the means of subsistence, including nurture, clothing, bedding, lodging, means of locomotion.

2. The community of burdens consisting in an equal distribution of labour, occupations, and professions.

3. The community of enjoyments by the common and equal participation of all the members of the community in the pleasures and enjoyments of life.

Common Meals.-The institution of common meals has an historical precedent, for we read in Herodotus that the Spartans ate their food in common, and that their kings even took their meals at the public table. He further states that the distribution of meat was always confided to the most distinguished persons of the commonwealth. It is not unlikely that from this laudable Spartan example of the distribution of food by distinguished persons, the English custom is derived of assigning the carving of meat and distribution of food at meals to the master and mistress of the house.

Common Dwellings.—How an equality in the lodgings and habitations of the people is obtained in the communistic state has been amply described in the chapter treating of the Associated Home. Although these dwellings are provided with every necessary accommodation and convenience, the communistic state does not tie its citizens to one and the same set of apartments, dwelling houses, localities, or towns, but permits frequent dislocation, which will, moreover, be often required by the change of employment, calling all people by turns to the various seats of industry scattered all over the communistic territory. In this manner will be provided for all persons change of air, of place, and association, in order to spread everywhere health, pleasure, novelty, and enjoyment.

That a similar custom of dislocation actually exists in Utopia we learn from Sir Thomas More, who says: "The inhabitants of the towns of Utopia shift their houses by lots at every ten years' end."

Equality in Dress.-On this kind of equality Babeuf makes some very judicious remarks, saying :-"Equality and simplicity in dress do not exclude elegance and propriety. There might be, for instance, different colours and forms to distinguish the different ages and occupations; and there is no reason why the citizen should not wear a different costume at the assemblies

and festivals from his ordinary one in the workshop. The girls, too, might be differently attired from the grownup women; and it might prove useful as well as pleasing that the youth, the adult, the old man, the magistrate, and the warrior should have each a peculiar and appropriate costume."

Equal Distribution of Burdens.-—For the equal distribution of the means of subsistence the communistic state expects, in return, equal application and assiduity at work from all its citizens. If all are maintained on a footing of equality, all must work equally hard. The burdens of labour must be equally borne by all. Physical labour is to be compulsory to all, and attractive occupations are to be distributed by alternate allotment.

The benefits derived from labour in common are thus described by Babeuf:-" Citizens should do in common whatever is to be done. Common labour fosters in the heart of each worker the desire of obtaining the general approbation by punctuality in the discharge of his duty."

Mr. Sargant objects to the equal distribution of labour on the ground that it must lead to an inquisition not to be borne. He imagines "that a tailor, for instance, sitting by the side of his shopmate would count the stitches of his brother shopmate, watch his wandering looks, and harass him with a superintendence worse than the worst evils of competition." To this objection the above words of Babeuf are an able reply, and the reader will also recollect that the principle laid down in ch. ii., pp. 261-2, renders this supervision legitimate, as it is the only means by which an individual can defend his personal freedom being infringed upon; for as soon as he sees that another fellow worker is neglecting his duty, there arises in the mind of the industrious workman the apprehension that he is made a slave by being constrained to work in order to provide the means of subsistence for the idler. In the present state of competition, on the contrary, the industrious workman very often rejoices at the idleness of his shopmate; for political economy teaches him that with the increase of the number of idlers amongst the members of his own trade, the demand of labour from the industrious workman, and the rise of their wages, increase in direct ratio.

CHAPTER XXIV.-TERRITORIAL EQUALITY.

THIS aspect of equality has been perceived both by Babeuf

and Cabet. The former says:-"Where a people is equitably governed, the good and the evil ought to be equitably shared amongst all its members. A scarcity of things necessary for use, inundations, droughts, the ravages of war, conflagrations, these evils ought to make themselves be felt equally everywhere." The latter says:-" The common distribution of all agricultural produce will compensate the population of poor lands with the superabundance of those of rich and luxuriant vegetation."

CHAPTER XXV.-INTERNATIONAL AND UNIVERSAL EQUALITY.

THE philosophy of the eighteenth century proclaimed the equality and fraternity of nations in calling them to the conquest of liberty; the communistic doctrine of the nineteenth century calls all nations to a common distribution of the riches and produce of their respective countries.

Benefits of Equality.-Buonarotti says:-" Equality is the only institution proper for conciliating all real wants, for directing the useful passions, restraining the dangerous ones, and giving to society a free, happy, peaceful, and durable form." Mr. Mill says:-"The only school of genuine moral sentiment is society between equals."

SECTION VI.

FRATERNITY.

CHAPTER XXVI.-ORIGIN, ESSENCE, AND REALIZATION OF FRATERNITY.

"Universal reason, propagated by speech and heralded by the Press, demands the recasting of society on the basis of equality and fraternity." -LAMARTINE.

"The influences which tend to unite men, and which give them an interest in each other's welfare, are both more numerous and more powerful than those which throw them into collision."-STEPHEN.

IT

is evident that the idea of an universal brotherhood amongst all mankind originated from the teachings of the Divine Founder of Christianity, and that from the advent of the new creed the ancient system of class distinctions, of masters and slaves, of patricians and plebeians, of free nations and barbarians, of masters and servants, was shaken to its very foundations. Immense must have been the effect of the following words of Christ :-" But be not ye called Rabbi, for one is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among

you shall be your servant" (Matt. xxiii. 8-12).

These words teach three important things: firstly, that all men are brethren, and have one common Father, which is God in heaven; secondly, that no man is to assume mastery over another, and to put his fellow creature into subjection; thirdly, that all service should be mutual. Mutual service, or an equal

distribution of labour amongst all the members of the community, is one of the principal features of Communism, and it is only in a true communistic establishment that those who are now the greatest in the land by virtue of birth, wealth, and authority will literally be made the servants of others, but also receive service in return in just proportion to the service rendered. In this spirit alone can all men become useful one to another. The tendency of Christianity towards mutual help and usefulness has been observed by all enlightened philosophers of subsequent ages. In our own times Stuart Mill made it the keystone of a new doctrine of ethics, saying :—“In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by,* and to love one's neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality. As the means of making the nearest approach to this ideal, utility would enjoin, first, that laws and social arrangements should place the happiness of every individual as nearly as possible in harmony with the interest of the whole."

The opponents of both Utilitarianism and Communism strenuously repudiate biblical references in support of universal brotherhood. Mr. Fitzjames Stephen, who is said to be the founder of a religion of inhumanity, discards reference to the literal text of the Bible. "By taking the philanthropic passages of the four Gospels as the guide of their lives, men would turn the world upside down. They would be a set of passionate communists, breaking down every approved maxim of conduct and every human institution." Instead of brotherly help, he would, on the contrary, establish the following rule of mutual assistance among men: "Let the miserable help themselves in the appointed manner; let others help them on the appointed terms." Mr. Stephen, is however, not aware that the rule thus laid down is naked Communism, without being quickened by the solacing sentiment of fraternity. The communistic state has its strictly appointed terms; which are, that it will provide food, clothing, and lodging for all who are willing to work, and that those who will not work will

* "These words ought to be engraved on every door of a court of justice, on the observe of every coin, at the head of every contract, and in the memory of every child."--EMIL DE GIRARDIN.