THE question involved in the discussion on Homeopathy, which has been sufficiently extended to give the general reader a fair idea of the value of the arguments adduced on both sides, embraces two heads-a theoretical and a practical one. Anything which may have come from our pen has always been written with a view to exhibit, in their true light, not only the reasonings upon which this so-called science is established, but also to estimate the practical value of its therapeutic agents: we have endeavoured, as much as in us lay, to avoid the extremes into which our adversaries have too often fallen-of exalting either at the expense of the other, from a conviction that imperfection in theory must necessarily react injuriously upon the working out of any idea.

It is not fair, then, to object to any arguments which may be brought against the system, on the ground that actual experiment is the only way in which its claims can be tested, especially since, were results of this description wanting, which assuredly they are not, the very nature of the investigation, if logically conducted, cannot but lead us to the conclusion, that if Homeopathy be not true in principle it cannot be beneficial in practice, or vice versa. If, then, we have been successful in proving that the hypotheses upon which globulism is based are not consonant with the established laws of medicine, or with the experience of the members of that faculty, our position is maintained; nor do we hold ourselves necessarily bound to substantiate the latter portion of the question. But as it is possible that an exception may be taken to this mode of arguing, in giving a brief resume of the facts of the case as they may be elicited from the various papers of our allies or our opponents, we will endeavour to show that Homœopathy has failed as signally when subjected to the experimentum crucis, as when tested by the equally searching laws of reason.

We shall not greatly err in looking to the motto of Hahnemann, "Similia similibus curantur," for an explanation of the prin

ciples on which the Homoeopaths vindicate their treatment: that this is a fallacy we have already shown, when applied universally as a panacea for every species of disease; the only grounds for the statement being the action of certain drugs upon the constitution, and of certain physical agents upon the nervous system, which are really subjects upon which our knowledge is, to say the least, very limited. We have effects presented to our view, we have the agents which caused those effects in our own power, but to trace the connexion between the two is more than we are able; the existing state of science does not permit us to supply the connecting links in the chain of inductive argument from what we do see to what we do not see.

It shows a deficiency of logical acumen, to say nothing of actual ignorance of the but partial truth of this law, to construe hypothesis upon such a narrow basis, much more an amount of moral culpability which we will not estimate, when this hypothesis is blazoned about, and placarded in gigantic posters, in spite of all actual evidence to the contrary, and notwithstanding the notably false conclusions to which theoretically and practically it leads.

The question of specifics brought forward by G. V., betrays so egregious a deficiency of acquaintance with the commonest laws of medical science, that we will not again revert to it, but merely int, that if the advocates of globulism have really relapsed so far into the dark ages as to sanction such absurdities as this, they effectually exclude themselves from any sympathy in their views and conduct which we might feel inclined to afford men who erred on a subject which presented some reasonable grounds for differences of opinion, and they must look in that case for such treatment only as those in the rear of the great intellectual march can expect from their more advanced comrades-to be driven on with about as gentle means as the whipper-in of the Persian army was wont to employ when he urged on the laggards by the use of the lash.

AN insight into the economy of social nature is the substratum upon which all politico-economic science must be based. The true political economist is one who possesses this insight in a profound degree. No matter how near may be his point of examination—no matter how artificial and modern the practical operations which he views-he is one who can trace near points to their remote foundations, and recognise the same elementary principles, guiding alike the infancy and manhood of political society. Nor can this insight fail him in a question such as we have at present to discuss. Money-the common medium of exchange among nations however intricate, through commercial advancement, in its nature and use, is yet dependent upon the same elementary laws which governed the earliest commercial exchanges of antiquity. As of old, nature distributes its benefits with an unequal hand; and now, as then, nations have their different natural productions. Art, moreover, the creature of man's own advanced powers, has grown and produced differently in different countries. Both nature and art, therefore, each work unequally. But, as of old, reciprocal wants exist. Hence commerce, also, exists as irrevocably now as ever; and its whole frame-work is supported by the same social necessities as obtained at the beginning.

In thus opening the present debate, we seek not to mystify the subject. We invoke for ourselves and readers the primary insight to which we have referred. If the true political insight of such theorists as Montesquieu and Smith, or of such practicalists as Horner and Peel, is denied us, let the subject be approached, at least, in the retrospective spirit which distinguished them. For certainly the currency question is one that cannot be discussed either theoretically or practically without a previous reference to its history. And although a coincidence of opinion may not result between all our readers and the political economists men

tioned, whose leading financial faith, that money ought to be of intrinsic value, is our own, yet they cannot deny them a purer love and nearer grasp of truth than distinguished a Law, a Mirabeau, a Robespierre, or an illustrious line of czars, whose financial doctrine and practice were, that money ought to be and must be symbolical.

But, as of first importance, let our terms be clearly understood. Money is a sign representative of the value of anything vendible; and, therefore, is necessarily in a manner symbolical. But the question isOught this sign to have a marketable value of its own, as gold or silver; or ought it to be comparatively devoid of all material value, as paper? Or, more comprehensively, Ought a currency to be one of intrinsic value, or one whose value is based on credit alone?

Now, the historical light cast upon the question is entirely one-sided. Apart from an examination of principles, history points to a unanimous and decisive affirmation of the necessarily intrinsic worth of money. The "iron pen of history" never wrote a more imperious truth on the minds it enlightened. Commerce was no less the birth of necessity, than equal exchange was the inborn commercial spirit. Anterior to the institution of money, the price of one commodity was another of equal value. And the adoption of a metallic currency as the common instrument of exchange, was owing to a happy combination of convenience and intrinsic value in the materials so converted.

Thus the guiding principle of commercial exchanges from antiquity has ever been to give value for value-not the mere nominal value of symbolical money for articles of merchandise, but the marketable value of an intrinsic money common over the commercial world. Of course, in the rude in fancy of commerce, neither individual nor national stability and credit were such that producers could rest faithfully contented with slips of authorized paper-money in return for what had been the fruit of their

toil and skill, and expect, too, to supply their own wants by exchanging them for other commodities. Nor down to the present time, with few exceptions, has a symbolical currency been attempted to be institated. And these few exceptions the world will not hastily forget. The "continental money" of the American War of Independence made ruinous havoc. But the assignats and mandates of French revolutionary cupidity and terrorism-money truly the symbol of national bankruptcy and anarchy, and instrument of other than commercial exchanges-left the deepest and most indelible records. And even in Russia, where the currency is of all European nations at present the most symbolical, the monetary signs afford as little encouragement for a widespread example. Indeed, iron despotism and symbolical money flourish best together, the latter being the natural sequence of the former.

Bat ours is a theoretical discussion. What ought to be, we know, is not always identical with what has been. Yet the true theory of the currency can only be that which practice has taught us. The world's experience in this question is immeasurably before the beau ideal of either theoretical or practical speculators. A symbolical currency is just such a beau ideal. It only exists in the impracticable minds of mere theorists, or in the sinister wishes of speculative adventurers. Theirs is not an inductive theory; it is baseless as to facts. While the theory a symbolical currency is one anterior to practice, and independent of past commercial history, that of an intrinsic currency is posterior to practice, and is the indoctrinated reflexion of the commercial spirit from its Mirth. It is for our readers to adopt a theory based on political nature, or one utterly alien thereto.

And passing from the historical part of the question, we find our position none the less invulnerable. It is apparent that a credit-system of currency would be a practial denial, not merely that trade has its wn natural laws, but that it ought to be regulated by those laws, and not by arbitrary Fate enactments. Now, the intrinsic worth of money flows from a natural law of trade qual value for equal value; and regulated by that law, money is given in exchange for commodities. But this truth is abrogated by

the institution of symbolical money. Surely, now-a-days, the great fact, that the principles of commercial exchanges are irrelative to the principles of state government, requires no proclamation. And surely no truth-seeker can disbelieve, that the more trade is free from state control, the greater is its certainty of development. But what must be thought when money is of such a nature, that, instead of being of an equally universal intrinsic value, it has an unequal nominal value over the commercial world? Based on credit, a symbolical money is of value proportionate to the credit of issuers. Governments must ever be the real issuers, although banking corporations may be their agents and tools. Hence, as amicable foreign relations wane, the value of symbolical money must wane also; and as open hostilities between states are declared, the banking governments lose all monetary transactions with their foes, since a cessation of diplomatic relations is little else than a declaration of want of confidence. And would not trade consequently be trammelled and stinted in its development? Why, taxes on the importation of commodities by any government would far less bondage trade than the origination of an arbitrary instrument of exchange of nominal value, subject to all the fluctuations incident on the ebb and flow of state policy and the distrust of friends. Certainly, if the commodity must have free importation, the instrument for which it is exchanged ought to have a similar freedom.

But a purely symbolic money is nowhere un fait accompli; nor, as we have indicated, is it ever likely permanently to become so. Therefore, on the advocates of a creditsystem rests the onus probandi as to the justice of its institution.

A symbolical money, it will content us at present to say, if ever existent, would be partly, perhaps wholly, distinguished-1, by its arbitrarily representing saleable things; 2, by its merely nominal value; 3, by that value being national or local; 4, and dependent on the credit of issuers; 5, by its fluctuating with the rise and fall of things represented; 6, by its too direct influence (proportionate to the confidence or distrust in government or corporational credit) in raising and depressing the springs of production; 7, by its being an investiture of most despotic power in governments or cor

porations, by which public interest might be sacrificed either to political ambition or corporational greed.

We think our readers, without much difficulty, will now admit, that the first essential quality of a circulating medium must be an intrinsic marketable value. But they must not hence suppose that they are thus pledged against the use of a paper money, having apparently no such value. On the contrary, a paper currency is a useful auxiliary to a metallic currency. A paper money is the consequence of multiplicity of metallic money. It is because of its convenience as to transportable facility, its economy in preventing the wasting of coin by use, and in lessening the heavy expense of a great metallic circulation, that an auxiliary paper currency is allowed. As coins are the representatives of mercantile commodities, so notes are the representatives of coins; and as metallic money is a permanent representative of the value of those commodities, so a paper money is the temporary representative of the value of metallic money. But when once symbolical money exceeds in nominal value intrinsic money, the public are defrauded, while the banking corporations are enriched. Paper money deteriorates. or if credit is great, coin rises exorbitantly

in value. To this fact is owing the immense control acquired by government in regulating banking privileges, and their influence over the money market, not merely in controlling paper issues, but also in manufacturing promissory notes on the security of their credit, which have rarely, if ever, been redeemed. Hence arise bubbles, money panics, and national insolvency-the result of a disobedience to the law, that money must have an intrinsic marketable value. If these evils flow from a symbolical money on a small scale, how much more would they exist under an unlimited system of symbolical currency?

But we have entered far enough, at present, into the question, and will at once conclude, by predicting that the result of the present discussion will be an agreement between most of our readers and Baron Montesquieu, in the unbiassed opinion, that the state is in a prosperous condition when, on the one hand, money perfectly represents all things; and, on the other, all things perfectly represent money, and are reciprocally the signs of each other-that is, they have such a relative value that we may have the one as soon as we may have the other."

R. L. G.

*Esprit de Lois," book xxii. chap. 2.

THE great difficulty of modern statesmanship is, to reconcile the rights of labour with the rights of property, and every legislative effort to solve the political and social problem has hitherto proved unsuccessful. The failure seems to have arisen from bestowing undivided attention on matters of detail, while great principles have been neglected. Remedial measures have skimmed over the surface of the troubled waters, but the plummet of reform has not yet sounded their depths. The hours of labour have been restricted, without going into the question, "Why cannot labour dictate terms to capital, instead of capital to labour?" Emigration has been systematized and encouraged, without opening the question, "Why do Englishmen and Irishmen leave their native country by hundreds of thousands every year?" Sometimes distressed needlewomen rouse the sympathies of the nation; then the tailors, then journeymen bakers,

then workers in mines, then governesses, then chimney-sweeps; but the law of cheap labour, which manifests itself in these various shapes, is not boldly met and discussed. Free trade was the last experiment; but for so energetic and revolutionary a measure to bear such small and questionable fruits, indicates that the root of political evil is not yet touched. Free trade has shown itself to be an imperfect measure, from its mixed operation of good to some interests, and evil to others; from its injurious effect on the cultivators of the soil, its utter abnegation of the colonial system, and from its unscrupulous disregard of a great principle, that taxation must be added to price. An intelligent body are advocating education, but these well-intentioned men would find by experience that a previous question must be settled before education can bear its proper fruits, viz., the condition of England question, or the question of employment for the people.