ever its other faults may be) is consistent. But the attempt to maintain it in union with the advantages of the opposite principle of association, must fail. Under the old Hebrew Legislation, the very same conservative-element was displayed in the Laws of the Sabbath and the Jubilee, which is manifested in modern Factory-Legislation. They are, equally, examples of the felt necessity of the Legislator's stepping in between Capital and Labor, to protect the latter from the ultimate tendencies of the former. s As respects the Factory Bill, however, instead of discussing how many hours infantile muscle could work against steam and iron, or the possibility of mitigating the bondage of the female White Slave, a previous and pertinent question should have been asked-How, capital, mere capital, ever came to have the power to compel from the workman such an exorbitant sacrifice as health, wife, and child? The benevolent men, however, would know nothing of political economy, and the political economists would know nothing of benevolence. Both lost sight of the great and permanent question, almost the only one which needed solving, viz., the real cause of the evil itself. The Truck Act, in compelling employers to pay money instead of goods, is another interference between employer and employed, another confession of the inability of the latter to make his own conditions. Why should not the amount, as well as the kind of remuneration, be fixed by the legislature? The justice would be the same, but the practice is different, because in the former case Capital, in the latter the Legislature, is the strongest. The working classes themselves are not idle in adding to the general mass of inconsistency. Ask them whether they admire 'free-competing,' and they will reply in the affirmative. But apply the principle to Wages, and it will be another matter; they will demur to permitting supply and demand' to regulate that. 1 By various limitations, by Unions fixing the numbers and terms of apprenticeships, An ancient assertion of the right, the expediency, of interfering between the Owningfew and the Toiling-many-a divine denial of the modern dogma of the Capital Economists-the assertion of the superior claims of the Laborers over the material of labor-is seen in the Theocratic Legislation of the Jews. The Jubilee and the Sabbath were made for Man-the Land and Labor for the Laborer, not the Laborer for the Labor or the Land. Some political economists, while declaiming against a Ten-hours 'Bill, will even fanatically uphold a Sabbath-Bill! But in truth, the Jewish Sabbath, as our Social Sabbath, must be regarded as a Law for the protection of the Laborer. But his protection against what? One answer only can be returned-Against the crushing tendencies and encroachments of Capital, which, like the horse-leech, is ever crying, 'Give, give, give.' As to the Sabbath, even a Religious Sanction has been called in, and is still swayed, for sustaining a Social Law for regulating the days of human toil:-on what 'principle' then, and with what consistency, can such politicians object to interfere with the hours of labor, or any other of its conditions, as the interests of Man, and the new aspects of Society, may call for such interference? On no principle whatever, as it seems to me, save this-that Mammon is our God and Man our Slave! The principle of the Factory Bill, therefore, is at least as ancient as the Sabbath-Law, and as far as principle is concerned, we must receive or repudiate them together."-Dr. Lees: Speech on the Ten-hours' Bill, 1845. The economists infer that because every body likes competition in his own case, it must be good. Now as, according to their view, each one knows what is best for himself, it seems to prove the contrary by strikes which have cost millions and wasted millions more, they try, and to some extent successfully, to keep themselves out of the reach of competition. The good feeling of employers also, operates much more than is suspected, in the same direction. There is not perhaps one employer in a thousand who absolutely buys his 'laborers in the cheapest market,' while few reduce wages until compelled by competition. Badly as the laborer is remunerated, he is rarely squeezed so dry that an exacting employer might not get more out of him. Masters did not combine against laborers, till laborers combined against masters. When we affirm that capital takes the share of labor, the smallest portion of blame lies at the door of the capitalist. On the contrary, If the just share of the laborer be that which is determined by the competition of supply and demand, the capitalists are robbed of all they are compelled to give above that, whether it be paid in the shape of pauper relief, or that of hospitals and charities. The capitalists are men, and therefore include both good and evil; the former mitigate, the latter intensify, the evils of a false system. The master who makes the most he can out of his laborers, differs but in degree from the slave driver, and the principle of political economy justifies the slavery of Greece and Rome as much as it does the system of modern labor. The so-called 'Tyrant millocrat' is often a mild, benevolent gentleman, who, by means of schools, donations to chapels and soup kitchens, endeavors to alleviate the misery around him. His mistaken philanthropy it is true, often saps the spirit of independence in the laborer, and ultimately increases the evil. The laborer wants work,-the means of earning his own comforts,-instead of which the means of existence are supplied without work. To such an extent has this folly proceeded, that there is scarcely a want for which a charity' does not exist. It would almost seem that the legislature, the capitalist, the workman, and the pauper, were in league against the just rights of labor. By endless patches we hobble on, but it is only in moments of alarm like the present, when the system threatens to break down, that any attention is paid to 'the labor question.' i The special cases of oppression which the law has undertaken to rectify, are few in comparison with those which claim its aid. Voluminous as our code is, it would be much more so, if the legislature interfered in all the cases that need its protecting arm. It is objected by the advocates of the free-principle, that no legislation could meet the ever varying evils which all see it desirable to remove. True, but what then? Must finite power cease to act, because it is not infinite? Must the journeyman baker die of disease and premature decay, in order that some fraction of a farthing may be saved in the price of bread? Or the poor needle-woman wear out her over-wrought frame, 'stitching at once a shroud and a shirt,' to enable some metropolitan clothes dealer to keep a gig and give the public cheap shirts? Shall such fearful oppression go on for ever? Surely not. What, then, is the right course ? The fundamental principle of regulating the reward of labor by the competition of laborer and capitalist, is either true or false; and the basis of social action should be in accordance with one or the other. If interference is at all permissible in the conflict of labor and capital, it ought not to be tentative and accidental,- -mere symptom treatment; it should i See some interesting examples in Poor-law Commissioners' Report for 1833, p. 301. strike at the very root of the evil. If we adopt the free principle, let us at least be consistent. Let us have no compulsory provision for the poor, no robbery from capital to maintain in idleness the laborer which it cannot or chooses not to employ. Let us have no hindrance to the capitalist's chance of making the best bargain he can for himself, as when we compel him to pay money instead of goods. Let us abandon our Factory Acts, which either lessen wages as they lessen hours, or rob the Capitalist to the extent which they do not. Let workmen abandon all unions by which they place their wages, or hours, beyond the competitive level. Let us banish all those barriers which humanity, or self preservation, has compelled society and individuals to adopt, in order to save its humbler members from annihilation. Let the economists' natural (or most unnatural) law of wages, as determined by the fullest competition, be the only recognized one. The lower portion of society would, by the complete adoption of such principles, be reduced to a state analogous to drowning men, holding by an insufficient plank; some must be thrown off to save the rest. Picture the state of men, as we have read of them, crowded in a solitary boat, breadless and waterless for days, each man looking hungrily at his neighbor till the dreadful lots were cast. Or conceive of that Calcutta black hole, piled with bodies that a few might ease their panting breasts,- -or of Dante's Inferno;-yet why pursue the dismal theme? These are but faint types of what the Economist's World would be with an over-population on the one hand, and a let-alone system on the other. The conservative element in society, however, is too strong ever to permit such results to their full extent, tho we approach such a consummation far too nearly,-witness the revelations from some of our larger cities. But with the let-alone system completely triumphant, with every law repealed, every obstacle removed which benevolence and wisdom have set up against individual selfishness, it would be impossible we think for society to hold together one month, if even one day. If this plan dare not be tried, if the voice of our common brotherhood speak too loftily to be drowned by the hoarse croaking of an atheistic selfishness, let us still be consistent. Let us not, like empirics, apply partial remedies to cure evils which are but the symptoms of a deeper disease, the nature of which may be expressed in two sentences. First the masses of society are depending on capital not their own. Second, that they are increasing faster than the capital which employs them. To reverse this condition of society, will therefore be the object of the genuine philanthropists, and the value of most remedial measures must be estimated by their tendency to do so. Of every proposed plan, let us demand this question : Will it either increase the amount of capital, or tend to render the Worker less dependent on the accumulations of others, and more on his own? The more it aims at these fundamental conditions, the more worthy will it be of consideration. Alms to sots and premiums to vagabonds, tend to drag down the artizan. The various forms of charity are good as acknowleging some bond between man and man besides interest, and as indicating, and often alleviating, the evils of the present system; but as remedies they are worthless. The point of primary importance is to increase the fund for the support of labor. In strictness, it is not competition which is the cause of low wages and of the oppression of the laborer, any more than bricks are the cause of a house. The cause is deficiency of capital as compared with population,-a deficiency which It is may and does co-exist with overflowing wealth. Competition is the instrumentality by which the deficiency tells upon the laborer and the freer the competition, the more rapid the result. The competitive principle arrays man against man, classes against classes, but the slavery of labor to capital has its root in the conditions assigned. It is this deficiency in the demand for labor, which has transferred half-a-million of able men to the poor-house, and compels a tenth of the English people to be claimants of occasional relief. It was this which enabled the capitalist to strain the factory operative to the verge of physical endurance, in his hours of labor, and to dictate the terms and conditions of payment. this which has turned what is simply an exchange between capitalist and laborer, into an act characterized by dictatoral supremacy on the one hand, and degrading subserviency on the other. It is this which compels the workman to enter his employers presence, not as man should that of his fellow-man, but as an intruder and interloper, to whom Work-the primal right and duty of the race-is doled out as an act of charity! By changing that relation-by rendering the number of laborers scarce instead of plentiful, in regard to the individual owners of capital, the whole phenomena might be reversed. The terms Master and Servant would be immediately voted vulgar, as in America. Pauperism, except as the result of bad conduct, would be unknown. The workman, by the presence of comfort, would be capable of reaching the first stage of education, preparatory to a higher culture and development. Will society stop here? No! 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 destination are the same. HUMAN SUPERIORITY. All animals are living hieroglyphs. The dashing dog, and stealthy stepping cat, Hawk, bull, and all that breathe, mean something more To the true eye, than their shapes show; for all RANT that man is creation's lord, the very apex and crown of the Creator's work, there seems to follow no more worthy or legitimate consequence than his obligation to manifest the superiority by superior conduct. If his essential qualities and powers are inelusive of those of every other order in ecreation, and not only so, but there be added an essence to no other creature imparted, we have a right to expect, as a consequence of superior nature, a superior power, wisdom, and goodness. If man alone is 'infinite in faculty,' shall he not also be alone infinite in goodness? To what end is one man superior to another, but that he should serve him? For what purpose are the highest gifts of genius to the favored few, except that they should labor with them, and apply them, for the good of all? Universal powers are not destined alone for individual appliance, but also for the universal end. Whoso will be greatest among men, let him wait upon them, serve them, toil for them, think for them, love for them. To the like end is man endowed with supremacy over every other created thing. One part of creation is not created for any other part, but the whole is created for the whole. Each one created for THE ONE, has a part, a place, and a duty to fulfil, which can neither be omitted, nor mis-performed, without painful and perplexing results. All Creation yearns after the Creator, as type after its matrix, the offspring after the mother. Man, as the highest type, attracts all lower creatures, and as he ascends in the scale of wisdom and love, they ascend also. This is not a mere poetic imagination, but a fact. The dog, the horse, among the animals,—the cabbage, the apple, in vegetation,- -are proofs of the power of human culture to effect at the same time animal and vegetable culture. The globe itself seems to be presented to man in a certain rude and unfinished form, expressly for securing his highest development; and hence the progress of man, and of the earth, are concurrent. Man's upward course is denoted by his relation to the outer world. As a savage he knows no other feeling towards vegetables or animals, save the propensity to eat them. He shows his lordship of the creation by laying violent hands on whatsoever he can put into his mouth. His 'right divine' lays in his stomach, and in relation to his animal appetites alone does he contemplate creation. The beauty of sun and sky, of tree and landscape, are unrevealed to him, and for his belly, if not upon it, does he go all the days of his life. His advance to pastoral life is so evidently a new relation to the animal world, that it takes its name from it. From hunting and slaughter to nurture and feeding in companionship, was a grand step. And doubtless, by its bringing each person into constant contact with flocks and herds, the pastoral state developes a more tender regard for the animals than even civilization. Still the pastoral condition of man is very low, for intimate connection with animals enlarges the lower or animal nature, and what is gained in tenderness is lost in dignity. In human progress, however, it was a step-not from dignity, but ferocity. As man grew tame, the animals also became meliorated. Still, as gain or power was the basis of the change, the animal world profited little by it. Like man they were less rude, but like him also they were less free. A step from brutality towards beauty in man, is cheaply paid by the loss of a little animal liberty. Q |