can be claimed for him as a right, for without such a radical change he cannot stand on the same footing as our own candidates, and it would be displaying an unbecoming partiality for foreigners, as well as be insulting to the genius of our own countrymen, to give the precedence to the Jew, unless there exists an equality on his part, not to speak of a superiority, though one might very properly do so. To counterbalance these defects, the Jew ought to possess qualities outshining those of Englishmen. The writer already referred to proposes a series of questions ending with the following as an appropriate climax :-Is he (the Jew) eminently notorious for dishonesty in his mercantile and business transactions? "Adelphos" must have laughed to himself while penning this sentence, knowing well that no one feels at ease in dealing with a Jew. We confess great deference to the aphoristic wisdom of the nation which pronounces the Jews to be a people prone to overreach. The specious queries of "Adelphos" are completely answered by asking antithetically, Is the Jew a better citizen? Has he been more faithful to the trust reposed in him as sheriff, alderman, justice of the peace, &c.? If not, then no superiority has been established; but superiority must be established, else the objections urged are not overcome-a satisfactory reason has still to be adduced for preferring a Jewish legislator. 66 Adelphos" further says, "They (the Jews) would absent themselves from debates on church questions." If their religious tendencies are likely to have this effect, better retain the disabilities. Englishmen are not wanting who can deliberate on such questions without being under any necessity of shirking their duties. We are not illiberal. Surely it will be conceded that the candidate who can best further public business is the one who should be elected. We would infinitely rather have persons professing the most heterodox opinions to share in our national councils, than admit Jews, and this too not without reason: the former being allied to the country by numerous ties, offer a guarantee that the confidence we repose in them will not be abused; but we must say we fear the malign influence of Jewish wealth. An important trust is placed in the hands of electors, as they choose representatives, not for themselves only, but for the masses who do not enjoy the franchise privilege; it therefore becomes them to employ that trust warily, that they may not compromise the national interests by the choice of Jewish members. ARISTIDES. Social Economy. WOULD COMMUNISM PROMOTE THE HAPPINESS OF MAN? NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-III. We are first to show the injustice of the Communistic principle, which would make all animate as well as inanimate matter common property-the productions of all the property (consequently) of all. ACCEPTING U. M.'s definition of Com- in support of the affirmative side of this munism, viz., that it is "that principle interesting question. which would render common property to the entire human family the earth and all things which from time to time are produced from it, whether they be animal, vegetable, or mineral, and which would, at the same time, render the production of them common," we purpose in this article pointing out the injustice, impolicy, and immorality of that principle, and consequently its utter incapability to promote the happiness of the human family; and, in conclusion, briefly to glance at the respective articles of U. M. and L. I. No two men are constituted alike; with the powers of mind or body, with like energies of disposition, with the like capabilities in producing property-the effect of labour. The capabilities, and the labour, are the individual's; consequently their produceproperty-should be the individual's also. The cause is the individual's, the effect is the individual's. Upon this principle society from its very commencement has acted; this principle is sound in theory and sound in practice. Our ears tingle with the sudden "Hold hard!" of our opponents. "We deny the soundness of the principle. The labour, say we, should be the community's; consequently the property should be the community's also." Indeed it is time for us to draw tight the reins of our onward-speeding senses; for we perceive that at this early stage of our journey lies the object we are pursuing-the chief point at issue between us, viz.-Whose property should an individual's labour be, his own or the community's ? Suppose an individual to be wrecked on an island uninhabited by man. Fortunately for him he has been able to save from the wreck a few grains of corn and an implement or two of husbandry. He tills the soil, sows his corn, and in due time reaps the harvest; living, in the meantime, upon such animal and vegetable products as he has been able to discover. He labours himself, for himself, and the product of his labour-property-is his own. After a time, a party of individuals are wrecked upon the same island. Would it be just or right for them to take possession of the plot of land cultivated by the first comer, and make it and its products common property? Would their arrival make the labour of the primary occupant any the less his own property? Not at all. The cultivated plot should remain inviolate the property of the first occupant, who had expended labour upon it; and the new arrivals should go forth and subdue the land in like manner, receiving that kindly assistance from the former which his religion and his nature would prompt him to give. No one, we think, will deny the soundness of the principle here laid down. Time speds on, and the patriarch of the island is on his death-bed. But not done. A manly youth, his eyes moist with tears, hangs over him. He is the fruit of the dying man's marriage with one of the second comers. The love of the old man beams forth from eyes soon to be closed in death; and a smile playing round his mouth betrays an inward contentment and happineas. He dies; and his weeping son stands the possessor of that land, extended and improved, on which the old man had spent so much weary labour. A cottage, furnished, rudely indeed, is his also, likewise the effect of his father's labour. Will any of our opponents question the right of the son to this property? Can they argue that it should have devolved upon the community? Who had so good a right to it as the father's own son? Would the old man equally have delighted as much in planting those hedges, in building that cottage, in manufacturing those chairs, those tables, those platters, those drinking vessels, had he known that they would, on his death, have become the property of the community? We venture to answer, No! We venture to assert that it was a father's love that stimulated him to labour so energetically, and with such effect. Who shall dare assert that the happiness of his death-bed was not one of the rewards of his toil! Who shall say that the smile-educing agent was not the knowledge that his labour had not been in vain, for it had blessed his son whom he loved! Whose blood does not boil at the thought of a stranger's shadow hereafter darkening the doorway of that cottage, of a stranger feeding at that board off the fat of that land? And is this feeling the result simply of education? Surely not! Surely it is the result of a principle implanted in our nature; for have we not found that from the very beginning it has been so-from the very first the child has stood in its parent's shoes? And has not this hypothetical case a parallel in reality? Is it not an example of the manner in which the soil of the earth has become the property of individuals? Yes! Occupancy gave the original right to all landed property. We hold, then, that we have established the justice of the claim to the soil by occupancy, and to other property by inheritance; and therefore any principle, as that of Communism, which denies this right, is unjust in its effects. We have said above that men are not constituted alike, that they do not possess equal capabilities of producing property. A. can produce such a property in ten hours as would take B. fifteen hours to produce, and yet in a society of Communists B. would be as well off as A. "Very good," answer new planet, of a new land, of a new piece of machinery? Again our answer is, we believe not. There is no certain return to labours of this nature, at the same time that their pursuit costs not only labour but money and material too. Again, as Communism compels an equality of education, would it be found that A. B. C. and D. would consent to labour, respectively, in the field, in the mine, in the dockyard, in the manufactory, whilst E. F. G. and H. our opponents; "if A. possesses better capa- | return for the chance of the discovery of a bilities than B., inasmuch as his capabilities belong to society (for, as the productions of his capabilities belong to society, so his capabilities-that is, their use-must belong to society also), so he ought to exert them to the utmost for society's benefit, in the same manner that B. exerts his as far as he is able, and yet receive only the same amount of compensation." For the sake of argument, granted. But what guarantee have you that B.'s lesser capabilities are not the result of idleness whilst learning his busi-laboured respectively in the office, in the ness, or of wilfully working in a wrong manner? Or, how know you that he does not really possess equal capabilities with A., only he is too idle to exert them? Such may be, and such undoubtedly but too often would be, a result of the Communistic principle. A., a clever and industrious man, would receive no greater remuneration for his services than B., a stupid and idle man. This our opponents must admit to be an evil, and a great injustice. studio, on the bench, in the parliament house? We think not. We believe that Communism would lead to endless heartburnings and discontent. It would engender the feeling that I, A. B., perform labour costing much more exertion than that of C. D., and yet I am no better off. If these things be true, the impolicy of the Communistic principle is evident. Of its immorality we will say but little; indeed it is a point upon which we dare hardly venture. But this brings us to our next point, viz., that the Communistic principle is impolitic. Carry out the principles of Communism This, we think, can be easily shown. It to their natural and legitimate ends, and would prove a barrier to all progression, they necessitate a total overthrow of the by removing that great incentive to exertion, present existing relations of man to woman. the accumulation of property. Had not the Communism would make woman common old man of the island a right to the land he property; all children would then be comhad cultivated, to the cottage he had built, mon property also. This, horrible as it may and to the furniture he had made, we believe be to contemplate, is but the natural effect he would have cared but little to have of Communisın. Let woman, as now, be laboured so diligently upon them. And had the property of one man, and the offspring, not society in general the same stimulus to during its minority at least, is their joint exertion, we believe it likewise would care property, to educate to fill any station in but little to produce anything beyond what society they may please. And should it was necessary to its immediate wants. We not be so ? Or should the community have believe that in time society would become the power of stepping in between the child little more than a food, clothes, and shelter and its parent: of saying, "thus and thus producing community; with no knowledge shalt thou bring it up; these religious, these of science, and with no works of high art. social, these moral principles shalt thou instil How has the knowledge we possess of che- into it ?" Or worse still, should the commistry been, for the most part, acquired? munity, with ruthless hand, crying aloud, By hard, close, life-devoted, non-self-sup- "My property! my property!" have the power porting labour in the laboratory: and the of snatching the sleeping infant from its seeker may have been rewarded by the dis- mother's breast, or from its father's knee? covery of one truth of practical benefit in a Should the community have the power of life-time. Would the community consent thus rudely severing all those fond ties with to support the alchemist, whose labour is of which nature has bound together the child such a non-producing quality? We trow and its parents? Would it be better that not. How, again, would it be with the the community should soothe the bed and astronomer, the traveller, the mechanist- close the eyes of its departing members? would society support them a life-time, in | Or would a loving child perform the office less tenderly? But the child knows not its parent; 'tis the community's property, the community's offspring! Upon this point we will dwell no longer, readily believing that our friends U. M. and L. I never for one moment contemplated the korrible idea (too horrible to be spoken of without a shudder) of woman and woman's offspring becoming common property. We have endeavoured to show that Commanism is unjust, impolitic, and immoral in its tendencies: whether we have succeeded or not, our readers will be able to judge; but if we have, it requires no argument to demonstrate that a principle which tends to so much evil cannot promote the happiness of man. With a brief glance at the respective articles of U. M. and L. I., we will close this aiready, we fear, too lengthy article. U. M. lays down three propositions, which he endeavours to substantiate. The first is, That the earth and all that is produced from it by the labour of man, ought to be common property." In support of this he argues that God made the earth for the use of man; made it possessed of “an intrinsic value," as it contains "the elements of wealth," and as that value was given to it by God for the use of man in general, no individual can have an exclusive claim to it. In answer we say, that the inherent wealth of the soil is made available by labour. Hence the labourer causes the soil to bring forth its treasure, and consequently that treasure should become his property, to demand a consideration, in the shape of rent, from the next occupant, for the improvement he has effected in it. His second proposition is, "That every able-bodied man ought to perform his share of labour." Freely admitting the soundness of this principle, we humbly submit that we have already shown that this object is not obtained by Communism. His last proposition, viz., "That a community of labour and its results would be for the happiness of mankind in general,” is in fact the whole question at issue between us; and therefore we apprehend that it requires, in this place, no special answer, as its refutation has been the aim of the whole of this article. The chief point of L. I.'s argument is that a body of Communists-the Moravians— have been able to effect a great deal of good. Whether this result can fairly be attributed to the working of the Communistic principle or not, we have not time to go into. But, we beg to remark, that the results of Communism applied to a small body of men, united in principle and object, and the result of the principle applied to society at large, would be by no means necessarily the same. We have then, for the reasons above advanced, come to the conclusion that Communisin would not promote the happiness of man. F. F. AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III. In order satisfactorily to answer this question, it will be necessary briefly to inquire, Erstly, what Communism and its professed bject is; secondly, what the evils are which proposes to remedy; and, thirdly, if by its practical adoption the happiness of man would be promoted. it by uniting opposing interests, to succeed in breaking down the barriers of caste, and in eradicating that spirit of sly distrust which now reigns paramount in society; and thus, by promoting free intercourse amongst all men, pioneer the way for the realization of that pure and loveable Christianity which it was the glorious mission of Christ to teach. 1st. Communism is that principle which secks to restore the primal rights of mankind, by abrogating all claims to the possesBon of private property; and to secure the equal rights of all men to develop their The present age has been not inapprothequal faculties, by establishing a com- priately called the "buccaneer stage of labour arity of goods and a concerted combination and civilization." For are not all classes of fort amongst all classes of society. Com-arrayed against each other by dint of opposing manism being a principle of union and interests? Is not commerce, as at present equality, its object consequently is to over-conducted, a trick-a mere species of gamthrow the despotic tyranny of monopoly, and, bling? Is not wealth becoming gradually 2nd. In order to elucidate our next proposition, we must briefly glance at the present condition and aspects of society. monopolized in the hands of the favoured few, and the gulf between the richer and poorer classes every day widening? Is it not a fact, that while, by increased mechanical inventions, the power of production being thereby indefinitely increased, the labourer has gradually sunk in the scale of social degradation; and, instead of having leisure to cultivate his intellectual, moral, and religious capacities, he is engaged in a round of toil, sleep, and animal relaxation, which presents (indeed admits of) no gleams of high and holy thought?" Again: "In Great Britain there are 70,000 persons who possess among them an annual revenue of £200,000,000, or about £2,800 a year each; on the average, our paupers, criminals, and vagrants, number 2,000,000; and 17,000,000 depend on wages; while of these there are annually about 100,000 mechanics and labourers out of employ. In the presence of a tremendous growth of evils like these, is not our position most ominous?" * To what cause may be attributed the existence of the above evils, other than to the private property system, which, by giving birth to a grasping spirit of selfishness, not only deprives thousands of their just rights, but threatens to undermine the social fabric? Let our opponents answer. Keeping the preceding facts in view, how absurd does the following statement, from the pen of J. N., appear:-" Be it our task to show that the realization of these (Communistic) principles in practice would plunge us into difficulties tenfold more harassing (?) than the evils complained of in our present state." Whether he has duly performed his task the intelligent reader will decide. In making the preceding observations, we would not be understood as sounding the tocsin of alarm, by proclaiming the "decadence of England," but as simply endeavouring to show the necessity of a great social change; for we believe that the evils enumerated are to be traced rather to the operation of causes none of which indicate national decline; hence we conclude, in the words of an able writer in the Edinburgh Review, "that the world can never have been intended to be, and will not long remain, what it is." 3rd. Having shown the evils which Com "The Age and its Architects," by E. P. Hood, p. 76;—a work to which the writer is indebted for much valuable information in relation to the present condition of society. munism proposes to remedy, we will now show how, by its practical adoption, the happiness of man would be promoted. Its fundamental principle being that all property, all talent, all strength, all learning, all labour, is but a trust from God, to be applied for the benefit of all, it follows that the energies of all in a Communistic state would be directed and employed, not to administer to an exclusive spirit of selfishness not to crush the weak and favour the strong-but in drawing out the kindly sympathies of human nature, by furnishing the means of physical, intellectual, and moral developinent, and thus promoting the happiness of man. But, says C. W., Jun., this is "too visionary to be productive of really beneficial results." What! "can men unite to erect bridges, to construct railroads-ay, and to destroy one another in war-and yet not coalesce to make one another happy? Then, indeed, is the history of human progression well nigh closed, and the regeneration of man a vain hope!" One thing, however, is certain, that Christianity in connexion with competition can be but a meaningless word, the import of which can only be fully realized in that state of society where unity of interest binds man to man in the silver bond of universal brotherhood; and yet this is that state at which the "sympathies" of J. N. "revolt." Communism, in seeking to infuse a spirit of vital warmth and christian energy into the present cold, selfish, and gold-worshipping system, is by C. W. pronounced "visionary;" and J. N. has " no faith in its practicability." But, however" visionary" the Communistic principle may appear, by that eternal law of progress which will at last rectify every wrong, and vindicate the equal rights of men, the social dependence of one man upon another must cease, as befits the brethren of one family whose origin and destiny are the same. Having shown that Communism would promote the happiness of man, we will now present our readers with an extract from the writings of Mr. James Silk Buckingham, to show that it is capable of being practically realized. After spending a day in visiting the Rappite Community, in America, in the year 1839, he says:-"Our last thought, on closing the day, was as to the contrast of happiness and virtue which this community of 500 persons presented, when compared with |