Political Economy deserve to be reviled, if it declared that in that case multitudes of human beings must go out of existence? Does sentiment refute the assertion

by disliking it? In this most serious matter of the relations of the labouring classes to society, democratic sentiment finds powerful motives for the selfish side of human nature to fling contempt on Political Economy, and to invent doctrine and theory of its own; but where the very terms of existence are at stake, there can be but one supreme issue between Political Economy and its despisers. Are the assertions made on either side, -not generous, or philanthropic, or noble, but true or false, as judged by the realities of man's nature, and of his position in the world? To err here, and to construct conduct on the error may mean for countless millions, misery, sickness and death.

Political Economy, however, and philanthropy have each of them their legitimate spheres by the side of one another. Political Economy is a subordinate body of knowledge only. It assumes wealth as its end, but does not compare that end with the other objects of human life. The pursuit of wealth is not the paramount duty of mankind to which everything else must give way. On the contrary philanthropy and morality and social philosophy are authorised to declare that there are states of life and practices which must be avoided at the cost of loss of wealth, or even of poverty. Political Economy can show with the greatest ease that nothing is more antagonistic to the production of wealth than war. Yet every nation at times prefers war to riches, and the voice of humanity does not condemn them. There might be social arrangements enacted for the

production of wealth, or particular kinds of wealth-producing labour, which a people would prefer death rather than submit to. Human nature would be justified to reject wealth rather than endure such practices; only let the judgment be fairly given on its true grounds. It would imply no condemnation of Political Economy. It would simply affirm that some processes which upon the principles of Political Economy might be shown to be capable of producing wealth are accompanied by evils of such a kind as to forbid the acquisition of such wealth. To pretend that in such cases things recommended by Political Economy had been scouted by reason and right feeling would be as grossly unjust as to rail at the science of medicine, because it might point out an effective poison to a murderer. Man is but an imperfect being, both individually and socially. All his organisations are subject to mischievous defects and errors, and those which he has framed for the production of that wealth without which life itself could not subsist can never be withdrawn from the legitimate criticism of those who think that they offend against right sentiment, or philanthropy or any other natural principle.

The materials of which wealth is composed are furnished by the earth and its atmosphere. They are transformed into new combinations by human labour, and the results are commodities ministering to the wants and desires of mankind. Labour requires that a previous supply of food and instruments should be. provided beforehand. These things are called capital. Capital is obtained by saving and abstinence, and has for its motive a portion of the products which it creates. That portion is called profit. Equally must the labourer

have a motive for the effort that he contributes. If he is in the savage state, he labours for himself and his family alone. He is capitalist and labourer in one. He does not think of a reward as such. He desires a thing, and he wins it or makes it. But another element makes its appearance in the situation when one man labours for another, when the second man is to be the owner of the product of the exertion. He must possess in some way the means of persuading the labourer to work for him. Reward for reciprocal services is the fundamental law of social life. In the case of labourers that reward is called wages.

Who are to be called labourers is a question which does not admit of an accurate answer. There are many who earn wages under the name of salary or pay who are not termed labourers, though they labour for another, and work under his direction. Ministers serving under the orders of Parliament, civil servants, soldiers and sailors of every grade, clergymen, and judges receive wages, but are not spoken of as labourers. Labourers in contradistinction to capitalists, are persons who commonly own little property, who derive their maintenance from the work of their hands in the mechanical manufacture of wealth, who are hired to perform this service for an employer, and live by the payment which they receive from him. Thus their income is practically derived solely from the service they render in labouring. But wages imply two conditions. They are given to free men as an offer made by the employer in return for a service and accepted by the workmen; and, secondly, they exclude all payments given as charity. The relation between employer and

wage-receiver is one of business exclusively. Gifts belong to an absolutely different category. Very mischievous consequences would result from confounding any form of charity with wages. They are intrinsically different in nature, as well as in all the ideas and principles associated with them.

Under the institution of property adopted by every nation in the world, the fact of the want of property places the labouring class, over against capitalists, as a body of men seeking to earn their livelihood by working for an employer. Without employment from those who possess capital, they would be in danger of starvation. On the other hand, the capitalists are under a corresponding necessity of offering reward to persuade men to work for them. Without labourers, unless they cease to be capitalists and become labourers themselves, their capital would perish, and they would be brought within the same danger as unemployed labourers. The need of each other exists on both sides. But the employers are few and the labourers a multitude; the capitalists have means, the labourers possess fewer resources. If accident, or want of work, or scarcity of food supervene, the danger falls on the workmen far more swiftly than on the capitalist. His wealth interposes a delay before starvation can reach him. The labourers in the day of distress are driven to competing with another for employment; they may beat each other down to a minimum of wage. The capitalist, on the other hand, in most great trades is subject to equally severe competition; but ruin never appears to be upon him so visibly as upon the labourer. Such is the process by which social life is worked amongst most nations. It

is obvious that it must often give rise to situations which cannot fail to excite dissatisfaction as well as sympathy.

It cannot be considered a matter for wonder, if the feelings of suffering or jealous men and the thought of educated minds have prompted the inquiry whether this division into employers with and labourers without wealth is the necessary or the desirable form of industrial life on earth. Ideas have been generated, strongly characterised by what has been called the socialistic type, which proclaim that a far wiser and a more human structure can, and consequently ought to be given to these relations of men to each other in meeting. the common need they have of one another for sustaining life and developing progress. They take their stand on declarations of positive right. Labour, they truly affirm, is the condition on which every want is supplied; hence they deduce the principle that no man is, or can be, authorised to enjoy without labouring. Inherited wealth is a violation of the rights of others. It confers a power of enjoyment which can find no justification. Those who make the wealth alone possess the right to have it. Wealth not earned by work is spoliation; it is taken away by the force of what is called law from its rightful owner. If labourers refused to work for the rich, the rich would be compelled to earn their livelihood by toil like other mortals, and the fundamental law of human nature would be obeyed. If the rich refuse to do justice to the poor, then the law of the State is bound to enforce natural right, and to set up national workshops for the support of the poor out of the public taxes. Others with irresistible logic pursue this line of thought to its necessary consequence. Property is theft!" cries