as seduction and prostitution. All the dis-" Silver and gold have I none," said the honesties of trade, the antagonistic interests apostle; "but what I have I will give unto of different individuals in the same depart- thee. Rise up and walk." Moral elevation ment of business, and the doubtful positions is the greatest of earthly gifts. Millionaires of certain classes and professions, in refer- after all cannot monopolize generosity. The ence to other portions of society, with all general education refused in the plethoric their immoral influences, would also thus be city will be freely given in the compact sulanerged. communistery. The immoral influences of private property removed, with institutions congenial with Christianity and virtue, Communism would, I believe, gradually elevate all its participants, and being voluntarily and pacifically established, in faith and love, be moral in itself and moral in its means, affording a sphere of society the most removed from immoral influence, and the most consonant with moral development. In the affirmative aspect, the moral benefits of Communism cannot be so confidently registered, as they are largely those of theory. It is thus that we chiefly dwell upon the immoral influences from which it will remove us, as these are known and felt. The very removal of the weeds of vice will surely allow to the plants of virtue greater room for growth. If these have in special instances developed themselves in moral loveliness, even amid the present contrary circumstances and immoral examples of the present social state; surely, in more congenial conditions, with these circumstances and examples removed, they will more generally grow in beauty and grace, flowering on earth and bearing fruit for heaven. Finally, with Communism will come a cessation of those motives of interest and worldly prudence which, for the sake of self-preservation in the present state of things, so often interfere between the kindly wish of the heart and the generous offer of the hand. Matual service will thus also become of high spiritual significance. All will require to receive, and all will have power to give. In conclusion, then, as morality is to the actions that which religion is to the sentiments-the will of God and the duty of man; and as human happiness depends upon the harmony of creature with creature, and of creatures with their Creator; and as Communism in its contrast with private property would remove from present society its most immoral influences, and thus form a sphere superiorly suited for moral development; would we further advocate Communism as promotive of the happiness of man. best of men in the present state have deplored the immoral influences in which they have been placed. The worst in Communism might rejoice in better advantages than the best have here. NEGATIVE REPLY. You, like all mankind, have had dim inspirations, confused yearnings, after your future destiny; and, like all the world from the beginwing, you have tried to realize, by self-willed methods of your own, what you can only do by God's inspiration, by God's method. Like the builders of Babel in old time, you have said, 'Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven!-and God has confounded you, as he did them. By mistrust, division, passis, and folly, you are scattered abroad." Eleanor, in "Alton Locke." OUR first duty, as one of the openers of this debate, is to acknowledge the amount of learning and ability which our subsequent writers have brought to bear upon the question. It is true, after all which has been said, that we see no cause to alter our original views. Communism still seems to us like a fair flower in the bud, but with a canker G. B. The deeply imbedded in its heart; and Communistic bliss appears that which, should it ever be sought after, will never be attained. We are, however, pleased to see so much ability, although it be arrayed against us; and we now proceed briefly to notice the several writers, and the arguments they have adduced. The affirmative writers range under the respective signatures of U. M.; L. J.; "Homo"; J. F.; and G. B. In the last initials, and also in the style of the paper contributed, we recognise a writer of eminence in Communistic matters -one whom we have met with pleasure elsewhere, and who, if any one can, is capable of showing us the best side of Communism. We shall notice his arguments in their turn. U. M. furnishes some strong arguments in support of the principle of common property in the soil, and in inventions and discoveries; and further enjoins the principle that all men should labour. We shall not here stop to dispute any of these points, inasmuch as they appear to us to fall wide of the mark. It was not the object of the present inquiry to determine how far Communism might be desirable, or even just, but whether the system itself would really conduce to man's happiness. We see no real argument in the paper under consideration reaching this point. The next affirmative writer is L. I. His object is to show, both on scripture and historic authority, that the theory of Communism is sound, and that to some extent it has succeeded in practice. He cites in support of the first allegation the belief that the apostles were Communists, "and exemplified their sentiments by forming the first christian church into a community;" and in support of the practicability of the system, adduces several authorities, laying most stress upon the partial success of the Moravians. If this writer refers to our opening paper, he will observe that we made special exception to persons "imbued with a high sense of moral and religious rectitude." Such persons would be comparatively happy under any circumstances: but as they unfortunately form only a small proportion of the human family, we must look a little beyond them-they have the least need to resort to new remedies. The Moravians and all others who have at all succeeded in the practical application of Communism, have been first and chiefly actuated by religious zeal; and Communism has only been made subservient to this end. The fact that the idea of Communistic happiness has long been entertained, is no proof that its application would be successful. The alchemists long entertained the idea of the possibility of transmuting the baser metals into gold, but we do not find it authentically recorded that they ever succeeded in so doing. "Homo," on the same side, presents us with a truly doleful picture of our social position as a great nation. We wish, for our country's sake, that we could at once deny much that he has asserted. But the simple fact that our present condition is bad, is no proof that Communism would make it better. We must see how the remedy is to be administered. "Homo's" definition of the principle of Communism, which seems to us about correct, is that it "seeks to restore the primal rights of mankind, by abrogating all claims to the possession of private property; and to secure the equal rights of all men to develop their unequal faculties, by establishing a community of goods and a concerted combination of effort among all classes of society." The real point, then, is to see how far the carrying out this principle would be likely to secure the end in view-namely, the promotion of man's happiness. Now, we are prepared to assert our full belief that the chief sources of man's happiness (leaving out that resulting purely from religion, and which cannot therefore be affected by any earthly considerations) may be traced as originating either in the acquirement, by one's own exertions, and in a fair and honourable manner, of a comfortable competence for the support of ourselves and those dependent upon us; or, failing to secure such competence, still having the inward satisfaction of having led a good moral life-of having, to the best of our ability, and by the cultivation of our best faculties, contributed to the comfort and happiness of our fellow-creatures;-in a word, having done all that our position in life enabled us to do towards leaving the world better than we found it. The satisfaction, we say, of having well acquitted ourselves in these particulars constitutes real happiness, and at the same time tends to rear up within us that true nobleness of nature which ever has and ever will constitute the real and unmistakable distinction between really civilized and moralized beings, and those who are not so. Well, how does this bear upon the question before us? We shall see. It is truly and wisely said that SELF is referred to in the first law of nature. It might be well were it not so, but the fact we cannot alter. Where our own interests are concerned, where our own fame may become extended, or our own honour advanced, there we are ever active, energetic, and determined. Where only the interests of others are involved, or our own but very remotely, there we are apt to exhibit sloth, neglect, and indifference. The mainspring, self-interest, being absent, the whole machinery stands still. If this be man's nature, how are we to hope for any universal departure from it? A few congenial minds may for a time suppress their individuality, and amalgamate into a union of brotherhood. Their religious or moral qualifications may enable them to do so; but how will the principle apply to mankind generally? for this is the point to be thought of. It is not sufficient that many, or even the majority, are content to doff their individuality, and surrender their self-interest to the common good. Upon the simple yet obvious principle, that "One sickly sheep infects the flock, And poisons all the rest," we should be guilty of an act of injustice to pass unnoticed the learned arguments of G. B., in recent numbers. We agree with his first proposition, that "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," but that it has rather to do with "the ability of common property to promote human happiness." The point of our argument has been to show that the principle of common property antagonistic to man's happiness: because that happiness, as we have shown, seems to arise either from the success of individual exertions, or an inward consciousness of having indi voured to serve the great cause of human progression. Therefore, if by adopting the principle of common property you discourage or altogether banish the inducement to individual exertion, from which happiness proceeds, the result must be just the opposite of that held forth by the Communists. Such, at least, is our own belief. the few dissentient or non-conforming in-vidually, and of our own free will, endeadividuals, would most effectually mar the perfection of the whole plan, by undermining the basis on which alone the structure could be upheld- namely, the constant unanimity of every member interested. We see then, at a single glance, that the principle embodied in, and being indeed the very basis of, Communism--the forfeiture of self-interest, self-accumulation, self-distinction-is con. trary to the natural impulse and desires of mankind, and hence we discover the cause of the limited progression which Communism has hitherto made, and to which we doubt it must submit to make in future. To say that we arrive at this conclusion without some feeling of regret, would be to belie our own conscience. We have a sympathy with all projects for the amelioration of human misery, or in other words, the promotion of man's happiness. They all perform a great good, by directing public and individual attention to the points they aim at. The world is, no doubt, indebted to the dreamings of the Communists for many of the social improvements which have already taken place. We wish, for the world's sake, their theories were more suited to practice. We eagerly seize upon every new Communistic proposition, with the hope of finding something REAL. We therefore entered upon a discussion of the question in these pages with every desire to do the subject justice; and although we have very freely expressed our views, we hope, whenever Communism shows itself equal to its aims, we may be permitted to join the ranks of its supporters. We are drawing speedily to a close, but Most of us will also agree with G. B. in the high estimate he forms of the beauties and advantages of the religion of Jesus, but we may pause with advantage before we are drawn into an admission of the truth of the proposition so ingeniously interwoven into this part of the argument. We mean, that Communism tends naturally and almost necessarily, to direct our minds to think upon, and our hearts to adopt, this "pure and undefiled" religion. We have already endeavoured to show, that where religion has had to do with Communism it has taken the initiative, and has not been the consequence of Communism. Certainly, even in the present day, we have had instances of the attempt to make religion subservient to the practice of Communism, of a certain class. We have cause to rejoice that the attempt has proved a failure. Communism to be successful must be religious, pure in principle, holy in practice. Then we revert to our first argument, that the religious element alone would be that around which the happiness would irradiate-in which it would concentrate. We know G. B. will forgive us for believing that he rather writes of Communism as he wishes it to be, than as we have real grounds to believe it would be. How much still remains unsaid! Yet we must conclude, and we would do so with an extract from the beautiful prayer of thei saints, in Festus : "May all who dwell On the open earth, or in the hid abyss, The Mercy that is mightier than all ill. Live in serene delight, content with good, AFFIRMATIVE REPLY. In the article which I wrote at the opening of this discussion, I attempted to show that the earth and all that it produces ought to be recognised as the common property of man. In support of this view I stated that the earth has an intrinsic value, which has been stamped upon it by the Creator, and that this value was designed for the use of the human family: and hence that any rental which is charged upon this value, is a frand which is practised upon that part of the community who have to pay it. It has been intimated, however, that this charge is not made upon the original value of the land, but upon the labour that has been expended upon it: and F. F. supplies us with a very interesting picture of a man who, being wrecked upon an island, sets about to enclose and cultivate a portion of the soil, and eventually leaves the fruit of his labours to be enjoyed by his son, We say it is an interesting picture: as it regards the mass of landed property which is held in the world, it is, unfortunately, a fictitious picture: for this is not the way in which the soil has become the property of those who hold it. The rental which is charged upon the soil does not necessarily represent the labour which has been bestowed upon it. How much labour has been expended upon the forest land which to this moment exists in some parts of our country; land which to all appearance is as wild as that of any uninhabited country can well be supposed to be, and yet for this soil tenants who occupy neighbouring farms are called upon to pay rent. It will perhaps be said that if labour has not actually been expended upon the soil, roads have been formed in its neighbourhood, and are from time to time kept in order, and so the land has been improved in its position. To this we reply, that as the land is extra-parochial, if roads have been formed, it has not been at the expense of its proprietors, and hence a charge of rental on the ground of such accommodation is a charge upon other people's capital, which is notoriously unjust. But the lords of the soil would not acknowledge the rental of such land to be a charge on the labour and capital of others: it must therefore be a charge on the intrinsic value of the soil. But this doctrine of the right of occupancy is a farce. Take the case of our own country. Suppose we have a proprietor who holds ninety or a hundred thousand acres by inheritance in a direct line from the time of the Conqueror. Whose land was it before that period? How did the present proprietor acquire his right? From the original right of occupancy? Certainly not-but from the sword. His land was by the right of occupancy the property of the Saxon who held it before him; and this Saxon had in his turn taken it from the Briton, who in his day possessed a similar right. Now the question naturally presents itself, Which of these rights of occupancy is the proper right? It may be said, The original one. But who knows which is it? und if we were in possession of this information, where should we look for the proper inheritor? By rendering the land common property, Communism avoids this dilemma, for it gives the heir, if living, a right among the rest. But there is some little ambiguity about this term occupancy. It may mean as much as a man is able to cultivate with his own hands, or it may mean as much as he is able to appropriate to his own use. If the former be intended, it would certainly take a long time yet to occupy the globe; but if the latter, and men who appropriate land by tens of thousand of acres be recognised as occupying it, it is not quite certain whether the world is not already occupied. It would probably require some discernment to distinguish between the right of the lord who hants over a portion of his land, which he calls his preserves, and that of the Indian who hunts over a part of an island or continent, which he designates his huntingground. F. F. objects to Communism on the ground that it would prove a barrier to all progression, by removing the great incentive to exertion, the accumulation of property; and asks, "Would society support the astronomer, the traveller, the mechanist, in return for the chance of the discovery of a new planet, a new land, or a new piece of machinery?" As to the first part of our friend's objection, we do not acknowledge the premises, that the accumulation of property is the great incentive to labour. That it is an incentire we do not deny; but there are at least two incentives which take the lead of this-the love of power and the love of fame. In many cases the accumulation of property becomes an incentive simply because it leads to power. Now in a Communistic state there must necessarily be positions of power, and the fact of there being such positions would of itself be a sufficient stimulus to exertion, inasmuch as these positions would be attainable without the aid of wealth. And then as to fame. No doubt in a Communistic state great deeds would be named, and the report of them transmitted to other climes and other generations, and thus it would still be an incentive to great acts. But the community would not support the astronomer or the mechanist. Nor would it be needful that it should. As the general hours for labour would be very much curtailed, not extending beyond some four or five hours per day, after which persons would be at liberty to employ themselves according to their taste. Bat the traveller would be sure to be supported; the desire to extend the blessings of Communism to other lands and people, and to introduce, from time to time, such improvements as would be calculated to benefit the community, would ensure this. He would not, indeed, as now, travel for mere personal pleasure, or perhaps scientific purposes; but as the missionary of the community he would make known to those who are without the blessings of Communism, the advantages which would accrue from their adopting the Communistic state. Another objection is that men will not be equally capable of benefiting the community, and hence jealousies will arise. Can any fact tend to prove the expediency of the Communistic state more than thisthat all men are not equally fitted to benefit the community? All are not fitted to be heads; some are suited for hands, some for feet; some for one place, some for another. Labour, in order to be well done, and done to advantage, must be divided. Each man must occupy his proper position. Well, one of the advantages of Communism will be that it will furnish each with his own proper work. Instead of a man having to feel his way, as now, through a long lifetime before he finds his place, and then dying before his work is done, his education will be carefully watched from early youth, the particular tendency of his mind marked, and before he arrives at manhood he will have been suitably trained for that occupation in which he is to spend the prime of his life. But our friend thinks it horrible that the community should have the education of the young intrusted to its charge, and that this necessarily implies a severance of those ties of affection which ought to subsist hetween parent and child. We do not sympathize with him, for we do not think that such need to be the case. The position of such a child would certainly not be worse in this respect than that of the naval or military officer, who at a tender age is taken to a government school. Do children, under such circumstances, forget their parents? or do parents cease to remember their children? Surely the circumstance of children being properly educated will in no wise tend to lessen their affection for those who gave them being, while it must render every succeeding generation more advanced, and thus, as one of the results of Communism, promote the happiness of man. U. M. |