should produce,
Without sweat or endeavour: treason, felony,
Sword, pike, knife, gun, or need of any engine
Would I not have; but nature should bring forth,
Of its own hand, all foison, all abundance,

To feed my innocent people.

1 would with such perfection govern, Sir,

To excel the golden age."

This is no bad satire on the state of things which the modern Communist or Socialist talks of. M. Louis Blanc, late member of the provisional government in France, propounded a scheme of this sort, and made some sort of attempt when in power to carry it out. According to the description given of it by M. Lamartine, the plan "consists in taking possession, in the name of the State, of the property and of the sovereignty of industry and labour; in suppressing all free acts in the citizens who possess, sell, buy, or consume; in creating and arbitrarily distributing produce; in establishing the maximum, in regulating wages, and substituting the whole State as proprietor and monopolist, in place of the dispossessed citizen."

M. Louis Blanc denies that this is a just description of his system, but does not point out how his system differs from it. We require," he says, "that the State, as soon as it be democratically constituted, form social workshops, destined to replace by degrees, and without assistance, the workshops of individuals." "Our avowed object is to undermine competition." Elsewhere he says that one of the essential requisites for his scheme is an education entirely new, changing all ideas and customs." This is a tolerably large postulate for the well working of the scheme," a change of all ideas and customs!" It is an admission that, while men are what they are, they are not fit for Communism, nor Communism for them.

66

The truth is, that Communism is utterly unsuited to the nature of mankind. It answers admirably with ants and bees, and beavers, and other gregarious animals. These animals live all alike; they appear to have little or no diversity of character; no ambition to excel each other; no notion of improvement. The beaver's dam, or the bee's honey-comb, admirable as they are in point of ingenuity, are probably built on precisely the same model as in the first year after the creation. Besides, these animals, at least the bees and ants,-(the beavers I am not sure about,) have no wives or families. The queen bee is the mother of the whole hive, and neither she nor the males appear to have any natural feelings of affection for one of the young grubs more than another. They labour for all alike; equality and fraternity exist amongst them in high perfection, as if to make up for the

entire absence of liberty. Liberty there is actually none; for every action which they perform is done according to an absolute rule.

The consequence of this peculiar feature of the bee or ant community-namely, the absence of individual character, or the notion of improvement-is, that all pursue one common routine of labour year after year, generation after generation. There is no need of leisure for learned bees to invent arts and sciences. There are no philosophers amongst them, no lawyers, no divines, no schoolmasters; probably no "skilled workmen," or rather all skilled workmen alike. Each has his precise task allotted him, and skilfully he performs it. We may take example from their diligence in performing the tasks assigned them by the great CREATOR; but to re-model our own community by theirs would be absurd. Man is entirely different by his very nature, from a member of the bee community. Instead of being all alike, no two men are alike or equal. There is every imaginable variety of character; every conceivable difference in mind and body, disposition and power, impulse and desire. Each bee goes forth in the sunny morning to his allotted task, and returns laden with his cargo of farina, which he adds to the common stock. So each man has his allotted work; but every one, or nearly so, goes to some different work,-the work of his own choosing,-the work for which he is adapted by his powers or circumstances. Think only of the population that awaken each morning in our great metropolis. Consider the infinite variety of their pursuits and occupations. Think on the exquisite cultivation and comprehensive power of some, compared with the poor ability and humble occupation of others. How would it be possible for all these to give up each his peculiar occupation, and labour according to some fixed social arrangement. Besides, man is accountable for the improvement of his talents. It is not intended that he should remain for ever rooted in one station. If the power of rising to eminence by industry or superior ability is granted to him by nature, it is his duty to avail himself of it, when he may do so fairly and honourably and many a one who began life as a poor workman, has risen to the highest emi

nence.

Moreover, in contradistinction to the socialist animals, and in a superior degree to any of the most philoprogenitive animals in the creation, GOD has implanted in the heart of man a strong affection for his natural offspring, and a desire to work for their benefit. "He that provideth not for his own, especially for those of his own household, hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." Not only amongst those to whom God's word has been revealed, but amongst all men, of every age and

country, and faith, it has been acknowledged as a primary duty, for a man to provide sustenance for his family; to train them up, and advance their interests. No doubt each man is bound to his neighbour by the bonds of charity; but to provide for his offspring is universally felt to be a far higher claim, than to provide for strangers. Home and kindred are the most endearing names. A man who would care little for himself what he should eat, or what he should drink, or wherewithal he should be clothed, will labour night and day to secure the comfort and maintenance of those allied to him by the ties of nature. The greatest exertions of industry and genius have been made, with the object of promoting the interests and well-being of our children. To labour for the community would be quite a different thing. A man might obey the laws, and do his duty; but where would be the zeal and enthusiasm with which he labours for his family. All the energy of individual enthusiasm-all that vigour of mind, and undaunted perseverance, which leads to noble deeds and valuable discoveries, would be lost to the community. Thus, even in an economical point of view, the commonwealth would suffer by this want of a natural spur to energy. The proper way, surely, is for all God's creatures to act according to their respective natures. He has decreed that bees, and certain other animals, should be Communists, and we admire them as they perform their tasks, and labour for the community of which they are members; but He has endowed men with a variety of character and aspirations after constant progression, and bound them up in families; and for man to attempt to change his nature, and live under the forced uniformity of the labourers in a beehive, would be as absurd and impracticable, as if the bees were to set up as capitalists, and think themselves capable of improving the structure of their hives and cells, and were to take to themselves each his particular wife, instead of living in the relationship in which the CREATOR has placed them to their common mother.

The Communist plan is the extreme type of the constant interference system. In fact, under it a man would be a mere machine, without individuality, or interest, or liberty, or will of his own. But there are many modes of interference short of this extreme case, which are, more or less, ill suited to men under any circumstances, much more to those imbued with the prevailing notions of liberty and independence, or even rational and constitutional freedom. Men will not brook interference with their particular pursuits and objects. It is not wholesome for them always to be interfered with; and yet some interference is necessary, in order to remedy the enormous evils of the letalone system. The question is, what is, and what is not, undue

interference? And that must be decided according to the circumstances of each particular case; and if rightly decided, will bring us to our third system, which we have called the paternal system.

III. The paternal system is the mean between the laissez faire, or let-alone system, and the system of constant interference. Its definition or description is this,-to let things alone when they are going on well, and when they are going on ill, to interfere and set them right. This system approves itself to common sense. It is, in fact, the system acted on by the common instinct of mankind, until political economists arose, and perplexed the world with their theories. It is the principle of all law. So long as men do what is right and just of their own accord, there is no need of the interference of the law for the punishment of wickedness and vice; but when the strong oppress the weak, and the cunning overreach the simple, then law steps in to prevent these evils. There have been periods in the history of most countries, when the law has been set at nought, and every man has done what was right in his own eyes; and the only rule has been the maxim of Rob Roy,

"There is a simple plan,

That they shall take who have the power,

And they shall keep who can."

The incon

This is the laissez faire system broadly acted on. venience of such a state of things has obliged men to enact laws for the protection of society. The let-alone system of modern economists is an attempt to exempt the transactions of commerce from all restraint, so that, in this department, the weak and the simple shall have no protection against the strong and cunning.

66

"Those may get who have the power,
And those may keep who can."

Every man for himself, and GOD for us all." "Competition is a murderous lottery; well! so much the worse," say they, "for those who draw blanks." Such are the hard unfeeling maxims of the laissez faire economists, which are working incalculable evil, both moral and political; hardening men's hearts against each other: raising up a wide-spread disaffection; endangering the peace of society: and, even in an economical point of view, entailing much loss on the community, from the simple circumstance of the loss of the labour, for which no employment is provided.

Here, then, has arrived an occasion for interference. But does it therefore follow that we are entirely to change our system?