tions, all quiet their consciences in the mean time, on the plea of absolute necessity and say:

'You take my house, when you do take the prop That doth sustain my house; you take my life, When you do take the means whereby I live,"

and I submit. Shipmates starving on a raft at sea, will devour each other from necessity, and mothers drink their offspring's blood when pressed by absolute necessity. It is NECESSITY, operating on the means of living, which now rules the world. Those of us not under that iron crown, have reason to bless God, not that we are not like other men, but have not been as sorely tried. Some will die for honor, and nearly all would doubtless act according to the noblest principles, had they the opportunity. Unite the interests of men and they unitedivide their interests and they arrange themselves against each other in the deadly combat. All this may seem too clear to be repeated, and yet men too generally overlook this simple axiom in their pretending sciences of law and government, political economy, social systems

and principles of education. In all these cases men imagine abstract reasoning on morals and religion will have influence. They may restrain to some degree, but the master feeling conquers in the end. Self-preservation overcomes all weaker influences.

P. What think you of Robert Owen's system ?

A. I have answered it already by the principle laid down. It is to the immediate self-interest of the indolent not to labor, and it is to the like interest of the industrious and acquisitive not to labor for the idle. Beside, there is no accountability. It is supposed that reasoning on abstract principles will be sufficient to overcome inertia in the idle, and create forbearance in the active and impatient. At the same time it is contended, that men are plastic, and can only be what they are taught to be by their progenitors and circumstances. Then if our fathers were not wise, must ignorance go round and round in an eternal circle? It is

said they were not. There is then no hope for man; for who can teach us any good, if we

can look for wisdom only to our ignorant progenitors and circumstances, which now make. misery as much as ever.

P. What think you of the system of M. Fourier ?

A. I think it an abstraction. I do not think it practical for all. It professes to be based upon analogies but it is not strictly analogical. There is much in it that is good as well as in Mr. Owen's, but the work wants wheels to many of its "pivots," and it also wants a motive power. As in the case of Mr. Owen's system, there is no repulsive power, no accountability. If man's spirit be as if magnetic and subject to attractive industry, there must be something to repel from natural inertia. We are as well fitted by nature to be repelled by what we have reason to fear, as attracted by what we hope for. There must be laws and prisons, or hospitals, for men not sane enough to act on honest principles. What if men prove so selfish as to refuse to be attracted? In that case we apprehend that all the world would be in hospitals for monomania:-only M. Fourier and

his followers would be at large. It has long ago been said that were all men philosophers, or good christians all government, would be unnecessary. It is because men have a selfish principle in them, that government is necessary. The only reason why the robber plunders and murders is, because he cares not how much others may suffer if he only may enjoy. Moreover, there is a law of Providence which says, that what man does not value sufficiently to guard as well as gain, that shall he not continue to enjoy. Every animal has offensive or defensive means appointed him by Providence. The bee has his sting to guard his sweets, the bull has horns, the horse can kick and bite and drive invaders from his pastures. According to analogy, man cannot, with safety, make an exception of himself, while any have passions. P. But the shakers live without arms or laws.

A. Yes, but our government protects them, and a statesman never trusts to the protection of a foreign power. The wise man looks within for his resources, and in time of peace

prepares for war. None can tell how long even the government we have-which is better far than none-is destined to endure. Anarchy must come at length, unless a reformation should be previously produced. Then, where would be a system without offensive or defensive means?

But M. Fourier says-or his interpreter speaks for him thus-"It is the great error of philosophers, politicians and framers of systems, in devising social institutions, to wish to suit them to man as they find him."

To many it must seem as absurd to make a system perfect in the abstract, for an imperfect being, as to make-to use a familiar illustration—a boot, fit only for a perfect foot, for an individual whose foot was crumped. He could not draw it on, and the more perfect in itself considered it might be, the more useless for him, would it be sure to be. An iron shoe which might compress and turn the foot around, to its more natural position, would be far more scientific in the end.

And it is thus men do arise from barbarism.