NEGATIVE ARTICLE.-Y.

By democracy we understand that form of government in which the people wield the kingly dignity, and rule the destinies of a nation in any emergency. Now, if we permit the generality of the people of any realm to exercise the regal dignity, can we ever imagine that the national affairs will be conducted with such determination and effectual precision as they are now under the presi dency of a legitimate monarch? When we come to put the two extremes into the balances of impartial judgment, we soon discover the preponderance in favour of monarchy. We respectfully beg to controvert the arguments of our opponents; but we are resolved to refrain from the bitterness that seems to be begotten in the regions of difference. Whilst they inveigh against the wholesome practices of long-tried monarchy, they do not advert to any republican establishments of any magnitude to confirm their assumed position.

Truly they allude to the government under the protectorate of Cromwell; but they do not do justice to the facts of history. · Historical truths are the foundation of all syllogistic conclusions regarding history; but when sophistical reasonings are brought to bear upon the essential points of debate, an exposure is easily effected, when the baselessness of the structure is shown, then it collapses, without any possibility of reconstruction. We do not intend to advocate the practices of the monarch whom Cromwell destroyed, but we openly declare that his power was not based upon the rock, or it would have been more lasting. Now the mania for republican government had at that time attained its climax, when, to gratify the democratic part of the community, Cromwell autho-rized the constitution of a "Praise-God Barebones" parliament, and we fancy our opponents desire to have our constituent assembly similarly framed at this day. With the success of the democratic parliament, even the "Rump" and "Pride's Purge," every reader of our national history is acquainted, without any rehearsal. Such levelling theories as were therein tried cannot be tolerated by the actual principles upon which the distinctions of society are founded. Our opponents seem to speak rather sarcastically of the aristocratic element of the community, imagining that their share in legislation ought to be indiscriminately distributed among the members of the third estate. In thus advocating the principles of democracy, they become rather intemperate in expression, alluding to one of our dissipated monarchs.

Our opponents have mentioned the Helvetic Republic as a model form of government highly worthy of imitation. We do not object to the Alpine regions constituting the twenty-two cantons, that maintain their position as a neat little family amongst the regal nations of vaster magnitude, but we wish to know why they are adduced in this argument. Our opponents have descanted upon a democratic form of government freely, without adducing any striking

example of human happiness arising therefrom, and certainly cannot mean the Swiss Republic to be taken as a specimen, for it exists only by the tolerance of the neighbouring monarchies.

We will now advert to a democratic government that had a fair trial upon the stage of probational action. We of course now refer to France, because our opponents, "Cephas," &c., will not tolerate us if we refer to the present condition of the New World. It will, however, we may say in passing, be for time to demonstrate whether S. J. R. E.'s prognostication will come true, as to the reunion of the Confederate with the Federal States in 1864.

Our readers must now be prepared to turn their thoughts to some of the most shocking atrocities that ever sullied the face of a political state. With the causes through which the revolutionary government was instituted in France I do not interfere, as they do not bear upon the subject at issue. We notice, first, the beneficial action of democracy as to the manner in which it then dispensed governmental duties, i. e., in protecting the people and their property from lawless power (as these are acknowledgedly the legitimate attributes of every government). It is the duty of the individual members of a political body to consult their own conscience and I cannot but believe that every rational being is sufficiently gifted to discern right from wrong-in all matters that appertain to the legitimate requirements of humanity. And in the exercise of that duty each is bound to make a true decision, so far as the established rules and regulations of society require. Then, if we make these principles the grounds of our judgment, we cannot come to any other conclusion, as we propose to show, than the following that democratic government is not so beneficial to the people as a limited monarchy. In illustrating this, we will particularize a few instances from French history.

The first is that of Desmoulins, who was sent to the antechamber of death, the Conciergerie, and charged before the Committee of General Safety with having received a letter written by Dillon, sympathizing with her in her domestic afflictions, and inclosing 3,000 livres. But it appeared upon the trial that the turnkey declined to take the letter. Dillon slipped it into his pocket, but being discovered, it was returned, when Dillon tore it into pieces. Thus it was proved that Madame Desmoulins had never received the letter; yet Desmoulins, the turnkey, and Dillon, fell by the infernal machine, being a striking instance of the disposition of the member of the democratic government. Space will not allow us to multiply such illustrations as the above, but we must beg the indulgence of our readers to extend our remarks a little further. The case of one Mademoiselle (her name is not inserted by the author), who beheld her parents and relatives led to the scaffold. She alone remained in captivity at the Conciergerie; but the blood-stained knife was never destined to be dyed with her blood: she survived the tyrant, and the power of his jury of assassins. Although life was spared, yet God's choicest gift,

reason, like an affrighted dove, fled from her bosom, never to return; and that dismal abode was thrown open, and this beautiful flower in the garden of humanity walked forth from prison as a spectacle for pity and compassion.

In continuation of the above notices, we may advert to an instance of the setting at nought of the noblest of human attributes, and it cannot be more strikingly shown than in the following exemplification:-Mons. Loiserolles, at sixty years of age, died for his child, a youth in his 21st year, thus giving life to his offspring a second time. Yet the perpetrators of these deeds declare that they were done to found the institutions of liberty! Well might Madame Roland, with a keen satire upon these false champions of liberty, allude to them in the following terms,-" Oh, Liberty, how many crimes are committed in thy name!" So much for the horrors. of pretended freedom. But let us quit these dreary regions of misery, for its authors had justice meted out to them, although they denied it to others.

Let us now take a view of the regions under the sceptre of impartial justice, and we do not know that we can select a better example than our own dear isles. Let us now examine the working of our constitutional machinery in dealing with the lives and property as well as the rights and privileges of the British people. In the first instance, we must look to our existing laws, and the manner in which they are dispensed. In the formation of all law, the members of the third estate have their share as well as the Sovereign. The aristocratic portion of the community divide among themselves a similar portion of power. The Sovereign herself holds the power of ratifying the acts of both these branches of the community. The former are a check upon each other; the Sovereign is a check on both. In the judicial branch of society the respective functionaries are responsible for their acts; and if corruption has any share in directing their motions, the retributive laws hold them responsible to those they may wrong. The subject may petition the Sovereign with impunity in cases of any oppression of his immediate lord. The peasant's cot is his castle of defence; and though the elements may penetrate through its shattered and decayed walls, yet the monarch cannot dare to enter. Thus we are of opinion that power is pretty equally distributed amongst the different members of society. And with these few brief remarks, which in our belief are of more weight than all the attempts of our opponents, "Cephas," S. J. R. E., &c., from opposite sources, we close our essay. We now respectfully beg to say that it is our unfeigned belief that the majority of our readers will cheerfully unite with us on the negative side, and be prepared to defend that resolution to the latest moment of their existence.

S. F. T.

IS LIMITED LIABILITY IN PUBLIC COMPANIES, ETC. 361

Social Economy.

IS LIMITED LIABILITY IN PUBLIC COMPANIES PRODUCTIVE OF MORE HARM THAN GOOD?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-III.

WHEN discussion is carried on with gravity and decorum, when both sides of a question are clearly laid before the mind, when full justice is done by each writer to the side he espouses, the reader is put in the best possible position for determining rightly upon the subject of debate. He is not stirred by the passion which animates the partisans of any view, or blinded by the party feelings which are excited in the antagonists. Hence, we do not think that a little of the smartness of a person's temper is an injurious ingredient in controversy, but that it enlivens the style, and keeps the mind of the reader on the alert. We are not, however, making an apology beforehand for a crime which we intend to commit, but merely to enter our own protest against taming down all papers to the punctilious suavity of the drawing-room, instead of giving them the vital force of the hustings. The pepper and mustard style is not without its uses as may be seen in a quotation which J. makes from that caustic old parliamentary soldier and noted Westminster Review writer, Col. Thompson, on p. 213, which puts the whole question into a proverb-" Protection means robbing somebody else." Limited liability is a misnomer for limited protection, and therefore signifies limited robbery or roguery. This, we say, is often a useful way of setting the results of a question in a broad form before the mind, so that it may see at once, and strikingly, the effect, in the long run, of an argument or a scheme.

We have said, however, that we do not intend to adopt this "short and easy way" with an opponent, because we are afraid the editorial scissors would clip our "winged words," and of the whole strength of such expressions

"Rob our waspish style, and leave it stingless."

We would fain fire a bomb into B. M. B. on the question; but, for the aforesaid reason, we must be content to employ smaller shot; yet very small shot, we think, will be fatal-not to himself, for that we by no means desire, but-to his arguments.

I. It seems that limited liability "will directly benefit labour" (p. 286), i. e., the augmenting of the power, and the limiting of the responsibilities of capital-the tyrant of labour-will increase its oppressive power, and so make it less inclined and less able to wield

it. Q.E. D. Limited liability enables the capitalist, by spreading his cash into many schemes, to dabble in and profit from many branches of trade, and so to increase his gains and decrease his risks, inasmuch as it limits his liabilities in each, and leaves him to reap unlimited profits in all if he can. It gives, too, a few small capitalists-the greediest and meanest of all holders of wealth, the sneakers after safe and paying investments, the money-loan office and pawnbroking holdfasts-the opportunity of acquiring the strength of union, and so of inveigling trusting tradesmen and labourers to risk their labour and goods for the gain of the mere promisers-to-pay, who have shares, but have not considered it requisite to make any calls so long as an ostensible capital may make trade in one direction; while the real cash, being only payable on demand, may be lent at interest, and used to sweat the poor elsewhere. To make limited liability safe, all calls should require to be paid up and laid in banco; the power of contracting liabilities should be as limited as the paid-up capital, and the profits ought also to be limited. To give the power to over-buy, to permit purchases beyond the ability of the company to pay, is to put a premium_upon jobbery-unless each is made liable in his whole estate. It is especially unjust to the single trader, who is made liable "to the uttermost farthing;" while the joint stock dealers in the same commodity are only liable to the sum subscribed.

II. Limited liability "will in two ways benefit those who have wealth" (p. 286). It will encourage reckless trading; it will induce the wealthy, who are unacquainted with business, to place their cash at the disposal of men who are, and whose chief business is, to "mind Number One"-it will teach the wealthy parties, by dear-bought experience," how "sharper than a serpent's tooth" is the selfishness of commerce, and, therefore, "it will benefit those who have wealth." Q. E. D. again!

66

To live by their wits is some men's profession, some men's pleasure, some men's necessity. To do so there must exist a fleeceable class. The wealth of a large portion of the community is "secured," and is, therefore, not available directly by those in search of fleece; but a large portion is also floating, and if a little of that could be diverted out of its holders' hands, it would inconvenience them little, and advantage the schemers much. To get up, therefore, a company of feasible structure, with low shares, and the promise of a tempting per-centage, is a good plan for bringing in a supply of "the needful." The shares form a mere trifle to each, and hence even loss is not deadly to many; but in the aggregate they form a large sum, and this affords a workable capital for the schemers. For awhile, success beams upon the company; shares are more greedily bought than ever; and when the seam [and seeming] has been exhausted, crash goes the concern, leaving the contracted liabilities to absorb the subscribed capital, and the creditors to make the best they can of it. Thus it benefits those who have wealth!

III. Limited liability "will tend to the diffusion of wealth." No