6

words of fire' (or of the fire'), are they more than a simple Hebraism? If not, the meaning of the expression Gehenna of fire,' is most probably the burning Gehenna,' and no more. The reader may see a similar form in Luke xviii. 6, 'judge of unrighteousness,' properly Englished by unrighteous judge.'

The probability of this interpretation arises from the nature of the case. Gehenna was the name of a valley near Jerusalem. The word by its Hebrew etymology means 'valley of Hinnom,' an ancient name found in the Old Testament (2 Kings xxiii. 10, 2 Chron. xxviii. 3). In former times it had been the scene of idolatrous rites and of human sacrifices to the god Moloch. Hence to the later Jews it was a place of abomination, and to mark its character it was defiled by the various refuse of the city there thrown and kept burning that it might be consumed. A veritable place of fire, deserving of its name and reputation! where amidst corrupting matters worms too might live, until the all-consuming element swallowed them up. Thus there was here literally a Tûp dióviov, an age-enduring fire, an 'unquenchable fire-a place where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched' (Mark ix. 43, 48).

-are

It is easy to understand that, Gehenna being such a place as this, it would become the representative, in popular speech, of the place of punishment reserved for the wicked and the unbelieving, who were doomed to destruction at the final judgment on the coming of the Messiah. The ungodly should be cast into the burning Gehenna and consumed: it does not appear that they were to be kept alive, burning for ever, this being a later addition to the ancient conception. The ideas associated with the mediaval hell-such as may be seen painted on the wall of the Campo Santo at Pisaunknown to the Gospels, and have only been added to the original name in its modern form by the lively imaginations of speculative theologians. In other words, the representation of Gehenna' by 'hell' is clearly unjustifiable, because this terrible word now suggests ideas of horror and misery which have no foundation in New Testament usage, when due regard is paid to the origin and history of the word Gehenna. It might have been expected that a body of revisers such as the Westminster Company would have been able to raise themselves above the popular conceptions of our day, and would have given us a rendering of the words in question which was fairly based not upon the long-descended notions of the darkest ages of mediæval superstition, but upon the just historical considerations which are applicable to the subject. Those who expected so much as this, it is a pity to think, will be disappointed; and so it is reserved for a future revision, if ever such a thing shall come to pass, to do justice to words and thoughts which, in connection with this subject, have been so long misrepresented-to the sore discredit, with many thoughtful minds, of the Christian Gospel.

But here, leaving many interesting passages, changed or unchanged, without comment, I must bring this paper to a close. Whatever the imperfections of the revised version may be, still, it must be admitted, the revision is a good work accomplished. It will at least awaken thought and stimulate inquiry, in quarters in which these have been too apt to slumber. It breaks the spell which the old Authorised had thrown over the religious world, or at least the English Protestant part of it. People will no longer look upon the English Bible, chapter headings and italics included, as if it had been dropped from heaven just as it is; and perhaps it will be more easy than it was to get a truth of modern science into the heads of ordinary religious people, even in the face of apparent difficulty arising on the side of the Bible. This will be a gain to the cause of Truth and Reason which all truthful and reasonable men will be glad to see.

G. VANCE SMITH.

WHAT IS A POUND?

THIS old question which Sir Robert Peel so much rejoiced in has once more cropped up, and in the remarks I wish to make upon it I desire to say a few words upon what was a pound and what may be a pound.

In his speech on the Bank Act of 1844 he says of the principle of the metallic standard: 'It must at the same time be admitted that it would be quite consistent with that principle to adopt some other measure of value than that which we have adopted. It would be consistent with that principle to select silver instead of gold as the standard, or to have a mixed standard of gold and silver, the relative value of the two metals being determined, or to dispense with gold coin altogether, and regulate the amount and value of the paper currency by making it convertible only, according to the proposal of Mr. Ricardo, into gold bullion of a given minimum amount.'

The authority of this great financier may therefore be cited as showing that bimetallism as now proposed is not otherwise than in accordance with the principle of the metallic standard.

The Earl of Liverpool made his proposal for a gold standard on the ground that Great Britain is so distinguished for its affluence and for the extent of its commercial connections, that gold coins are best adapted to be the principal measure of property.'

The monometallists in the present controversy maintain this doctrine, and assert that the superior wealth of England enables her to keep her gold standard, while less wealthy nations, such as Germany, Italy, &c., could not do so. On the other hand, the bimetallists declare that this supremacy would continue and even increase if England submitted herself to a general law agreed on in concert with other nations. The Americans believe that their wealth, intelligence, commercial activity, and undeveloped resources will enable them, if they are forced into a gold standard, to outstrip England in the race for wealth, and to draw from England's store of gold a sufficient amount to place them in the foremost rank.

The present controversy dates from the first monetary conference in Paris, which sat in June 1867, and which was called for the purpose of' appreciating more earnestly the advantages which would be derived from the unification of coinages.'

At the very first meeting the question of standards arose, and on its arising the existence of the double standard seemed so little understood that the delegate from Russia, having been placed among those representing the double-standard countries, declared that there was only one standard in Russia, that of silver; but he was corrected by Monsieur de Parieu, the French delegate, who informed him that both metals were legal tender in both countries.

On the 20th of June, at the third sitting, the proposition 'that the desired result, namely, monetary unification, is attainable on the basis and condition of adopting the exclusive gold standard,' was carried with one dissentient voice.

In 1871 the German demonetisation of money commenced, and in 1873 an act of Congress was passed by which silver was legally demonetised in the United States, which act was, however, corrected by what is called the Bland Bill, enforcing the coinage of a certain amount of silver monthly. In 1878 another international monetary conference assembled at Paris, at which the German Empire was not represented, but, notwithstanding the absence of that important element, the European States, through their delegates, agreed that it is necessary to maintain in the world the functions of silver as well as those of gold,' thereby coming to a conclusion at variance with that at which the previous conference had arrived.

A third conference is now sitting. Since the demonetisation of silver in Germany, a change which was the legitimate consequence of the verdict of 1868, a continued fall of prices has taken place, and one of the subjects of dispute between those engaged in the battle of the standards is, whether that depreciation of prices and the existing depression of trade are due to the usual ebb and flow of commercial life caused by bad harvests and the cupidity and folly of man, or whether they are due in a great measure to the currency revolution of 1873.

The English system of metallic currency is founded on Lord Liverpool's letter to the King on coins, on the report of the Bullion Committee of 1810, and on the various Acts relating to the resumption of what were called cash payments, or the right to receive standard coin in exchange for banknotes.

Most people are aware that previous to 1819 our circulation was a paper one, but few are aware that, previous to the suspension of cash payments, it was bimetallic, and not measured by a gold standard. Of this fact it must be supposed that Sir Robert Peel was not conscious when he made his famous speech on the resumption of cash payments in 1819, the peroration of which contains the following sentence: Every consideration of sound policy and every obligation of strict justice should induce us to restore the ancient and permanent standard of value.'

Now, this is precisely what he did not do, but what the bimetallists are now advising. What they wish for is a return to the

'ancient standard of the realm' in common with the rest of the nations of the earth.

The fall of prices which took place after the institution of the modern, not ancient, gold standard of 1816, and that which has taken place since the demonetisation of silver in Germany, have both been the subject of a most voluminous literature.

The evils connected with the fall in prices are disputed by some economists, so in alluding to them I prefer to quote the remarks of those whose orthodoxy is undoubted. Mr. Giffen said in 1879:

I have come to the conclusion that not only is there a decline of prices at the present time from the high level established a few years ago, but that this decline is more serious than the downward fluctuations of prices usually exhibited in dull times, and that it may be partly of a permanent character, unless some great change should occur in the condition of business at an early date. . . .

...

The reason is that a sudden pressure on the precious metals at a given period tends to disturb the money markets of the countries using them.

...

Altogether, during the last six years, Germany has coined 84,000,000, the accumulation of gold in the United States amounts to 30,000,000 sterling.

A falling off in the supply of gold, as well as the increased demand, is then described.

Now, if these things are admitted by the monometallists, the question arises to what extent is the fall in prices an evil? and what is evil, and what is good, to a writer on political economy?

In my humble opinion, violent, sudden, and frequent oscillations in the price of commodities are an evil. A long continuance of the inability to obtain the due return for their labours, be they what they may, is an evil to ordinary men. It is an evil for those who have made fair and honest calculations, founded on a belief in a continuance of steady returns of any kind, to find them permanently falsified to their loss and detriment. It is bootless to tell us that we must

consider this as a chronic question, irrespective of the immediate effect of such sudden changes. If an enormous depreciation in prices of all things produced in England be not an evil, then I admit the bimetallist would be very wrong to press his views on the public notice.

The inflation of prices in 1872 was felt to be a most undoubted evil to consumers; to those who produced nothing it was an unmixed evil. To these same persons the state of commercial depression is rather a good than an evil. They receive as much now as they did before, and they pay less for what they consume. But to those who are neither enthusiasts nor doctrinaires the sudden inflation of prices which went by the name of the coal famine was a great evil, though perhaps not so great as the present depression, which, though less sudden, appears more lasting, and therefore may be more mischievous in its results.

Consumers may be the better for this state of things, but it must