h b nq 
 
 .~Di 
 
 THE 
 
 ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 AND 
 
 POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Especially for Use in Colleges, Schools, Clubs, Guilds 
 
Printed and Bound 
 
 in Ireland 
 
 M. H. GILL & SON, Ltd., Dublin and Waterford 
 
The 
 
 Elements of Social Science 
 
 and 
 
 * 
 
 Political Economy 
 
 ESPECIALLY FOR USE IN COLLEGES, SCHOOLS, 
 
 CLUBS, GUILDS, &c. 
 
 BY THE 
 
 VEN. ARCHPRIEST LORENZO DARDANO 
 
 OF THE COLLEGIATE CHURCH, BRONI, NORTHERN ITALY 
 
 TRANSLATED FROM THE ITALIAN 
 
 BY THE 
 
 REV. WILLIAM McLOUGHLIN 
 
 MOUNT MELLERAY ABBEY, NEAR CAPPOQUIN,' CO. WATERFORD 
 
 {Cum Permissu Aucioris et Superiontm) 
 
 New York, Cincinnati, Chicago 
 
 BENZIGER BROTHERS 
 
 PRINTERS TO THE PUBLISHERS OF 
 
 HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE 
 
 J 9°9 
 
in Ireland 
 
TO 
 
 LEO XIII. 
 
 WHO RESCUES THE 
 DESOLATE AND WANDER¬ 
 ING CROWDS, RECALLING THEM TO 
 THE ENJOYMENT OF THAT LIGHT WHICH 
 THE GENIUS OF THE WISE, UNITED 
 WITH THE LABOUR OF THE 
 HUMBLE, BRINGS 
 TO MEN— 
 
 TO 
 
 LEO XIII. 
 
 THE 
 
 UNWEARIED 
 SCOURGER OF EVERY 
 INJUSTICE, INITIATING, BY 
 THE AID OF HIS SONS, “ AN 
 EQUAL ORDER OF THINGS,”—THIS LITTLE 
 BOOK, WRITTEN CHIEFLY FOR YOUNG 
 LEVITES, THAT THEY MAY BECOME FIT IN¬ 
 STRUMENTS IN THE WORK OF REDEMPTION, 
 IS, IN THE 25TH YEAR OF HIS 
 PAPAL REIGN, DEDICATED, 
 
 WITH ALL DEVOTED¬ 
 NESS, BY THE 
 AUTHOR 
 

 < 
 
 
 '/"T 
 
 y 
 
LETTER FROM CARDINAL RAMPOLLA 
 
 The Archpriest and Theologian Lorenzo Dardano having, 
 by His Eminence Cardinal Rampolla, presented to His Holiness 
 Pope Leo XIII. a copy of his book on the Elements of Social 
 Science, &c., he received in reply the following much esteemed 
 letter:— 
 
 Very Reverend Sir, 
 
 I have placed in the hands of the Holy Father one of the copies 
 that you sent me of your lately published book, The Elements 
 of Social Science and Political Economy. The title alone sufficed 
 to let His Holiness understand that you intended to make easy 
 for young clerics the manner of enriching themselves with know¬ 
 ledge at the present day indispensable to gain that esteem which 
 they require in order to render their ministry acceptable and 
 fruitful. 
 
 The august Pontiff was much pleased with this testimony of 
 your homage, and, learning that the work had been praised by 
 your Bishop, was still more pleased, trusting that it will do good 
 among students and other young people, to whom it is chiefly 
 addressed. 
 
 While adding that the Holy Father, as a pledge of his satisfac¬ 
 tion, bestows on you from his heart the blessing which you asked, 
 I thank you for the copy which you so kindly sent to me, and I 
 beg to declare myself, 
 
 Your most affectionate Servant, 
 
 M. Card. Rampolla. 
 
 Rome, October 1, 1902. 
 
LETTER OF THE MOST REV. DR. BANDI, 
 BISHOP OF TORTONA, TO THE AUTHOR 
 
 Tortona, Beginning of the XXV. year of the 
 Pontificate of Leo XIII. 
 
 My Very Rev. and Dear Archpriest, 
 
 The information that you give me of having now ready for the 
 press your treatise on Social Science and Political Economy is 
 very gratifying. 
 
 I knew that you joined the study of social order to that of 
 sacred discipline. I knew of the Circle of Social Studies that 
 flourishes in your parish, receiving light from the Clergy to judge 
 properly of the controversies that occur in our days ; I was always 
 much pleased with it, because I believed, and I still believe, 
 that thus the words of the Pope will have a happy fulfilment. 
 
 Hence it is natural that I should hail with joy the publication 
 of your work on Social Science. 
 
 And as I am here, I shall add a few remarks. 
 
 For priests in ten or twenty years to come, there will be a very 
 serious, a very laborious time. 
 
 The conscience of the people is to-day awakened after an age 
 of lethargy. 
 
 Liberalism* had laid this popular conscience on a feather 
 pillow, saying to it: Look, all goes well, just as if you were on 
 the knees of the Church of Jesus Christ! 
 
 The people disposed themselves to sleep. 
 
 But liberalism is the selfishness of men who wish to live well, 
 to have all good things to themselves, without a thought for the 
 welfare of others. 
 
 And thus it happened that, while the people lay asleep under 
 the dose of opium given them, liberalism robbed them of every¬ 
 thing, of every right to civil life, of every right to a life that could 
 be called truly human. To put them into a much deeper sleep, 
 a beautiful song was sung, a 'patriotic song. Such was the per¬ 
 mission of Heaven. A society, having been for some centuries 
 
 * It may be well to remark that Liberalism denotes the tenets or prin¬ 
 ciples of a Liberal; and that the word “ Liberal ” has many meanings. It 
 is often a party name, used in opposition to Conservative. A Liberal with 
 us is supposed to be free from bigotry or prejudice, to regard all the citizens 
 as entitled to equal justice, and to advocate an extension of popular rights. 
 But on the Continent the name “ Liberal ” is more generally 'given to men 
 who follow the French revolutionary doctrines of 1789, who consider them¬ 
 selves independent of all authority, and who, as far as lies in their power, 
 do evil and prevent good. They are mostly infidels, and are sometimes 
 called anticlericals.— Trans. 
 
X 
 
 LETTER OF MOST REV. DR. BANDI 
 
 Christian, and then removing little by little from Christ, well 
 deserved that a return to Christ should be a laborious task. The 
 parable of the Prodigal Son should be verified again in society. 
 
 I have said that the people were asleep : I might have said, 
 intoxicated. 
 
 In point of fact, the people ran after the enemies of the Church, 
 waving the banner of rebellion. With the help of the people, 
 those enemies accomplished some works, not devoid of value, 
 but without the Church, nay, against the Church; and above 
 the edifice of modern greatness—an edifice grounded on a civilisa¬ 
 tion for centuries Christian—they placed, not the cross, but the 
 flag of apostacy and schism. 
 
 To deny that our enemies, being masters of the world, have 
 made some conquests, have taken some steps forward, would not 
 be fair, because it is not true; it would be to fail in seeing that 
 the destinies of a society which for a long period had been nourished 
 by Christianity should mature. What our enemies did of them¬ 
 selves was to turn against the Church many works that it would 
 have completed, if it had not been ungratefully driven from 
 public life. And thus they unchristianised industries, arts, 
 literature, patriotism, everything; and they said to the world : 
 See what can be done when faith does not stand in the way, and 
 we do not meet the garb of a priest! 
 
 But unchristianise the sciences, arts, &c., and raise the standard 
 of battle against Jesus Christ, they will not then utter a cry, 
 nor induce others to do so ; no, certainly not. Their life, how¬ 
 ever decorous among the people, has not the right relations with 
 the animal part of man, which feels more deeply the incon¬ 
 veniences of being physically disturbed. 
 
 Everything having been laicised, economy, which acts without 
 injury to Christian charity or justice, was also laicised. Society, 
 it was said, in the air of liberty will live well, will live happy, 
 will live prosperous. 
 
 Where Christianity is not, there is selfishness, and the strongest 
 is the happiest. It was so. The people, whom Christ had 
 ransomed from misery and slavery, found themselves in a worse 
 misery and slavery, and proved for themselves that the yoke of 
 capitalists without conscience is no less heavy than that of pagan 
 masters. 
 
 The people found that the pillow of feathers gradually turned 
 to one of thorns, and that the song sung for them was only a 
 mockery and a snare. Being ill at ease, they awoke. 
 
 Such is the point at which we have to-day arrived : the con¬ 
 sciousness of the people is awakened by the stings of poverty, 
 and wishes to know the causes of its distress. This consciousness 
 is not fully formed; but it tends to be so. It is a very serious 
 matter. If the people know that their trouble comes from the 
 need of Christianity, they will return to Christ, to the Church, 
 to the Pope. If the conviction seizes them that Christ and the 
 
LETTER OE MOST REV. DR. BANDI 
 
 xi 
 
 Church and the Pope will not enter into their sorrows or their 
 joys, they will begin another cycle of incredulity and wretchedness. 
 It will then be necessary to wait until this delusion passes away 
 before a return to Christianity can be expected. 
 
 Behold the reason why the Clergy, whom their Divine Author 
 calls the light of the world and the salt of the earth, ought to be 
 at their post! 
 
 Many persons say that they would be glad if the Clergy stood 
 aside, and let men of the world scuffle about economic affairs. 
 
 As for being glad, I also would be so. I would wish that all 
 the world should be saints, and that nothing should be left for 
 the Clergy but to give Holy Communion, and attend to the per¬ 
 fection of their own souls. But all our wishes do not change the 
 world by one iota. It is what it is, and it shows us in its life that 
 character which events impress on it. Now, we live in the world, 
 and our work ought to be developed according to its wants. 
 
 Have not worldly goods the destiny from Providence to serve 
 men, to serve all men, for the attainment of their last end ? 
 And if they are turned from this destiny by selfish men who 
 snatch from others, and if any class of society is deprived of its 
 share in the common welfare, will there not be occasion to implore 
 Christ that He may come with a remedy for such evils ? And 
 by whom is He to be brought, if not by the Catholic priest ? To 
 do that, there must be a knowledge of things, there must be a 
 fitness to decide questions, there must be an abundance of clear 
 and precise ideas. If the Clergy are not qualified for these 
 struggles, it will be their lot also to stand aside. Others will 
 form the conscience of the people. They will form it without 
 Christ, and against Christ. Then, if religious apathy characterised 
 the cycle of liberalism, that of socialism will bear the seal of an 
 infernal hatred; and no longer from the lips only of the 
 philosopher, but from those also of the people, will be heard the 
 satanic cry, Let us crush the monster ! 
 
 Yes, I know that the Church will never die. But I say, what 
 a strange idea do those form of the Church who console them¬ 
 selves with the thought that it cannot perish, when souls are 
 perishing ! The Church, no, it cannot perish for the world, but 
 it can perish for individual souls, for particular nations, which, 
 being torn from it, cannot, either in this life or the next, enjoy 
 the beneficial effects of belonging to it. The Church will not 
 die, but we who have not lent a hand to make it live, we who have 
 betrayed the hopes of Christ, we shall die. 
 
 This is the reason why, my dear Archpriest, I like to see my 
 Clergy instructed in a modern manner, so that at every moment < 
 they may declare to our modern world the rules of the Redeemer. 
 
 I am fully aware of an objection that will be made to me. My 
 lord, it will be said, you know that our young men in seminaries 
 have too many studies to occupy their early years : would you 
 wish to add to their number ? 
 
LETTER OF MOST KEY. DR. BANDI 
 
 xii 
 
 I cannot deny it. I assert only that the study, at least initial, 
 of this important social question, ought to be joined with others. 
 I understand very well that no one can pretend to social science 
 except after deep and earnest study; nor is it my wish hence¬ 
 forward to promote to Holy Orders only sociologists or economists. 
 I desire in my seminary a safe and clear beginning of these studies. 
 I desire the treatment of certain questions, so that account may be 
 made of occasions on which one would have to pronounce theo¬ 
 logically regarding them.* 
 
 The beginnings in the seminary can be afterwards enlarged 
 upon with fruit and honour by our young clergymen. 
 
 My dear Archpriest, allow me here to say a word to the Priests, 
 especially the young. 
 
 When I reflect on you, my dear Priests, I do not know how to 
 free myself from a thought that causes me great pain and anxiety, 
 the thought that you may give yourselves to an idle life. It is 
 so easy. I say the truth, and therefore I say it candidly. If 
 there is any class of persons who have the opportunity of willingly 
 giving themselves to idleness, it is that of Priests, and especially 
 Priests who, scattered here and there through the country, are 
 charged with the care of souls. In most parishes, the work— 
 that work which cannot be omitted without offending the eye—• 
 is reduced to a few hours of the day. Then, in the rest of the 
 day, in the long winter evenings, so many free hours, precious 
 hours for him who understands the importance of work or study, 
 but ruinous hours for him who gives himself to idleness ! Let 
 me say it, my dear friends : if you abandon yourselves to idleness, 
 I am no longer sure of your virtue—of your fidelity to those 
 promises which, at your sacred ordination, you made with all the 
 enthusiasm of a fervent faith. 
 
 These are the hours, my dear Priests, that you ought to con¬ 
 secrate to studies, especially to those which, scarcely begun in 
 the seminary, ought to be thoroughly mastered, so that you 
 may become Priests such as our times require. 
 
 Turning again to you, my dear Archpriest, I wish to note a 
 point that will facilitate for us, if fairly awake, the conquest of 
 the people under the white flag of Christian Democracy, and it is 
 
 « 
 
 * These same views are very well expressed by the Rev. Dr. John A. 
 Ryan, of St. Paul Seminary, Minnesota, writing in the American Ecclesias¬ 
 tical Review, August, 1908. He says :— “ The importance to the Clergy of 
 an understanding of our social problems will increase with the inevitable 
 increase of the problems themselves. Therefore, the Priest of the future 
 should be equipped to deal intelligently with these problems from the very 
 outset of his ministry. To this end he should receive in the Seminary an 
 amount of social instruction which will be fundamental and scientific ; 
 which will be sufficiently extensive to make him acquainted with the vital 
 facts of current social conditions, tendencies, and doctrines; which will be 
 sufficiently stimulating to give him a lasting interest in these phenomena ; 
 and which will be sufficiently thorough to enable him to deal intelligently, 
 justly, and charitably with the practical situations that he will be compelled 
 to face afterwards.”— Trans. 
 
LETTEB OF MOST KEY. DK. BANDI 
 
 XLll 
 
 the character, always most conspicuously anticlerical, that 
 socialism takes. The war on St. Alphonsus, a war that cannot be 
 called rational, it is so stupid, so absurd—the hatred against 
 the Clergy that every day appears in the spoken and written 
 words of the socialists, and their campaign in favour of divorce— 
 these facts are a superabundant proof that they do not seek to 
 better the condition of the people, but to unchristianise them. 
 
 Can even the socialists deny it ? 
 
 Their publications, in the form of pamphlets or periodicals, 
 are like* so much mud taken from the puddles of Protestantism. 
 It is usual, we admit, to cover this mud with the flowers and 
 fruits of economic amelioration. But all the same : the substance 
 is materialism, irreligion, impiety, apostasy. There is no wish 
 that the people should go to confession, should receive the sacra¬ 
 ments, should believe and follow our Divine Saviour. There is 
 no such wish. 
 
 On these matters we ought to instruct the good people, that 
 they may know the object of certain speech-makers and editors. 
 We ought at the same time to explain to them the programme of 
 Papal Democracy, and show them how it contains a condemna¬ 
 tion of those who at present flatter them with the mirage of unity. 
 The people will then belong to us, to the Pope, to Christ. And 
 the people, having become entirely Christian, will know how to 
 put an end to the social injustices that oppress the Church and 
 the toilers. 
 
 I am well aware that some men reason thus :—Let the deluded 
 follow socialism. It is a meteor that will soon pass away, and 
 leave them in darkness and misery. The day of being undeceived 
 will soon arrive, and the workman and the countryman will turn 
 to us. 
 
 This reasoning fails in charity, and therefore is not Christian. 
 One single hour of moral perversity, of wandering from the right 
 course, ought not to be permitted among our people, in the minds 
 of our brethren, if it can be prevented. Jesus Christ should reign 
 over all minds, and at every moment of our existence. 
 
 On the other hand, it is not known what road, after delusion, 
 minds betrayed and perplexed may take. They make take, 
 and it is easily done, a more disastrous road, leading them farther 
 and farther from Our Saviour. 
 
 However—I wish to utter another thought candidly—the 
 continual bringing forward of socialism and socialists, when 
 there is question of exciting Catholics to social action, is not 
 well. It appears as if the socialist propaganda was the only 
 affair about which we ought to be concerned. Now, that is so 
 false that it cannot be borne. 
 
 I alluded, at the beginning of my remarks (and it would be a 
 subject for long argument), to the slow but disastrous work that 
 liberalism has accomplished, inflicting the most serious injury 
 on the Church and on the poor people. It has treated both as 
 
XIV 
 
 LETTER OF MOST REV. DR. BANDI 
 
 its own creatures, which it might reform and refashion at pleasure. 
 It made a favour of existence to the people, because their labour 
 gives produce. It showed some favour to the Church, because 
 the Church defends order. And do we not still hear from un¬ 
 conscionable lips that religion means nothing for the people but 
 misfortune ? 
 
 Now, that one portion of humanity should be oppressed by 
 another is neither justice nor charity. And who are to vindicate 
 the cause of justice or of charity, if not Catholics, and especially 
 the Clergy ? 
 
 Read and meditate on the Rerum novarum, and you will find 
 that Leo XIII., having laid bare the evils that liberalism has 
 brought on society, calls Catholics to the work of restoration. 
 The Pope does not say : It is the socialists who are ruining every¬ 
 thing, let us oppose them. But he says : It is liberalism that has 
 ruined everything; we ought to reconstruct everything. 
 
 See how the same Pope speaks in 1903 to Gaspar Decurtius :— 
 Nothing is more pleasing to us than, when an occasion occurs, 
 to show our love and solicitude for the working classes, whose 
 miserable condition w~e wish to see improved, that it may be 
 made worthy of civilised people, under the guidance of justice 
 and charity, which the Christian religion brought to all the earth, 
 and has always promoted more and more. For the nature of our 
 ministry implies that we should be always disposed to bring 
 aid where tribulation calls for comfort, weakness for protection, 
 misery for relief. Moved by a consciousness of this duty, and 
 mindful of the teachings of our Divine Saviour to the human 
 race, we have already uttered to the Catholic world some words 
 of peace and love in the encyclical Rerum novarum, setting forth 
 a sound basis (as all desire) on which to raise an equal order of 
 things, whereby, the old dispute between masters and workmen 
 being ended, a lasting peace may follow for human society. 
 
 It is clear. The Pope speaks of duty, the duty of bringing 
 about an equal order of things ; therefore, he means that the 
 present order is not an equal one. 
 
 Socialism, I know, makes things worse, and its action ought to be 
 a strong reason for moving us. But, in charity, let us not say 
 that socialism is what moves us. Society is sick : socialism is 
 the surgeon, who seeks to strangle it, under pretence of curing it. 
 Will it be enough to turn out the ill-omened surgeon ? No; 
 we must try to cure society. 
 
 It is said, and often said :—In my parish there are no socialists ; 
 therefore Christian Democracy, with its programme of organisa¬ 
 tion, is not required. It is all right in its place. We are sick 
 indeed; but at present there is no danger of anything worse; 
 we do not trouble ourselves about remedies. 
 
 In such case it should be easily understood that the evil is 
 general, and the remedy ought also to be general. If the Pope 
 has spoken, and he has spoken for all persons and all places, 
 
LETTER OF MOST REV. DR. BANDI 
 
 xv 
 
 all those excuses are very miserable that would prevent anyone 
 from putting his words in practice. 
 
 Turning to your little treatise, my dear Archpriest, I express 
 a wish, the wish that it may pass into the hands, not only of 
 the students in our seminary, but also of lay people, especially 
 the young men who are enrolled in our associations. I should 
 wish also that the Clergy connected with these bodies would avail 
 themselves of it to instruct our associates, and to make tliem a 
 little more wide awake. Oh, how many times has there been 
 reason.to lament in our associates a weakness, a fear, that dis¬ 
 banded them at the first breath of^a contrary wind! Why? 
 Because they had not a clear consciousness of their position; 
 they did not know what they were. 
 
 Let them learn from instruction. Let ideas, ideas, ideas be 
 sown in their minds, though rough. Then will there be men 
 fighting under a conviction. 
 
 You have done very well in dedicating your book to Leo XIII. 
 
 Oh, the great Leo ! How he always pleases, how he is always 
 loved, how willingly he is praised ! Is it not so ? 
 
 His very name is an example, a school, a consolation, an in¬ 
 centive, and a reproof. It is eleven years now since he launched 
 on the world his Rerum novarum. If we had all fallen into rank 
 behind him, if we had all fully understood the meaning of that 
 document, if we had not been sunk in Byzantinism, God knows 
 at what a stage we should be arrived to-day. But reproach 
 ought not to find place at this festive hour, which the Catholic 
 world is celebrating around the great Pope. 
 
 In a resolute will to labour for the establishment of the 
 programme of Papal Democracy, let my soul exult, and let my 
 hymn end thus : Long live the Pope of the workingmen, long 
 live Leo XIII. ! 
 
 Yours devotedly, 
 
 Igino, Bishop. 
 
AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST 
 
 EDITION 
 
 A word on what I have proposed to do. I am a poor student, 
 and at the same time a parish priest: two things that agree 
 only in a* so-so way. Study needs quiet, concentration, plenty 
 of time. On the other hand, the care of a parish, especially 
 if somewhat large, is a continual interruption of the head and the 
 heart. The beads must be laid aside, and there are many calls 
 on the pocket. Yet I desire to live the life of our times ; I desire 
 it by nature and by duty. I say by duty, because I cannot imagine 
 a parish priest, or indeed any priest, that lives materially in one 
 world and officially in another. And I know that I do not 
 blaspheme in saying so ; for, with me, the encyclicals of Leo XIII. 
 are not only beautiful things, but solemn commands. 
 
 And there, I mean in those papal acts, there is lived the life 
 of our times. 
 
 I study therefore, and as carefully as possible. 
 
 As during my life I have several times had the honour of taking 
 the chair and calling young clerics around me, to share in the 
 fruits of my studies, such as they were, it has occurred to me 
 that I should string together my notes and present them to 
 young Levites, who may thus be helped to become priests suited 
 to the times and worthy of the Pope. 
 
 I believe that there is need of acting in a decided manner, 
 and that a circle of the Catholic social propaganda should be 
 established in every parish. Especially should we call the young- 
 men around us, and instruct them, and I should be glad to see 
 this little book in their hands. 
 
 Such were my views. If I have not succeeded, I shall not be 
 too much grieved. 
 
 b 
 
AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND 
 
 EDITION 
 
 I 
 
 The favour of the public towards this little book was so great 
 that certainly I should not have dared to expect it. In particular, 
 our venerable seminaries opened their doors kindly to the work. 
 That I am content, all will readily believe. But the reason 
 why I am content, at least the principal reason, will not perhaps 
 be believed by all. No matter : I shall mention it just the same. 
 The cordial welcome given to the book is a sure proof to me 
 that the minds of Catholics, of young Levites, feel the need of 
 quenching their thirst with the water of new ideas—those ideas 
 of which the lamented Leo XIII. was the indefatigable and 
 authoritative advocate. To see souls rushing towards the light 
 is always a consolation; much more, when we are convinced 
 that that light is indispensably necessary for the age in which 
 we live. 
 
 Meanwhile, the Pope, who blessed this little work when it was 
 first timidly presented to the public, has gone to Heaven. And 
 I, while I prepare this new edition, turn my eyes towards the 
 Chair of Peter, but see him there no more. 
 
 I see there, however, another man, clothed in white, who 
 likewise smiles, blesses his children in all parts of the world, and 
 continues the mission of Leo XIII. It is Pius X., the new Vicar 
 of Jesus Christ. I, as a devoted son, bow to him, and in his name 
 I present to the public this second edition of my work. 
 
I 
 
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE 
 
 The introductory pages presented by the Author say nearly 
 everything that need be said on the object of this book. 
 
 As a writer, he distinguishes himself by the facility with which 
 he explains his views, unravels difficulties, and supports his 
 arguments. His style, no less interesting than instructive, is 
 just what might be expected from a scholarly man, convinced 
 of the truths that he inculcates, and experienced in a good method 
 of communicating his knowledge to others. The translation is 
 from the second Italian edition. 
 
 There is little doubt that an elementary treatise such as the 
 present, derived from sound Christian principles, ought to be 
 exceedingly useful, especially in Ireland, where society, after 
 centuries of trouble, is still much disorganised. Day by day 
 there are discussions in the press and elsewhere on matters con¬ 
 nected with social science; and many men, for want of proper 
 information, are apt to take erroneous views, with injury to 
 themselves and others. If it is a great evil to maintain false 
 maxims, it may be as great a misfortune to let them pass un¬ 
 refuted. 
 
 The works of such writers on social questions as Hume, Smith, 
 Ricardo, Marx, Mill, Spencer, &c., are so wanting in a moral 
 basis, are so tainted with a disregard and sometimes even a 
 contempt of religion, that little reliance can be placed on any 
 system taught by them. How, indeed, could it be expected 
 that men who err so grossly on the most important of all subjects 
 should be safe guides on other subjects ? Limiting their views 
 entirely to this world, some writing in the interests of the richer 
 classes, others encouraging the poorer classes to the most revolu¬ 
 tionary schemes, they may dazzle by their talents, perhaps 
 naturally of a high order, but they will not be able to direct their 
 fellow-men on the proper course of life. 
 
 Works of the kind just referred to are very numerous. In the 
 section given to Political Economy in the catalogue of one London 
 
xxn 
 
 TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE 
 
 publishing house, we have seen mention of nearly eighty authors, 
 among whom there was perhaps not more than one, if even one, 
 a Catholic. How great, therefore, the need of Catholic works 
 on social matters ! 
 
 The title “ Archpriest," pertaining to the Author, may be 
 new to many; formerly it was common enough in the Church. 
 It denoted the chief Priest of a district, just as Archdeacon 
 denoted chief Deacon and Archbishop chief Bishop. The Arch¬ 
 priest was the Bishop's right-hand man in spiritual matters, 
 as the Archdeacon was in temporal ones. Latterly, the title 
 has disappeared by degrees in many parts of the world. Yet 
 even in the nineteenth century, we find that, through want of 
 Bishops in Holland, three Archpriests (those of Amsterdam, 
 Utrecht, and Zealand) exercised jurisdiction for a time in the 
 name of the Pope. 
 
 As the author of this work grounds his arguments in great 
 measure on the encyclical letters of the illustrious Pope Leo XIII., 
 who was so competent to examine, to discuss, and to solve the 
 most difficult problems relating to the affairs of mankind, it is 
 hoped that the book in its English form will be found, as in the 
 Italian, a store-house of the best principles for promoting the 
 welfare of society. 
 
 Possibly the District Councils of Ireland could do much for 
 the benefit of the country by assisting the people of their 
 districts to organise in the manner so strongly and frequently 
 recommended by the author. 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 DEDICATION TO THE POPE . v 
 
 LETTER PROM CARDINAL RAMPOLLA, ON THE PART OF 
 
 POPE LEO XIII. ... ... ... ... ... vii 
 
 LETTER OF THE MOST REV. DR. BANDI, BISHOP OF 
 
 TORTONA ... ... ... „ ... ... ... ix 
 
 AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. xvii 
 
 AUTHOR’S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION ... xix 
 
 TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE ... ... ... ... xxi 
 
 FIRST PART. 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ORIGIN AND OBJECT OF SOCIETY. 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 I. Sociology ... ... ... ... ... ... 1 
 
 II. Society ... ... ... ... ... ... 2 
 
 III. The First Reason for Society or the Efficient Cause of the 
 
 Social Fact ... ... ... ... ... 3 
 
 IV. The Social Compact ... ... ... ... ... 5 
 
 V. Social Duties and Rights ... ... ... ... 5 
 
 VI. Life and Social Goods; Public Good and Common Good; 
 
 Scope of Society ... ... ... ... ... 6 
 
 VII. Social Functions; Social Organism ... ... ... 10 
 
 VIII. Social Organisations; Business Unions ... ... ... 11 
 
 IX. Ancient Slavery and Modern Proletairism ... ... 16 
 
 X. The Social Question ... ... ... ... ... 17 
 
 XI. Christian Democracy ... ... ... ... ... 19 
 
 XII. The Foundations of Social Life ... ...,/ ... ... 22 
 
 XIII. Justice and Charity ... ... ... ... ... 23 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CLEAR IDEAS. 
 
 I. Social Elements ... ... ... ... ... 27 
 
 II. Man ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 27 
 
 III. The Human Person: Liberal Idea ... ... ... 27 
 
 IV. The Human Person: Christian Idea ... ... ... 30 
 
XXIV 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 V. Duties and Rights 
 
 VI. The Duties of Man 
 
 VII. The Rights of Man 
 
 VIII. The Equality of Men ... 
 
 IX. Wants, Desires, and Pleasures ... 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE FAMILY. 
 
 I. The Cellule of Society ... 
 
 II. Institution of the Family 
 
 III. Husband, Wife, and Children 
 
 IV. The Rights and Duties of the Family 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 THE COMMUNE 
 
 I. Union of Families 
 
 II. Autonomy of the Commune 
 
 III. Functions of the Commune 
 
 IV. Functions of the Commune towards Workpeople ... 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 THE STATE AND ITS DUTIES. 
 
 I. Union of Communes 
 
 II. Origin and Nature of the State ... 
 
 III. End and Duties of the State 
 
 IV. Duties of the State towards the Citizens ... 
 
 V. Duties of the State towards Itself 
 
 VI. Duties of the State towards Families 
 
 VII. Duties of the State towards Communes ... 
 
 VIII. Duties of the State towards the Church ... 
 
 IX. Duties of the State towards Private Associations ... 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE. 
 
 I. Wellbeing of the State ... 
 
 II. Personal Contribution ... 
 
 III. Real Contribution 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 XXV 
 
 $L, 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 AUTHORITY. 
 
 SECTION. PAGE 
 
 I. A Natural Hierarchy ... ... ... ... ... 78 
 
 II. Origin of Authority ... ... ... ... ... 79 
 
 III. Form of Government ... ... ... ... ... 80 
 
 IV. The Representative Form ... ... ... ... 81 
 
 V. Tlje Sovereignty of the People ... ... ... ... 83 
 
 VI. Functions of Social Authority ... , ... ... ... 84 
 
 Notes to the First Part ... ... ... ... 87 
 
 4 
 
 SECOND PART. 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 MEANING AND OBJECT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 I. Utility, Value, and Abundance of Goods ... ... ... 95 
 
 II. Laws of Value ... ... ... ... ... 98 
 
 III. The Theory of Karl Marx on Value ... ... ... 99 
 
 IV. A Moral Foundation ... ... ... ... ... 100 
 
 V. Poverty and Pauperism ... ... ... ... 101 
 
 VI. The Factors in a Right Ordering of Society ... ... 102 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS. 
 
 105 
 
 107 
 
 108 
 109 
 
 no 
 
 113 
 115 
 
 I. The Productive Process 
 II. The Factors in Production 
 IIL Harmony in Work 
 IV. A Great Problem 
 V. Proprietorship or Ownership 
 VL The Right and the Effects of Ownership ... 
 
 VII. Duties of Political Authority with Regard to Ownership 
 
XXVI 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 ABUNDANCE OF WORLDLY GOODS. 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 I. Nature ... ... ... ... ... 
 
 II. The Earth 
 
 III. Land Ownership 
 
 IV. Land Return 
 
 V. Which is the Best Form of Ownership ? ... 
 
 VI. Aid for Small Owners ... 
 
 PAGE 
 
 lid 
 
 117 
 
 118 
 119 
 121 
 122 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MAN MUST WORK. 
 
 I. Lahour ... ... ... ... 
 
 II. Productivity of Labour 
 
 III. Relations between Labour and Produce ... 
 
 IV. Moral Coefficients of Labour 
 
 V. Physical Coefficients of Labour ... 
 
 VI. Limits of Labour 
 
 VII. Labour of Women and Children 
 
 VIII. Legal Guardianship of Labour ... 
 
 IX. International Legislation on Labour 
 
 125 
 
 127 
 
 129 
 
 130 
 
 131 
 133 
 
 138 
 
 139 
 
 140 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 CAPITAL IS REQUIRED AS WELL AS LABOUR. 
 
 I. Utility of Capital ... ... ... ... ... 142 
 
 II. Different Views of Capital ... ... ... ... 142 
 
 III. The Capitalist ... ... ... ... ... 143 
 
 IV. The Theory of Marx on Capital ... ... ... ... 143 
 
 V. Productivity of Capital ... ... ... ... 144 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 INDUSTRY. 
 
 I. Varieties of Industry ... ... ... ... ... 146 
 
 II. Small and Large Industries ... ... ... ... 147 
 
 III. The Undertaker or Contractor ... ... ... ... 151 
 
 IV. The Contract of Labour ... ... ... ... 152 
 
 V. The Co-operative System ... ... ... ... 153 
 
 VI. Wages ... ... ... ... ... ... 15& 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 xxv ii 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 
 AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 
 I. Systems and Contracts 
 
 ... 158 
 
 II. Mezzadria or Metayage 
 
 ... 159 
 
 III. Rent 
 
 ... 161 
 
 IV. Perpetual Rent 
 
 ... 163 
 
 V. Rural Wages ... 
 
 » 
 
 ... 164 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 
 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 
 I. Transport of Goods 
 
 ... 165 
 
 II. Exchange; Value; Money; Price 
 
 ... 166 
 
 III. Value of Money 
 
 ... 168 
 
 IV. Merchants ; Profits ; Wholesale and Retail Business 
 
 ... 170 
 
 V. Co-operative Societies ... 
 
 ... 171 
 
 CONCLUSION . 171 
 
 Notes to the Second Part 
 
 • • • 
 
 « • » 
 
 173 
 
FIRST PART. 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 ORIGIN AND OBJECT OF SOCIETY. 
 
 Section I.— Sociology. 
 
 Sociology means the study or science of society. 
 
 But this definition of the name is too vague, and has to be 
 made more precise by a definition of the thing. 
 
 Human society is a fact, a fact so close to man that the mind 
 has not been able to avoid casting a glance at it from the earliest 
 times. 
 
 But a glance does not make science, which is “ certain and 
 evident knowledge, having its causes in the thing known.” 
 (Cornoldi, La Filos. Scol.) 
 
 To be a science, therefore, sociology should take a broad view 
 of society, which would embrace all; an accurate view, which 
 could explain all. 
 
 We shall therefore be able to define sociology as “ a science 
 that studies society in its causes, with the object of procuring 
 its perfection.” 
 
 This definition requires a few explanations. 
 
 1. We say Science , because the precepts that it gives for social 
 wellbeing will be truly good and conducive to their end when 
 they are drawn, by means of study, from the inward nature 
 of society and from the laws that govern it: a process 
 eminently scientific. 
 
 2. In its Causes. —By these words the object of sociology 
 is embraced in its entirety, and the knowledge of it will be full— 
 truly scientific. 
 
 3. With the Object of Procuring its Perfection. —Sociology 
 is a science most practical; or rather the need of putting it in 
 practice has given rise to it. Its tendency and importance 
 are therefore evident. 1 
 
 From these brief remarks on the scope of sociology every 
 one can see how far it reaches, and how, like other sciences, 
 
2 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 it also gives out from its trunk some particular sciences, which 
 relate to special points. Thus politics, finance, political 
 economy, &c., form parts of sociological science. 2 
 
 Section II.— Society. 
 
 As is evident, our study ought to begin by forming an idea 
 of what society is, a just idea—that alone which, drawn from 
 fact, is like a photograph of the truth. And the fact we have 
 present, or rather we are a part of it ourselves. 
 
 What do we see on earth ? Perhaps men wandering about, 
 like atoms in the air, as unconcerned about one another as the 
 beasts. No; we see on earth men that not only go about like 
 atoms, not only have life like beasts, not only live together, 
 but they constitute a great family, which we are accustomed 
 to call society. 
 
 A short but accurate analysis of the idea of society is most 
 necessary as a foundation for our study. 
 
 Society means above all a plurality of creatures. But not 
 this alone ; for then the stars of heaven would be a society. 
 
 It means aggregation or union; but we do not call a heap 
 of stones or a group of houses a society. 
 
 It also means living together; but many horses that live 
 together are not a society. 
 
 Remember, therefore, from the examples given, that an 
 aggregate is not that which merely wants something in order 
 to be a society : for there are aggregates which are essentially 
 incapable of becoming a society. If we with our imagination 
 give life and reason to any of the creatures mentioned, we find 
 no difficulty in saying that they are capable of forming a society. 
 
 Therefore society cannot be formed except among intelligent 
 beings. 
 
 But is it enough that they should be intelligent to have society ? 
 No; although intelligent, although living together, many beings 
 are not yet society. There is something wanting that must 
 change the living together from material to formal. To five 
 is to act, and the living together will mean co-operation. 
 Operation is performed by an intelligent being for an end; and 
 the co-operation of many individuals ought to have that end 
 which will be appropriately called the common good.* 
 
 We shall now be able to define human society as a living 
 together of men that co-operate for the common good. 
 
 In what this common good is to be placed we shall very soon see. 
 
 To study society, to examine the laws that govern it so as 
 
 * According to the outlines just given, the living together (or bodily 
 assemblage) of many persons is the material cause of human society; co¬ 
 operation, the formal cause; and the common good, the final cause.— Trans. 
 
THE FIRST REASON FOR SOCIETY 
 
 3 
 
 to produce a most flourishing condition of social life, is the task 
 of sociology. And this task we shall be able to accomplish if 
 we study the efficient , material , formal , and final causes of society, 
 because we shall then have exhausted the subject. Cornoldi 
 wrote in a general way :—“ It is to be observed that there are 
 four causes—the efficient, the material, the formal, and the 
 final. Now, when these four causes of anything can be ascer¬ 
 tained, to know it with a scientific knowledge, the said causes 
 should be known, since scientific knowledge should be full.” 
 
 Whether the language of the schools or some other is used, 
 it is certain that our study ought fully to embrace the social 
 fact, to examine it in the matter of which it is composed, in 
 the forces by which it is regulated, and in the end to which it 
 is directed. 
 
 Section III.— The First Reason for Society or the 
 Efficient Cause of the Social Fact. 
 
 Let us mention the first or fundamental reason for society, 
 or rather the efficient cause of society, that which answers to 
 the question—Whence comes it that men live in society ? 
 Let us find out the element of this efficiency. 
 
 We shall suppose that there are only fifteen men on earth, 
 living in different and distant places, so that each one believes 
 himself the only man in the world. 
 
 What are we to think of them ? That they will feel the 
 affliction of the desert, that from their heart they will heave a 
 sigh, that in morals they will be discouraged. We think so 
 because we are convinced that, if we were placed in like cir¬ 
 cumstances, we should have such sentiments. 
 
 Let us now imagine that at length each of these men learns 
 that other men exist on earth, far away from him, but men 
 like himself. At this revelation we see their countenances beam 
 with joy. Not only so; but we see them set out in search of 
 one another, and, having met, inquire about the fact and the 
 object of their existence. They find that a chief purpose 
 of living is to live together, that they may help one another 
 to live better, and thus more easily attain the common end. 
 Now, here a question arises : Was it fancy, springing up at the 
 same time in the mind of every man, that urged them to live 
 together and to co-operate, or something else, and if so, what 
 was it ? 
 
 Let us suppose ourselves to be in the place of these solitary 
 men. On hearing that other men like ourselves exist, what is 
 it that would awake in us the sentiments which we have described ? 
 
 1. The need of being with them—in other words, the need of 
 loving them. 
 
 2. The desire of having co-operation. Man feels himself 
 
4 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OE SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 born for happiness, and he tends to it with all his power. He 
 feels that his joys are few and limited, and that, in the help of 
 others, he can find a strong coefficient. By means of co-operation, 
 sciences, arts, industries, studies, &c., all arise, prosper, flourish, 
 advance. Leo XIII. writes :—“ The daily experience that man 
 makes of the littleness of his power engages and urges him to 
 seek co-operation with others. . . . From this natural pro¬ 
 pensity, as from one germ, comes civil society ; then, from this 
 society, other societies, which, though limited and imperfect, 
 are not less really societies.” {Rerum novarum.) Even the 
 physical life of the solitary man would be so wretched, so miser¬ 
 able, that it could not be called worthy of a rational creature. 
 Man, in order to live, must wage a continual war against nature, 
 which does not bestow its gifts without an expenditure of human 
 strength. This trouble it would often be folly to expect from 
 the solitary man. 
 
 3. The need of speaking. I have intelligence, and, therefore, 
 speech. I have need of speaking, and of speaking to one who 
 understands me, and who can give me an answer. The most 
 painful punishment that can be inflicted on a prisoner is silence. 
 So much does man feel this need that, not content with the words 
 of his brethren, he makes the animals, the plants, the stars, all 
 things in creation, speak. 
 
 4. The principles of social morals rooted in the heart of man. 
 Let two men meet for the first time in a lonely region. They 
 become companions on the road; and, having discussed how 
 they can best reach the end of their journey, they agree to help 
 each other. Suppose that afterwards one of them deceives 
 the other. The latter will protest against the violation of a 
 moral law—namely, that which intelligent beings ought to 
 observe in society. 
 
 5. The fact that at certain periods of childhood and old age, 
 and in other circumstances—for example, in sickness—the life 
 of the solitary man would be impossible. 
 
 These five elements of sociability, which we find in every man, 
 no man can have put there, but only the Author of man, God 
 Himself. Therefore, the efficient cause of human society is 
 God. 
 
 Leo XIII. wrote in the encyclical Immortale Dei :—“ It is 
 natural to man that he should five in civil society.” Man has, 
 therefore, a sociable nature : to deny it is to destroy society. 
 Hitherto we have been led by the voice of God, speaking through 
 His creature. But it is not enough. Another word, whoever 
 can understand it, God spoke in favour of the social state of man— 
 it is the dominant note in the harmony of positive revelation. 
 The object of Jesus Christ in becoming man was to lead men to 
 eternal salvation. It is an indispensable condition, established 
 by Him, for attaining this end, to live in society—in that society 
 which is the Catholic Church. 
 
SOCIAL DUTIES AND RIGHTS 
 
 5 
 
 Section IV.— The Social Compact. 
 
 To our question, “ What is the efficient cause of society ? ” 
 others, not making account of the lessons that we have taught, 
 answered that it was the will of man, which, by a social compact, 
 gave rise to society. 
 
 Hobbes and Rousseau are recognised as the founders of this 
 frightful philosophy, which has served too much as a basis for 
 all the revolutionists who have troubled the world in these latter 
 days. 
 
 There is some difference between the two, and it consists in 
 defining the state of men before the famous compact, Hobbes 
 saying that it was one of war and Rousseau one of peace. If 
 the former shows us every man struggling against his brethren 
 for his own happiness, the latter paints every man jogging along 
 happy and content, and singing songs by the light of the moon. 
 
 Against these fantastic notions, the arguments are too obvious. 
 Suffice it to observe that such notions do not settle the question. 
 If the makers of the social compact were men, they were induced 
 to make it by some impelling force : this force was the true 
 efficient cause. What was it ? * 
 
 Section V.— Social Duties and Rights. 
 
 The body of every living being is essentially an organism. 
 It consists of parts, every one of which is the principle of some 
 operation, exercising itself as occasion requires, not merely for 
 its own benefit, but for that of the compound, and therefore 
 for that of each particular part. Thus there is one being, whose 
 unity consists in the principle that animates the different parts 
 and enables them to be mutually useful. 
 
 That-society may attain its proper scope it must be alive, 
 I mean living that life by which the various members composing 
 it, and animated by the same principle, may become useful to 
 one another. 
 
 For this it is necessary that the component parts of society 
 should have a reciprocal influence by which they may give to 
 one another the benefit of their activity. Now, mark well. 
 If this influence, with which man acts for himself and for others, 
 is the dictate of his own intelligence, is the recommendation 
 of one or more men, we cannot speak of duties, except in the 
 
 * The reader will bear in mind what the author has already explained. 
 There are in man five elements of sociability. These tendencies towards 
 society could come only from God, just as gravity in a stone is placed there by 
 Him, and therefore God, the Author of these tendencies, or, in other words, 
 the impelling force, is the efficient cause of human society. The subject 
 is again referred to in the following section.— Trans. 
 
6 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 sense of fidelity to promises made or obligations imposed. But 
 if it is an effect of nature—that is, if it follows from the nature of 
 man—then it is a natural duty imposed on man by his Author. 
 
 Now that it is this latter thing we, who have shown the 
 efficient cause of society to be God, cannot doubt. Wherefore, 
 we assert, without further discussion, the existence of natural 
 social duties in man. 
 
 But from one root spring both duties and rights. Called 
 to a special mission, the creature has a duty to fulfil. At the 
 same time it has the right belonging thereto. This is evident. 
 
 Accordingly, there is no doubt that if man has social duties 
 he has also social rights, and natural rights—that is, rights 
 pertaining to him because he is a man, not because he is a citizen 
 of this or that country—pertaining, therefore, to every man, 
 let it be well known. 
 
 Yes, man, every man has a right to raise his head in the social 
 assembly and to ask for himself a certain quantity of goods. 
 
 Society is intended to strengthen the weakness of the individual. 
 This is realised in a twofold order :—(i.) In the case of an attack 
 on individual rights, or on the goods, natural or acquired, by 
 which an individual is rich ; and (ii.) in the insufficiency of 
 individual powers for the realisation of bold aspirations, to 
 which the mind, naturally daring, of the individual is urged. 
 
 Help for this individual weakness is an essential task of society. 
 It is the advantage that the individual has a right to promise 
 himself. 
 
 There are therefore negative goods, consisting in the removal 
 of obstacles to the development of individual potentialities, 
 and positive goods, raising the efficacy of personal powers to 
 a higher degree, which the individual has a right to expect from 
 society. Otherwise, the reason for social life would be wanting. 
 Nature would either have stifled the aspirations of his soul, 
 or have given him other means for attaining them. 
 
 Section VI.— Life and Social Goods ; Public Goods and 
 Common Goods ; Scope of Society. 
 
 There is often mention of social life and death, of social goods 
 and evils : it is necessary to know the value of these words. 
 
 When is it that society can be and ought to be called living ? 
 
 Life is referred metaphorically to the social body. The idea 
 that we have of animal life we transfer to society, in which, if 
 well-ordered, we find a real foundation of analogy. 
 
 That animal we call living, in which the body and soul are 
 united in such a manner that they form one single being, capable 
 of working for the attainment of the end adapted to it. 
 
 Men in society are like a body animated by a soul. The con¬ 
 sciousness of social duties is the principle that keeps them united, 
 
LIFE AND SOCIAL GOODS 
 
 7 
 
 and makes them work for an end, which is not that of private 
 individuals, but of society in general. This principle is the soul. 
 We shall, therefore, call living that society in which the con¬ 
 sciousness of social duties is awake and active, leading men to 
 work for the attainment of social goods. 
 
 But what is meant by social goods ? 
 
 Consider well that society is a moral body ; and a moral body 
 is never an end to itself. Therefore, it of itself is incapable 
 of the enjoyment of any good : it exists by its component parts, 
 and that good which individuals draw from the existence of society 
 is called the good of the moral body. Social goods are, therefore, 
 those advantages which accrue to men from living in society. 
 Those advantages, as everyone sees, cannot be opposed to 
 the individual good, nor can they be of a nature different from 
 that good; on the contrary, they are its perfection and its 
 crown. 
 
 Hence, social goods are the comforts and conveniences of 
 living, the easier fulfilment of one’s duties, the more effectual 
 defence of one’s rights, &c.—things which, for man when alone, 
 it would be impossible or very difficult to secure. The Pope 
 writes :—“ It is necessary that civil society, being ordained for 
 the common good, should promote the public prosperity in such 
 a manner that the citizens, while advancing to the possession 
 of that supreme and unchangeable good to which they tend by 
 nature, may not only meet no obstacles, but may have every 
 possible facility for attaining it.” 
 
 If, in society, this facility is wanting to individuals for the attain¬ 
 ment of their proper end, or, worse, if there are impediments 
 to it, then, instead of social goods, there are evils. Individuals 
 can no longer turn to account their being in society. Everyone 
 will belong to society materially, but not formally. Everyone 
 will give as little as possible to society, from which he expects 
 no return of any kind. The consciousness of social duties will 
 give place to selfishness, which is capable of dragging the citizens 
 into revolution, slaughter, civil war. Such is the condition of 
 a sick society, near to death. 
 
 We quoted lately the words of the Holy Father in which he 
 says that society is ordained for the common good. Our idea 
 of the common good should be clear, so that it may not be con¬ 
 founded with that of the public good, which is quite a different 
 thing. 
 
 Well, what is the common good ? Perhaps a good that is 
 opposed to, or naturally differs from, private and individual 
 good ? Let us reflect. The simplest, and at the same time 
 the most philosophical, definition of good for man is this :—The 
 last end is an absolute good, and a relative good is all that which 
 can serve as a means for the attainment of this last end. 
 
 A good, not here included, cannot be regarded as a true good. 
 
8 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 God has created many goods for man, but these are goods only 
 in so far as they help to gain the last end. 
 
 Everything in man has been ordained by the Almighty for the 
 securing of this last end. Hence, even his sociability. Being 
 animated by the desire of reaching that end, he ought to procure 
 many goods for his associates, which may all be means of arriving 
 at the last end. 
 
 Accordingly, the common good is that sum total of advantages 
 which, by reason of being found in society, concerns all those 
 who belong to society. 
 
 The public good is a thing very different from the common 
 good. The common affects us one by one; the public, all 
 together. There is common wellbeing when all are at their 
 ease; there is public, when the moral body, to which each one 
 belongs, stands well. Under the sway of the sword, though, 
 oppressive, there will be public good, not common good; no, 
 if the innocent are often punished. 
 
 So much being settled, and placed in connection with what 
 we have explained regarding the true notion of society, we can 
 easily infer that the scope of human society is, not the public 
 good, but the common good. Bosmini, in his Filosofia del 
 Diritto, having examined this matter, concludes thus, and 
 wisely:—“ Therefore, civil society, having been instituted to 
 protect and improve all the rights of its members, acts against 
 its natural office, against the office for which alone it exists, 
 if it injures, instead of helping, a single one of its associates, 
 even though for the benefit of all the others; if it proposes to 
 obtain the good of some, be they most wealthy or most powerful, 
 and not that of all; if, in a word, it is content to promote the 
 so-called public good, instead of the common good.” 3 Accord¬ 
 ingly, that ordinance which, howsoever, succeeds in impoverishing 
 one class for the benefit of another is antisocial, much as it may 
 appear to do good or to accomplish some excellent work. Society 
 there is sick, because it does not attain to the common good. 
 
 This common good, which is the object of civil society, takes 
 also the name of civilisation, about the meaning of which there 
 is a great want of precision. Some suppose that civilisation 
 consists in an abundance of material goods, in splendour of 
 buildings, &c. We do not deny that these are goods : we say, 
 and we maintain, that the civilisation of a people cannot consist 
 in these things alone, because they do not correspond to all the 
 wants of man, they do not represent all the goods that man 
 requires for the attainment of his last end. In our view, those 
 people are more civilised who by their social state are in a better 
 position to raise their citizens towards their last end. Any¬ 
 thing whatever that proves an obstacle or an impediment to 
 this mission of individuals—although it may be a good in itself— 
 is for the individuals an evil. And to call civilised a society 
 whose existence, whose composition, turns to the direct prejudice 
 
LIFE AND SOCIAL GOODS 
 
 9 
 
 even of a few of those who form part of it, is a strange contradic¬ 
 tion. Let the words that we borrow from Weiss (La Questione 
 Sociale, p. 394) be read :— 
 
 “ The entire modern school thus answers our question : The 
 final scope of social life is the increase of the public wellbeing. 
 Thereby the fate of our fellowship is sealed. This unfortunate 
 theory is one of the most dangerous equivocations, often per¬ 
 chance a deliberate deception. No one any longer speaks of 
 individual members of the community, but only of social wealth. 
 The wants and capabilities of each particular person are, on 
 principle, laid aside ; on the other hapd, much more attention 
 is bestowed on the dead matter from which the totality of 
 citizens comes forth. The magnificent idea of Christianity, 
 that society is a great organism, wherein every single member 
 holds the place assigned him and has to make his own 
 endeavour for the advantage of all—wherein, however, society 
 should provide for every member—is thus brought down to 
 nothing. Limits for the protection of the individual, gradation 
 of classes, co-ordination among all, are neglected. The cold 
 penny is the only rule. The greatest amount of production 
 possible, accumulations of the highest value, are the ultimate 
 scope. Wealth without obligation; no relative possession, 
 nor even a good footing, for the individual: these are the springs 
 of our social life. Where once the wellbeing of a state was cal¬ 
 culated by the number of those who, at their own expense, could 
 take the field for it and form an army, to-day it is calculated 
 by the sum expended on barracks, on fortresses, and on war 
 material. If one State has millions of money more than another, 
 by that alone it passes for the more fortunate. Who owns 
 the millions, or who is the better of them, it is no matter. Enough 
 that they he dead in the war-chest, or are in the hands of a few 
 nabobs, while just near them are thousands and thousands of 
 poor people in a constant struggle for existence.” 
 
 Here,- in passing, let it be noted how much the principles 
 of Christianity promote the work of civilisation in society. 
 Christianity has awakened the consciousness of social duties, 
 bringing forward the great precept of charity, which is reduced 
 to this :—“ Eemember that you are not alone in the world, 
 but there is someone else who has a right to be there as well 
 as you. Nor is that enough. You ought also to help him 
 who is a brother to you, that he may attain to his proper end. 
 In helping him you ought to regard him as another self.” What 
 admirable doctrine! 
 
 The sociology of philosophers ought to produce volumes 
 demonstrating that there is by no means a contradiction between 
 attending to one’s own happiness and attending to social duties, 
 and then wait to have them understood, because he who reads 
 and meditates little cannot well see how society is like a beneficent 
 machine, which makes a superabundant return to the individual 
 
10 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 for all that lie gives to others. Jesus Christ has explained it 
 in a few words : Love thy neighbour as thyself. How happy 
 would society be if all men attended to Him ! 
 
 To prevent the rich from abusing their position, to the injury 
 of the poor, Christianity sets forth the vanity of riches, and 
 calls the state of the rich a dangerous one. Now, why so, if 
 not because the rich are in danger of giving to themselves what 
 they owe to others ? 
 
 A contempt of present things, which is preached by the Gospel 
 and which some persons call an obstacle to the civil progress of 
 society, becomes of great efficacy in the work of a perfect civilisa¬ 
 tion, a civilisation true and not ruinous. 
 
 We saw how false a civilisation is that which gives excessive 
 importance to material goods. Well, the contempt of the Gospel 
 is relative—that is, it falls on a defective civilisation, which 
 apparently is perfect, but in reality is despicable. And thus we 
 explain the words, Blessed are the poor in spirit : a divine maxim 
 by which Jesus Christ gave the great lesson that poverty can be 
 a virtue, and that as a virtue it is commanded for the good of 
 oneself and others. The virtue poverty is a right appreciation 
 that the Christian mind, in whatever circumstances placed, 
 makes of the goods that surround it or that it possesses. As 
 worldly goods have the same destiny for all men—that is, to serve 
 them in reaching an end that is the same for all—this appreciation 
 ought to be alike for all. To rise to such an idea of things in 
 theory and practice is the perfection of the soul, because it is a 
 victory over their seductive powers. It is a good for civil society, 
 because man makes his fellowmen the object of his beneficence. 
 
 The Church, continuing the work of Jesus Christ, animated 
 by the spirit of His gentle doctrines, must, in the nature of things, 
 exercise a pre-eminently civilising influence on the world. 
 
 History, if any one consults it dispassionately, offers some 
 splendid pages on this subject, and proves to the Christian 
 philosopher the truth of Toniolo’s words, that civilisation is only 
 the history of man’s union with God. “ Not because,” says Cardinal 
 Parrochi, in his letter to Toniolo, “ civilisation in itself should be 
 confounded with religion, but because there is no true and com¬ 
 plete civilisation unless it is Christian, and Christian civilisation is 
 founded on supernatural principles.” 
 
 Section VII.— Social Functions ; Social Organism. 
 
 The human individual lives above himself and above the 
 external world. He is a providential instrument, an enlightened 
 artificer, who transforms things around him into useful articles 
 for himself. This is the work of each individual. 
 
 The activity, however, of each individual is in some respects 
 exuberant, and in others defective. Should he enter into relations 
 
SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS 
 
 11 
 
 of activity with his own brother, he separates from him if both 
 do not gain. Such is social life, which is the result of separate 
 energies struggling in the body with a two-fold effect, one for 
 the good of the individual himself, the other in favour of the 
 brethren with whom he lives. 
 
 But it is easily observed that the strength of each individual 
 is too little to be felt in all the social body. A little stream that 
 leaves its banks does not ruffle the surface of the sea ; a big wave 
 runs a long way. 
 
 Individual social duties fulfilled are small energies, of them¬ 
 selves not felt. What could one tradesman alone, or one pro¬ 
 fessional man alone, do for the common weal ? It is necessary 
 that there should be many individuals following the same trade 
 or the same profession. There is then strong suitable action, 
 which deserves the name of a social function. 
 
 Turning now to the subject of each social function, we find that 
 it requires many individuals having a community of interests, 
 elements that stand upon the same basis. This basis gives them 
 a special unity, by which they are rightly called classes, and, 
 taking account of the functions that they fulfil, social organs. 
 
 Behold why and how it ought to be said that human society 
 is an organism—that is, a body resulting from organic parts, like 
 an animal body. 
 
 Materialistic sociology opposes the individual theory to this 
 idea of a society founded on the theory of social duties. 
 
 It was Descartes, we may say, who did the honours of the house 
 to atomism, and introduced it to philosophy. Materialism 
 took occasion from it to put on the philosopher’s cloak and appear 
 less beastly. Thus, man was defined as a quantity of atoms, 
 forming a person. 
 
 If the individual is such, why not society ? 
 
 So liberalism begins to generalise, and imagines society as a 
 number of individuals scattered over the earth and forming a 
 certain - unitv. 
 
 Materialism, to preserve a human combination, recognises 
 only the force of cohesion, which binds the atoms together. 
 Liberalism, to unite individuals in society, recognises an agree¬ 
 ment made by them to keep together. Thus, not a superior 
 principle, not an eternal law, not a duty, but a human compact 
 would be the origin of society. 
 
 Section YIII.—Social Organisations ; Business Unions. 
 
 Society, we said, should be an organism. 
 
 Nature itself tells us what should be its chief organs—namely, 
 social classes. 
 
 These, however, should exist not only in the design of nature, 
 but also in reality. If the individuals, though having common 
 
12 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 interests, are not enfeoffed, are not recognised, they will always 
 be individuals, similar atoms, but they will not be classes. And 
 the society that is thus composed will be a disorganised society— 
 a society of individuals, not of classes. 
 
 Disorganised society is a body consisting of movable elements 
 without any common centre of gravity. Everyone, being left to 
 his own centripetal force, makes himself the centre of his activity. 
 In this state of affairs it is natural that the elements of stronger 
 wing should fly upwards and the weak fall to the ground. 
 
 Nowadays we have exactly this kind of disorganised society. 
 There is a society, but, being without organs, it cannot be healthy 
 and vigorous. It must be languid, almost dead. We have been 
 brought to these extremes by a variety of causes. 
 
 To relieve this poor sick society there is only one remedy, 
 the reconstruction of society, having as a basis the principles 
 of the natural law and of the Gospel. 
 
 Following the indications of nature, we wish for organisation 
 according to business, that is—we do not wish to have arbitrary 
 criterions in giving life to different classes, but to follow nature, 
 which, having arranged that social good may be obtained by 
 means of different trades or different professions, to which many 
 individuals belong, has also shown us clearly that among 
 individuals of the same occupation, the class, or active organ 
 of the social body, may be and ought to be formed. 
 
 Can it be formed : We shall say rather that nature itself 
 has formed the social classes, placing groups of individuals in 
 different positions. Only a violent process adopted against 
 the ordinance of nature, wrecking individuals and associations, 
 has been able to destroy the classes and disorganise society. 
 
 And this is so true that, the classes being destroyed, society 
 was led to reconstitute itself in other classes; and to-day we 
 see it divided into two classes—the grabbers and the beggars, 
 the strong and the weak, the capitalists and the proletaires. 
 
 Here we have a classification against nature, one that therefore 
 cannot last. And to-day we see a reaction of the social elements 
 against such an organisation. We see these elements swimming 
 in the sea of life, searching for one another, striving to form 
 groups according to the qualities of their homogeneity, according 
 to the designs of nature. 
 
 Hence it is easy to understand what are the unions that we 
 propose, and what their task. They may be defined associations 
 of individuals having the same occupation, with a view to the 
 defence of their rights and the promotion of their interests. 
 
 Unions do not tend to eliminate the individual or the family— 
 no, these remain unchanged. They tend to make individuals 
 as well as families strong, able to resist external attacks and to 
 increase their own prosperity. Alone, the individual and the 
 family count for what they are ; organised in classes, each one 
 is of as much value as his class. The task, therefore, of unions 
 
SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS 
 
 13 
 
 is great, comprising all the rights, all the interests, all the just 
 aspirations of their members. 
 
 This task is usually expressed by saying that the unions ought 
 to represent the classes : an expression that deserves to be weighed 
 for what it is worth, and it is worth very much. It means that 
 the union ought to come forward and place itself in the position 
 of the individual associated to it every time that his welfare is 
 in question. 
 
 To regard trade or professional unions as having in view only 
 the material welfare of their members is to brutalise man. Man 
 is composed of soul and body, and, wh§n he joins his class, none 
 of its interests, which are connected and inseparable, can be left 
 outside the door. Now, we know that man has religious, moral, 
 economical, and civil interests. The union ought to help him in 
 securing all these interests. For this reason the union will lead 
 to confraternities, to rural chests,* to co-operative societies, 
 to electoral committees, &c. Thus did Professor Toniolo describe 
 the union at the National Congress of Rome. “ Its aims,” he 
 said, “ are not directly lucrative. It certainly intends to give 
 an organic autonomous unity to a class, and as such, to set forth 
 its interests before other classes and before the public powers, 
 to defend its rights, and to promote its religious, social, civil, 
 and material wellbeing.” 
 
 The encyclical Rerum novarum has some explicit teaching 
 with regard to organisation. The Pope, having recalled the merits 
 of the ancient trade and art corporations, wishes them to be 
 re-established, not indeed such as they were in olden days, 
 because too great a part of the world is changed, but wisely adapted 
 to the conditions and wants of the present day. Behold how he 
 speaks:—“ The advantages of such corporations were most 
 evident to our ancestors ; and not only for the benefit of artisans, 
 but, as many monuments attest, for the honour and perfection 
 of the arts themselves. Assuredly, the progress of culture, the 
 new customs, and the increasing wants of life require that these 
 corporations should adapt themselves to present conditions. We 
 see with pleasure such associations being everywhere formed, 
 either of workmen alone, or of workmen and masters; and it is 
 desirable that their number and their efficiency should increase.” 
 
 The old corporations or guilds have been renovated and 
 modernised by the counsels of the wise in the unions of which 
 we have been speaking. | 
 
 * “ Rural Chest ” is a name given in Italy to a kind of village bank.— 
 Trans. 
 
 f “ The guildsmen were taught to look upon work as a sacred trust, a 
 holy function, the complement of prayer, and the foundation of a virtuous 
 life. Before their eyes were the luminous examples of those blessed toilers, 
 the saints of God, whom they represented with the implements of the 
 various trades; thus the Blessed Virgin Mary was represented as busy at 
 the spinning-wheel, and her holy spouse, St. Joseph, with hammer and saw. 
 
14 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OE SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 That these guilds, therefore, are desired by Leo XIII., if not in 
 word, certainly in substance, may be gathered from other points 
 in the encyclical; for instance, where he speaks of the necessity 
 of placing limits to the hours of labour, if he assigns to the State 
 the task of fixing the maximum number, he wishes, however, 
 that the associations should be trusted to decide on the normal 
 length of a day’s work. 
 
 From what has been said, this subject of organisation appears 
 so important that it may be called the basis of a sociology really 
 democratic or civil. Toniolo says :—“ There is no Catholic social 
 programme of any country that has not inserted as one of its 
 fundamental articles the reconstitution of society by means of 
 classes, and, therefore, by thus organising the classes of the 
 people, does not perform the work of a true Christian democracy ; 
 and that, in fine, by thus providing for the lower classes as well as 
 the upper hierarchy does not contribute to the integral recon¬ 
 struction of Catholic social order.” 
 
 From the theory just set forth we draw, as so many corollaries, 
 the following conclusions :— 
 
 1. Society fives according to nature when men not only have an 
 active consciousness of their social duties, but are also able to make 
 their rights respected, which is the result of organisation. 
 
 2. It being an ordinance of nature that various classes of men, 
 called social classes, should exist, and society being intended 
 for the good of men, it is naturally the will of the Author of society 
 that the various classes, not merely one or two, should share in 
 the goods, the social goods, that society produces. 
 
 3. If account is made of the end for which the various classes 
 are instituted, which is the common good, it is natural that we 
 should not speak of lower or higher classes, all being equally 
 necessary to attain the object for which society exists. If, how¬ 
 ever, regard is paid to relative functions, then the superiority 
 or the inferiority of the classes arises from the kind of functions 
 that they fulfil. By the Pope, the various classes are called the 
 necessary members of a well-constituted society. As in the human 
 body, there are members higher or lower, stronger or weaker, 
 but all necessary for fife, and therefore, by the title of necessity, 
 all equal among themselves, so it is in the social body.* 
 
 As every member of the guild had to be of legitimate birth, and of an un¬ 
 blemished and spotless reputation, so his work was to be solid and faultless 
 as the manifestation of his character. Sham and deceit were universally 
 despised, and legal penalties were inflicted on work of inferior quality. 
 To prevent fraud and deception, all trades were under the close inspection 
 of the guild-warders and local authorities.”—From Socialism and 
 Christianity, a very excellent work by the late Dr. Stang, Catholic Bishop of 
 Fall River. New York : Benziger Brothers.— 'Trans. 
 
 * “ The shameless confiscation of the entire property of the craft-guilds, 
 one of the worst kinds of wanton plunder in European history, perpetrated 
 under Henry VIII. and Edward VI. to fill the royal purse, brought untold 
 misery to the masses of the working people .”—History of Agriculture, by 
 
SOCIAL ORGANISATIONS 
 
 15 
 
 4. Two things are certain—namely, it is the intention of nature 
 that higher and lower classes should exist in society, and it is also 
 the wish of nature that all classes should share in the benefits 
 of society. A third conclusion follows logically: that the 
 upper classes ought to converge to their proper position of kindly 
 guardianship for the lower classes. This, it is understood, is the 
 will of God Himself. Let us hear the words of Leo XIII :— 
 “We would wish that they (the more respectable citizens) should 
 consider that they are not free to care or not for the condition 
 of the lowly, but they are truly bound to have such care. Because 
 the citizen does not live only for himself, but also for the com¬ 
 munity: the contribution that some cannot bring to the common 
 good, let others bring with greater liberality. Of the gravity 
 (. N.B .) of the said duty, they are warned by the superiority of 
 the goods received, for which they will undoubtedly have to render 
 a more strict account to that God who gave them.” ( Graves de 
 eommuni re.) 
 
 5. The existence of various social classes being a necessity, 
 in consequence of the common good, a just idea of their rights 
 and duties ought to be formed by taking, as a rule, this reason of 
 their existence. Accordingly, the idea is altogether unwarrant¬ 
 able that is entertained of the upper classes by many liberals, 
 who regard their rank as one granted only for the benefit of those 
 who belong to it—a position of honour, of luxury, of display, 
 of ease, of fine times, &c. It is nothing of the sort. In our view 
 the upper classes have, together with many rights, many and most 
 serious duties, which are the reason of their existence. Without 
 these, neither God nor the world knows what to make of them. 
 
 Seeing that so many evils at present afflict society, the upper 
 classes have a more grave obligation to come to its relief. The 
 Pope intended weighty words. Yet—and it should be noted, 
 because it is true—the practical life of the privileged classes 
 does not correspond to the importance of this duty. “ The 
 aristocrats,” says Toniolo, “ ennobled by blood and tradition, 
 continue for the most part to live estranged from the debated 
 problems of society, ignorant of their high directive duty, heedless 
 of their immense responsibility. By their conduct they are 
 very often accomplices in that social disorder which they ought 
 to prevent or to remedy.” The Harmels, the De Muns in France, 
 the Decurtiuses in Switzerland, the Toniolos and a few others in 
 Italy, are exceptions. 
 
 Thorold Rogers. Mr. T. Smith, though making little account of the spolia¬ 
 tion of the monasteries, says of these lay institutions:—“ A case of pure 
 wholesale robbery and plunder. . . . No page so black in English history.” 
 English Guilds (p. xiii.), showing the ordinances of more than a hundred 
 of them, and edited by Mr. Toulmin Smith for the Early English Text 
 Society (1870). 
 
 Confiscation led to poverty and theft. Under Henry VIII. there were 
 72,000 thieves arrested and executed.— Trans. 
 
16 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 And the aristocrats do not hear the sound of the coming storm, 
 which is ready to burst upon them, and to announce to them 
 the dilemma of Toniolo —•Either change or disappear ! 4 
 
 Section IX. —Ancient Slavery and Modern Proletairism. 
 
 Society, as we have shown, is a means intended for the welfare 
 of all human beings, who, by the will of their Author, are called 
 to take part in it. 
 
 When a means is established by nature for the attainment 
 of an end, it ought to attain that end. If not, it is faulty, not what 
 nature intended it to be. 
 
 This does not mean that every little bit of straw should 
 absolutely and necessarily reach the point towards which it is 
 blown ; no, the present state of things admits of exceptions. 
 These cannot be admitted if there is a notable and direct failure 
 in the attainment of the ends willed by the Creator, when the 
 conditions also willed by Him are placed. 
 
 Now, we have here three elements of which we must take 
 account: the object intended by the Creator, the subject for 
 whose benefit the object is intended, and the means by which 
 the object is to be obtained for the benefit of the subject. The 
 object is wellbeing, not absolute, but relative, such as can be 
 found here below. By the subject we understand all men, not the 
 most skilful, nor the most active, but all. And the means is 
 society. If, even in a well-ordered society, there cannot be had 
 all the wellbeing possible here below, let that pass; that even 
 there may be some persons who, from manifold causes, do not 
 enjoy the common good, let that pass; but that in an orderly- 
 society there should be a large number of citizens who do not 
 enjoy social goods, and, worse still, that the social condition should 
 be such as directly to produce these misfortunes, tending every 
 moment to increase, this cannot occur and ought not to be. It 
 would be an injury to the Author of nature. 
 
 These serious inconveniences must naturally happen in a dis¬ 
 organised society. Without well-constructed organs, social 
 functions fail, and true social life cannot exist. 
 
 We observe two periods of disorganised society—ancient and 
 modern. What did they produce ? 
 
 The ancient produced slavery. 
 
 It was a social state in which the greater portion of mankind 
 were given, body and soul, into the power of a small minority. 
 It had no thought, no life, no action, no personality of its own. 
 The slave was a man without rights, a man brought down to zero. 
 The master had his own rights, and those of others: he was a 
 double man, a triple man, a hundred-fold man, according to the 
 number of slaves that he owned. Society was not a benefit for 
 
THE SOCIAL QUESTION 
 
 17 
 
 the slaves; it was rather a press, which crushed every develop¬ 
 ment of personality. 
 
 All that happened because the monsoon of selfishness blew over 
 the social body, seizing on and swelling up every molecule of it; 
 some, becoming larger, overwhelmed and oppressed the smaller 
 ones. In that world the idea of social duties could find no place. 
 The social body was held fast as in iron fetters. 
 
 Jesus Christ came to substitute for these fetters the sweet bonds 
 of justice and charity. He proclaimed the natural equality 
 of men, and, to ensure respect for it, made known that there 
 will be a day of general account for all. 
 
 If men were filled with the spirit of Christianity, there is no doubt 
 that society would be well-constituted, and men would be happy. 
 
 To make men grow continually stronger in the fulfilment 
 of their duties, the Church, to which was left the task of elaborat¬ 
 ing, developing, and applying the treasures of the Redeemer, 
 instituted corporations, which had so great a share in promoting 
 the happiness of people in the Middle Ages. But these barriers 
 having been broken down, and the Christian spirit driven from 
 hearts by a variety of causes, it was natural that social disorder 
 should again ensue. 
 
 Slavery, as such, can no longer exist as of yore. Behold, 
 however, proletairism, which, coming under the shade of the tree 
 of liberty, appears less horrible; but it is slavery, real slavery— 
 in some respects worse than the ancient. 
 
 As a social disease, proletairism is a vicious ordering of society, 
 in which single energies, left in the power of liberty, are turned by 
 selfishness to the benefit of the richer and therefore more powerful 
 classes, called the upper classes. The unfortunate proletaires 
 may be compared to so many particles of dust that fall to the 
 ground and are trampled on by the passers-by. They are a 
 various heterogeneous multitude, ever increasing in number. 
 Poor people, uncertain of life to-morrow! 
 
 We have said that in some respects the state of proletairism 
 at the present day is beneath that of ancient slavery; and it is 
 true. In point of fact, by the full possession that the strong man 
 obtained of the weak man, the former was in a manner bound 
 to take care of the latter, in order, as is understood, to reap more 
 abundant fruits from him. To-day the possession is not full* 
 and from this point of view it is worse. To-day the strong man 
 commands. He takes the fruits of the weak man; he is master 
 of them. But he is not master of the weak man’s life, the pros¬ 
 perity or the misery of which is very little concern to him. 
 
 Section X.—The Social Question. 
 
 The social question looms up before us. It is not wonderful, 
 rather it is A atural, that such should exist. It is the result of a 
 very complex network of causes, which have brought an abnormal 
 
 B 
 
18 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 discomfort to many men. These, having acquired a conscious¬ 
 ness of their misfortunes and their rights, are indignant against 
 society of the present day, which they regard as the cause of their 
 evils, and they wish it to be destroyed. 
 
 And thus one thing comes in question—the living in society— 
 about which there should be no question, society being an 
 ordinance of nature. 
 
 He errs, and greatly errs, who believes that economic discomfort 
 is the only cause of social discontent. We think that there are 
 other causes, many other causes. The great phrase Not in bread 
 alone doth man live belongs indeed to Scripture, but it is also a 
 strong cry of nature. Give men bread, bread, bread, and nothing 
 but bread, and you will soon see them irritated against society, 
 and raising a revolution to destroy it. 
 
 “ Some men boast, and make others believe, that the so-called 
 social question is only economic; whereas, nothing can be more 
 certain than that it is chiefly moral and religious, and that, there¬ 
 fore, it requires to be explained according to moral and religious 
 laws. Even double the wages of the workman, shorten his hours 
 of toil, lower for him the prices of goods; yet, if you leave him 
 imbued with certain doctrines, and guided by certain examples, 
 which move him to throw off respect for God and to turn to evil 
 customs, your labour and liberality will be lost. . . . Take 
 away from minds those sentiments which are the fruits of a 
 Christian education; take away foresight, moderation, thrift, 
 patience, and other suchlike moral virtues, which reason itself 
 dictates to us, and you will see that every effort to obtain the 
 comforts of life will fail. And this is truly the cause why we 
 have never exhorted Catholics to found guilds and similar institu¬ 
 tions for the betterment of the people without a recommendation 
 at the same time to place them under the auspices of religion, 
 and to encourage them by its constant aid.” (Encyc., Graves de 
 communi re.) 
 
 We, who lately condemned the proletairism of the present day, 
 loudly condemn the present social constitution that produces 
 it. But we recognise with the Pope, and all wise thinkers, that 
 the tortuous social question is also—nay, is first of all—a moral 
 question. 
 
 Roused by the great Leo to the work of social restoration, 
 the task before us is extensive and eminently pathological. It 
 is the infusion of a new life, which we ought to bring to the present 
 social settlement—of that life which formed the glory of bygone 
 days, and which ought to form it still more in the present and 
 in the future, taking account of the undeniable and consoling 
 progress that the world has made in what is called the Christian 
 life. 
 
 Let us again seal what we have said with the w^ords of the 
 encyclical:—“ If there is any remedy for the evils of the world, 
 it cannot be other than a return to Christian life and manners. 
 
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY 
 
 19 
 
 It is a solemn principle that, to reform a society in a state of decay, 
 it must be brought back to the principles that gave it being. 
 The perfection of every society consists in tending to and arriving 
 at its object: so that the originating principle of social movements 
 or actions is the same that originated the association. Hence, 
 to deviate from the primitive scope is corruption; to turn to it 
 is salvation. And as this is true of civil society, so it is true of 
 the labouring classes, who form the most numerous portion 
 thereof.” 
 
 Thus, and thus only, will the difficult question be settled. 
 
 •» 
 
 Section XI.— Christian Democracy. 
 
 At this stage of our studies we can affirm, by way of a conclusion, 
 that a true social arrangement of society will be attained— 
 ,(i.) when the different classes find in society an advantage that 
 corresponds to all their religious, civil, and economical interests, 
 and (ii.) when, therefore, they are so placed respectively in society, 
 and so work together by the exercise of social duties, that the 
 weaker classes have a benefit in living with the stronger. 
 
 These are two points which we will not here delay to illustrate, 
 because this is not a place for dissertations, and besides they follow 
 from what has been said. A happy use of words gives to a society 
 thus formed the name of a Christian Democracy. 
 
 Let us study for a while the definition that Toniolo gives of 
 Christian Democracy, and we shall find these two points confirmed. 
 The great sociologist defines it as “ that civil ordinance in which 
 all the social, legal, and economical forces, in the fulness of their 
 development, co-operate proportionally to the common good, 
 turning chiefly to the advantage of the lower classes.” 
 
 Here we see affirmed the respective location of the various 
 classes in the social body, their co-operation for the common 
 good by the exercise of their different social functions, and the 
 principal advantage being in favour of the lower classes : such 
 ought to be the results of a well-ordered society. 
 
 Let not the last specification of the social end seem to you 
 a restriction on the common good, as if an unnatural bent were 
 given to social energies. No ; if the common good had not such 
 a specific effect, it would no longer be the common good, and 
 society would not attain its scope. 
 
 A sufficient reason for the existence of society is the common 
 good—that is, the good of all. To deny that the weaker parts, 
 which are also the more numerous, have need of aid from the 
 upper and powerful classes is to wish that they should not have 
 in society any comfort or support. 
 
 Our idea of democracy is conformable to that which we have 
 given of society. It ought to be realised that society may be 
 truly civilised. 
 
20 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 It is evident that this idea of social democracy, which is founded 
 on natural law, because it comes from an analysis of the idea of 
 society, is only with difficulty reduced to practice by men who 
 are urged on by the forces of nature alone. Jesus Christ, in the 
 Gospel, raising His voice against the rich and great in favour of 
 the poor and humble, has developed this idea in a very clear light, 
 and by the help of His grace has rendered its observance more 
 easy. 
 
 The work of redemption is expressed by the Scriptural 
 aphorism, The truth shall make you jree ; and the truth that will 
 make you free will make all free. 
 
 The truth, preached by Christ on the equality of men, on the 
 end for which earthly things were created, on the love that men 
 owe reciprocally to one another, is that which sets us free 
 individually and collectively. Man, of himself, following the 
 impulse of selfishness, makes another man his slave; one class 
 subjects another. Christ by His truth sets us free. 
 
 If man takes as the rule of his life the lessons of truth on his 
 last end as well as on the use for which earthly things should 
 serve— Seek ye therefore -first the kingdom of God , and His justice , 
 and all these things shall he added unto you —he will have realised 
 for himself that liberation which Christ brought by means of the 
 truth. 
 
 And this liberation ought to extend to all that are men : in such 
 a way that if there are, as there will of course be, some more 
 weak, more miserable, to them should revert that excess of strength 
 and wealth which exists in others. “ In the books of the Old 
 and the New Testament this special solicitude embraces not 
 only the labouring or disinherited classes, but extends to such 
 as are lowly, weak, needy, forsaken, no less than to children, to 
 orphans, to widows, to strangers, to the unfortunate. It shows 
 that the title to this special care, on the part of him who is ready 
 to fall, is not merely an economic inferiority, but any deficiency 
 that requires to be supplied from the superabundance of others ; 
 and, moreover, the end to which this kindly treatment of inferiors 
 tends is not only to keep them safe, but to improve their con¬ 
 dition ” (Toniolo). 
 
 With reason, therefore, does Toniolo conclude that Christianity 
 alone has taught this idea of democracy, and that the elements 
 of it are contained in Holy Writ. 
 
 There remains another most important question: How is 
 society to be regulated that it may become democratic in this 
 Christian manner ? And here appears the practical programme 
 of Christian Democracy. 
 
 If, on this ideal Democracy, there is no room for discussion, 
 because, as is said by the instruction of the Congregation for 
 Extraordinary Ecclesiastical A ffairs, it is founded on the natural 
 law and the Gospel precepts, and is therefore unchangeable, 
 the discussion may fall on particular points of the practical 
 
CHRISTIAN DEMOCRACY 
 
 21 
 
 programme. In the encyclicals of Leo XIII. some of these points 
 are clearly indicated, such as the reorganisation of society ; others 
 are deduced from principles already established ; and others again 
 are derived from the lessons of history, from daily experience, 
 and from science. 
 
 The practical programme is a means to obtain Christian 
 Democracy. Hence, it is not absolutely necessary, nor need it 
 be quite the same for every time and every place. 
 
 Christian Democratic action has as its object to put in practice 
 that programme which serves to realise the benefits of true 
 Democracy. 
 
 Among the points of the Democratic Christian programme there 
 is one that regards the intervention of the State. 
 
 This intervention being indispensable, it may be lawfully 
 invoked when not present. 
 
 Someone may ask: Is our action political ? May we take 
 our stand on the ground of religion ? May we act in the name 
 of the Church ? 
 
 These questions were raised specially after the recent instruc¬ 
 tions of the Holy See, and they are most important. 
 
 The art of ruling people properly, so as to promote the common 
 wellbeing, is called policy. 
 
 This gives precepts of good government, and even it is subj ect 
 to the moral code, which it can never justly violate. 
 
 The duty of respect for the moral law regards all political 
 precepts and documents. Within the limits fixed by this law, 
 policy can freely accomplish all its work of thought and deed, 
 like any other science or art. 
 
 It has, however, this peculiarity, that, in treating of its own 
 object, it meets with the elements of natural or divine law, so that 
 it cannot give a preference to what is forbidden; it cannot, 
 for example, abolish the duty of subjects to obey the constituted 
 authorities. Documents that regard these laws of nature, of God, 
 or of man, it receives from morals, rather than that it creates them. 
 They are the documents that Jesus Christ, who came to perfect, 
 not to destroy, nature, made His own, and constituted as the 
 policy or social economy of the Gospel. 
 
 Outside these lines policy has a wide margin, all its own, which 
 it may cover with the industrious web of its precepts and its 
 discipline : pure simple policy, which gains more or less credit 
 and strength from the conditions of the people, from the events 
 of the time, and from the manner in which it is carried out. 
 
 The Church, the guardian of morals and religion, teaches, 
 defends, and considers as her own the first kind of political 
 precepts; and we, her children, can and should defend them 
 in the name of the Church. With regard to other documents 
 of pure policy we, as men and as scientists, can argue, discuss, 
 condemn, or approve, but not in the name of the Church. If 
 one man believes that a republic is a better form of government 
 
22 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 for the people, let him believe it; let him even condemn the man 
 who asserts the contrary. But let him do so in the name of his 
 own reason, not in the name of the Church, which, like morals, 
 stands high above debates and above parties. To make the 
 Church responsible for the views of individuals would, according 
 to the Instruction, be an intolerable abuse. 
 
 Such, in our opinion, is the order of ideas by which the question 
 of policy in Catholic action is to be judged. Even Catholics, and 
 their associations, can prefer one form of government rather than 
 another ; but let them not say that this preference is that of the 
 Church. 
 
 History relates of Galileo that he was perfectly free to maintain 
 and defend his system, but not to do so as a doctrine of the Church. 
 
 Hence, Antoine concludes:—“ So much being granted, it 
 follows that Democracy, in its chief essential meaning, ought to 
 be accepted by all Catholics, because it comes from the essence 
 of the Gospel, and is an efficacious means of promoting concord, 
 while, in its secondary or accidental—that is, political—sense, it 
 can be lawfully accepted or rejected without giving any serious 
 motive of discord among Catholics.” 
 
 Section XII. —The Foundations of Social Life. 
 
 Life flourishes in society by the exercise of various functions 
 of the social organs. In proportion to the vigour and spontaneity 
 of these functions, civil life becomes more flourishing, and more 
 fruitful of good. But these functions arise from free and rational 
 elements, which are not moved by blind necessity, but by delibera¬ 
 tion. Now, the power that acts on the will is duty. Therefore, 
 a deep sense of morality is at the root of social functions—that 
 morality which dictates to man his social duties. The morality 
 of the individuals who compose society is, therefore, the first 
 foundation of its life. 
 
 Morality binds man to an authority above man—to God. The 
 relations that man has with God require religion. Without 
 religion it is absurd to speak of morality. Therefore, religion 
 is also a foundation of the social life. 
 
 Christianity, that is, Catholicism, which has awakened in 
 individuals the consciousness of social duties—which has disposed 
 minds to sacrifice, to self-denial, to the practice of justice and 
 charity—has contributed wonderfully to the life of society, and 
 may well be declared its most solid foundation. Let us hear 
 Weiss. “ The social question,” he says, “ will give very little 
 trouble from the day in which the foundations of social order— 
 mercy, justice, and fidelity—will again be safe, or, as the noble 
 Le Play used to say, when the Ten Commandments will again 
 become the fundamental laws of our public life. But no one 
 can deny that this basis will never be soundly and durably 
 
JUSTICE AND CHARITY 
 
 23 
 
 established, so as to support the whole world, if religion is not 
 the corner-stone, and if the edifice is not placed in the closest 
 union with the Church.” 
 
 Section XIII.— Justice and Charity. 
 
 Reason, with which man is endowed, places between him 
 and creatures devoid of it so great a difference that many expres¬ 
 sions may.be applied to him which could not be at all applied to 
 them. Who, for example, would say that-a plant owns its branch, 
 or that the piece of bread which a dog is eating belongs to it ? 
 No one, except by figurative language. 
 
 Man was created with a certain degree of reality and another 
 of potentiality. 
 
 If we mentally analyse the individual man, and observe the 
 elements of his composition, we have material for a proposition 
 of identity—man is the subject, and the sum of the elements the 
 attribute. Now, that the judgment may be exact, it is proper, 
 it is necessary, that the attribute should include not only the 
 real components, but also the potential ones, not because these 
 latter have to-day any value of use, but because they are the 
 basis of a value that man is called to acquire by the exercise of his 
 activity. Every individual man, therefore, is equal to his reality 
 plus his potentiality. He has a right to keep the former; he 
 has a right to develop the latter. 
 
 This consideration shows us man as if occupying here some 
 ground on which he has not built, but on which he has a good right 
 to build : a moral ground, which, by being a consequence of his 
 rational nature, is naturally his own, no less than his own real 
 individuality. 
 
 The individual lives, as it were, in a sphere by himself. Every 
 man has his own sphere. 
 
 The development of each man in his own sphere is, we say, 
 just, or we call it justice. 
 
 By just we mean that which goes well, evenly, smoothly, as 
 on a level. And it is precisely a levelling of human beings, 
 making account of their reality and potentiality', that is called 
 justice. 
 
 St. Thomas says, Dicuntur quce cequantur justari (those things 
 which are made equal are said to be made just). And common 
 speech confirms it: two music strings that give the same sound 
 are said to be in just accord. 
 
 In the social body it is the wish of nature that all men should 
 exist, and that everyone should exist with his own real and poten¬ 
 tial personality, everyone in a space sufficiently commodious 
 that his natural activity may develop itself for his own perfection. 
 
 If men stand at their posts, if they respect the spheres of those 
 with whom they live, they observe justice, and are just. 
 
24 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 “ Here (in society),” says Weiss, “ every member has his post 
 fixed, which he cannot abandon ; everyone has his duty assigned, 
 to which he should not be unfaithful; everyone has his limit, 
 which he cannot cross without prejudice to others and disadvantage 
 to himself; but everyone has his right secured, to which no one, 
 not even the whole community, can bring detriment.” 
 
 If one quits his post, and, desirous of greater expansion, invades 
 the space that naturally belongs to another, he violates the right 
 of another, and is said to be unjust. 
 
 Hence, in our view, justice, objectively considered, is the 
 permanence of the individual within himself, or within the circle 
 of his own individuality ; considered as a commutative virtue, 
 it is the respect that each individual owes to the individuality of 
 another. 
 
 So much being granted, it is understood how justice is that chain 
 which nature has appointed to bind men together for the forma¬ 
 tion of the social body, or, in short, that it is the cohesive force 
 of the social molecules. 
 
 Let no one fear that this idea presents justice to us excessively 
 or solely pronounced in favour of the individual. Such would 
 be a very one-sided view. Consider that the individual who 
 shuts himself up altogether in himself separates from others; 
 or that from the very idea of justice there flows a right and a 
 duty—a right to make one’s own one’s own, and a duty to respect 
 the rights of others. 
 
 Moreover, in the sphere of individual potentiality, which we 
 wish to see safe and respected, we recognise the right of man 
 not to be prevented from the observance of his social duties. 
 And if these are the proximate bonds of the social body, justice 
 is as it were the nervous system. 
 
 In other words, justice means every man at his post. That 
 every individual should remain at his post is a right and a duty. 
 Because, if he is removed from it, it is also justice that strictly 
 wishes his return or restoration. Between man and man, justice, 
 called commutative, stands as a guardian or an avenger, com¬ 
 manding that everyone should retain his right to equality. 
 
 Hence it is seen how great is the extent of justice. It reaches 
 as far as man reaches, both physically and morally. To confine 
 it to the economic man, and to the relations that exist on economic 
 grounds between man and man, is to form but a poor idea of it. 
 Nor is the idea of it full or complete if it is not required between 
 moral man and moral man. 
 
 The analysis of the conditions in which the right of the 
 individual is found and developed is not finished. We must 
 continue it. It is proper to observe that man has before him 
 not only the individual, but, what is much more important, civil 
 society in general. This can bring great advantage or injury 
 to human personality. 
 
 Now, we know that society exists by an ordinance of nature, 
 
JUSTICE AND CHAEITY 
 
 25 
 
 and exists in favour of the individual. Hence the existence of 
 natural relations between the individual and the social body, 
 of which he is a part. The sum of these relations constitutes 
 social justice. 
 
 Society exists in favour of individuals, but it also exists by the 
 co-operation of these same individuals. Thus, two series of 
 relations : some go from individuals to the social body, others 
 from the latter to the former. Individuals have the two-fold 
 right of expecting from the social body a defence of their own 
 personality and an increase of their own wellbeing. It is in this 
 two-fold right, of which the individuals the subject and society 
 the term, that social distributive justice consists. 
 
 Society has a right that the individuals who compose it should 
 contribute to its existence, preservation, and prosperity with 
 that share of real and personal sacrifice which is indispensable, 
 that it may promote the welfare of the individuals themselves. 
 This right is called social contributive or legal justice. 
 
 Though all this is true, it is at the same time clear that the 
 violation of individual justice is not the only cause that can 
 displace man from his sphere—that can deprive him of the 
 exercise of his rights and of a participation in natural goods. 
 No ; other forces act on man, weary him, and cast him down. 
 
 His own passions, indulged beyond what is lawful, are the first 
 cause of many losses, and often of total ruin, for the individual. 
 Then, nature does not always give us its works perfect, and often 
 the real man does not arrive at that degree which, in the intention 
 of nature itself, would be required for the development of his 
 potentiality. Often in the struggle for this development the 
 real succumbs by collision with an insurmountable obstacle. 
 All these occurrences are, more or less, misfortunes. 
 
 Then—I mean when misfortunes strike the individual—shall 
 he be deprived of that to which natural justice gives him a right ? 
 
 A higher, a broader justice will then sustain him, and it is the 
 justice of Divine Providence. 
 
 Reason teaches us that, if the distribution of natural goods 
 is to be made according to mutual duties and rights, therefore 
 those goods have a general destination, from which even the 
 distribution of individual justice cannot withdraw them ; and it 
 is the use of them for the wants of all mankind. This justice, 
 in a broad sense, requires that he who holds his own by a strict 
 right, using this same strict right, should give thereof to him 
 who for any reason is deprived of what is needful, and give in pro¬ 
 portion not only to the want of his neighbour, but to the extent 
 of his own superabundance. This justice, which does not grant 
 to the miserable a strict right or claim, is what is called by the 
 sweet name of charity. 
 
 We see, therefore, how it is reserved for charity to fill up the 
 voids that justice leaves incomplete—to give the finishing strokes 
 to the work. It is thus understood that, for the solution of the 
 
26 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 social question, we ought to come to it first with justice and then, 
 with charity. 
 
 Where justice is called for, justice ought to be done. Where 
 strict justice does not come in, let charity take its place. Hence, 
 the function of charity is supplementary. 
 
 While saying so, we do not at all mean to lessen the value of 
 the noblest of Christian virtues (charity), nor in any way to 
 contradict the Pontiff, who calls it a summary law of the whole 
 Gospel. 
 
 Charity consists essentially in a movement of the heart towards 
 a fellow-being, whom one wishes to help. Justice itself consists 
 in a bending of the will towards the neighbour. The title, which 
 is more strict in justice than in charity, shows the species of the 
 two acts ; but the greater obligation of justice does not take away 
 the obligation of charity. Each fulfils a function indispensable 
 for the right progress of the social body, and fulfils it by the will 
 of God, who will call men to account for their observance of both. 
 
 Notwithstanding the character of strict obligation that is found 
 in justice, there is nothing to prevent a spontaneous motion 
 from arising in the will by the light of conscience, and leading to 
 the performance of an act that justice commands. Then every¬ 
 one sees that account ought to be made of that spontaneity 
 which appears in a good soul, and logically precedes the obliga¬ 
 tion of justice. 
 
 A soul eminently Christian always feels in itself those sweet 
 and salutary emotions. Behold why and in what sense Leo XIII. 
 called charity a compendium of the whole gospel. For the rest, 
 what we maintain somewhat diffusely might be clearly recalled 
 even by the words of the same Pontiff in the encyclical Graves 
 de communi :—“ The law of mutual charity, which is, as it were, 
 the perfection of that of justice, imposes the obligation, not only 
 of giving to everyone his own and of invading the rights of none, 
 but also of favouring one another, not only in word and in tongue, 
 but in deed and in truth ” (1 John iii., 18). Nor do we think 
 that he wished the words of St. Paul to be understood in any 
 other sense : Love is the fulfilling of the law (Romans xiii., 10). 5 
 
 Themes for Development. —Duty of men to live in society, to perform 
 works of common utility. How the religious orders, &c., can defend them¬ 
 selves with regard to this duty. What was the primitive manner of living 
 in the human family ; if the state of barbarism., dreamt of by some 
 positivists, can be maintained ?—Individual liberty cannot be the only 
 law or ruling cause of social conditions—Explain, according to what we have 
 said, the first point of the Democratic Christian Programme: “ We wish 
 
 the gradual organisation of society in corporate, autonomous, general, 
 official associations. Let all the citizens belonging to the same business 
 or to groups of analogous occupations unite together, preserving individually 
 their proper function (as masters, managers, workmen, apprentices) in order to 
 discuss and regulate their reciprocal relations, and to safeguard their common 
 interests. We, therefore, ask that the State and all minor public bodies 
 should favour in every manner this tendency to corporate organisation. 
 
SOCIAL ELEMENTS 
 
 27 
 
 especially by giving full liberty and legal recognition to those trade and 
 professional unions which, under the action of private initiative, will be 
 formed ” —Rural unions to be formed in the same way for the benefit of 
 the farming classes : describe their functions—Give a sketch of the statutes 
 of a rural union—History tells of the causes by which the old guilds 
 came to ruin: some causes were intrinsic, because such bodies did not 
 know how to renovate themselves on the arrival of new times and new 
 circumstances ; other causes were extrinsic, and of a political order— 
 Various classes of workingmen ; duty in the contract of labour ; conduct to 
 be observed in case of a strike—The abandonment of Christian principles 
 leads to forgetfulness of social duties, and, therefore, to the injury of society. 
 
 ■ 4 * 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 CLEAR IDEAS. 
 
 Section I.— Social Elements. 
 
 If we examine carefully the social body, we ought to arrive 
 at the elements of which it is composed. Taken altogether, 
 they would be called, in scholastic language, the material cause 
 of society. These elements are not all of one kind ; there are 
 more complex ones and less complex ones, which are made up 
 of simple ones, and admit of analysis down to the most simple 
 or the primary. 
 
 Some complex ones are proximate or immediate compounds; 
 others, remote or mediate. Just as in a material body, there are 
 molecules and atoms. 
 
 To examine these elements one by one is a vital part of our study. 
 
 Section II.— Man. 
 
 The decomposition of the social body gives us human individuals 
 as the ultimate and simplest elements. 
 
 To form a just idea of a human person is, above all, necessary 
 for the study of social functions, because, as we shall see, the good 
 of the individual is the object of civil society. 
 
 What then is a human person ? There is the liberal idea, 
 and the Christian idea, of a human person. Let us consider both. 
 
 Section III.— The Human Person : Liberal Idea. 
 
 Rationalistic philosophy does not concern itself ver}^ much 
 about the origin of man. It does not believe that it is bound 
 to lose time on such a subject. At most, it says that he came 
 from nature—a saying that offends the nerves of no one, not even 
 of those who have them most sensitive at the sound of the word 
 God. 
 
 Charles Darwin and his followers apply to the origin of man 
 the system of the transformation of species, which places us in 
 our infant days on the breast of an ape or a baboon. And 
 Darwinism at present enjoys much favour in the liberal camp. 
 
28 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 As a fact, materialists see in man an animal perfected, which 
 lives on earth for a certain number of years, overwhelmed with 
 troubles, cheered by few joys, urged on by instincts that it cannot 
 resist, and at last vanishing like the flame of a lamp that is 
 extinguished. 
 
 The spiritualists give the body a soul, but they do not raise 
 it, at least in its final state, above matter. They do not wish it 
 to be the queen, but the slave of the body. 
 
 The socialists lower still more the idea of man. They see in 
 him a machine endowed with the double power of producing 
 and consuming. The steam that puts the machine in motion 
 is pleasure. Production costs fatigue, but it is endured, because 
 the thing produced will satisfy wants—will procure pleasures. 
 
 These are the liberal ideas about man, which have all a common 
 element, and it is this : man has on earth his proper end or ideal; 
 it consists in enjoying life. 
 
 The riddle of life is not explained by the socialists, and if any¬ 
 one wishes to know something more about it from them, they 
 answer majestically, Nay ! 
 
 These modes of considering man do not make, at least in 
 practical life, any difference between him and the brute. Action 
 certainly ought to be directed according to an end : identity 
 of end implies identity of life and conduct. 
 
 By way of conclusion, this is the place to observe :— 
 
 1. Human personality, thus imagined, is degraded ; nor could 
 we know—except perhaps through custom—by what title it 
 might be called human. It is easy to recognise in man something 
 that is not in the brute ; but if this something has not a last end 
 that calls to itself the whole man, with a right to govern him, 
 it ought at least to serve for the attainment of a last end—which, 
 if it is common to man and beast, gives no reason to suppose 
 any superiority in human over beastly life. Both, man and beast, 
 die, and they are only matter. 
 
 2. Man thus imagined, a moral law for him can no longer be 
 imagined. On what could it rest ? A moral law that does not 
 lead me to my last end is an absurdity ; and if my last end is here, 
 is to enjoy life, that which brings me to this enjoyment is moral; 
 that which brings me to the greatest enjoyment is most moral. 
 
 3. It is absurd to recognise good and bad tendencies in man. 
 Nothing can be more clear. What pleases is good, what dis¬ 
 pleases is bad. How can there be any bad tendencies in man ? 
 And how can it be said that there are instincts or propensities 
 to do evil ? Absurd notions ! All the inclinations of man are 
 good. They are his laws. They are like the reins that nature 
 laid on the back of the first man before letting him take his course, 
 so that they might keep him from breaking his neck. Behold 
 man under the government of nature ! To withdraw him from 
 this government is to spoil what has been well done, is to take 
 the horse out of the hands of its proper driver, is to ruin it. And 
 
THE HUMAN PERSON; LIBERAL IDEA 
 
 29 
 
 this is precisely what, according to Rousseau, happened to man 
 by the fault of society, which was the cause of all his misfortunes. 
 
 4. From the idea set forth regarding man it follows that every 
 man is all for himself. If here on earth, where life is soon finished, 
 I have my end, I have a duty and a right to adopt the means 
 for attaining it. To think of my feilowman is to act contrary 
 to my own interest, it is to rob myself, it is to neglect my end. 
 Behold individualism, which makes every man believe himself 
 the whole world ! Behold selfishness, the lord of man’s life ! 
 Duties of justice and charity go thus to ruin, and all by the force 
 of logic ! On this subject the Supreme Pontiff lately wrote 
 with a masterly pen :—“ If man breaks the chains that bind him 
 to God, the absolute and universal legislator and judge, there 
 is nothing left but an appearance of moral law, purely civil, or, 
 as it is said, independent, which, prescinding from the eternal 
 reason and the divine precepts, leads inevitably to the final and 
 fatal consequence of making man a law for himself. He, incapable 
 of rising on the wings of Christian hope to heavenly goods, will 
 seek only earthly food in the enjoyments of life—sharpening the 
 thirst for pleasures, the desire of riches, and a greed for rapid 
 and immediate gains, without regard to justice.” {Lei. Ap., 
 19. 3.’02.) 
 
 Hence comes the so-called materialistic idea of history, which— 
 although not expressed by all in the same manner—is in substance 
 that the life of mankind is a great process of evolution. This 
 is accomplished under the influence of economic necessities, and 
 of the tendencies that man has to the pleasures of life. Every 
 act of man has for its reason an economic wrant. To labour and 
 to produce, and to produce in order to find pleasures 1 The very 
 existence of man in society has its foundation in production and 
 in the exchange of products. Thus waites Engel:—“ The ultim ate 
 causes of every social variation and every political revolution 
 are to be sought, not in the heads of men, but in changes of the 
 manner of production, in changes of the methods of barter ; 
 not in the philosophy, but in the economy of a preceding age.” 
 
 This theory is pleasing to the socialists, and is perhaps the only 
 principle that they have not yet abandoned ; because, according 
 to them, morals and religions are things which, going with the 
 stream of ages, can be excused for a time, or can well enough 
 serve in want of better. But the day will come—that of perfect 
 (and, as they say, stable) evolution—when these poetic legends 
 will fall to the ground, without being thrown down. All this 
 by the force of events, for such legends can be done without. 
 
 The misfortune is that this theory is nothing but—a 
 theory ! 
 
 A calm study of the world and of man convinces us of the 
 government of Divine Providence, of the existence of a free and 
 immortal soul in man, and of the duties that man owes to God, 
 to himself, and to his feilowman. 
 
30 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Section IV.— The Human Person : Christian Idea. 
 
 Very differently do we Christians think of man; and facts, 
 far from disproving, confirm our ideas. 
 
 We study the origin of man, and we cannot place it anywhere 
 but in God, from whose hands, by creation, he came forth good, 
 as much so and more than some of our physicists think, and the 
 Scripture also says that God made man right—fecit hominem 
 rectum. We admit, however, that there was a fall, by which 
 human nature was vitiated. Hence those evil tendencies, which, 
 in our view, are an explanation of so many individual and social 
 disorders. 
 
 In point of fact, we recognise man as composed of soul and 
 body. The soul is in him as the principle of all life and operation. 
 It bears the responsibility of good and evil. 
 
 We recognise in man a warfare between the superior and the 
 inferior part. In this warfare the nobler part can and should 
 conquer. 
 
 Created by the Almighty, man must have been, like every other 
 creature, intended by God Himself for an end. 
 
 On the other hand, the life of man here on earth shows itself 
 insufficient to be his last end. It is wanting in goods, defective 
 in conditions, restricted in limits. It lasts only a few years, and 
 then vanishes : the brilliant light sinks into the grave. Man, 
 at the close of his days, is an incomplete being. Human life has 
 here too many and too evident marks of its transitory character. 
 It is impossible that God should have made man only for this life. 
 We must look for something beyond this world that may be called 
 a life truly worthy of man. 
 
 Behold ! Reason and religion tell us that the soul cannot perish 
 with the body, after whose death it must find an immortal life. 
 
 It being always the same individual who lives in this life and 
 in the other, there cannot be two last ends. There must be only 
 one; and the present life must be a preparation for the future 
 life, mortal man for the immortal man. 
 
 Moreover, man has an advantage over other worldly beings 
 by the gift of liberty, and his actions are the offspring of intelli¬ 
 gence and will. Is he free to direct them to an object that is not 
 his last end ? It is a contradiction. Therefore, it is the will 
 of God that he should subordinate his actions to the attainment 
 of his last end. Thus the future life appears as the moderating 
 rule of everything in the present life. 
 
 Therefore, eternal life is a reward. If there is a reward given 
 to him who does good, there ought to be a punishment for him 
 who does evil. And there ought to be a judgment, that the 
 reward may be bestowed and the punishment inflicted. All 
 these are things that we know well by faith. 
 
DUTIES AND RIGHTS 
 
 31 
 
 From this mode of regarding man, several consequences 
 follow:— 
 
 1. His personality. Man in our view is a being full, perfect, 
 endowed with what is necessary for the attainment of his end, 
 and, in this way, independent. A servant of God, he is the 
 master of himself. The young student need not be reminded 
 by us that, before Christianity, very little value was set on the 
 personality of a human individual. If he possessed something, 
 he was worth something; if he possessed much, he was worth 
 much; if his country had need of him and laid hold of him for 
 some enterprise, he was a man that counted. But the individual 
 alone, the man alone, despoiled of his belongings, was little better 
 than nothing : he was a thing. It is not for nothing that the 
 New Testament speaks so often of the liberty and independence 
 of man. In our times, when some of the clouds rise, we see again 
 the same elimination of human personality. The love of caste 
 is still so prevalent in some regions that it does not permit one 
 man to walk with another whose name is not emblazoned. The 
 State becomes the dispenser of individual rights, which it often 
 violates. The socialists wish to bring us down to zero, delivering 
 us, like a great heap of sand, into the hands of the State. 
 
 2. His dignity. For he is placed in an order of beings essen¬ 
 tially superior to beasts. Faith exalts much more the nobility 
 of man, showing him as destined for a supernatural end and 
 endowed by grace with means for its attainment. 
 
 3. That he is during the present life in a state of transition, 
 or rather of labour—a labour that ought to be regulated and judged 
 from the point of view of eternal life, in which he will reap all 
 its best fruits. 
 
 4. That the last end being rest, satisfaction, enjoyment, man 
 cannot be found perfectly happy on earth. He will be so in the 
 other life, if he has merited it here. 
 
 5. The goods, therefore, that man can enjoy here below are 
 not an end for him, but a means to an end. This mode of valuing 
 the goods of time differs essentially from that of the material 
 sociologists, for whom these goods are everything. What a 
 wretched creature would man thus be ! 
 
 6. That man ought to be subject to laws, which direct him in 
 such a way that by his conduct he may arrive at his last end. 
 And here come the duties and the rights of man, about which 
 some special words have to be plainly spoken. 
 
 Section Y.—Duties and Rights. 
 
 We must set out from the creature. Now, what is a creature ? 
 It is a being that God has placed in existence, destining it for an 
 end, which in the mind and will of God it should attain. 
 
 The means of travelling to this end, God Himself should have 
 
32 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 given to the creature. To deny this would be to affirm that God 
 wishes it to go thither when there is no road. The road ought 
 to be there; and it certainly is there. The journey is made 
 in different modes, according to the qualities of the creature. 
 
 If the creature is blind, without a knowledge of its acts, without 
 a consciousness of its end, it runs along the road blindly, like 
 an engine on the rails. The hand of God, which brought it into 
 existence, is its continual guide to the attainment of its end* 
 
 If the creature is intelligent, and therefore free, the Creator 
 ought not to guide it with an iron hand, if He would not destroy 
 its nature. The Creator then guides it by means of laws, which 
 from on high throw light on the road, and show it the necessity 
 of travelling thereby in order to reach its end. 
 
 On the fact of a blind creature being drawn by the hand of God 
 to its end, reasoning is not called for. Nothing remains but 
 to admire the omnipotence of God, which is manifested in this 
 wonderful fact. 
 
 Concerning a creature that is called to accomplish its mission 
 rationally and freely, we must proceed in a different manner. 
 It, knowing itself to be a creature of God, feels that it belongs to 
 Him. It knows that to attain the end for which the Creator 
 gave it existence is the full reason of its being. Free in its acts, 
 it does not feel itself free from the will of its Author. It feels that 
 if it can act against Him physically, it cannot do so morally. 
 Behold the sentiment of duty at work in it! 
 
 The duty of attaining its end is natural to it, because it comes 
 from the fact of its existence. This duty gives rise to another : 
 that of taking the road that leads to its proper end. 
 
 Here we have a complex duty : it is developed in many other 
 duties, which the law points out on the road. 
 
 We said above that the blind creature certainly attains its 
 end, and this certainty we derived from the will of the Creator, 
 whom nothing can resist. Having placed the creature in existence 
 for an end, it is absurd to suppose that He would barricade the 
 road thereto. 
 
 This arises from the very nature of God, from the very reasons 
 of creation, previously to every condition of a creature. The same 
 holds good of an intelligent and free creature : for it also, by the 
 will of its Author, the road ought to be unobstructed. 
 
 The rational creature can, therefore, justly require means 
 for the attainment of its end, in a word, for the fulfilment of its 
 duties. This exigency is called a right, and may be defined as 
 that lawful claim which a rational creature has for the use of means 
 leading to an end. 
 
 We move on. The right is vivified by passing into action : 
 a work is the exercise of right. But here a question arises : 
 are there no limits to the exercise of one’s rights ? To answer, 
 we must dwell for a little on the idea of right, and consider its 
 entity and extent. 
 
THE DUTIES OF MAN 
 
 33 
 
 The former is its existence—the circuit within which its action 
 can be developed : this cannot suffer diminution of any kind. 
 The latter has limits. We must, however, distinguish right 
 from right. 
 
 First, there is a perfect right. It consists in the use of those 
 goods which are indispensable to man for the attainment of his 
 proper end. To admit limits to the exercise of this right is to 
 violate the course that God has appointed. There is also an 
 imperfect right, and it consists in the use of those means which, 
 wffiile efficacious for the attainment of the last end, are not neces¬ 
 sary or indispensable. These certainly » admit of limitations, 
 when coming into contact with the development of other rights. 
 Such may be :— 
 
 1. The proper rights of other men. All men have the same 
 rights. To give complete development to all is impossible. A 
 just measure should be assigned to each. 
 
 2. Rights of the same individual, but of a superior order. Thus 
 the perfection of the body cannot be extended so far as to be 
 prejudicial to the perfection of the soul. 
 
 3. Rights of civil society. Society derives its rights from its 
 duty of promoting the common good. These rights are superior 
 to individual rights. 
 
 Section YI.—The Duties of Man. 
 
 The idea of a creature without destination to an end is absurd. 
 It is also absurd that a free creature should not subordinate 
 its actions to its end. Actions are, as it were, the creatures of 
 an intelligent creature. They ought, therefore, to have their end, 
 which can be no other than that of the creature itself. Hence 
 the duty of man so to direct his actions that they may be referred 
 to the attainment of his last end. Behold how the idea of duty 
 follows from the nature of man ! 
 
 And this idea is broad: it denotes that there are as many 
 duties as there are means necessary for the attainment of the 
 end. “ That anything has to be done, arises from the necessity 
 of some end. Hence it is manifest that it is of the nature of a 
 precept to imply order to an end, inasmuch as that is commanded 
 which is necessary or expedient to an end. But it happens 
 that to an end many means are necessary or expedient. And 
 thus there may be various precepts regarding various things, 
 inasmuch as they are directed to one end.” ( S . Thom, la 2ae, 
 q. 99.) 
 
 A creature that attains its end has no longer reason to desire 
 anything : it is perfect. Man, who reasons, ought therefore 
 to endeavour to attain his end, or to be perfect. 
 
 Considering himself, as in a mirror, man knows that he will be 
 perfect when he fulfils his duties :— 
 
 Towards God .—By reason man knows that there is a God, 
 
 c 
 
34 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 liis Creator and Preserver, to whom he should render a pleasing 
 service with all his strength and during his whole life. This is 
 the basis of natural religion, which appears in the duty of prayer, 
 when man recognises the Divine greatness and his own weakness 
 or nothingness—in the duty of dedicating some time to the 
 divine worship—in the duty of complying with the divine will 
 where it is manifest. But it is proved that the will of God has been 
 manifested by revelation, which is, as it were, incarnate in the 
 Catholic Church. It is, therefore, a duty of man to observe the 
 precepts of the Church. 
 
 Towards Himself. —Man, composed of body and soul, is troubled 
 with various inclinations, which often urge him to incompatible 
 goods. In this struggle, the soul, as the nobler part, ought to 
 obtain the victory. Conti remarked that man is like a sculptor, 
 who makes of himself his own statue. It is also a duty of man 
 to live : life is a trust confided to him, which, like a faithful 
 soldier, he cannot abandon. There is only one absolute master 
 of his life—namely, God. 
 
 Towards his Neighbour. —Every man has a right to tend to his 
 end, using earthly goods for this purpose. Respect for this right 
 is shown in a number of duties that each individual owes to his 
 fellow-men. 
 
 Towards Society and towards his Country. —Although the views 
 of man should be turned towards eternity, where his last end is 
 found, yet the inclinations that he has to five here in human 
 society tell him clearly that it is the will of the Creator that he 
 should, by means of society, arrive at his end. This society 
 will be a true society when it leads men most easily towards their 
 end. And whose business is it to make it such, if not that of the 
 individuals who compose it ? They have, therefore, social duties. 
 We have already spoken of them. Society, as we shall see, is 
 made up of particular societies, which are States. And this by 
 the will of the Most High. These particular societies are ordained 
 for the same object—the perfection of the individual, who then 
 feels towards them a warmer, a more special love. Behold the 
 duties towards the State, the nation, the country that is one’s 
 home ! 
 
 Among the duties of man, we must also place that of labour. 
 Yes, every man, by the very fact that he is a man, is bound to 
 labour. It is proved thus.—Nature has placed man in the midst 
 of a world of good things, but such good things that, if labour 
 is not spent upon them, they cannot satisfy his wants. We 
 have here a general destination, that of all worldly goods for the 
 service of man, and a general necessity, that labour should be 
 spent on these goods, so that they may answer their purpose. 
 
 Why should any one among us withdraw from these conditions, 
 and enjoy the fruits of another’s labour ? It was not to one 
 man alone, but to every man, that God said, In the sweat of thy 
 face shalt thou eat bread . St. Paul gave an example of untiring 
 
THE RIGHTS OF MAN 
 
 35 
 
 labour to the Thessalonians, and accompanied it with a precept 
 terrible for the slothful: If any man will not work , neither let him 
 eat. 
 
 And this duty every man has towards God, who made labour 
 a precept; towards himself, on account of the duty of preserving 
 his life ; and towards society, because labour is a social ordinance. 
 In our view, therefore, the conduct of any one who leads an idle 
 and unprofitable life is indefensible. 
 
 Section VII. —The Rights of Man. 
 
 We have given the name of right to the lawful power of using 
 anything. Thus understood, the idea of right is clearly distinct 
 from that of duty. To be bound to do anything is a step farther 
 forward than to be able to do it; we speak of juridical, not of 
 physical power. We have seen that, for an intelligent creature, 
 the last end is the root of duties. It is equally true that that end 
 furnishes the creature with the right or power of using the means 
 that conduce to the end. The end is proposed to the creature 
 by God ; in God, therefore, right finds its root and its strength. 
 
 The end of man being in the future life, he has in the present 
 life the practice of duties and the use of rights. Of the rights of 
 man we must make a short review, keeping in mind what we have 
 already said of man. 
 
 1. The right to his own dignity. Man ought to go forward 
 to his end, preserving that personal dignity which has been 
 bestowed on him by his Author. To say the contrary is to say 
 that God wishes man undone, denaturalised, in order that he may 
 be worthy of his end: a blasphemy, as everyone sees, against 
 faith and reason. Therefore man has a right that no power can 
 subject him to a condition of life that is unworthy of his dignity 
 as a rational creature, as a Christian creature. 
 
 Let us hear the Pope. “ No one can with impunity violate 
 the dignity of man, which God Himself treats with great respect, 
 nor obstruct the way to that perfection which is ordained for the 
 acquisition of eternal life. And, on the other hand, man cannot, 
 even by his own free choice, renounce treatment according to his 
 nature and give up his soul to servitude; because there is not 
 question here of rights whose exercise is free, but of duties towards 
 God, which are absolutely inviolable.” (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 2. The right of fulfilling the duties that bind him to God—to 
 perfect his mind with the knowledge of truth, as is required 
 that he may make himself worthy of his last end, and capable of 
 performing here on earth that function which God has assigned 
 him. 
 
 3. A right to the use of the things of this world in the mode 
 and measure that are required by his dignity as man and by a 
 co-ordination of human actions to the attainment of the last end. 
 
36 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Man, making use of earthly things, has a right to satisfy his many 
 wants; and this right he holds from his Creator, who, in the 
 beginning of time, subjected the earth to him and constituted 
 him its king. Now, man has need of bread to restore his strength, 
 as well as of clothing, and a roof to defend him from the injuries 
 of the weather and of wild beasts. All these requirements are 
 included in the expression, Tie must live. 
 
 Well, everyone knows that there are many ways of living ; 
 between high living and low living there is an immense number 
 of degrees. To what kind of living has man a right ? To a living 
 that is worthy of him, and that corresponds to the exercise of 
 his human rights. 
 
 Curci says : “ Human bread means that he (the workingman) 
 should have wholesome and sufficient food, clothing according 
 to his station in the city—because I now speak only of artisans— 
 and all that not only for himself, but also for his family, which, 
 keeping within moderate limits, we may suppose to consist of 
 a wife and two little children.” (Hi un Socialismo Cristiano , p. 109.) 
 
 4. A right to labour. This is an expression with which much 
 noise has been made through the loud trumpet of the socialists. 
 What do we say ? Does there exist in man, and because he is 
 man, a right to labour ? 
 
 Let us lay down two propositions, which are beyond all con¬ 
 troversy. First, every man has a right to live, and, therefore, 
 to the use of those means without which he cannot live. Second, 
 every man has a duty to labour : labour is the condition, the 
 natural title for the use of the means that are necessary for life. 
 We may, therefore, draw the conclusion that, as man has a right 
 to live, and as labour is an indispensable condition of life, therefore 
 he has a right to labour. 
 
 But has every unemployed man a right to contend with his 
 brother, to compel his neighbour to give him work ? Slowly! 
 Let us beware of hasty steps. The simple argument that we have 
 used to show the right to labour will clear the way to know on 
 whom the relative duty rests. 
 
 In regard to whom does man possess the right to life ? Is it 
 the person who is by nature obliged to give him food, &c. ? No, 
 certainly. This burden God has placed on mankind. He has 
 entrusted the material world to mankind in order that, being 
 properly worked, it may give an abundance of fruits to men 
 living in civil society. These are the conditions of life for every 
 man. Every man, therefore, has a right to labour ; but his claim 
 falls on society. In other words, man has a right that society 
 should be so ordered that there may be labour for him, and, by 
 means of labour, a support or a living. 
 
 We willingly admit that the duty, on the part of society, of 
 maintaining these conditions of life cannot be fulfilled without 
 the fulfilment of the duty of labour, which is incumbent on those 
 who are able for it. On the other hand, we shall have occasion 
 
THE EQUALITY OF MEN 
 
 37 
 
 to show that the rich have a social duty to traffic in their posses¬ 
 sions. We say a social duty : a duty of whose fulfilment society, 
 and not a private individual, has a right to demand an account, 
 and, in case of necessity, to enforce compliance. 6 
 
 Section VIII.— The Equality of Men. 
 
 God is the absolute Master of all things. Every mastership 
 therefore, even the least over the least of creatures, can be 
 delegated or granted only by God. 
 
 Man, by means of the rights that God has granted him, has also 
 a certain mastership over the things that surround him. Now, 
 the question is, have all men the same rights ? To clear up this 
 question, we must keep in mind the idea that we have formed 
 of right. As we have said, right is the lawful power of using 
 anything. 
 
 Everything is used for an end. Whoever goes to an end has a 
 mission, and we may regard the source of this mission as the 
 root of right. Equality of roots implies equality of rights. If, 
 accordingly, we turn to human nature, as it is equal for all man¬ 
 kind, nobody can deny that all mankind have the same natural 
 rights. 
 
 But from an equality of nature we cannot argue to an equality 
 of the acts in which nature is revealed. And facts prove that 
 if all mankind have the same nature, not all have therefore the 
 same mode of existence. One is of a low, another of a high, 
 stature ; one is of a dull, another of a lively, genius ; one has a 
 strong tendency to this object, another to that object. 
 
 These are facts, evident and natural. Now, if God places 
 a fact, His voice sounds solemnly in that fact; and the necessary 
 consequences of theTact are no less an expression of the divine will. 
 
 Our Bishop, Monsignor Bandi, reasons on this matter as 
 follows :— 
 
 “ Is there any need to spend words in showing that not all 
 men have the same faculties in the same measure ? Facts prove 
 it. One man is of quick, another of slow, genius. This man’s 
 memory is strong ; that man’s weak. Titus finds much pleasure 
 in mathematics ; Sempronius holds them in abhorrence. Dante 
 delights in poetry; our Perosi in music. Even in physical 
 qualities, how many differences ! One man is a giant, another 
 a dwarf. This man is most dexterous, that man most awkward. 
 One man is most quick at work, but rough ; another is slow, 
 but accurate ; a third cannot succeed at all. 
 
 “ Now, everybody knows that the faculties of man are given 
 by nature. Nature, therefore, intends an inequality among 
 men. To remove it from the world is an impossibility, for every 
 attempt against the nature of things fails. The said inequality 
 turns to the advantage not only of individuals, but of civil 
 society; because social life has need of various aptitudes and 
 
38 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 occupations, and the chief motive that impels men to engage in 
 such occupations is the disparity of their states. ( Rerum nov.) 
 
 “ Let us beware, therefore, of generalising too much on the 
 Gospel doctrine, all men are equal. Logic and facts would be 
 against us. Men have indeed a substantial and most noble 
 equality ; but it is realised in the natural fact of a most varied 
 inequality. The equality ought not to be exaggerated at the cost 
 of the inequality ; nor the latter at the cost of the former. The 
 pagan world forgot the natural equality, it saw nothing in men 
 but inequality, and it created the opprobrium of slavery, which, 
 blind to human dignity, treated men as mere chattels. Jesus 
 Christ came. By His doctrine He threw light on the dignity 
 of all men; and, for its defence, He consigned it to the keeping 
 of His Church. And the Church has always raised her voice 
 against those who degrade and oppress the weak. Even to-day, 
 those who refuse to take part in the social work of the Redeemer, 
 who still lives in His Church, attach supreme importance to human 
 inequality, and make labourers the slaves of capitalists; and 
 behold, Leo XIII. takes up the defence of working people in his 
 encyclical Rerum novarum ! Even the Socialists, contrary to 
 truth, and therefore contrary to Christ, exaggerating human 
 equality and forgetting the inequality, arrive by an opposite 
 way at the same extreme, and give over the whole human family 
 as slaves into the hands of the State.” ( Pastoral on the Social 
 Question.) 
 
 We hope, in regard to this point, that it will be observed how 
 the natural inequality of men is admirably adapted by nature 
 to serve in strengthening the social body. The need that every 
 man feels of the help of his brethren, and the exuberance of means 
 by which service can be requited, are so many forces that run 
 through the social body and draw it to unity. We will conclude, 
 therefore, with Leo XIII. in his Rerum novarum :—“ Let this 
 principle be established in the first place, that we ought to endure 
 the condition proper to humanity : to remove all social disparities 
 from the world would be impossible. Socialists indeed attempt 
 it, but every attempt against the nature of things becomes useless. 
 For by nature there are great varieties among men : not all have 
 the same talent, the same skill; they have not health or strength 
 in the same degree; and from these inevitable differences 
 there springs, as a necessary consequence, the difference of 
 social conditions.” 
 
 Section IX.— Wants, Desires, and Pleasures. 
 
 Although the last end alone has a perfect enjoyment for man, 
 yet even the use of the means to it is not without some satisfac¬ 
 tion, God wills this, certainly with the view that man, encouraged 
 by a foretaste of future joys, may seek his last end with greater 
 diligence. 
 
WANTS, DESIRES, AND PLEASURES 
 
 39 
 
 Towards the goods of the present life, which are means to 
 an end, there is a multitude of inclinations in man, so that the 
 turning towards them may be not only an effect of reason, but 
 also an impulse of appetite. Thus there are inclinations towards 
 virtue, towards knowledge, towards food, &c. But here we must 
 make a distinction. Some of the inclinations of man arise from 
 real need, which he must satisfy, if he wants to live; for example, 
 the inclination to a moderate use of food, drink, and rest. Others 
 from a natural desire of happiness, wherever it is to be found : 
 such are ,the inclinations to partake of more dainty dishes, to be 
 clothed in a more fashionable style, to, join in amusements, to 
 collect whatever may make his abode more cheerful. 
 
 Here the question arises : in what measure is man to procure 
 the enjoyments of this life ? The answer must be drawn from 
 that rule which is everything for the creature—namely, the last 
 end. According to the proportion that present goods have with 
 it, we shall learn the duty, the lawfulness, or the prohibition of 
 using them. Hence— 
 
 1. Man ought to satisfy his real wants, because it is a duty for 
 him to live, to work, to act; and that he may do so, he requires 
 health and strength, a sound mind and a sound body. 
 
 2. Man can take some satisfactions, but in such measure 
 that they may not contrast unfavourably with his last end. 
 
 3. Man should abstain from satisfying those inclinations which 
 would place him in opposition with goods of a superior order, 
 with the will of God, with his last end. 
 
 4. Man can, through a desire of greater spiritual perfection, 
 abstain from the use of those goods which are not necessary 
 to his preservation, or to his action for his last end, but nobody 
 has a right to impose such abstention on him. 
 
 5. Man—that he may pronounce safely on duty, on lawfulness, 
 on unlawfulness, in the use of worldly goods—ought to attend 
 to the teaching of revealed or Christian morality. Man is a 
 creature of God, and such morality is the voice of God. To 
 discuss whether man ought to submit or not would be absurd. 
 
 6. Many are the goods that God has created to make man’s 
 dwelling on earth beautiful and commodious. Many are those 
 which are to be acquired by the labour of man, and many by the 
 labour of civil society. As for the first kind, every man has a right 
 to them, in the measure explained. Likewise to the second, 
 because they are the fruit of his labour ; and also to the third, 
 because the^ are no less such. As we shall see, society is a work¬ 
 shop in which all labour, and the fruit is only one. Why, then, 
 if all labour, should any individual be excluded from the enjoy¬ 
 ment of this fruit ? Social position will point out the measure 
 of it, according to justice; total privation of it is certainly 
 injustice. A case may arise in which some one does not labour 
 for the common benefit. If by crime, privation will be a just 
 punishment; if by inability, privation cannot be allowed. If, 
 
40 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 therefore, the progress of time brings to human society a more 
 commodious manner of living, a greater degree of wellbeing, 
 every man has, in the measure aforesaid, a right to it. 
 
 Themes. —A diversity of conditions may be reconciled with the saying, 
 we are all brethren —In the present state of society the condition of the 
 proletariat is unnatural; what ought to be the characteristics of a social 
 condition, that it may be natural, or rather that it may not be unjust— 
 The right of the individual to better his condition, or to change it. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 THE FAMILY. 
 
 Section I.— The Cellule of Society. 
 
 He who, in reply to the question, What are the elements that 
 compose the social body ? should answer that they are human 
 individuals, would give a true answer indeed, but at least in¬ 
 complete. Because, if it is certain that human individuals are the 
 components of society, it is also certain that they are not the 
 proximate components, but that there are other intermediary 
 organic beings, who bind individuals to the social body. 
 
 Now, proceeding from the more to the less simple, we find 
 a first organism of the greatest importance, which is the Family. 
 The office that it fulfils in the world tells us sufficiently that it 
 accomplishes a design of the Creator. The procreation of man 
 could have occurred without the Family, as among irrational 
 animals. But God so disposed that man should come into life 
 not formed, but to be formed. The task of truly making man 
 belongs to the Family. God has entrusted this duty to the 
 Family; and he strives in vain who attempts to deprive the 
 Family of it. The Family therefore has, in favour of the human 
 individual, a most important mission, a mission that it is sufficient 
 for us to have pointed out. 
 
 But the Family has another function, which it is our duty to 
 explain and to defend. And this we do from facts. It is a fact 
 that man is elaborated in the bosom of the Family, which after¬ 
 wards gives him mature and full of life to society. Society, 
 therefore, ought to regard the Family as the source of its life, 
 well convinced that it will flourish or decay according as the 
 Family does so. 
 
 We showed elsewhere that the moral virtues, which adorn 
 associates, are the foundations of a social life truly flourishing. 
 But who is to infuse these virtues, if not the Family, which 
 produces man ? The social body should therefore recognise in 
 Families a natural bellows, whose wholesome breath nourishes 
 its own vitality. 
 
THE CELLULE OF SOCIETY 
 
 41 
 
 Let not the socialists tell us that a substitute for this educational 
 function of the Family may be found in public education, when 
 guardians and teachers take the place of parents. If any one 
 seriously asserts these things, he does not know that, for the 
 efficacy of education, nature itself has laid a foundation in the 
 natural relations that exist between parents and children, by the 
 very fact that the latter have received life from the former. 
 
 Now, this foundation admits of no substitute. The sweet 
 looks of a mother or the severe ones of a father are always of 
 more avail than a handsome premium or a heavy punishment. 
 
 But, even granting that this educational function could be 
 fulfilled otherwise, the Family would always have a great social 
 importance. Not because the Family is for society, but its 
 stability contributes very much to the stability of society. The 
 Family is that society of which man, before he is long in the 
 world, feels himself a part. Here the natural bond habituates 
 him to do good to his brethren, to sacrifice himself for them. 
 Here the sentiment of sociability buds and blossoms, as if 
 inadvertently, together with the development of the intellectual 
 faculties. 
 
 “ From such ( Christian) marriages, cities can, with all reason, 
 expect a stock and succession of citizens who are animated with 
 the best sentiments, and who, accustomed to the love and service 
 of God, regard it as a strict duty to obey those invested with 
 just and lawful authority, to practise benevolence towards all, 
 to give offence to none.” (Encyc. Arcanum.) 
 
 Thus the Family appears by its nature the first cellule of the 
 social body—a warm cellule—a perennial, ever new source of life. 
 It may be said that nature has, in forming society, acted like a 
 gardener, who, wishing to make a large bunch of flowers, gathers 
 up many little nosegays, and binds them into one. If the string 
 is untied, all the odoriferous nosegays of the superb bouquet 
 are scattered about. It is therefore a matter of social utility 
 that the condition of the Family should be secure and prosperous. 
 
 Mons. d’Hulst says :—“ The Family, viewed under this aspect, 
 becomes the foundation of society. What is a nation but a large 
 Family, a union of Families ? And how could the assembled 
 groups preserve their unity if the elementary parts of which they 
 are composed lost their particular unity ? Ah, the advocates 
 of extermination are not deceived herein—those men whose wild 
 attempts are the terror of the world, and whose threats weigh 
 like a nightmare on the close of a century that considers itself 
 strong! They know well that, to ruin social order, it is not 
 enough to overthrow a government, because governments return, 
 but it is necessary to ruin the Family, which, once destroyed, 
 cannot without much difficulty be reconstructed.” ( Conf . I.) 
 
 It is seen hence how much the fate of civil society is bound 
 up with that of Families. “ Matrimony was not instituted 
 merely or even chiefly for the individual; its end was above all 
 
42 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OE SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 to establish and to continue human society. Practically indeed, 
 here as everywhere else, the superior end first intended in its 
 institution is usually the last on which people reflect. But no' 
 one is ever justified in neglecting or excluding that end; and 
 if anyone attempts to do so, the public authority is to be mindful 
 of it and to defend it. The Family is without doubt an 
 important factor, not merely by private right, but by public right. 
 Never indeed has a well-ordered society been seen in which great 
 regard was not shown to it. And therefore political authority 
 has a supreme interest, an inalienable right, a serious duty, to 
 occupy itself with useful questions in regard to the Family, 
 especially when they are connected with the public good. If it 
 interferes too much, it passes the limits of its competency. It 
 acts without right; or rather, it acts with injury to the highest 
 rights.” (Weiss, I. c., p. 289.) 
 
 For the rest, Leo XIII., in the encyclical Quod apostolici muneris , 
 has already said of domestic society that it is the beginning of 
 every city and of every kingdom. 
 
 Section II. —Institution of the Family. 
 
 Man has an inclination to be the father of children, who are, 
 as it were, a continuation of his own existence, and to whom, 
 the last evening of his life having arrived, he may leave whatever 
 treasure he has at his disposal. Man feels the need of intimate 
 affections, by which the soul may take counsel for itself, may un¬ 
 bosom itself without fear, without reserve, without circumspection. 
 Man also finds in himself a kind of incompleteness, whereby he 
 seems less fit for certain duties, so that if he fulfils them, there is a 
 want of naturalness or spontaneity about them; and he sees 
 this incompleteness integrated by a like incompleteness, which 
 is found in the other sex, naturally fitted for special duties, and 
 naturally unfitted for others. All this leads instinctively to the 
 union of man and woman. 
 
 This inclination of man may well be placed among those which 
 he has a right to satisfy ; but it is not a duty for him to do .so, 
 being able to arrive alone at his last end. 
 
 By the union of man and woman, which is called matrimony, 
 domestic society, or the Family, is begun. 
 
 Whence is the institution of the Family ? The answer to this 
 question ought to come, as a conclusion, from the preceding 
 section. We there showed that the Family fulfils the intentions 
 of nature for the advantage of the individual and of society. 
 Therefore, nature instituted it, established it for the discharge 
 of certain duties. 
 
 From this conclusion many truths spring, like shoots from a 
 plant. It is the groundwork of a long disquisition that might 
 be made about the Family, for which this is not the place. 
 
HUSBAND, WIFE, AND CHILDREN 
 
 43 
 
 Because, if the Family is an institution of nature, such also are 
 the conditions that accompany the Family, and that are required 
 for the accomplishment of its functions. 
 
 Thus we learn—(i.) that no human authority can undo or 
 transform the Family, for there is no authority higher than 
 that of God; (ii.) that the unity and stability of the Family are 
 gifts intrinsic to its nature ; and (iii.) that divorce, tending to the 
 dissolution of the Family, is condemned not only by natural 
 law, but also by social law. 
 
 We infer that the Family is a natural state, which has its own 
 special existence, its own special end, and therefore its own 
 special rights and duties. 
 
 Christianity throws a clearer and better light on the Family. 
 According to it, the Family, besides being an institution of nature, 
 is one of grace.* Jesus Christ, recalling matrimony to its first 
 institution, raised it to the dignity of a sacrament. As such, 
 matrimony has rights not only natural, but also sacramental, 
 of which no one can be a judge outside the Church, which 
 continues on earth the mission of Jesus Christ. 
 
 Very different is the idea that liberal sociology forms of the 
 Family. For it the Family has nothing natural except that it 
 satisfies the natural inclinations of man. Regulated by these, 
 it is not a state, having its own end, its own rights, its own duties, 
 but a something merely accidental. Man adopts it that he may 
 satisfy his passions, that he may be pleased by the sight of a wife 
 and children, that he may enjoy domestic comforts. 
 
 The liberals have also created a state : a state that lasts as 
 long as it suits, as long as individuals derive advantage or pleasure 
 from it. The step is then easy to divorce. More logical still is 
 the legitimation of free love, which the socialists advocate. 
 Would you judge them wrong, ye liberals ? 
 
 Section III. —Husband, Wife, and Childken. 
 
 The subject is often discussed, but, we must say, with much 
 want of care and consideration. Man and woman, beginning to 
 constitute a Family, change very much their condition. This is 
 clear. They begin to form a state, and they must abide the 
 consequences. The Family has a special end, which is that of 
 giving worthy children to society and to God—that is, children 
 well-directed on the road that leads to their last end. 
 
 This end is to be attained by common co-operation. But 
 
 * A moderate share of material wellbeing is very necessary for spiritual 
 wellbeing. To take an example, who does not see that if several poor 
 families are crowded together in a small room, as often happens, especially 
 in towns, the danger for morals is very great ? Whereas, if each family 
 had a separate dwelling, of convenient size, and at least some degree of 
 comfort, virtue could easily flourish there.— Trans. 
 
44 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 who will preside over all ? Nature tells us : the man, as the 
 more capable to govern, to defend, to represent. The head 
 of the Family is, therefore, man : it is he that should guide the 
 Family, it is he that should represent it before society. The 
 husband is accordingly the head of the wife. It is written 
 (Eph. v. 23), the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the 
 head of the Church: and therefore St. Paul commands wives 
 to be obedient to their husbands. 
 
 This is true, but in how far are they to obey ? We wish this 
 question to be well observed, because there can be exaggeration 
 here. The husband and the wife, entering a new state, do not 
 lose their own personality, human or Christian. If therefore 
 they find new relations, these ought not to prejudice the rights 
 and duties that they have as human beings and as Christians. 
 In Genesis (ii. 20), we find a true idea of what the wife ought to 
 be with regard to the husband, a heifer like himself. This means 
 that the husband has never any authority to abolish the rights 
 and duties which the wife has as a rational creature or as a Christian. 
 
 And it is here, in this doctrine, which Christianity has main¬ 
 tained and still boldly maintains against the mania for concen¬ 
 trating all rights in man, that woman ought to recognise her 
 rehabilitation, her true emancipation. 
 
 Let her think of it. If, by withdrawing from the laws of dis¬ 
 cretion that Christian morality imposes, she withdraws from 
 the Church, she exchanges the yoke of God for that of man. 
 
 The same is to be said of children who have arrived at the use 
 of reason. Although subject to paternal authority, they have 
 rights and duties that cannot be disregarded. 
 
 The Sovereign Pontiff, who defends the rights of all, refers 
 to these matters thus :— 
 
 “ In like manner the right of matrimony was established 
 equal and one for all, taking away the difference that was made 
 by the ancients between slaves and free-born. The rights of the 
 husband and the wife were made equal. As St. Jerome says, 
 among us that which is not lawful to women is not lawful to men, 
 the same obligations are for like conditions. These rights were 
 confirmed by mutual benevolence and reciprocal offices. The 
 dignity of women was guaranteed and safeguarded. It was 
 forbidden to the husband to inflict the penalty of death on the 
 adulterous wife, or to violate by lust his sworn fidelity. 
 
 “It is likewise of great importance that the Church placed 
 limits, when necessary, to the paternal power, so that there should 
 be no encroachment on the reasonable liberty of sons and 
 daughters who desired marriage ; that, by her decrees, nuptials 
 within certain degrees of consanguinity and affinity were declared 
 null, so that the supernatural love of married persons might 
 extend to a vaster field; that she was careful to remove as far 
 as possible from marriages all error and violence and fraud ; that 
 she wished to preserve the sanctity of the nuptial chamber, the 
 
THE EIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE FAMILY 45 
 
 security of persons, the dignity of marriages, and the rights 
 of religion.” (Encyc. Arcanum.) 1 
 
 Section IV.— The Rights and Duties of the Family. 
 
 The Family, having a special existence and a special end, it 
 must have special duties and special rights, which are sacred 
 and inalienable, no less so than those of an individual. 
 
 If the Family is intended to give citizens to society, it must have 
 the duty and the right to support, to instruct, to educate its 
 own children. Is it right for the father of a Family to let 
 another impose a method of instruction, a kind of education, 
 even though this other should be the State ? The Family is 
 anterior to the State, and, as individuals do not lose their special 
 rights in the Family, so the Family does not lose them by becom¬ 
 ing part of the State. 
 
 Liberalism denying to the Family any existence outside of that 
 granted by the State, it is natural that no other rights should be 
 recognised in it than those which the State gives. And thus there 
 is a continual intrusion of the State into the Family, every day 
 bringing new rules, as if sooner or later a rule might be expected 
 about the manner of laying the table. 
 
 The socialists push matters as far as logic can go. They say : 
 If the Family is only what the State wishes, let ns be done with it; 
 let us consign boys and girls to a great public school, in which the 
 State can instruct them, educate them, bring them up as it pleases. 
 
 On the other hand, the Commune * has also its rights in regard 
 to Families, of which it consists. 
 
 The welfare that it procures for Families should be a work of 
 co-operation with them—a co-operation that the Commune, 
 in the measure imposed on it by the nature of its functions, 
 has a right to determine. This includes the right to command, 
 to fix, to arrange, and to collect imposts, according to the rules of 
 justice, and sometimes also to require that Families should submit 
 to the Commune the exercise of their right to property. All this 
 is to be observed within the limit set forth by us, that the Com¬ 
 mune is not at all an arbiter of the sacred rights of Families, but 
 only a guardian and promoter of the wellbeing of all, though at 
 times this may be attained only by a serious sacrifice for some. 
 
 Themes. —Why the accidental and undeniable inconveniences of 
 matrimonial indissolubility are to be tolerated, and how they do not justify 
 divorce—Divorce is a consequence of unchristian theories regarding the 
 Family. 
 
 * The Continental Commune, in a local sense, is much like a Parish with 
 us. The duties of its administrators correspond in many respects to those 
 of our District Councils. From ten to twenty Communes form a Canton. 
 Local Councils, it has been happily said, are the Primary Schools of freedom.— 
 Trans. 
 
46 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 CHAPTEB IV. 
 
 THE COMMUNE. 
 
 Section I. —Union of Families. 
 
 The Family is immediately intended to aid the work of 
 individuals; as we have seen, it makes a step by itself in the 
 scale of social beings. But the Family is of necessity a small 
 association, limited by the claims of the closest relationship. It 
 soon feels the weakness of its powers, and desires to strengthen 
 them by union with other Families. Such union has been made 
 from the earliest times, and it is realised in the Commune. 
 
 What then is the Commune ? An Aggregation of Families. 
 
 Topographical position, facility of communication, similarity 
 of productions, identity of habits, community of interests, &c., 
 determine the several groups of Families, and mark the boundaries 
 of the various Communes. A number of Families, who associate 
 with a view to co-operation in the same district, which forms 
 the basis of a community, are therefore the immediate factors 
 of the Commune. 
 
 But whence is its origin—from nature or from man ? 
 
 Communes are a necessity that Families may flourish. In 
 the work of the Commune they feel a power close to them, which 
 is almost their own—a great power, which assists them, defends 
 them, promotes their prosperity. The human individual has 
 need of the assistance of the Commune. In point of fact, besides 
 relations with domestics and neighbours by an unavoidable 
 necessity, there are other relations for which the interference 
 of the Family does not suffice, and which at the same time cannot 
 be considered nor safeguarded, nor even perceived, by the distant 
 government of the State. The work of the Commune is therefore 
 truly required. And when the necessity of things calls for an 
 institution, it may well be said that this institution has its origin 
 in nature. 
 
 As with all natural things, it is therefore true that Communes 
 have a special existence and personality, have special rights and 
 duties, have a special end. To try to do without them is to do 
 violence to nature. A capital criterion this , said Toniolo at the 
 Congress of Padua, which is to he applied in all its consequences , 
 even -financial. 
 
 Moreover, nature, in assigning to the Commune a special 
 existence, with a special end, has implicitly shown what ought 
 to be the conditions of its existence. These conditions ought to 
 be observed, if we wish the Commune to attain its object—the 
 good of individuals, of Families, of Society. “ Because,” says 
 Leo XIII., “ it is a law divinely sanctioned that things instituted 
 by nature and by God are found by us so much the more useful 
 
AUTONOMY OF THE COMMUNE 
 
 47 
 
 and salutary as they remain entire and immutable in their natural 
 state. God, the Creator of all things, knew well what was 
 expedient for every institution and its maintenance, and by His 
 will and mind arranged all in such a manner that each should 
 conveniently attain its end. But if the rashness and wickedness 
 of men try to change or to overthrow the order of things providen¬ 
 tially established, then even things instituted with the highest 
 wisdom and greatest advantage begin to do harm or cease to be 
 of any use, whether it is that by change they lose the power of 
 doing good or rather because God wishes to punish the pride 
 and audacity of mortals.” 
 
 Section II.— Autonomy of the Commune. 
 
 Whatever is intended by nature for a certain scope has a good 
 right to gather round it all those resources with which nature 
 has provided it for the attainment of that scope. It has there¬ 
 fore a right not to be opposed on its way, a right not to be trifled 
 with, a right to defend itself. This means that it is independent 
 or autonomous. 
 
 Autonomy is of necessity to be granted to the Commune. It 
 follows as a logical consequence from what we have said in general 
 regarding it. Counsellor Invrea describes autonomy as “ the 
 liberty that the Commune ought to have in working for its own 
 ends, and that naturally implies the faculty of giving laws within 
 certain limits, by means of proper authority, regularly constituted. 
 And this autonomy ought not to have any other limits than those 
 which are required by a necessary harmony with the general 
 ends of the State, and with the obligation that the State has to 
 remove abuses—limits that evidently vary from time to time 
 and from place to place, but always give room for a large communal 
 autonomy ” (II Commune, &c.). 
 
 It is understood, therefore, that the question of autonomy is 
 one of preservation or destruction, life or death, for Communes. 
 
 That deleterious force which passed through social life, and un¬ 
 did as much as possible the organisations that it met on its way, 
 dragging with it every reason of justice and right, and concen¬ 
 trating all in the State, if it did not wholly destroy Communes, 
 left them only a little life. 
 
 The Commune, a natural organisation, is radically destroyed 
 by admitting that its every originating cause, its every function, 
 its every right, is a concession of the State. 
 
 In our work .of social reconstruction, we must seek and earnestly 
 seek the reconstitution of our Communes: we must seek their 
 full autonomy. 
 
 The Catholic Congress of Padua declared that, according to an 
 analysis of the idea of public bodies (communal and provincial), 
 these bodies do not appear as affiliations from the central authority 
 
48 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 of the State, but rather, logically and historically, as so many 
 organisations having an origin and a life of their own ; and that, 
 therefore, the powers belonging to them for civil ends cannot be 
 regarded as essentially a delegation of the State. (Atti del 
 Congresso, p. 266.) 
 
 As a consequence, the autonomy of the Commune requires 
 two things :—(i.) A right to elect its own councillors. That the 
 State should appoint rulers for a Commune, or, with vain and 
 ridiculous pretexts, select the members of a municipal council, 
 is repugnant to communal autonomy, (ii.) Freedom of adminis¬ 
 tration. Communes at the present day are treated worse than 
 minors. Their deliberations have no force of themselves, but 
 from tutorial authority, which, instead of favouring them, destroys 
 (hem in an autocratic manner. 
 
 We have said that we do not deny to the State an inspection 
 and control of the acts of the Commune ; but we maintain in the 
 following section that there are limits to such interference. 
 
 Section III.— Functions of the Commune. 
 
 What are the functions of the Commune we must learn from 
 those social necessities which make us assert the natural existence 
 of this important organism. The Commune that provides for 
 these necessities fulfils its duties. Here it is well to remember 
 that the Commune does not commit that abuse towards individuals 
 and families which the State commits to their prejudice. The 
 Commune is intended to complete the work of inferior bodies, 
 not to be a substitute for them : where their work ends, its 
 work properly begins. 
 
 It enters, therefore, into the duties of the Commune to provide 
 schools and teachers, good roads, sufficient light, and everything 
 else suited for the convenience of the district, and all this at the 
 least possible sacrifice to families. 
 
 In some cases it is the duty of the Commune to become a 
 substitute for the family; but why ? Because, through the 
 fault or the misfortune of the family, its work fails. Thus it 
 pertains to the Commune to take care of orphans, to assist the 
 needy, to provide medical attendance for the poor. 
 
 Invrea says:—“ The idea of functions relating to the 
 Commune is evidently an idea that varies according to circum¬ 
 stances. We may consider as functions normally relating to the 
 Commune those which correspond to local wants—that is, wants 
 which can be sufficiently satisfied by communal organisation.” 
 
 In short, the action of the Commune ought to be concerned 
 with local interests, limited on one side by the inborn rights of 
 inferior bodies, and on the other by the amount of its' strength, 
 which may require the aid of a higher body, powerful though 
 remote. 
 
 The following words of Toniolo at the Congress of Padua 
 
FUNCTIONS OF COMMUNE TOWARDS WORKPEOPLE 49 
 
 throw light on this point:—“ Our Communes were bodies legally 
 perfect, over which at a later period (and history records with 
 what a difficult struggle) the State—that is to say, a higher political 
 body, raised itself, when, in a region comprising many Communes 
 and other autonomous bodies, a distinction was made between 
 the interests of a large sphere and those of a small one. Only 
 then, and with a laborious process, began the work of specifica¬ 
 tion ; but in this sense that a fulness of powers and rights continued 
 to be recognised in local bodies, and only slowly and gradually 
 was a part of the powers transferred to the State with higher 
 authority, as if integrating the powers ,of the Commune. And 
 thus to the legislative faculties of public and private right—to a 
 civil, economical, moral, and politico-military administration of 
 Communes and local bodies—there was added a second legislation, 
 as well as a new kind of territorial administration, which at 
 length came to prevail. This is an historical proof that the State 
 in general drew’ the elements of its historical development from 
 the Communes, and not vice versa .” (Atti del Congresso, p. 248.) 
 
 We see therefore how well grounded on solid social reasons is 
 the agitation made, and not by Catholics alone, to obtain a large 
 measure of decentralisation in favour of the Communes, which the 
 grasping State of the present day reduces to a condition of little 
 service. 
 
 From this idea of communal functions, it also follows that the 
 views of those who give the Commune only an economical task 
 are wrong. 
 
 The Commune ought to integrate the work of families under it, 
 taken as they are, with whatever interests they naturally have. 
 But, besides economical interests, they have moral and religious 
 ones, the guardianship and promotion of which the Commune 
 should take to heart. 
 
 An interest (we confine ourselves to one) that touches the family 
 in its most sacred rights, is that of public elementary instruction. 
 If there are children of families, it is consequently the right of 
 families to give them such education and instruction as they 
 choose. As the work of families is to be integrated by the more 
 ponderous work of a greater organism, this can only be the 
 Commune, which—the community being like a large family—is 
 in a position to know the desires of the families affiliated to it, and 
 to satisfy them, according to the circumstances and the faculties 
 of the families. And yet is not an attempt often made to con¬ 
 centrate also in the State this task essentially communal ? 
 
 Section IV.— Functions of the Commune towards Work¬ 
 people. 
 
 The demands on our time require that, referring to the functions 
 of the Commune in globo, we speak of one in particular, and it is 
 that which ought to be exercised towards poor workpeople. 
 
 D 
 
50 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 The idea of society, which we have set forth in its place, implies 
 that, on the part of higher bodies and classes, there should be a 
 particular care and protection shown towards those who are in 
 need of help. 
 
 Nobody will deny that workpeople, however employed, even 
 those who live by the fruits of their own labour, especially in the 
 present state of social disorganisation, are to be regarded as the 
 weakest elements of society. 
 
 Account being made of these facts, there arises in the Commune 
 an obligation to care in some manner for the labouring classes, and 
 to give them work by which they may become more prosperous. 
 And this obligation urges more now that we have to lament a sad 
 indifference on the part of the State. It would likewise press, 
 even if the State fulfilled its duty—either because the Commune is 
 nearer to the workpeople and knows their ills and the remedies 
 for them better, or because the State would always require the 
 aid of a local body to direct it in different cases. 
 
 Now, workpeople are found in a triple position before the 
 Commune. The first is when they are directly employed and 
 paid by it. The number of these is increasing every day, because 
 the municipalising of public services is gaining favour. The 
 second is when the system of “ farming ” prevails with the 
 Commune. Then the workpeople depend directly on the 
 “ farmer ” or contractor, and indirectly on the Commune. The 
 third is that which they have with the Commune by the very fact of 
 being members of the community, not having business relations 
 with any local body. 
 
 It is evident that the Commune has different obligations 
 towards the workpeople according to the different positions that 
 they occupy before it. 
 
 In the first case, the Commune, besides being the Commune, is 
 also the Undertaker,* and besides being the Undertaker is also the 
 Master of the workpeople. It has therefore to practise a triple 
 duty towards them. 
 
 That constant and loving patronage wfiiich a master should 
 exercise over his servants, the Commune owes to its workpeople. 
 It should therefore be all watchfulness and energy, so that fair 
 play may be shown to them. It should provide a suitable time¬ 
 table for them, drawn up according to the rules of Christian 
 economy. They should have convenient times for rest, especially 
 festivals. Their self-respect, their dignity, their morals should be 
 guarded. 
 
 For workpeople of the second position, the Commune has not 
 directly the same obligations, but it has them indirectly. When 
 a man entrusts his work to a contractor, who sees that the v/ork 
 
 * It must be remembered that here and elsewhere throughout the book 
 the word “ Undertaker ” means one who engages to transact business 
 for others. See especially p. 151.— Trans. 
 
UNION OF COMMUNES 
 
 51 
 
 must be executed by workpeople, be knowingly and willingly 
 places the platform on which the interests of the workpeople are 
 to be found. Hence it is his duty so to regulate the contract that 
 that platform may be safe and sound, and may not bring all to 
 ruin. 
 
 This the Commune can do by means of social clauses in contracts 
 of “ farming.” Let the Commune include in the contract such 
 conditions that the “ farmer,” in the treatment of the workpeople, 
 cannot violate. Let the wages, the time-table, and the amount of 
 rest be justly arranged. 8 
 
 Next come workpeople of the third position, towards whom the 
 Commune has the function of a beneficent guardianship, by 
 the very fact that they are affiliated to it. This function, 
 we must admit, is complex enough; nor can it easily be 
 explained in a short space. We will, however, touch upon its 
 chief points. 
 
 Above all, the eye of the Commune, in providing for the general 
 good, ought to fix its care and attention on the weakest part. The 
 Commune can very well give, and therefore ought to give, much 
 assistance to those institutions whose scope is to improve the 
 condition of workpeople, to prevent them from being wronged, 
 to enable them to defend themselves. When these are not of a 
 character injurious to individuals or to society, they are to be 
 aided by the Commune. 
 
 For other tasks with regard to the working classes, it is proper 
 that the Commune should appoint men to conduct a Labour Office 
 or Employment Bureau. This is an institution which at the present 
 day ought to be the creation of communal authority, and ought 
 to have for its scope to take part in all the affairs that, either 
 alone or in conjunction with capital, engage the attention of the 
 working classes of the place. 9 
 
 Themes. —Where the establishment of elementary schools by the State 
 takes away every authority and function from Communes, it ought 
 to be opposed—At the communal elections, let candidates of different 
 occupations be chosen, thus realising, as far as possible at the present day, 
 a professional representation—The advantages and the dangers of 
 municipalism. 
 
 CHAPTER A. 
 
 THE STATE AND ITS DUTIES. 
 
 Section I.— Union of Communes. 
 
 In our work of analysing the organisms that compose the social 
 body, proceeding as usual from the less to the more complex, we 
 have observed a real natural hierarchy of bodies, of which the 
 
52 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 higher find a reason for their existence in the aspirations as well 
 as in the weaknesses of the lower. 
 
 The Commune is a powerful factor for the wellbeing of 
 families, and consequently of individuals. 
 
 Yet the force of a commune is not so great that it cannot 
 increase by union, and thus produce a greater amount of well¬ 
 being. And hence we have a union of Communes. Grouped 
 together, they form a more ample society—individuals, families, 
 communes, and other moral bodies—subordinated for the good 
 of all. This society has every facility possible for the attainment 
 of its end. It is the State. 
 
 Section II.— Origin and Nature of the State. 
 
 All that we have said in the beginning on the sociability of man 
 finds its full realisation in that civil, perfect, independent society 
 which we call the State. 
 
 Man cannot be quite happy on earth. But if God has granted 
 him the use of goods here below, and clearly shown it to be His. 
 will that these goods should be procured by means of social inter¬ 
 course, it is evident that, when a people becomes a State, in which 
 the rights of individuals and families are safeguarded, the common 
 wellbeing procured and promoted, it has attained to the temporal 
 designs of God over mankind. 
 
 Neither domestic nor communal society rules a people to such 
 a degree. These associations have a peculiar determinate end 
 of their own. Within the circuit of a society more vast, and 
 therefore more powerful, man can find his perfection, already 
 begun by means of the family and the commune. 
 
 One only State, embracing all the human race, might seem to 
 be the design of God. And this was indeed a dream of some 
 conquerors, who, carried away by an unbridled ambition, thought 
 that the Lord God had created the human race in order to give it 
 into their power for amusement. Some socialists too, who walk 
 with their heads in the clouds, have had the same dream. But 
 whoever considers how impossible is such a State—how there 
 could be no civilisation, or prosperity, or wellbeing in it—will 
 easily conclude that it is the will of God for the human race to 
 continue and to flourish in perfection by means of various parti¬ 
 cular societies, each one of them autonomous and independent,, 
 each one of them a State in itself. 
 
 The origin of the State therefore we must find in the nature 
 of man. This nature, studied, teaches us that man has not only 
 wants, which alone he cannot satisfy, but also duties, which bind 
 him to his kind, or to something universal, to constitute and perfect 
 which God calls him. 
 
 Hence it is easy for us to form a just idea of what the State is. 
 
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE STATE 
 
 53 
 
 It is an institution that, by the will of God, exists among men for 
 their good. 
 
 The State therefore, like everything else coming under the will 
 of God, has an end assigned to it by Him, and hence it has rights 
 and duties, the violation of which is a fault before God. 
 
 For the most part those who, in their doctrines, have regarded 
 man as separated from God cannot assign to the State that origin 
 which we have assigned to it; the}?- cannot conceive it as we con¬ 
 ceive it; and, according to the evils that they daily meet and wish 
 to remedy, they pantheistically make a God or stoically a 
 mechanism for them. But they forget that their head is not the 
 same thing as logic, and that it is from the latter and not from the 
 former that humanity takes its rule—humanity, too much inclined 
 to the satisfaction of self. 
 
 What, in point of fact, is the notion held to-day of the State ? 
 That it is nothing but an agglomeration of individuals, who are 
 united for the sake of advantage. This arises from a materialistic 
 idea of man. And thus the individual is the only reason for the 
 existence of the State; and thus the State can have no other 
 duties than those which individuals give it! 
 
 We say no. We recognise an organism, which is more than a 
 mere assembly or aggregation. It is formed by individuals, and 
 for their good; but it is not simply by their will. The will that 
 obliges them to form it is superior to theirs. In short, between 
 the State as conceived by the liberals and that as conceived by 
 us, there is the same difference as between the members of a body 
 in a group and the body itself. While the members are in each, 
 everyone can see that in the latter case they are marked by an 
 organic unity that is wanting in the former. Ten panes of glass 
 may cover a certain space, but they will not have the same value 
 as one large pane. 
 
 Let us hear Weiss on this matter :—“ Every State has, as a 
 finite whole, to fulfil a particular destiny. This is what justifies it. 
 This is the mainspring of all its activity, the source of its public 
 law, its vital principle, the foundation of its truth. This axiom of 
 the essential unity of the State is of such importance that perhaps 
 there cannot be any greater.” 
 
 For us therefore the State is as a person who has his own 
 existence, his own end, his own rights, his own duties. 
 
 A. creation of God, the State is not God. For the State, as 
 well as for individuals, God is the source of rights and duties. 
 Nothing therefore more absurd than the State-olatry of some 
 politicians, who wish the State to be a law and a rule for itself, 
 and who recognise a law as just, holy, and binding, simply because 
 it has been prepared by the State. 
 
 There were some who, wishing to gild the idol, broke it in 
 pieces. God and the creature are two contradictory terms; 
 brought near, they destroy each other. A God State—for him 
 who knows how to reason—is no State. 
 
54 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Section III.— End and Duties of the State. 
 
 The State therefore, consisting of men, is not a human, but a 
 natural institution. Nature, in favour of the State, spoke clearly 
 enough by the voice of the wants of man, and of his progressive 
 tendencies, which only in the State can find satisfaction. 
 
 From the nature and origin of the State, we know what ought 
 naturally to be its end. 
 
 Formed as a consequence of human requirements, the State 
 can have no other end than to satisfy them—to satisfy them in 
 due relation to the last end of man, to satisfy them by making 
 account of an active autonomy in individuals, to satisfy them in 
 the measure dictated by equity and by the possibility of human 
 things. 
 
 If then man is, as we have said above, destined for a 
 supernatural end, will it be a task of the State to lead man to 
 this end ? 
 
 No; it would be to require an effect greater than the cause. 
 The State, being a natural institution, provided only with natural 
 means, it cannot be so unnaturalised as to conduct man directly 
 to a supernatural end. God thought of this when forming the 
 Church, a supernatural society, and furnished it with the means 
 necessary for such a purpose. Nevertheless, the State can and 
 should concur indirectly, because, having to procure real good 
 for men, and this being that alone which not only does not hinder, 
 but facilitates the attainment of the last end, it ought to take 
 its rule and measure from this end in the development of its 
 activity. 
 
 What therefore is the end of the State ? The common good of 
 all the citizens. Leo XIII. has told us, to provide for the common 
 good is the business of the State. (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 These things we say, remembering what has been already said. 
 We have elsewhere reasoned sufficiently, it seems to us, on the 
 end of civil society—on the goods that the citizens have a natural 
 right to expect from it. Now, the State is civil society in act ; 
 and the end that it ought to set before it is that for which civil 
 association, existing in the form of a State, is destined by 
 nature. 
 
 The duties of the State may therefore be summed up:—(i.) To 
 use all means necessary for defending those bodies of which it is 
 composed, as well in their real as in their potential personality— 
 as well in the goods that they possess as in the exercise of their 
 just rights, natural or acquired, (ii.) To promote the wellbeing of 
 those bodies, either by facilitating for them the accomplishment 
 of works that they initiate, or by giving completion to great 
 undertakings, which, precisely on account of their greatness, 
 cannot be effected by inferior bodies. 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS CITIZENS 55 
 
 Section IV.— Duties of the State towards the Citizens. 
 
 In the great world of the State, where the crowd makes a fuss, 
 money rattles, and glory dazzles, it is very easy to lose sight of 
 the human being, the smallest of the organisms of which the State 
 consists. Yet this small being is the foundation of the hierarchy 
 of human organisms, because—let us not forget—it is for the wel¬ 
 fare of the individual that nature has appointed the Family, the 
 Commune, and the State. 
 
 The duty of the State towards the individual has been too much 
 neglected, and has even been denied. But we have said, and we 
 repeat it: every man, because a man, has a right to appear before 
 the social body, or the State, and to demand of it his share in the 
 social good. 
 
 And if the individual has such a right, the State has naturally 
 some duties towards him. What are they ? 
 
 The first duty is that of respect for his personality. Man, as we 
 know, is a centre of free movements or actions. This freedom 
 drives man to the apogee of created life, because it constitutes him 
 in a special manner the principle of his acts. 
 
 If man is free in society to set forth his reasons, to develop his 
 personality, this means that he enjoys civil liberty in the State. 
 And this liberty the State should respect in every citizen. 
 
 But here a question arises. Is civil liberty of the same extent 
 as natural liberty ? Or can a man do by civil right all that he can 
 do by natural right ? 
 
 Speaking in the concrete, yes; because, in a strictly natural 
 sense—that is, according to the design of nature—he can only do 
 that which he can do lawfully, or he can only do that which can 
 be reconciled with the State in which nature has disposed that he 
 should five. 
 
 But, speaking in the abstract, certainly no. Man has a right 
 to use his natural liberty within the limits marked for him by the 
 respect that he owes to the rights of his brethren and of all civil 
 society. The State has a right to enter into the field of those 
 actions which are free to the individual, and to prevent those 
 which conflict with the right of the neighbour or are opposed to 
 the common good ; his other actions, it is its duty to respect and 
 to cause others to respect. This is called the security of civil 
 liberty for the citizens. 
 
 The individual is like a young tree, which has a right to throw 
 out its branches to the atmosphere of the world : only when they 
 invade the space belonging to another, the State has a right to 
 lop them off. 
 
 Not only so; but the State has a duty to prevent others from 
 checking by any abuse the free growth of an individual. In 
 defence of the individual right, it is not well that the individual 
 himself should rise up, either because there is danger of hallucina- 
 
56 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 tion in His own cause, or because lie would often be unequal to 
 the task. Who therefore, if not the State, should guard the 
 individual right ? Leo XIII. frankly declares : “ Rights are to 
 be religiously protected wherever they exist; and the public 
 authority, preventing or punishing any violation of them, 
 should secure every one in the possession of his own.” (Rerum 
 novarum.) 
 
 Hence we infer that it is a duty of the State to form a just 
 conception of the full rights of the human individual, with a view 
 to guard and defend them. Here we find a reason for the conduct 
 that the State ought to observe with regard to morals and religion. 
 We know well that these do not form a proper object for the 
 interference of the State; but for two reasons we maintain that 
 it ought to help them to flourish, and to defend them from outrage. 
 The first reason is that moral and religious, no less than physical, 
 matters are the interests of individuals; for the defence of which 
 all the arguments already set forth hold good. The second is that 
 even those goods which are the direct object of the State are 
 connected with the fate of morals and religion. 
 
 We will give a third reason, which is the strongest of all. The 
 State is for man, not man for the State. And man ought to be 
 considered and treated according to what he is—that is to say, a 
 creature whom, as we showed in its place, God has destined to 
 lay up stores of merit here for a happy eternity hereafter. This 
 ought not to be forgotten by the State, because it is one of the 
 rights of man; and the State cannot change or destroy that 
 which belongs inviolably to human nature. The State is the 
 servant, not the master, of mankind. 
 
 It will be useful to confirm this point by some words of the Pope. 
 Leo XIII., after proving the duty of the State to be moral and 
 religious, adds :—“ And this they ( Princes) owe to their subjects. 
 Because all we who breathe are born and destined for that supreme 
 and last good towards which our thoughts ought to be continually 
 turned, that good which is to be found in Heaven after this short 
 and fleeting life. Now, the full and perfect happiness of man 
 depending on the possession of this good, it follows that the 
 attainment of the said end is a matter of such great importance 
 for every one that no greater can be imagined. It is necessary 
 therefore that civil society, intended for the common good, should 
 promote the public prosperity in such a manner that the citizens, 
 while on their way to the acquisition of that supreme and un¬ 
 changeable good which they desire, may not only find no obstacle 
 set before them, but may find every facility provided for their 
 advance. And the chief of all is that due reverence should be 
 shown towards religion, the duties of which make the bond between 
 God and man.” (Encyc. Immortale Dei.) 
 
 Of these things the State ought to make account in granting 
 or refusing liberty of the Press, of speech, of action. The Pope 
 says :—“ Evil and error cannot have a right to be set forth or 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS CITIZENS 57 
 
 propagated. . . . The State is false to the laws prescribed 
 
 by nature, when, every bridle being removed, full power is left to 
 evil and error to upset minds and to corrupt hearts.” It is not 
 from itself that the State should take a rule for thus controlling 
 the liberty of the citizens, but from that authority which is 
 competent to judge of truth and error, of virtue and vice, of 
 liberty and licence. 
 
 The State ought also to give its valuable aid to those under¬ 
 takings which, privately initiated, will, when completed, turn to 
 general advantage, moral as well as material. Not only so, but 
 it ought also itself to initiate and complete, within the limits of 
 its power, such things as may tend to the common prosperity and 
 convenience. Father Biederlack observes here very sensibly :— 
 “ This does not mean that it is a duty of the State to take care 
 that every citizen is materially happy; but it ought always to 
 apply itself in such a manner as to enable all the citizens most easily 
 to procure for themselves, by their own activity, those material 
 and intellectual goods which are connected with, temporal well¬ 
 being. Traffic and commerce ought to be facilitated ; agriculture, 
 trades, arts ought to be promoted according to circumstances; 
 schools ought to be opened, in which pupils may have every means 
 of acquiring the knowledge suitable and useful for their condition.” 
 (Introduzione alio Studio della Questione Sociale, p. 136.) 
 
 Well said. Let us keep in mind the sufficient reason for the 
 existence of the State, which rests entirely on an insufficiency of 
 power in inferior organisms. But when this power is present, the 
 State cannot interfere, setting it aside or substituting a different 
 power. 
 
 There is another liberty that the State is bound, not always, 
 but in certain circumstances, to respect in citizens, and that is 
 political liberty. Such is the name given to a direct or indirect 
 participation of the citizen in the government. Observe. As for 
 us, any form of government suffices : what chiefly concerns us is 
 that it should be guided by justice. But thereby it is also certain 
 that it can be legitimate, and may grant to the people some 
 participation in the sovereignty, either direct, as in a pure 
 democracy, or indirect, as in a representative government. Hear 
 the Pope :—“ A participation, more or less great, of the citizens 
 in the management of public affairs is not condemned. This 
 participation, in given circumstances and with certain conditions, 
 may be not only a service but a duty.” Admitting therefore the 
 existence of a government more or less democratic, it is bound to 
 respect the political liberty of its subjects. 
 
 Let the government make a due selection. Let it exclude 
 minors, malefactors, &c. ; but when a man is a man, and conducts 
 himself like a man, let it give him a vote. 
 
 Are we therefore advocates of universal suffrage ? 
 
 In theory—yes : it follows from what we have said. In prac¬ 
 tice—we distinguish. We are advocates for it in a state of 
 
58 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 organised society, with, professional representation, because this 
 frees the electors from the seductive influence of human passions. 
 We are not advocates for it in a state of disorganised society, with 
 elections carried by majorities. And this, not on account of 
 defect in that system by itself, but because it is too often accom¬ 
 panied with the wrangling of an excited mob and the venal abuse 
 of a sacred right. And here we think that we may borrow half 
 a page from Eossignoli, who shows how universality of suffrage 
 is to be understood. 
 
 “ Universal, admitting to the suffrage, as in the Italian Com¬ 
 munes of the middle ages, all heads actual and virtual of families, 
 domiciled in the municipal territory, and including, as now in 
 Canada, widows and marriageable young women. For the 
 exclusion of widows and marriageable young women has no reason 
 when precautions are taken (among these, that the vote need not 
 be given personally) to guard feminine modesty and reserve. On 
 the other hand, the exclusion of this element, so tenaciously 
 conservative, can only help disorderly factions. And much less 
 reason is there for excluding the poor and illiterate. To exclude 
 the poor altogether would be to justify those writers who regard 
 civil society as a company of proprietors, as if Vce soli was said 
 only to proprietors, or as if he who owns nothing but the labour 
 of his hands and his brains is not, as well as others, destined by 
 nature to live in society. And as for the illiterate, why should 
 they be excluded from a vote, unless it is supposed (with what 
 reason does not appear) that the good sense necessary for a citizen 
 in order to call to the government of his Commune those men 
 whom he sees most worthy around him is a fruit derived solely 
 from a study of the alphabet and an examination of the franchise ? ” 
 (Concetto dell ’ Autoritd Politica, p. 180.) 
 
 Let us make another quotation. It is from the Pope, and 
 regards the exercise of political liberty :—“ Generally speaking, a 
 total abstention from political life would be no less blamable than 
 a refusal to do anything for the common good, especially as 
 Catholics are bound, by reason of their principles, to bring integrity 
 and zeal to the management of affairs.” (Encyc. Immortale 
 Lei.) 
 
 With a view to this participation of the people in the exercise 
 of sovereign power, Christian Democracy recommends two 
 institutions, of which we shall speak briefly. 
 
 Professional Representation* —The first is that of professional 
 representation. The representative methods of the present day, 
 formed by means of absolute majorities, have come, in point of 
 fact, to be eminently despotic. They who practise this despotism 
 are the official A., the absentee B., and often the millionaire C. 
 The people indeed give their vote, and give it freely; but what 
 
 * The reader will observe that the word “ professional ” is here used 
 in its widest sense, including every kind of trade, business, occupation, 
 by which man earns an honest livelihood. See also note 4, p. 87.— Trans. 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS CITIZENS 59 
 
 community of interests lias the candidate with the electors to 
 give them any confidence that he will take care of them ? The 
 social pyramid has its steps in the various classes to which the 
 people belong. If a man is taken indifferently from any class, 
 what relations has he with the others, or how can he be their 
 representative ? A stranger to them, it is with difficulty he 
 knows their wants. Not having the same interests, oftener being 
 in antagonism with their interests, he is no way solicitous for them, 
 or he dexterously joins in governing them with such artifice as to 
 throw dust in their eyes and—turn all to his own advantage. 
 
 The system of professional representation means that the 
 representation of the people should be real, not illusory. It 
 proposes that every class should of necessity have its representative 
 on the boards of public bodies. Let him be taken from the midst 
 of his class. He will then be able for his work. He will feel the 
 wants of his class, which are also his own ; and he will know how 
 to guard, to defend, and to promote its interests. This reform of 
 the elective system is evidently linked with professional organisa¬ 
 tion, to which we ought to bring back society. 
 
 So long as the present disorganised state continues, Catholics 
 adopt proportional representation as a substitute. Instead of 
 the professional classes, w*e have the different parties that agitate 
 for their rights. Give to each party one or more representatives, 
 according to its numerical power, and you have proportional 
 representation. 
 
 The Referendum. —This is the second institution to which we 
 refer. It is that of Catholics and others who hold sane modern 
 views. The Referendum consists in this, that those who are 
 chosen to represent the people in the councils of the nation should, 
 in certain grave cases, consult the electoral body before deliberat¬ 
 ing among themselves. It is like a restriction of confidence, a 
 limitation of command, that the electors make in regard to those 
 wffiom they have elected. From the definition it appears :— 
 
 i. That the scope of the Referendum is not to substitute the 
 people for the directing bodies, nor yet to hold these latter con¬ 
 tinually bound hand and foot, but only, in extraordinary cases, to 
 treat with them about matters of great importance and much 
 interest for the people. 
 
 ii. That the Referendum is political or administrative, according 
 as the appeal to the people is made by the State or by local 
 administrations. 
 
 iii. That it can be consultative, if it has only the power to give 
 information and counsel to the directing bodies, in whom there is 
 authority to make no account thereof; and it can be deliberative, 
 if it has power to settle or to postpone a matter of business. 
 
 Is the Referendum just ? Whoever denies it, should prove that 
 it offends the rights of some one. Of whom ? Is it of the 
 legislator ? But he himself appeals to it, because his responsibility 
 is divisible, and can be shared by the people. 
 
60 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Is it useful ? We have no doubt of it. 
 
 First of all we recognise in the people a store of valuable quali¬ 
 ties : sound sense, honesty, generosity, fear of God—blessings 
 that are not always met in such abundance higher up. To call 
 so many fine energies into action is certainly an excellent work. 
 
 For another reason we regard it as good. The representatives 
 of the people, chosen according to the present system of majorities, 
 are too often the representatives of themselves, or of a party, or of 
 a sect. Such representatives of the people easily attend to every¬ 
 thing but the real interests of the people. 
 
 The Referendum, is a very efficacious check on the excessive 
 powers of the oligarchy; it is a salutary corrective amid the abuses 
 of the present system. 
 
 In the Congress of Social Science held at Padua in 1896, Pro¬ 
 fessor Rossi, supported by the wise remarks of Toniolo, expressed 
 himself in favour of a Communal Referendum ,. 10 
 
 We shall insist on the ideas of Professor Rossi, and say that 
 if the Communal Referendum had been instituted years ago, many 
 Communes would not to-day be found financially in low condition, 
 because the people would not have been so easily induced to waste 
 their money on foolish expenses. And as for morals, who does 
 not know that the people would not have secularised the schools 
 and hospitals, nor created embarrassments about any manifesta¬ 
 tion of worship ? 
 
 Nevertheless, we do not admit the Referendum unconditionally. 
 We recognise that the Referendum ought not to be blind, that it 
 supposes in the people sufficient knowledge to judge, and that 
 proper precautions ought to be taken to ascertain the will of 
 the people. 
 
 For the rest, we Catholics are not the only people who desire the 
 Referendum. It not unfrequently happens that we find ourselves 
 among men of the most opposite parties, not excluding some of 
 the socialists themselves. 
 
 It seems to us that true democracy requires the Referendum. 
 In what does this democracy consist ? “ In letting all classes 
 
 share proportionally in public life and enjoy it, without being 
 absorbed or outdone by others, or by a supreme centralising 
 power.’ 5 Just the contrary of what occurs at present. To-day 
 the lower classes are treated as senseless beings, mere matter, at 
 most as good material for the pedestal of somebody’s ambition. 
 This is a state of things condemned by the Pontiff. “ The 
 proletariat,” he says, “ neither more nor less than the rich, are 
 citizens by natural right, true and living members, forming, by 
 means of the family, the social body—not to say that they are the 
 greater number.” 
 
 But all has not yet been said. Among the multitude of citizens 
 there is one class that—by a necessity of nature—is the most 
 weak, the most exposed therefore to the ill-treatment of those 
 who feel themselves the strongest, and it is the class of those who 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS CITIZENS 61 
 
 earn a living by the labour of their hands. For this class the 
 State ought to have a special care and regard. And this for the 
 simple reason, often given, that as society ought to be a state of 
 common wellbeing, it ought to exert itself more where the need 
 is greater. What action the government ought to take in this 
 matter, we shall have occasion to consider elsewhere. Here it 
 will suffice to lay down the principle, and to confirm it with the 
 words of the Pope. “ In making account of private persons, a 
 special regard is to be had for the weak and the poor. The multi¬ 
 tude of tfie rich have perhaps of themselves less need of public 
 defence; the miserable people, in want of support, have the 
 utmost need of finding themselves under the patronage of the 
 State. And therefore the working classes, who are in the number 
 of the weak and needy, require the special care and protection, 
 of the State.” 
 
 The greatest equity ought to be observed in dispensing to the 
 citizens the fruits of social life, winch is done by observing distri¬ 
 butive justice. The Holy Father says :—“ It should never 
 happen that the civil authority serves only one or a few, it being 
 established for the common good of all.” 
 
 We should form a clear idea of distributive justice, and we shall 
 do so by taking St. Thomas as our guide. He treats of it at great 
 length in his Summa of Theology (2a 2ge, q. LXI.). 
 
 The word distributive intimates to us that there is question of 
 dispensing something. But dispensing what ? St. Thomas 
 informs us that the things to be dispensed or distributed are 
 common things. Objects are called common when many have 
 a right to them. To all therefore distribution ought to be 
 made. 
 
 By what title ? St. Thomas says :— ££ As a part and the whole 
 are in some manner the same thing, so that which is of the whole 
 is in some manner of the part; and thus, when of common goods 
 anything is distributed to individuals, every one in some manner 
 receives what is his own.” Observe the repetition of the words 
 “ in some manner,” which St. Thomas could on no account omit. 
 Farther down he gives the reason :— ££ It must be said that 
 distributive and commutative justice are distinguished not only 
 according to one and many,* but according to the different 
 nature of the debt Because that which is common is due to anv 
 one in quite a different manner from that which is his own.” 
 To that which is common the individual has a right, but not yet 
 a definite concrete right, as he has to that which is properly 
 his own. To that which is common the individual has a certain 
 
 * Distributive justice is generally said to be that which directs the 
 community or the government in giving honours, offices, or emoluments 
 to each particular member of the community, and commutative justice 
 that which regulates the dealings of one private individual with another. 
 Thus, commutative justice would have reference to one person (or a number 
 of persons morally equivalent to one); distributive, to many.— Trans. 
 
62 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 right not to be questioned, but not determined in substance and 
 measure, and to be determined by a suitable criterion. 
 
 We said above that every man in the social body has his space, 
 resulting from reality and potentiality, alongside the spaces of 
 his brethren living with him. That one space should respect 
 another is commutative justice. 
 
 But individuals have before them a greater organism, which, 
 though formed from them, exists by itself. Towards this they 
 have duties and rights. They have duties, which we have 
 examined under the term 44 social.” They have rights : they have 
 a right that the great organism, society, should give them a share 
 in that wellbeing to procure which it exists, and which, being in 
 some manner the property of all, is called common. 
 
 To place this distribution in the hands of him who commands, 
 the Angelic Doctor says :— <£ The act of distribution, which is of 
 common goods, belongs only to him who presides over the common 
 goods.” And this not at all in an arbitrary manner, or with 
 partiality, but with proportion. 
 
 With what proportion ? Is it with proportion to how much 
 the individual has contributed to the common good ? But that 
 would suppose society to be a body separated from men rather than 
 consisting of men—a body in which they would make a financial 
 speculation, disposed to remain with it as long as it repaid them 
 in good measure, ready to quit it if it ceased to offer any advantage. 
 That w T e know is not the proportion. Man finding himself in 
 society with a view to his relative wellbeing, subordinated to the 
 attainment of his last end, the proportion will be in accordance 
 with the position that each individual occupies. 
 
 St. Thomas teaches that, in distributive justice, the quota 
 ought to be proportioned not according to the thing but accord¬ 
 ing to the person. “ In distributive justice,” he says (q. lxi.), 
 “ the mean is not taken according to the equality of one thing 
 to another, but according to the proportion of things to persons, 
 so that as one person exceeds another, the thing which is given 
 to one person may exceed that which is given to another.” Hence 
 account is to be made of the social position that the individual 
 occupies, and therefore of the need or weakness in which he finds 
 himself; and aid is to be given him in proportion. 
 
 Individual concurrence is the foundation of this right; and 
 whoever culpably fails therein is justly deprived of it. 
 
 It is according to these rules that the State is to conduct itself 
 towards its subjects, when it calls upon them to contribute, either 
 personally or really, to the common wellbeing ; when it dispenses 
 among them the benefits of social life, howsoever the occasion 
 may occur ; and when it makes use of their aid for the true 
 progress of society. 
 
 In this salutary theory we discover the foundation of that 
 social legislation which is regarded by liberal theorists as an 
 absurdity, but which is called for by Christian principles, as well 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS ITSELF 63 
 
 as by the sad experience that States without it have gone 
 through. Belgium, where the principles of Christian polity have 
 been applied by the Government, has made wise social provision 
 for the future, which some other States are gradually, but too 
 slowly, imitating. 
 
 Section V.—Duties of the State towards Itself. 
 
 There is a difference between the citizens and the body of the 
 citizens. The latter has rights and duties; the former have 
 rights with duties. The social body, or State, ought to have 
 such an existence that it may derive therefrom all that wellbeing 
 which the citizens have a right to expect. The State has, there¬ 
 fore, a right to be, and to maintain itself in being. 
 
 The existence of a State implies a logical process in its history, 
 woven from the reasons of its existence. When neither fraud 
 nor falsehood takes part in it, there are always lawful exigencies 
 of the common welfare that prepare the way for the formation 
 of a State : sometimes these exigencies are not wanting, even 
 though bad and condemnable practices are employed. Such a 
 State has a right to its own preservation, a right that for the 
 good of all is a strict duty. Enemies, internal as well as external, 
 may strive to do injury to a State. From both it ought to defend 
 itself. 
 
 But here let us be well understood. A State preserves itself 
 not by force of arms, not by iron gates, which effect a compulsory 
 aggregation; but by so acting that men may find in society 
 those advantages which they have a right to promise themselves. 
 This is the way to keep alive and active in them a consciousness 
 of social duties, which we have said is the life of a State. Thus 
 tumults, seditions, rebellions will be avoided. If the flame should 
 • burst out in any turbulent mind, it will not find nourishment, 
 or it will easily be stifled. And thus internal enemies, almost 
 before they are born, will be vanquished. Let the State do its 
 duty, let the State be what it ought to be, and its scope will be 
 attained. There will then be tranquillity, there will then be 
 peace, of which we hear so much talk; yet few consider that 
 substantially it consists in the morality of the citizens and their 
 good standing. 
 
 “ Those who rule ought to defend society, because nature 
 entrusted this care to the supreme power in such a manner that 
 the public weal is not only the first law, but the sole and whole 
 reason for the existence of a government.” (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 Independence or autonomy follows from existence. If a 
 State exists lawfully, it has lawfully a right to act, to govern, to 
 regulate its affairs, without being hindered by any other State. 
 This is called the right of nationality, which, in the sense explained 
 by us, has not only not been condemned, but has been taught, 
 and for a long time, by Catholics. 
 
64 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 We said, however, “in the sense explained by us.” Because 
 there is a right of nationality which is properly called modern, 
 and on which the declarations of Catholics are not unanimous. 
 That we may not be misunderstood, it is well to explain here 
 the two senses in which the word “ nation ” may be taken. 
 
 In the first sense, a nation is a multitude of people having 
 the same laws, under the same sovereign power, which in a certain 
 manner holds in its hands the energies and collects the aspirations 
 of the people scattered over a greater or less extent of territory. 
 Here the nation is equivalent to the State. The right of 
 nationality or independence we have not only not denied to it, 
 but we have purposely defended that right. 
 
 The word “ nation ” is also taken in an ethnical sense, more 
 conformable to its derivation. It then means a multitude of 
 people, who have natural] y such a sameness of character, of 
 inclination, of language, of soil, that they may well be said to be 
 placed on the same basis or platform. In this sense it will 
 be understood how a nation can be, at least in fact, divided 
 into several States, as also how a State can embrace several 
 nations. 
 
 Now’ comes a question : has every nation a right to indepen¬ 
 dence or nationality ? That is, have people who are so like 
 in all respects as to be considered a nation, a right to form them¬ 
 selves into an autonomous independent State ? On this right, 
 Catholics are not agreed. 
 
 Rossignoli argues that it would certainly be desirable, on 
 account of the great advantages that would follow from it, to 
 have every nation a State. He then continues :—“ Until now r 
 we have been with nationalists, with federalists, with advocates 
 of the universal pacification of peoples. But may not the thesis 
 be pushed, as it has been pushed here in Italy by Mamiami, 
 Mancini, and others, so far as to maintain that in a people of a 
 certain race, who live politically in virtue of old historical facts, 
 lawful or unlawful, with another people of a different nationality 
 (Piedmont, for example, politically united to Savoy), there remains 
 a right of secession, if they wish for such ? Let us suppose that 
 Corsica would wish to bid farewell to-morrow without more 
 ado to the French Republic, and the Flemish provinces to 
 Belgium, and Aosta to Italy, and Cyprus and Gibraltar and 
 Malta to England : would they have a right to do so ? And if 
 one of the three ethnical nations that form one nation in the 
 Swiss Republic wished to renew a Sonderbund , separating 
 capriciously from the other two, would these latter quietly tolerate 
 the partition as lawful ? Evidently this new right would not be 
 pleasing to France, or Belgium, or Switzerland, or at present to 
 Italy, which in its time profited so much by it; not only because 
 national self-love would not find its advantage therein, but also 
 because a sufficient reason to justify these lacerations does not 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS FAMILIES 65 
 
 appear and cannot be found. We must except the case in which 
 the Government acts the part of a tyrant towards some of the 
 people subject to it, as happens, for example, at the present day, 
 with the Cretes and Armenians, both groaning under the fierce 
 and ignoble yoke of the seraglio of Constantinople. 
 
 “ An ethnical nation is not a mere geographical expression; still 
 it is not by itself a juridical expression, nor does it denote a moral 
 person. The ethnical nation is virtually, but not actually, a 
 civil society; and, therefore, it cannot boast of a true right to 
 independence, supposing that past historical facts have lawfully 
 united this people to another of a different race in one political 
 body. Such, for example, would be the Austrian Empire, in 
 which, though somewhat uncomfortably, Germans, Sclavs, 
 Magyars, Rumanians, and Italians live together.” {La Liberia 
 Politica, p. 18.) 
 
 Against this view, Cathrein lays down an absolute proposition, 
 in language as gay as a triumphal march. 
 
 Professor Ferrari, in a style no less jubilant, opposes both 
 of them thus :—“ Does there exist a right of nationality, or has 
 each nation a natural right to constitute itself a united and 
 independent State ? I believe so; and this right, as D’Azeglio 
 observes (Miei Ricordi, c. iii.), appears to me a logical deduction 
 from the Christian idea, which, granting natural rights to every 
 individual, inasmuch as he is a man, should of its own tendency 
 lead to a recognition of the same rights in nations. . . . The 
 right of nationality therefore appears to me unquestionable; 
 every people has an incontestable right to choose that sovereign 
 and that form of government which will best correspond to its 
 needs and promote its interests. . . . Now, nothing is more 
 capable of understanding or promoting its interests than an 
 autonomous government of its own, with united strength. There¬ 
 fore, every nation has a right to independence and unity.” {II 
 Popolo , &c., 301-2.) 
 
 It is a duty to act in such a manner that the spirit of Christian 
 Democracy may spread throughout the social body. We have 
 not defined what ought to be the form of government. We do 
 not say what arrangements or laws are necessary for a proper 
 social settlement. But we say that it is a duty that the people 
 should be governed in such a manner that the common wellbeing 
 may be promoted, with a preference of aid for the lower classes. 
 This follows from what we have said regarding the nature of 
 civilisation and of Christian Democracy. 
 
 Section VI.— Duties of the State towards Families. 
 
 The State has under it some organisms that it cannot absolutely 
 destroy. They have a fife anterior to its life, and this life they 
 
 E 
 
66 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 derive from another source. Among these are Families, It is the 
 duty of the State to respect their autonomy, their rights, and 
 their independence of action; moreover, to facilitate prosperity 
 for them. Hence :— 
 
 1. It is absolutely forbidden to the State to change the condi¬ 
 tions of the formation of the Family. A work of nature, it ought 
 to remain such. The State can and should regulate or moderate 
 the consequences of matrimony for the good of all; but should 
 accept it from nature, which instituted it, and not pretend to 
 create or modify it. 
 
 2. The State ought to guard the free exercise of the authority 
 of parents, who are the natural legislators of the Family. The 
 Pope observes :—“ A Family, no less than a State, is, as we have 
 said, a true society, governed by a power of its own, which is the 
 paternal power. Within the limits determined by its end, the 
 Family has therefore at least equal rights with civil society in the 
 choice and use of the means necessary for its preservation and its 
 just liberty. We have said, at least equal rights; for since 
 domestic society is prior in idea and in fact to civil, it ought like¬ 
 wise to have rights and duties prior and more natural. If the 
 citizens, if families, having entered into the association of civil 
 society, found hindrance instead of help, a diminution instead of 
 a protection of their rights by the commonwealth, such association 
 would be repudiated rather than desired.” (Rerum novarum.) 
 To educate children, to instruct them, is therefore a task of parents. 
 Let the State provide schools and masters that Families w'ould 
 not be able to provide, but for the development and completion of 
 the educational work begun at home, a work that is not to be 
 destroyed. “ The paternal authority is of such a nature that it 
 cannot be abolished or absorbed by the State; for it comes from 
 the same source as human life itself.” (Ibid.) 
 
 3. The State ought to look to the stability, unity, and prosperity 
 of Families : this, besides promoting the interests of the individual, 
 likewise promotes those of society. And as it is very important 
 that the Family should hold some family property, the State 
 should facilitate the acquirement of it, and endeavour by oppor¬ 
 tune measures to prevent the waste or ruin of it. 
 
 4. Even in functions that properly belong to the Family, the 
 State can interfere for the good of individuals, but only in excep¬ 
 tional cases, when the efforts of the Family fail. “ Certainly, if 
 a Family finds itself reduced to such great distress that it cannot 
 possibly of itself rise therefrom, it is right that extreme necessity 
 should be relieved by public aid ; for each Family is a part of the 
 social body. In like manner if anywhere a grave disturbance of 
 mutual rights occurs within the domestic walls, let the State 
 interfere, and give every one his due. This is not to usurp the 
 rights of citizens, but to safeguard and strengthen them according 
 to the laws of justice.” (Ibid.) 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS THE CHURCH 67 
 
 Section VII.— Duties of the State towards Communes. 
 
 The autonomy of existence and action that we defended against 
 the usurpations of the State for the Individual and the Family, 
 we here defend for the Communes, keeping to the rule that the 
 existence of a body corresponds to its end, and from the end the 
 rights of action are to be determined. 
 
 Above all, therefore, the State has a duty of respect towards 
 the Communes, whose functions it should not, by an unnatural 
 concentration, usurp. Nor should it permit other bodies to 
 obstruct their development or to do them violence. 
 
 In saying so, we do not intend to maintain that the State has 
 no office of supervision or direction of the functions of the Com¬ 
 munes—as if, by reason of respect for their autonomy, we main¬ 
 tained that they might lawfully and at pleasure abuse their 
 powers. Certainly not. We say that the interference of the 
 State in communal affairs ought to be limited, like positive action, 
 by the duty that the State has to co-ordinate the functions of 
 inferior organisms to the attainment of the common good, which 
 is the scope of civil society.* 
 
 Section VIII.— Duties of the State towards the Church. 
 
 Whether it pleases you or not, ye liberals and socialists, the 
 existence of the Church is an historical fact; and you may see it 
 towering aloft before you, unshaken and indestructible, laden with 
 crowns, resplendent with the tokens of its victories. A society that 
 
 * A book that has been highly recommended for Irishmen, especially 
 Catholics, who desire to have an intelligent view of the exercise of State 
 authority in Ireland, is Dublin Castle and the Irish People, by Mr. R. Barry 
 O’Brien. It shows the character of the chief officials and the working of 
 the various boards and departments in the Castle during many generations. 
 There is no want of facts or figures, some of which appear almost in¬ 
 credible. Who, for example, would suppose that the civil government of 
 Ireland costs £1 8s. per head of the population every year ? Belgium, 
 with four times the trade of Ireland and a much larger population, is 
 governed at about half this expense. 
 
 It is hard for a country to prosper when it is overburdened with charges. 
 From the General Report of the Royal Commission (1894) on the Financial 
 Relations between Great Britain and Ireland, signed by eleven of the 
 thirteen members, we learn that Ireland was then taxed beyond her fair 
 share to the extent of about three million pounds annually. Yet this great 
 injustice still continues unremedied. Nay, the annual expenditure is now 
 two millions more than it was at that time. 
 
 It does not serve much for the honour of England to be spoken of by 
 the President of the United States, Mr. William Taft (in a speech on St. 
 Patrick’s Day, 1909) as follows :—“ The history of Ireland from the time 
 of the English Invasion to Catholic Emancipation is a record of misgovern- 
 ment, intolerance, selfish exploitation, and confiscation on the one hand, 
 and of misery and squalor on the other.” 
 
 Many persons in the United Kingdom are unaware of the causes of dis¬ 
 content in Ireland, and therefore it is useful to mention where they may 
 find some information on the subject.— Trans. 
 
68 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OE SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 has its peculiar end, more universal than that of the State, the 
 Church has also special means for the attainment of that end—its 
 own hierarchy, its own existence. With the State it has the same 
 subject, man, on whom its action and authority fall. The scope of 
 the State is to facilitate for man the attainment of wellbeing here 
 on earth ; that of the Church is to lead him to eternal happiness in 
 heaven, by a due subordination of the present life to the future. 
 The two tasks, far from being opposed, help and complete each 
 other, giving a large field for the action of Church and State. 
 
 To prevent any encroachment of one on the sphere of the other* 
 their mutual relations must be kept well before the mind. We 
 cannot better point them out than by having recourse to Leo 
 XIII. In his encyclical Immortale Dei he says :— 
 
 “ Thus God divided the government of the human family 
 between two powers—namely, the ecclesiastical and the civil— 
 one for the superintendence of divine things, the other for that 
 of human things. Both are supreme, each in its order. Each 
 has certain limits within which it is contained, shown by its nature 
 and its immediate purpose; each has a sphere within which it 
 acts by its own right. But because the subject of both powers 
 is one and the same, and it may happen that something, though 
 for a different reason or under a different aspect, may belong to 
 each jurisdiction, Divine Providence, the source of each, has 
 fittingly arranged their course. And those (powers) that are , are 
 ordained of God (Bom. xiii. 1). Were it not so, occasions of 
 contest and conflict would often arise, and man would not seldom 
 be obliged to remain in doubt, like a traveller at a place where the 
 road parts into two roads, not knowing which to take—the two 
 powers commanding contrary things and conscience not per¬ 
 mitting disobedience. 
 
 “ Now, this is repugnant in the highest degree imaginable to 
 the wisdom and goodness of God, who, even in the physical order, 
 which is so much inferior, directs natural forces and their laws so 
 sweetly and harmoniously that none of them is a hindrance to 
 others, and all conspire most happily to the final scope of the 
 world. Therefore, between the two powers there should be a 
 certain co-ordination, which indeed is not unreasonably compared 
 to that by which soul and body are united in man. The character 
 of the said relations cannot be better known than by considering, 
 as we have said, the nature of each, and making account of the 
 excellence and nobility of their respective ends, one being directly 
 and chiefly intended for the care of temporal things, the other for 
 the acquisition of supernatural and eternal goods. 
 
 “ Whatever therefore in human things is sacred, whatever 
 pertains to the salvation of souls or the worship of God, whether 
 it is such by its own nature or by reason of the end to which it is 
 referred, all that falls under the jurisdiction of the Church. But 
 it is right that other things, which are of a civil and political 
 nature, should be subject to the civil authority, Jesus Christ 
 
DUTIES OF THE STATE TOWARDS ASSOCIATIONS 69 
 
 having commanded that the things of Caesar should be rendered 
 to Caesar and the things of God to God. Nevertheless, there are 
 some occasions when another way of concord is opened up to 
 secure the liberty of both—namely, when civil rulers and the 
 Roman Pontiff enter into an agreement about some particular 
 point. In these circumstances, the Church offers the most 
 splendid proofs of her maternal goodness, doing all that she can 
 in the work of conciliation and indulgence.” 
 
 The encyclical Sapientice Christiance returns to the same ideas 
 thus :— , 
 
 “ The Church as well as the State has its own domain; and 
 therefore in the administration of affairs neither of them obeys 
 the other within certain limits, determined for each by its 
 immediate end. Whence, however, it is not at all to be inferred 
 that they ought to be disunited, much less hostile. 
 
 “ And in truth man by his nature is not only a physical being, 
 but also a moral being. Wherefore, from the tranquillity of 
 public order, which is the proximate end of civil society, man 
 seeks the means of promoting his temporal welfare and still more 
 those of perfecting his moral qualities. ... At the same 
 time he wishes, as is just, to find in the Church means adapted to 
 his religious perfection. This perfection consists in the know¬ 
 ledge and practice of the true religion, which, directing all the 
 other moral virtues to God, completes and perfects them. There¬ 
 fore, in framing laws and institutions, regard should be had to the 
 moral and religious dispositions of man, and care taken for his 
 perfection. Nor should anything be commanded or forbidden 
 except with a view to the special end of each of the two societies, 
 civil and religious. 
 
 “ Accordingly, the Church cannot be indifferent about the laws 
 of the State, not as such, but inasmuch as sometimes, passing 
 beyond their due confines, they invade the rights of the Church. 
 It is rather a duty of the Church, assigned to her by God, to resist, 
 whenever civil law injures religion, and to recommend with all 
 earnestness that the spirit of the Gospel legislation may inspire the 
 laws and institutions of peoples. And because the progress of 
 States depends very much on the character of rulers, the Church 
 cannot show favour or support to those who, attacking her, openly 
 mistake their rights, and endeavour to separate two things that 
 are of their nature inseparable—namely, Religion and the State. 
 On the other hand, she is favourable, as is just, to those who, 
 having a proper idea of the State and of Christian Society, wish 
 that both should work in harmony for the common good.” 
 
 Section IX.— Duties of the State towards Private 
 
 Associations. 
 
 Besides the Family and the Commune, the State often finds 
 within its borders some other associations, which men freely 
 
70 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 institute for their material or moral improvement. The usefulness 
 of these practical schools, as a means of more easily attaining a 
 particular object, man has no need to learn from any master : 
 nature itself teaches it to him. Hence religious, scientific, 
 commercial, industrial, friendly societies; &c., are established 
 by men. 
 
 The right of founding such societies, man has received from 
 nature. This principle requires to be well remembered by the 
 State, which will find therein a proper and secure basis for its 
 relations with them. Accordingly— 
 
 1. The State cannot prohibit or oppose the forming of associa¬ 
 tions that have an honest scope. Only a false idea of an absolute 
 State, the source of all rights and laws, can attribute to the State 
 such a right. The Pope attaches the greatest importance to this 
 point, saying:—“ Now although private societies exist in a State,, 
 and are as it were so many parts of it, yet, speaking generally and 
 absolutely, it is not in the power of the State to prevent them. 
 Because the law of nature grants to man the right of joining in 
 societies, and it is not the business of the State to destroy natural 
 rights, but to defend them. If it forbids such associations, it 
 contradicts itself ; for both it and they exist in virtue of the same 
 principle—namely, that men are naturally inclined to associate.’* 
 (Encyc. Rerum novarum.) 
 
 By this thesis the right of preventing associations from being 
 formed, or of dissolving them, if already formed, is certainly 
 
 not denied in an absolute manner to the State. When anv of 
 
 •/ 
 
 these societies have as their scope, not the welfare, but the injury 
 of other societies, to forbid or to suppress them is not so much a 
 right as a duty. And this for the evident reason that a right 
 cannot be had from nature to do what frustrates the end of nature. 
 “ There are times, however, when it is proper that the law should 
 prevent associations: as when men combine for a purpose 
 evidently bad, unjust, or dangerous to the commonwealth. In 
 such cases the public authority may justly prohibit associations, 
 or dissolve them if formed.” But this right or duty the State 
 has in favour of nature, if we may so speak, not to its prejudice ; 
 and care must be taken not to go to excess. Above all, the State 
 ought to have a just criterion regarding what is really good and 
 what is not so, and beware of mistaking the defence of its own 
 wellbeing for that of its subjects. u It is necessary, however, to 
 proceed with the utmost caution, lest the rights of citizens should 
 seem to be violated, and evil should be dqne under the pretence 
 of public good. Because laws do not bind unless in so far as they 
 are conformable to right reason, and therefore to the eternal 
 law of God.” 
 
 2. It is also a duty of the State to facilitate the formation of 
 societies, to defend their rights, and to respect their autonomy. 
 “ Let the State defend these lawful associations of the citizens ; 
 let it not meddle with their organisation or discipline, which is 
 
PERSONAL CONTRIBUTION 
 
 71 
 
 necessary for unity of action. If the citizens have a right, as 
 they actually have, to join in societies, they have likewise an 
 equal right to choose that kind of management which they judge 
 most conducive to the end proposed.” (Ibid.) 
 
 Themes.— The prosperity of a State is to be judged by that of the 
 citizens—The injuries that a State often does to Individuals, Families, and 
 Communes, as well as to private associations—Respect for the rights of 
 inferior bodies was secured in a theocratic State—How philosophically false 
 and socially disastrous is the theory that makes the State the source and 
 origin of rights in various bodies—How the part that the State ought to 
 take with 'regard to organisations within its borders may be generally 
 defined—The chief means by which the State -can and should come to the 
 aid of the working classes. 
 
 CHAPTER YI. 
 
 THE RIGHTS OF THE STATE. 
 
 Section I.— Wellbeing oe the State. 
 
 The State has duties, because it has an end to attain; therefore, 
 it has also rights. This is an evident enthymeme, and is often 
 repeated, like the burden of a song. 
 
 In regard to whom are the rights ? In regard to those towards 
 w T hom it has duties ; that is to say, its subjects or citizens. 
 
 What is the source of these rights ? Nature; because from 
 nature the State has command to attain its end. 
 
 What is the extent of these rights ? As much as is necessary 
 to give to citizenship the greatest possible wellbeing. 
 
 But the wellbeing of the Individual and the Family is two-fold : 
 domestic and social. The latter integrates, crowns, and perfects 
 the former. Nor can it be said that the social exists, if the domes¬ 
 tic does not also exist. It follows that the State, in demanding 
 its rights, should impose the least possible sacrifice on Individuals 
 and Families. 
 
 To what contributions is the State entitled ? To two : one 
 personal, the other real. 
 
 Section II.— Personal Contribution. 
 
 Without the work of man, nothing can be done. And the 
 State requires that work should be done for it by those to whose 
 advantage its functions tend. 
 
 To quell seditions—to execute sentences, with a view to the 
 maintenance of private rights and the promotion of the public 
 weal—to defend itself from external aggression, men are necessary ; 
 and men the people ought to give to the State. 
 
 Hence, the army. It cannot be done without. Care should be 
 taken to have it, and to have it with the least possible expense to 
 
72 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Families. There are various modes of enrolment, but that is 
 certainly the best which (i.) makes account of the preservation of 
 Families and their relative wellbeing; (ii.) which arranges that 
 there will not, through too much regard for the army, be wanting 
 men of energy and talent for other employments equally necessary 
 to society ; and (iii.) does not withdraw too many hands from 
 labour, for it must always be remembered that, in matters of 
 tribute, necessity is the only lawful title, and that every soldier is 
 a double weight on social finances—that is, through what he 
 costs the treasury and through what he ceases to produce by 
 labour. It may be added for the same reasons that a man ought 
 not to be kept a longer time under arms than is indispensable 
 to make him a soldier. 
 
 From all this we see how unjustifiable and condemnable is that 
 practice of the present day, too widely spread and accredited, 
 which takes the name of militarism. 
 
 Through the necessity of defence the army has become an 
 institution in itself, having a reason for its existence in civil 
 society. Therefore the desire to make it every day more powerful 
 by land and sea. Therefore the fabulous sums thrown away on 
 its equipment. 
 
 We—most friendly towards an army, a force that acts in the 
 hands of the executive power for the greatest good of all—are 
 enemies of the present militarism, which exhausts our resources 
 and is a cause of many private and public misfortunes. 
 
 Section III.— Real Contribution. 
 
 To procure the common wellbeing, money is indispensable. 
 This ought to be supplied to the State by the subjects ; and the 
 supply takes the name of imposts or tributes. On the lawfulness 
 of them, we do not think that there is any need to spend words : 
 it is evident. 
 
 The quantity, however, is limited by social exigencies and by 
 the capabilities of the citizens.* But by social exigencies we are 
 
 * Speaking of taxation, Mr. O’Brien, in his book, Dublin Castle, quotes 
 the following figures for the year ending the 31st March, 1907 :— 
 
 Ireland’s gross contribution to Imperial 
 
 Expenditure ... ... ... £9,490,000 
 
 Cost of Administration ... ... 7,678,500 
 
 Balance available for Imperial Expenditure £1,811,500 
 
 Scotland’s gross contribution to Imperial 
 
 Expenditure ... ... ... £15,837,000 
 
 Cost of Administration ... ... 5,962,500 
 
 Balance available for Imperial Expenditure £9,874,500 
 
 He then makes a very just comparison. “ Contented Scotland,” he 
 says, “ with a population of 4,472,103, contributes £15,837,000 to the 
 
REAL CONTRIBUTION 
 
 73 
 
 not to understand that fury with which some enthusiastic politi¬ 
 cians are seized for raising theatres, monuments, and palaces, nor 
 revenges taken by the government party, but those works which are 
 required to give the people a comparatively easy life, and which turn 
 in some manner to the benefit of all, rich and poor, high and low. 
 
 Imposts and Taxes. —The gathering up of money, as arranged 
 by the exchequer, happens in two ways. The subject is obliged 
 to pay an annual contribution to the State ; and the subject who 
 comes within certain conditions ought to pay it without more ado. 
 This is the way of imposts. A subject who avails himself of a 
 service that the State provides for the convenience of all, is obliged 
 to pay a sum to the treasury for it. This is the way of taxes ; for 
 example, the school tax and the postal tax. 11 
 
 Lawfulness of Taxes. —A question may be asked : is it just that 
 the State should exact a tribute from those who use an institution 
 
 Exchequer. Discontented Ireland, with a population of 4,458,775, con¬ 
 tributes the gross sum of £9,490,000. The administration of Scotland, 
 in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish people, and consistently 
 with the prosperity of the country, costs £5,962,500. It costs £7,678,500 
 to keep Ireland poor and disaffected.” 
 
 He enters into many details regarding the enormous expenditure of money 
 in Ireland, not properly applied for the benefit of the country. Thus, 
 the Lord Lieutenant receives £20,000 a year (household, fuel, and other 
 charges raise the expense to £35,074), while the President of Switzerland 
 (about half the size of Ireland, yet with a population over three millions) 
 receives only £720. 
 
 He concludes with some weighty words from Mr. Redmond. “ When 
 Englishmen ask us what we want we answer in a sentence, A measure of 
 legislative autonomy similar to that enjoyed by any of your self-governing 
 Colonies or Dependencies. If you want an illustration look at Canada, 
 look even at the Transvaal. The Transvaal is a new country, yet it enjoys 
 legislative autonomy ; Ireland, a more ancient kingdom than England, 
 does not.” 
 
 What a telling fact that Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Cape, 
 the Transvaal, all have their own Parliaments ! None of the members 
 sit in the English Parliament, nor have they any desire to do so. 
 
 Mr. Sexton, who is deeply versed in finance, has shown that a fair taxation 
 for Ireland after the Union would have been an average of £3,000,000 a 
 year. But Ireland has been obliged since then to pay on an average 
 £6,000,000 a year. At this rate, during the years from 1800 to 1894, she 
 has been unjustly overtaxed to the extent of £282,000,000. How proper, 
 therefore, would it be that England should now strive to make some repara¬ 
 tion to Ireland for the crying wrongs of the past! 
 
 Many of the English people are well disposed towards Ireland, but perhaps 
 the greatest obstacle in the way of obtaining good laws is the House of 
 Lords. It consists of men of property, who are determined to hold what 
 they possess. In 1810 they refused to efface from the Statute-book a law 
 that inflicted the penalty of death for stealing goods to the amount of five 
 shillings. In 1893 they wrecked Mr. Gladstone’s Home Rule Bill, after it 
 had passed triumphantly through the House of Commons. 
 
 When will men understand that the peace, welfare, and happiness of the 
 world can never be so well promoted by building “ dreadnoughts ” and 
 inventing other frightful instruments of destruction as by practising the 
 Christian virtues of justice and charity ? Have men no other laws to guide 
 them but those of tigers and wolves ?— Trans . 
 
74 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 established by it for the public ? In principle, we do not see 
 how this can be denied. These institutions are necessary for 
 society. The use is not therefore necessary for every individual; 
 for some it is often superfluous, and even injurious. This is one 
 of the cases in which there is a little friction between the good of 
 society and private good. The system of taxes smooths matters. 
 The government, out of the imposts received, provides institutions 
 for society, consolidating it and giving it liberty : the individual 
 who makes use of them, pays the tax. To supply for the tax by an 
 impost would be to impose a sacrifice on all, and would be contrary 
 to the principle that the individual contribution for the common 
 wellbeing should be made with the least possible sacrifice. The 
 system of taxes has certainly its inconveniences; but to avoid or 
 to lessen them, moderation in taxation ought to be better than 
 an abolition of the system. There are some institutions of which 
 it is well that families make little use—let the tax be higher. 
 There are others the use of which is generally required—let the 
 tax be moderate. Always let the law make account of those 
 who have not means, for whom the use of an institution may be 
 necessary, and it may even be advantageous for the public. 
 Let the tax be then lowered, or dispensed with altogether. 
 
 Direct and Indirect Imposts. —An impost is called direct when 
 it is required from persons on whom the sacrifice of disbursement 
 really falls. It is called indirect when it is required from persons 
 who are recouped by others : this happens when dealers have to 
 buy at a higher rate from the manufacturers of certain 
 merchandise, but really lay the burden on those who use it, to 
 whose prejudice they indemnify themselves by selling at an 
 increased price. 
 
 We believe it well to observe at once that indirect taxes fall 
 nearly always on the consumer, direct ones on the producer. 
 As, therefore, the consumption of certain goods is necessary 
 for all men, and that of others superfluous, the indirect tax 
 generalised is of necessity grievous for the poor, to whom the loss 
 of a few pence may be a serious injury, while it would not cause 
 the rich a thought. 
 
 The indirect impost is, therefore, of its nature antidemocratic. 
 This characteristic requires to be corrected, by abolishing duty 
 on those things which are strictly needed, such as salt, 12 or 
 lowering it very much ; and, on the other hand, increasing it 
 on things of luxury, which are not used from any need, but for 
 the comfort of life. 
 
 Fundamental Principles of a Just Tributary Law. —From the 
 nature of the relations that exist between the social body and its 
 component parts, the rules of tribute ought to be derived. We 
 have shown it many times. Belations in society run in different 
 directions : some go from the circumference to the centre, and 
 are the contributions of individuals to the State ; others go 
 
REAL CONTRIBUTION 
 
 75 
 
 from the centre to the circumference, and are the benefits that 
 society imparts to its members. The final result of all this 
 activity is in favour of individuals. But this, not as the conse¬ 
 quence of a contract well weighed and stipulated on a utilitarian 
 basis, rather because such was an ordinance of nature, which 
 desires the good of all by means of society, composed of all, and 
 living by the aid of all. 
 
 The idea often repeated is here again re-echoed—that society 
 is a living body and men are its members. But in a living body 
 the strong members are expected to act strongly ; the weak, 
 weakly. There is, therefore, a solid principle that ought to stand 
 as a foundation of the relations between the citizens and the 
 social body. It may be enunciated thus : Every man, however 
 much he lives for his own advantage, is bound, according to his 
 condition, to live for the advantage of society. 
 
 The social contribution is a withdrawal of efficiency from 
 individual and domestic goods—just as in an animal body the 
 function exercised by each of the members is a waste, more or 
 less, of it. This must be taken into account. Hence another 
 principle : The social contribution ought to be reckoned according 
 to the sacrifice that it costs anyone to make it. 
 
 Therefore, there are two coefficients of the social contribution— 
 one objective, which regards the strength of position in life; the 
 other subjective, which regards the sacrifice of private wellbeing. 
 Together they give us the amount of the social contribution. 
 Erom these principles we draw the practical rules of a just tribu¬ 
 tary system :— 
 
 1. The impost ought to fall on the income, not on the capital. 
 In good economy, the capital ought not to be exhausted. It 
 does not count as an article of consumption. It is one of the 
 chief fountains from which flow the streams of individual and 
 social wellbeing. 
 
 The word “ income ” is here taken in its widest sense—that is, 
 embracing all the returns from movable and immovable property. 
 
 A most vicious transgressor against distributive justice, doing 
 injury to both public and private good, is that system of direct 
 imposts which is regulated entirely or nearly so by the land 
 impost. It is wholly prejudicial to that industry which is the 
 first source of all wellbeing—agriculture. It favours the narrow¬ 
 minded views of speculating capitalists, who, free from money 
 embarrassments, have a field for enriching themselves more and 
 more every day. It destroys the foundation—namely, land 
 property—on which the stability of families depends. 13 
 
 2. The impost ought to fall on that part of income which 
 exceeds the requirements of life. Before giving a contribution 
 to society, the individual has a right and a duty to live in himself 
 and by himself : society itself is intended for the wellbeing of the 
 individual. To put an impost on what is required for private 
 
76 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 life is to set society in contradiction with its end. Therefore, 
 it is necessary that a minimum of property should be exempt 
 from imposts. 
 
 3. From the surplus left after the requirements of life, the 
 impost ought to be of the least possible amount—so as to procure 
 social good with the least sacrifice of individual good, for the 
 increase of which society itself has been established. 
 
 4. The excellence of an impost may follow from other con¬ 
 
 siderations ; such as (i.) the little displeasure that it causes in the 
 minds of the contributors ; (ii.) the convenience of the time 
 
 for payment; (iii.) the easy and inexpensive mode of payment; 
 (iv.) the little opportunity given for fraud. 
 
 Proportionality and Progressiveness of Imposts .—An impost is 
 said to be proportional when it falls on wealth in a direct ratio 
 to the amount thereof. For example, a family has an income 
 of £50 and pays £1 : this impost is said to be proportional if 
 another family that has ten times as much income (£500) pays 
 ten times as much tribute (£10). 
 
 On the other hand, an impost is said to be progressive if the 
 quota of tribute, instead of remaining constant, increases with 
 the growth of taxable matter. Suppose that an income, while it 
 remains under £50, pays seven per cent.; while it rises higher 
 up to £500, twelve per cent.; then up to £2,500, fifteen per cent.— 
 and you will have progressive impost. 
 
 Which of the two ought to be adopted in a well-ordered 
 society ? Some maintain the proportional impost, which they 
 regard as socially just because it calls equally on the citizens 
 to concur for the common wellbeing. We hold that only by a 
 forgetfulness of the true idea of society can such an assertion 
 be made ; and we answer that the proportional impost calls 
 indeed proportionally on the economic position of individuals 
 to concur to the common good, but not on the citizens. He 
 who makes account only of the first principle (proportionality) 
 will maintain the proportional impost. On the other hand, 
 he who thinks that the first principle requires to be completed 
 by the second (progressiveness) will say with us that the con¬ 
 currence to the common good ought to be made in such a manner 
 that the sacrifices imposed by it on private good may be relatively 
 equal. 
 
 But if you take £1 from him who owns £50, and only 
 £10 from him who owns £500, is there equality of sacrifice 
 here ? 
 
 The progressive impost, therefore, springs from an idea of 
 solidarity, which teaches that the soul of society ought to be 
 well-ordered. 
 
 We repeat: society is a body, and individuals are its members. 
 But why should the members measure their function according 
 to the function of the weakest, and fulfil it only three or four 
 
REAL CONTRIBUTION 
 
 77 
 
 times more effectively, when tliev are capable of doing it fifteen 
 or twenty times more so ? 
 
 Among Catholics the progressive impost has counted strong 
 supporters, such as Lugo, Taparelli, Liberatore, &c. ; and to-day, 
 after the official pronouncement made in its favour at the Congress 
 of Padua, we may say that it forms an unquestionable part of the 
 Christian Democratic Programme. 
 
 We will not yield to the temptation of quoting from a number 
 of authors; for it would delay us too long. But we must not 
 omit one luminous passage in the speech of Toniolo at the Congress 
 of Padua :—“ Permit me to add that this financial doctrine 
 corresponds with the economic doctrine of the decreasing -final 
 utility of riches. Of three equal units of riches possessed by one 
 person, the value of the first unit, which serves for the indispens¬ 
 able wants of life, is Iqigh; but the value of the second, which is 
 employed for accessory wants, is less ; while the value of the 
 third, which is intended for saving, or perhaps for squandering, 
 is still lower. If, therefore, the financier, in order to treat all 
 equally,wishes to collect the same quota of value by title of impost 
 on each unit of riches possessed, he ought to lean more heavily 
 on the second unit than on the first, and still more heavily on the 
 third than on the second. Let this criterion be applied to three 
 graduated contributions, and the equity of the progressive test 
 will be evident. In this sense, the true proportional impost 
 is the progressive one.” ( Atti , p. 262.) 
 
 The Proportionality of the Indirect Impost .—What we have just 
 said regarding progressivity refers, of course, only to the direct 
 impost, which is capable of both proportionality and progres¬ 
 siveness. On the other hand, the indirect naturally escapes 
 this two-fold control. Falling, not on the income, but on what 
 is consumed of the income, it is necessarily progressive in an 
 inverse sense—that is, it increases the loss to him who has less 
 means. This is easily understood. “ The indirect impost is 
 proportional to the consumption; but the consumption is not 
 proportional to the riches. He who consumes more of a com¬ 
 modity, pays more in proportion to the impost that falls on it. 
 But not with equal proportion does he who is more rich consume 
 more. A concrete case will make the matter more apparent. 
 Let us take wine, for example, considered in regard to a workman 
 who earns £50 a year and a rich man who has an income of £5,000 
 a year. The former consumes, we shall suppose, a pint of wine 
 every day ; the latter, even if he wished to intoxicate himself and 
 all Ins family, certainly could not consume a hundred pints every 
 day. Yet this quantity would be required in order that the wine 
 tax should be proportional for both. The same may be said of 
 other commodities, common to the rich and the poor, such as 
 flour, salt, oil, &c. This is a great and irremediable disadvantage 
 of the indirect impost; that is to say, it is not proportional, but 
 
78 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 progressive in an inverse ratio to riches. The poorer a man is, 
 the more he has to pay.”* (Liberatori, Principii , pp. 309-310.) 
 
 Themes. —Instruction is one of the chief needs of a people who wish to be 
 civilised : right and duty of the State to provide it—A monopoly of in¬ 
 struction is not a right of the State : it is an abuse, it is a wrong done to 
 human liberty—It is one thing to abandon instruction, and another to 
 respect private liberty—Social importance of public works—Duties on 
 articles of consumption are often out of proportion and contrary to justice— 
 Whether the progressive impost is a kind of confiscation—An impost ought 
 evidently to have these three characteristics : necessity, proportion with 
 national wealth, and exclusion of privilege—Make a comment on the follow¬ 
 ing words of Bastiat: “ When it is seen among a people that private 
 
 services are invaded and turned into public services, the law becomes a 
 weapon of spoliation, because it has for its object to change, under the 
 plea of establishing, an equality of services.” (Armonie Econ., c. xvii.) 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 AUTHORITY. 
 
 Section I.—A Natural Hierarchy. 
 
 We have elsewhere observed that nature has constituted human 
 beings in a kind of natural hierarchy. Or we might say that 
 society is somewhat like a pyramid, which ascends step by step 
 from its broad base to the top. It requires solidity and stability. 
 
 Now, in order that society may flourish, it is necessary that 
 everyone should have his own space, and work therein. And he 
 should work not only for his own advantage, but for that of all 
 the other members of society. 
 
 What will keep everyone at his post, and co-ordinate his action 
 for the benefit of all ? Nature, which has provided for the unity 
 of material bodies by certain laws that are called of cohesion, 
 gravity, &c., has provided for the unity of the moral body, which 
 is society, by moral laws. It is they that, observed, give the 
 human family the true form of society, and violated, make a 
 chaotic mass of restless, discontented, turbulent, unhappy beings. 
 
 Yet these laws are not enough. The components of the moral 
 body are rational beings, with their own thoughts, their own 
 desires, their own free powers of action. They are also defective, 
 some by malice, others by natural frailty. All this implies a 
 scattering of operations, which, not rightly directed, can ill arrive 
 at the attainment of the common good. Hence the necessity of 
 a regulating principle, which may make all the actions of indivi¬ 
 duals converge to the general welfare. 
 
 This element is civil authority. Either do not imagine any 
 society among men, or imagine it under the guidance of public 
 
 * The burden of a tax should be considered not according to what is 
 given, but to what is left.— Trans. 
 
ORIGIN OF AUTHORITY 
 
 79 
 
 power. “ Since no society can exist unless there is some one at the 
 head of it, moving every member efficaciously and similarly 
 towards a common end, it follows that authority is necessary by 
 which civil society may be ruled.” (Encyc. Immortale Dei.) 
 
 The physiocratics, like Rousseau, had a fine dream that in the 
 most ancient times men were ruled without obedience to any 
 sovereign power. But history is not written with the dreams of 
 Rousseau or of any other such dreamer. History, so far as it 
 extends, tells us of social power, which men obeyed ; and, in parts 
 to which it does not extend, it leaves us to infer that men, precisely 
 because men, did the same. For the .rest, physiocracy would 
 certainly be a beautiful idea, but the misery in which man is 
 placed is a fact; and dreams in opposition to facts are always 
 dreams, even those of a Rousseau. 
 
 From what has been said of political authority, it follows :— 
 
 1. That authority has the same end as society—namely, to pro¬ 
 mote the common wellbeing ; that therefore a government does not 
 exist for itself, but for the good of its subjects. “ The government 
 ought to be for the advantage of the citizens, because the only 
 reason why some men are over others is that they may see to the 
 general welfare.” (Encyc. Immortale Dei.) Justly therefore are 
 we entitled to condemn despotism, tyranny, oligarchy, every 
 abuse of supreme power that turns to the prejudice of the citizens. 
 “ On no account should it occur that civil authority would be 
 employed for the benefit of one or a few, because it was established 
 for the common good of all.” (Ibid.) 
 
 2. That it ought to be in the State alone. This is as clear as 
 it is necessary. If there were many authorities, none would be 
 supreme or sovereign. They would require to have a supreme 
 authority, which would subject, unite, and subordinate them. 14 
 
 Section II. —Origin of Authority. 
 
 Authority is desirable in the social body. All admit it, except 
 those who seek disorder. 
 
 Those who view society from a materialistic standpoint, and 
 therefore give no reason for its existence or give a reason that is 
 no explanation, do not know at what point they can best attack 
 an established authority. Yet authority is of so much importance 
 that the life of the social body depends on it. A false idea, which 
 would set up a weak authority, will have a long task, and will 
 then only shake the walls of the social edifice. 
 
 Others have recourse to pantheistic explanations. Let him 
 who wishes to walk with his head in the midst of dense clouds 
 concern himself about them. 
 
 More commonly the origin of authority is said to be in the will 
 of the people. The expression has a fine sound : a pity that it 
 has no substance, or rather is fraught with practical consequences 
 that its followers are the first to condemn. 
 
80 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Our doctrine is more simple, though not so high-sounding. 
 
 A short argument : nature is the source of that without which 
 a natural institution cannot exist ; society, a natural institution, 
 cannot exist without public power ; therefore, public power is 
 from nature. 
 
 Remove the word nature , and put God in its stead. He, the 
 Lord of all things, is the author of sovereign power, as He is the 
 author of man and of the universe. No other origin can be given 
 to public power that does not destroy it. 
 
 There is question of commanding men : who can do it but a 
 Being superior to men ? “ Authority,” says Pope Leo XIII., 
 
 “ no less than society, is from nature, and therefore from God. 
 Hence it follows that public power in itself can be derived only 
 from God. For God alone is the true and supreme Lord of the 
 world, to whom all creatures should be submissive. So that those 
 who have the right of commanding, have it from no other source 
 than God, the great Lord of all. There is no power hut from God 
 (Rom. xiii, 1).” (Encyc. Tmmortale Dei.) 
 
 This basis of sovereign power is the only one, not merely because 
 it is the true one, but because it is the only one possible. To 
 pretend to replace it by another is folly, because every substitute 
 will be either inferior to or equal to man, and, as such, will be 
 without the right of commanding men. 
 
 This immovable basis being given to public power, Christian 
 sociology provides for the safety of the social body, for public 
 order, for civil prosperity. Behold the explanation why, outside 
 of our walls, there is nothing to be found but conspiracy, rebellion, 
 revolution, anarchy. 
 
 Section III. —Form of Government. 
 
 Social authority, residing in the subject that exercises it, is 
 called government. As this subject may be one, or many, or all, 
 there are various forms of government. One person alone can 
 certainly exercise the supreme command, and then there is the 
 monarchical form or a monarchy. If the power rests in a class of 
 the great, then there is the aristocratic form or an aristocracy. 
 If instead all the people hold the public power, then there is the 
 democratic form or a democracy. Thus there are three principal 
 forms. Others might be made by a combination among these. 
 Then we should have mixed forms, of which there are few : one 
 of them is the constitutional monarchy. 
 
 Which form is to be preferred ? Above all let it be clearly 
 understood that, according to natural justice, none of them has a 
 right of preference to the others. God, who is the Author of 
 authority in the social body, has not specially pointed out in 
 which He wishes it to rest. Any form of government can fulfil 
 the will of God, who wishes that there should be authority ; and 
 
REPRESENTATIVE FORM OF GOVERNMENT 81 
 
 it suffices. “ The sovereign authority is not by itself necessarily 
 bound to any particular form of government : it can justly assume 
 one or another, provided that such is really capable of promoting 
 the public weal.” (Encyc. Immortale Dei.) The question is 
 therefore to be solved by a consideration of the people’s good, 
 which is the only reason for the existence of supreme power. 
 
 So much being granted, there is no need for long arguments 
 to prove that any one of the aforesaid forms is good in itself, and 
 calculated to promote the common wellbeing. On this point, 
 Catholic theologians agree : St. Thomas taught it, and Pope 
 Leo XIII' teaches it. As a matter of fact, each of those forms 
 presents special advantages, but at the same time is exposed to 
 particular abuses. 
 
 Monarchy would seem to be the ideal of governments, because 
 the unity of the subject helps much towards sympathy, firmness, 
 and expedition in command. But one only subject, however 
 excellent, will always be only one man. As such, he can easily 
 err, either through ignorance or through malice, from which 
 originates despotism or tyranny. Democracy, which stands 
 at the other extreme, presents a special and most desirable 
 advantage, if viewed in regard to the autonomy of the citizens. 
 In point of fact, it enlarges the popular mind, breathes the spirit 
 of freedom, feels and provides for the wants of the people. Subj ect 
 to social duties and sharing in social benefits, it is more capable 
 of weighing the exigencies of the common wellbeing and the 
 sacrifices that ought to be imposed on private wellbeing. On 
 the other hand, who does not see that democracy also presents 
 inconveniences, due to the malice of men ? The consciousness 
 of power can rouse cupidities in the people, and lead them to 
 rebellion or to demagogy. Aristocracy has likewise its advantages 
 and inconveniences. Among the latter, not the least is the danger 
 of oligarchy, which is a tyranny so much the worse as it is worse 
 to be under the power of several bad men than of only one. 
 
 Therefore ? What are we to conclude ? Therefore every form 
 of government is excellent for those who wish it to be so. It 
 is a question of justice, and justice does not consist in the form 
 but in the exercise of authority. 
 
 For the rest, the manners, the customs, the character of 
 a people, as well as their greatness, may fit them better for one 
 form than for another. Speaking in the abstract, we may say 
 that that form is the best which would try to realise in itself the 
 best qualities of all. This would be the mixed form in which the 
 monarchical element predominates, tempered by aristocracy 
 and democracy. 
 
 Section IV.— The Representative Form. 
 
 Among the mixed forms, that which seems to have won the 
 favour of peoples at the present day is the representative. In 
 
 F 
 
82 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 Europe it is almost generally adopted : great praise has been 
 given and is still given to it. 
 
 It is reduced to the following heads :—(i.) The sovereignty 
 rests in the people, who exercise it by a chamber of deputies, 
 elected by them. Here we have a democratic basis, (ii.) A 
 chamber of magnates, chosen from the classes most distinguished 
 for their learning, wealth, nobility, or virtue. They are called 
 senators. They balance and temper any immoderateness in the 
 deputies. Here we have the aristocratic element, (iii.) A king, 
 who reigns by the will of the nation, and sanctions with his 
 signature the laws passed by the two chambers—laws that without 
 the royal signature are of no value. The king, however, has not 
 the free exercise of the executive power. This belongs to the 
 ministers, who alone are responsible for it. Hence the saying, 
 “ The king reigns, but he does not govern. 7 ' 
 
 Deputies, senators, and king are to conduct themselves 
 according to the Constitution, which is a fundamental law of 
 government, a kind of contract entered into between king and 
 people. 
 
 Is the representative form good ? In itself, it is exceedingly 
 good. It is better than the simple forms, not because these are 
 not in themselves very good, but because it takes good from 
 all three, and gives reason to hope that inconveniences will thus 
 be more easily avoided. 
 
 The representative form brings together the people, the choicest 
 men, and the king. All very well—a magnificent sight! But in 
 reality does it include the people, the choicest men, and the king ? 
 The king is there, but counts only for what he is considered. 
 Are the people there ? have they their representatives there ? 
 It is an old question. There is the name of representatives of 
 the people, but the true representatives are not there. If we had 
 the people organised, and professional representation had 
 assembled the true delegates of the people, who, having common 
 interests with the people, would take the interests of the people 
 to heart, then with the liveliest enthusiasm would we hail the 
 deputies, in whom we should recognise the people themselves. 
 But the elections of to-day, made according to the system of 
 majorities (we have already referred to it), do not give us in truth 
 the representatives of the people, but the representatives of that 
 party which, at the time of the election, is most powerful in 
 influence, most clever or astute in management, and most 
 abounding in money. 
 
 The parliament being thus constituted, it is next to impossible 
 that it should work well. It is apt to fall speedily into a sickly 
 state, a state of disastrous inefficiency, which is called parlia¬ 
 mentarism, This word denotes a compendium of all intrigues, 
 all plots against the ministers and the king, all evil artifices 
 that are employed by a group of men who hold power for every 
 purpose except the one for which it was given. 
 
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE 
 
 83 
 
 And is true aristocracy represented by the chamber of senators ? 
 Let us hear Rossignoli:— 
 
 “ That the Senate may correspond wisely to its moderating 
 office, it is necessary above all that it should exercise in reality, 
 and not merely in name, the legislative power. The nomination 
 of the senators ought, therefore, to be left, not to the Crown or in 
 an unlimited number, but in a fixed number and to a body chosen 
 by the electors, so that they may represent in the government 
 something not represented either by the king or by the Chamber. 
 Deplace, for example, in his work, Senats et Chambres Hautes 
 (Hachette, 1891), would wish that the Senate should be an 
 assembly of intelligent men ; but I would add that it should also 
 be an assembly of virtuous men, for then we might expect to 
 find in it good human laws, which may be regarded as a portion 
 of the eternal laws of justice. 
 
 “ To have a Senate truly conservative, we should not forget 
 the three branches of which the ancient parliaments consisted 
 before absolutism had cast its baneful shadow on Europe—- 
 namely, the ecclesiastical, the baronial, and the popular. The 
 popular would now be represented by the Chamber of Deputies. 
 The baronial, feudalism having fallen, would no longer have any 
 reason for existence, and might be usefully replaced by a pro¬ 
 fessional representation of classes and interests. The Senate 
 would then have men, nominated by legally constituted bodies, 
 who could represent the various departments of science, 
 literature, art, agriculture, industry, commerce—men of the 
 sword and men of state, great lawyers and great financiers— 
 in short, the good sense of the nation. But also the ecclesiastical 
 branch—that is, a representation of the Episcopate, which may be 
 sufficient to prevent anti-Christian legislation—will always be 
 essential to a Senate that wishes to act, as it ought, with modera¬ 
 tion.” (Concetto delVAutorita, &c., p. 79.) 
 
 Section V.— The Sovereignty of the People. 
 
 The ideas set forth in the previous sections will help to show 
 what is to be thought about the much-vaunted sovereignty of 
 the people. A little distinction clears the true from the false 
 contained in this well-known formula, which may have a double 
 meaning. 
 
 The first meaning is the assertion of those who say that authority 
 originated from the people—that, outside of the popular will, 
 there cannot be any source of social power. This is the thought 
 of liberal sociology, and comes straight from Rousseau’s theory 
 on the origin of society. We have not time to talk about it. 
 The origin of society and the origin of authority are on the 
 same logical string. If you attach society to the will of the 
 people, you must also attach authority to it, for authority rules 
 
84 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 society. This is a most deplorable theory, from which come, 
 like threads from a spool, the greatest part of our present social 
 disorders. The Pope, in his encyclical Vigesimum, speaks of it 
 thus :—“ Supposing that authority to rule comes formally from 
 the consent of the multitude, and not from God, the supreme 
 and eternal source of all power, it loses its most august character 
 in the eyes of subjects, and degenerates into an artificial 
 sovereignty, resting on a shaky changeable foundation, such as 
 is the will of men. And are not the effects of it seen even in the 
 public laws, which too often, instead of being written reason 
 (ratio scripta, the dictates of reason expressed in writing), represent 
 only a numerical force, and the prevailing will of political power ? 
 Accordingly, the licentious appetites of the multitude are 
 flattered, the rein on popular passions is slackened, while it fills 
 cities with disturbers of a forced tranquillity, reserving to itself 
 the right of having recourse in extreme cases to violent and 
 sanguinary repressions.” 
 
 Christian sociology, which maintains that God is the only 
 source of power, absolutely rejects this ill-omened sovereignty 
 of the people. 
 
 But we can also understand the sovereignty of the people as 
 meaning a sovereignty in fact. As God has not pointed out, 
 either mediately or immediately, the subject in whom authority 
 should rest, undoubtedly it can also rest in the people, who will 
 then be truly sovereign. And this is that popular sovereignty 
 which is not only lawful, but may also become highly efficient. 
 
 Section VI.— Functions of Social Authority. 
 
 The duty of guidance, which the social power has to practise 
 in regard to its subjects, requires (i.) that it should issue acts of 
 direction, which are called laws : (ii.) that it should keep an eye 
 on the lives of the citizens, in order to see if the laws are observed ; 
 and (iii.) that it should insist on the observance of these laws— 
 punishing transgressors. These three functions of authority pre¬ 
 suppose a triple power in it—namely, the legislative, the judicial, 
 and the executive. A few words on each :— 
 
 1. The Legislative Power .—To discuss whether the civil authority 
 can make laws is to discuss whether it ought to exist. It exists 
 for this purpose. The civil law, therefore, is a general rational 
 command, by which authority obliges all the citizens to concur 
 for the common good. Men are bound to obey the laws : this 
 obedience is a natural duty. To deny it would be to say that 
 nature intends authority for idleness or amusement. But a law 
 ought to be a true law in order to require this obedience—that is, 
 it ought to be rational. 
 
 To be such, the law ought (i.) not to go against other laws that 
 are superior to it—namely, the natural law and the divine law. 
 
FUNCTIONS OF SOCIAL AUTHORITY 
 
 85 
 
 It is well known that there exist even to-day some State- 
 worshippers who place in the civil law the very source of morality, 
 and call everything good, honest, and just that the law prescribes. 
 According to this theory, if there existed a majority of socialist 
 deputies in a parliament, they might lawfully and officially 
 declare in favour of communism. Can anything be more absurd ? 
 (ii.) The law ought to have as its object the public welfare, not 
 merely private welfare, (iii.) The law ought to be made and 
 promulgated by him who has the plenitude of legislative power, 
 according to the form in which this power becomes actually 
 concrete. An absolute king is the legislator; a constitutional 
 monarch is not such. In the latter case, the legislative power 
 lies with the two chambers, and then the laws decreed have 
 force only in a case of public necessity that admits of no delay. 
 
 2. The Judicial Power .—It is immediately linked with the 
 legislative, because the authority to make laws would be of little 
 avail without that of watching over their observance and punishing 
 their violation. The judicial power is, therefore, an intrinsic 
 part of sovereignty, which, to avoid mistakes, entrusts it to wise 
 and upright men, called judges or magistrates. 
 
 Civil society is like a body, whose living members are held 
 together by a variety of forces. These forces, binding the 
 elements, are the rights and the duties that they have towards one 
 another and towards society. From their exercise a twofold result 
 should follow—namely, the greatest possible private good of 
 individuals, and the common good, which is the completion 
 or crown of the private good. When any part of society is 
 faithful to these laws, faithful to its rights, faithful to its duties, 
 we say that juridical order reigns therein. 
 
 But it may happen that, through a greediness of increasing 
 private good, some element violates the duty that binds it to its 
 like or to society in general. It may also be that between two 
 elements there arises a controversy on the existence or the 
 absence of a right. In these cases it is said that juridical order is 
 broken, or at least disturbed. It must then be reconstituted for 
 the good of society. Hence the judicial power, which is to judge 
 in the criminal court, when public or private right has been 
 injured, and in the civil court, when the reciprocal rights of 
 individuals among themselves, or even with the State, require 
 a clear and authoritative decision. 
 
 3. The Executive Power .—To this expression we must give a 
 meaning somewhat broad. By the exercise of the legislative 
 and judicial powers, such as we have described them, it is too 
 evident that the sovereign authority will not fully succeed in 
 accomplishing its mission of giving being, as Taparelli says, 
 to society. That small remainder of authority, if I may so speak, 
 which is necessary for it, in order that society may be what is 
 to be desired, a moral body, with the greatest possible wellbeing, 
 is contained in the executive power. The duties of the executive 
 
86 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 power are reduced to four by Rossignoli—namely (i.) to carry 
 out the provisions made by tbe legislative power and the sentences 
 passed by the judicial power ; (ii.) to procure order and peace, 
 defending them from enemies internal as well as external; 
 (iii.) to represent the nation before foreigners; and (iv.) to promote 
 the public wellbeing, moral as well as material. 
 
 The exercise of this power, as is evident, extends (i.) to the 
 appointment of public officials, from which an organised adminis¬ 
 tration will result; (ii.) to the public strength, which ought 
 
 to flow in some manner from the energies of the nation; and 
 (iii.) to the public treasury, in which the tributes of the citizens 
 are deposited. 
 
 Themes. —It is not fair to say that the statutes of a society are only 
 conventionalities : the members ought to recognise that certain laws conduce 
 to the object of the society—In like manner it is absurd to say that laws are 
 nothing but an expression of the general will—As laws ought to lead society 
 towards its end, and as a true law cannot be conceived without this scope, 
 he who makes laws should keep in view the end towards which society 
 tends—Herein consists the difference between true and false democracy— 
 Revolutions are often the logical evolutions of false principles applied in 
 the government of a country—Should the laws be equal for all ? 
 
NOTES TO THE FIRST PART 
 
 Note 1, p. 1.—Here and there 
 in the course of our work it may 
 he seen how much civil society is 
 indebted to Christianity. Mean¬ 
 while, we wish to remark that such 
 a thing is quite natural for whoever 
 considers that the object of Our 
 Saviour was to lead men to their 
 last end. If the goods of this 
 world—whatever they are—are 
 goods for man in so far as they are 
 efficacious means for the attainment 
 of the end, it is natural, we repeat, 
 that Christianity, by the virtues 
 which it commands and the vices 
 which it condemns, should become 
 eminently social. Society, as we 
 shall soon see, is a body resulting 
 from a multitude of bodies, but 
 living bodies, earnestly striving 
 towards happiness. To each of these 
 bodies is assigned its own orbit or 
 sphere of action. If everyone re¬ 
 cognises this, and checks his desire 
 of trenching on the limits of others, 
 the moral body is in good condition. 
 If one, if many, if all wish to be 
 without control, it is a game in 
 which the strongest wins; the 
 equilibrium is broken, the body is 
 necessarily undone. Now, to keep 
 men at their posts is what virtue 
 desires; and Christianity, which 
 teaches this, gives efficacious means 
 to attain it—helps wonderfully to 
 promote social harmony, which 
 would be perfect if Christianity were 
 universally followed. 
 
 Man is naturally social. See how 
 Christ did not come to destroy but 
 to perfect nature. He wishes that 
 man should be saved in society, in 
 that society which bears the name 
 of the Church, to make part in 
 which all the human family who 
 aspire to temporal wellbeing are 
 called. Could the action of this 
 Church be less than useful to social 
 order ? Could it be said that the 
 moral perfection of the individual 
 man would be a hindrance to his 
 civil perfection ? That sounds 
 too contradictory. The beneficent 
 action of the Church for the ad¬ 
 
 vantage of civil society has been 
 often referred to by Leo XIII. in 
 his public acts, especially in his 
 encyclical Immortale Dei . Therein 
 we read: “The Church therefore, 
 always consistent with herself, if on 
 the one hand she rejects excessive 
 liberty, which, with private and 
 public harm, leads to licentiousness 
 or to slavery, on the other willingly 
 and joyfully embraces the progress 
 that comes with time, when it truly 
 promises to increase the prosperity 
 of the present life, which is a kind 
 of race-course to life without end.” 
 
 Note 2, p. 2.—A question here 
 presents itself: where are we to 
 begin and how are we to proceed in 
 the study of sociology ? Is it by 
 the inductive or the deductive 
 method ? 
 
 We must take care not to be ex¬ 
 clusive. Each method gives much 
 help ; and to each we must have 
 recourse. There are moral, un¬ 
 doubted, incontestable principles in 
 human nature, which have logical 
 consequences in social phenomena. 
 The method that leads you to the 
 study of these phenomena is the 
 deductive. There are also real facts 
 in social life, recurring at intervals, 
 happening according to certain 
 rules. From these facts you come 
 by the inductive method to a 
 knowledge of fixed and constant 
 laws. Hence the importance of 
 statistics in studies of this kind. 
 
 Our method is therefore twofold, 
 deductive and inductive. 
 
 Note 3, p. 8.—According to 
 Pope Leo XIII., the end of civil 
 society ... is the common 
 good, that is, a good in which each 
 and every one has a proportional 
 share. (See Encyc. Immortale Dei.) 
 
 Note 4, p. 16.—There are two 
 types of professional unions—the 
 pure and the mixed. The first type 
 is that which assembles in two 
 
88 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 distinct bodies, the workmen and 
 the masters who are engaged in 
 the same industry. In this type a 
 meeting for the settlement of con- 
 troversies and other matters is held 
 by delegates or arbitrators from 
 both unions. The second type is 
 that which assembles in only one 
 association, the workmen and the 
 masters having an affinity of 
 interests. 
 
 The theoretical question, which 
 type is to be preferred ? admits of 
 much discussion, with little result. 
 As for the practical part, we think 
 that we may well suggest it in words 
 that we take from a letter addressed 
 by Toniolo to Count Medolago 
 Albani. The young student will 
 here find another thesis of supreme 
 importance first explained. 
 
 Behold how the distinguished 
 master speaks :— 
 
 “ The last decade of the 19th 
 century (owing in great part to the 
 wise impulse given by the Supreme 
 Pontiff in Rerum novarum) spread 
 social works with rapid progress for 
 the Christian restoration of the 
 people. But the social political anti- 
 Christian reaction , which from 
 countries beyond the Alps found its 
 way into our peninsula, cut short 
 this reconstructive process in May, 
 1898, and scattered all our institu¬ 
 tions. A moment of trial, before 
 which we confess—if that can help 
 us to a holy and noble regret—we 
 were all unequal to the task per¬ 
 mitted for us by Providence. The 
 Kulturkampf in Germany stirred a 
 people of heroes, and bound fast 
 the great nucleus of the Centre, 
 which gave power and advantage to 
 all German Catholics, even to this 
 day. The furious passage of those 
 few months of absurd persecution— 
 which did so much for socialism— 
 left us divided and degraded by a 
 useless war of words, like a nation 
 about to die. Loud and strong 
 language of protest and encourage¬ 
 ment to the Italian people came 
 from the Pope alone. We shall not 
 now perpetuate the error with 
 mutual recriminations. All of us, 
 old and young, have had our share 
 in the fault against the lawful 
 expectation of the nation and of 
 religion. With this salutary con¬ 
 
 fession—which we candidly make 
 in our few journals—nothing remains 
 for us but to be confounded, and to 
 be charitable towards one another, 
 in the hope of a better future. 
 
 “ The stirring of a new life was 
 heard. The theoretical and practical 
 ideas of a popular programme were 
 elaborated among us, more than 
 elsewhere, so that Italy appeared 
 as the land of Christian Democracy. 
 The Pope, fortifying it with limits 
 and guarantees, consecrated it, and 
 made it universal; and thus, taken 
 up with spirit by intelligent and 
 ardent young men, it was by them 
 spread everywhere. They planted 
 in every quarter the banner of 
 Christian Corporations, on which 
 that programme, with great historic 
 meaning, especially at the present 
 day, is summarised. 
 
 “ And thus to-day there is every¬ 
 where a spring-time of sodalities, of 
 popular classes, which—to interpret, 
 mv illustrious friend, one of vour 
 thoughts—both gladdens and per¬ 
 plexes us. 
 
 “ Yes, a spring-time that gladdens 
 us. The encyclical Graves de 
 communi appeared and was wisely 
 intended as a rein on the democratic 
 movement—teaching caution and 
 the conditions of success—but at 
 the same time what a powerful and 
 unexpected impulse ! Who could 
 have imagined the concordant echo 
 that followed from so many Bishops 
 in Italy, in favour of energetic 
 popular action ? And the desire for 
 professional unions, which was so 
 little regarded at the Congress of 
 September, 1900, in Rome—who 
 would have supposed that it would 
 so soon flourish again in so many 
 corporate sodalities, springing up 
 everywhere ! 
 
 “ Yes, a spring-time that gladdens 
 us, but perplexes us. The Socialists 
 understood well—from us as from 
 other sources—the hopes of Christian 
 renovation contained in such an 
 initiative of the Pope, the Clergy, 
 Catholics in general, ardent youths ; 
 and they attacked the rising 
 Catholic corporations with weapons 
 of infidelity, with abusive squibs 
 scattered freely among the people. 
 Will the members of our sodalities 
 hold out against these assaults ; 
 
NOTES TO THE FIRST PART 
 
 89 
 
 and will the defence be sufficient 
 against attempts on faith greater 
 than any that ever the people of 
 Italy endured before ? 
 
 “ On the other hand, will these 
 new plants have intrinsic strength 
 to grow into mature and fruitful 
 trees ? And you, my illustrious 
 friend, besiege me with practical 
 demands for the solution of such 
 distressing doubts, which seem to 
 settle in the question : How are we 
 to prevent this vegetation from 
 failing, and make sure that our 
 Class Representation will become 
 permanent and vigorous ? 
 
 “ Perhaps you will find some 
 answer to the problem, truly 
 decisive, in the history and general 
 tendency of the European corpora¬ 
 tive movement, as also in the 
 refutation of some more common 
 objections that I have endeavoured 
 to sum up in the work that I have 
 dedicated to you. Others—simple 
 and candid, but modest—I shall 
 here set forth briefly. 
 
 “ The object is to form a new 
 popular class—on parallel lines with 
 other superior ones—not only in its 
 organic arrangement, but especially 
 in the spirit that should animate 
 it; and therefore our old men spoke 
 of the esprit de corps. Let us, not 
 deceive ourselves : a social palingen¬ 
 esis is impossible without a moral 
 and religious renovation. We must 
 saturate the corporations with a 
 Christian Catholic spirit. They 
 ought to be great practical schools 
 of ethics and religion. You have 
 said it admirably in your remarks 
 on corporations. 
 
 “The test of faith is the to be 
 or not to be of future class-associa¬ 
 tions. If we have different types of 
 corporations in England and in 
 Germany, they are due to historical 
 and local causes at work in Protes¬ 
 tant or sceptical regions—in short, 
 to abnormal causes, which cannot 
 last, and which here and there 
 already show signs of change, but 
 which in no case can be a rule for 
 us or for the normal life of society. 
 
 “ This educational, religious, 
 moral end proposed for our people 
 assembled in corporations truly 
 Christian, as pointed out and 
 enjoined by the Pontiff, will be the 
 vital sap of the new sodalities. 
 
 Here will be the field for the Clergy 
 of the coming times ; and whoever 
 can work |best in it will find fruits 
 most ready and most ripe. 
 
 44 But, for charity’ sake, let us 
 not be stopped in so important a 
 beginning by any stumbling-block 
 or difficulty. The essential point 
 consists in training the corporations 
 to faith and Christian morality. 
 This banner can never, should never, 
 be lowered; and what remains 
 impossible for us is to write at the 
 head of the statutes the rationalistic 
 rule that the members will be neutral. 
 But should the word Catholic be 
 always inserted in their title ? 
 Generally speaking, yes; and the 
 people are rarely inclined to take 
 offence at it; but in exceptional 
 cases, if it were necessary to remove 
 some extrinsic obstacle, we take 
 care of the intrinsic purpose, and 
 omit for a while the name. 
 
 “ As for the final purpose of 
 wishing to form Catholic corpora¬ 
 tions, does it imply that workmen 
 will not be admitted, unless they 
 are strictly observant in matters of 
 religion ? This is a question for 
 practical good sense. Unsteady and 
 incautious workmen, as the Pope 
 remarked, are tempered to faith 
 and morals within the precincts of 
 Christian corporations ; so, observ¬ 
 ing certain limits of prudence, let 
 us open our arms with a charitable 
 toleration. If our credulous 
 countrymen unfortunately enter 
 the ‘ Labour Rooms,’ they become 
 atheists or socialists ; if tepid work¬ 
 men do not disdain to repair to our 
 4 Unions,’ it is to be hoped that 
 they will become good Christians. 
 But will the religious practices that 
 may be proposed by the ingenious 
 piety and charity of our priests and 
 the presidents of our sodalities, be 
 obligatory ? Certainly not. The 
 examples of all Europe attest that 
 only those which are free are 
 acceptable and fruitful. But if 
 any one, already connected with a 
 4 Socialist Club,’ asks to be enrolled 
 in a 4 Catholic Union,’ are we to 
 admit him ? Why close the way 
 against conversion, when there are 
 so many victims of illusion and 
 violence ? On condition, however, 
 that the enrolment by rule in our 
 ranks will be a sincere pledge of a 
 
90 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 speedy joining in fact. But enough 
 of casuistry, intended to give a 
 practical illustration, not to change 
 a systematic theory. 
 
 “ The systematic principle of 
 wishing to form Christian institu¬ 
 tions that may be socially full of 
 life, is so practical, that it becomes 
 to-day one reason more why we 
 should have two kinds of autono¬ 
 mous corporations, that of masters 
 and that of workpeople, co-ordinated 
 together, and not merely one mixed 
 of the two elements. Have you ever 
 thought, my illustrious friend, what 
 would become of our religious pur¬ 
 pose in the two different cases ? 
 
 It is not hazardous to say that our 
 people by themselves, in simple 
 ‘ Labour Unions,’ will, sooner or 
 later, under the direct influence of 
 the clergy, become thoroughly 
 Catholic, and Christ will truly return 
 on the shoulders of the people. 
 Confused in mixed corporations 
 with masters, who, as a rule (with 
 praiseworthy exceptions), are in 
 present circumstances and will be ; 
 for a long time, if not sectaries, for 
 the most part liberals—which means 
 rationalists—or at all events cleric o- 
 liberals, it is to be feared that 
 through such influence our work¬ 
 people would be declared neutral, 
 or that religion would be maintained 
 only as an engine of control— 
 generating popular aversion towards 
 it—or at least that the action of 
 the clergy would be impeded, and 
 that these social organisms would 
 be converted into electoral clubs, 
 for the service of the masters and 
 of political programmes more or less 
 antipapal. All these things would 
 be great obstacles to the flourishing 
 of mixed corporations, even where 
 they would find their natural home, 
 for example, in regions where 
 metayage or mezzadria* prevails. 
 And this shows how the religious 
 problem presents itself to all. 
 
 “ A second condition to give life 
 to the renovated corporations is 
 that the people should find in them 
 all the aid required, not only to 
 defend their class interests, but to 
 promote their material, civil, and 
 moral wellbeing. This is the great 
 lesson that comes to us not only 
 
 from the history of the past, but 
 from the marvellous and increasing 
 power of corporations in England, 
 Belgium, Germany, France, &c. 
 
 “ It is proper that we should also 
 introduce and multiply in these 
 corporate citadels all the popular 
 practices, existing or possible, that 
 converge to the elevation of the 
 respective classes. Thus we should 
 have workmen’s banks and rural 
 chests, insurance societies, co-opera¬ 
 tive societies, rent boxes, inns for 
 the people, St. Vincent de Paul 
 Societies (giving help at home), 
 refuges and schools for children, 
 schools of art, educational confer¬ 
 ences, circulating libraries, pious 
 and charitable confraternities, places 
 of conversation, and in fine games 
 and a theatre. Consider, my ex¬ 
 cellent friend, what stability these 
 corporations w T ould acquire when 
 each member, after being enrolled 
 in a particular class, would apply 
 himself to a few of those popular 
 practices which develop and prosper 
 under the guidance of wise leaders. 
 In a short time he would find himself 
 bound to the corporation by 
 numerous interests; so that to 
 separate from it would be to break 
 through a series of concentric circles 
 of wellbeing. Consider also how the 
 people within the precincts of these 
 vast associations, serving them and 
 managed by them (for the people 
 and by the people ), would act with 
 all their mind and heart. They 
 would live like one great family, 
 which would facilitate for them all 
 the lawful satisfactions of a proper 
 and dignified life. And if this 
 family were perfectly Catholic in 
 spirit, what a bright fireside of 
 Christian social life would it present! 
 
 “Nor are these mere fancies. 
 Apart from the great example of 
 English ^Trade-Unions,’ it suffices 
 to recall the similar Catholic 
 societies in Belgium, such as the 
 ‘ Boerenbond ’ and the ‘People’s 
 House ’ ; and the institutions of the 
 Abbe Cetty at Mulhouse in Alsace, 
 so well adapted for the elevation of 
 the working classes. 
 
 “ An immense undertaking, I 
 admit; but indispensable to give 
 life to future corporations, and, for 
 
 * See Second Part, Chapter VII., Section 2.— Trans. 
 
NOTES TO THE FIRST PART 
 
 91 
 
 the rest, not impossible among us, 
 where few of these institutions yet 
 exist. The point therefore is to 
 multiply them, and place them 
 under the shield of the old sodalities, 
 proceeding by degrees. And it 
 seems to me more urgent to begin 
 with the following :—(i.) Mutual 
 Help, well represented, much more 
 than at present, according to social 
 Christian ideas, not merely for 
 material loans; (ii.) a Secretariate 
 for the People —for special business 
 of the members—together with the 
 office of finding occupation for the 
 unemployed ; and (iii.) a Social 
 Presidency, which, besides serving 
 for the administration and for 
 assemblies, may be at the same 
 time a kind of school for technical 
 conferences on art and education, 
 and also a place for ordinary con¬ 
 versation and amusement. All this 
 under the vivifying breath of 
 religion, under the care of an 
 ecclesiastic; and materially sup¬ 
 ported from a fund contributed by 
 the members, and by others, who 
 aid in promoting the interests of all 
 classes. 
 
 “ This does not appear to me 
 impossible : it concerns a transfor¬ 
 mation and co-ordination rather 
 than a new creation. But unless 
 this work is done, we are convinced 
 that the new corporations will be 
 shadows without a body,\ or at 
 most—as you have written to me— 
 a blaze of straw, which will leave 
 a cloudy darkness after it.” 
 
 Note 5, p. 26.—The idea of social 
 justice, at least as we have described 
 it, has lately entered minds, but not 
 all. Antoine tells us of a congress 
 in which a lawyer said that the 
 phrase “ social justice ” is one with¬ 
 out meaning. We ourselves hap¬ 
 pened to read in a periodical that 
 social justice is nothing but charity. 
 We do not agree in this view. 
 Charity is always of a secondary or 
 supplementary character. Justice, 
 even social justice, is always the 
 principal bond through which the 
 sympathy of civil society is to be 
 obtained. 
 
 Note 6, p. 37.—The want of 
 employment is a deplorable fact, 
 too often occurring in the present 
 
 state of society. Catholics who have 
 studied the matter, propose three 
 remedies :—(i.) Labour Bureaux. 
 These are like so many registry 
 offices. They keep an account of 
 the demand and supply in regard to 
 work, and endeavour to provide for 
 both, (ii.) Houses for Work. Re¬ 
 ceiving public and private aid, they 
 have workshops, in which competent 
 and unemployed men are engaged, 
 (iii.) Boxes for the Unemployed. 
 These give an allowance in money 
 to the unemployed. Those who are 
 enrolled pay a subscription. Bene¬ 
 factors, and sometimes the com¬ 
 munity, assist. 
 
 This is a point that ought to be 
 a special study with local working 
 societies, so as to apply to the evil 
 that remedy which is found most 
 suitable and efficacious for it. In 
 some places, work is not wanting, 
 but it is confined to two or three 
 industries, which turn to other dis¬ 
 tricts where lower wages are given, 
 and leave a part of the local work¬ 
 people unemployed. In such cases 
 a co-operative society will do good, 
 giving autonomous action. As in 
 other tasks of societies, a federation 
 of them in a province or diocese 
 will also be useful. The reason is 
 always the same : union is strength. 
 
 Note 7, p. 45.—Social indivi¬ 
 dualism incited the various social 
 elements to the pursuit of greater 
 wellbeing. And, as a consequence, 
 the stronger made little account of 
 scruples ; they trampled on the 
 rights of the weaker elements. 
 Those who naturally had a right to 
 special aid from society found 
 themselves wronged, degraded by 
 society. Poor labourers, children, 
 and women suffered oppression and 
 the loss of their rights. Catholics, 
 intent on the re-integration of every 
 S just right, could not forget woman, 
 whom Jesus Christ had raised from 
 pagan abjection, and liberalism had 
 driven back to a slavery that, though 
 masked, was not less painful and 
 unworthy of her, a creature of God. 
 Hence came a movement in favour 
 of woman, a movement that, like 
 other new movements, was at first 
 opposed, but that is to-day making 
 glorious progress. To this resur¬ 
 rection, eminently Christian, is 
 
92 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF SOCIAL SCIENCE 
 
 given the name of Christian 
 Feminism —not a very beautiful 
 name, but one that indicates a 
 most beautiful work. This move¬ 
 ment advances daily in elaborating 
 and defining the points of its pro¬ 
 gramme. Among these the most 
 important are the rights that 
 woman has (i.) to be equal with 
 man in regard to moral laws, so that 
 there are not two moralities—one 
 for man and another for woman, as 
 is often pretended ; (ii.) to be free, 
 even against the will of her husband, 
 when there is question of fulfilling 
 her duties as a woman and a 
 Christian ; and (iii.) to be specially 
 protected by society in her relations 
 as daughter, wife, and mother. 
 Nor is there any reason to condemn 
 a certain interest that woman takes 
 in the good ordering of public affairs, 
 in the proper state of civil society ; 
 for it is no hindrance to her duties 
 within the domestic walls. 
 
 We repeat that there is a pro¬ 
 gramme, and it is developing by 
 degrees. The points of it are found 
 under the accumulated ruins of 
 liberalism, as among the ashes of 
 an old burnt city we meet with 
 treasures of art. 
 
 Note 8, p. 51.—Although in other 
 places the system of “ social 
 clauses ” has been sooner and more 
 generally practised, yet in Italy 
 there are examples of it. We may 
 refer to that of Turin, which 
 approved of the motion made in the 
 order of the day by the Catholic 
 councillor Ricci, saying: “ The 
 
 Council, having heard the declara¬ 
 tions of the syndic and the com¬ 
 mittee, decides that in contracts of 
 public service those social clauses 
 should be placed which guard the 
 just freedom and wellbeing of work¬ 
 people, guaranteeing to them 
 specially and always rest on 
 festivals, a fair minimum of wages, 
 and a fair maximum of hours for 
 work. Recourse can be had to 
 mixed commissions, and to the 
 suggestions of technically competent 
 persons, if there should be any 
 difficulty in settling these points.” 
 
 An identical proposal, made by 
 Alberto Buffa, was approved by the 
 Council of Alexandria in May, 1900. 
 
 Note 9, p. 51.—The many duties 
 of the Commune towards work¬ 
 people are exceedingly well shown 
 in the work of the lawyer Invrea : 
 II Comune e la sua Funzione Sociale. 
 For the right management of Com¬ 
 munes, Catholics still rely on pro¬ 
 fessional representation in councils, 
 on the referendum, and on pro¬ 
 gressive imposts. 
 
 Note 10, p. 60.—At the Congress 
 of Social Science, Padua, 1896, the 
 following resolution was adopted : 
 “ Considering that recourse to the 
 electoral body for the more impor¬ 
 tant acts of an administrative 
 economical character (new imposts, 
 loans, alienations or diminutions of 
 patrimony, &c.), and also for the 
 more important acts of a moral 
 character in the Communes, while 
 it stimulates a sense of responsibility 
 in the people, and corrects various 
 defects in the representative system 
 . . . becomes a guarantee for the 
 right, free, and prompt performance 
 of social functions . . . the 
 
 Congress wishes that until it is 
 legally admitted with deliberative 
 effect, the suitability of its applica¬ 
 tion in a consultative form should 
 be maintained.” ( Atti ). The Con¬ 
 gress of Turin also expresses itself 
 in favour of the Referendum; and 
 the memorial presented to the 
 government by desire of the Con¬ 
 gress of Fiesola asks for the same. 
 It is to be understood, however, 
 that all these remarks refer tb the 
 Communal Referendum. 
 
 Note 11, p. 73-—“ It may very 
 well happen that a tax and an 
 impost occur in the same payment. 
 We shall find an example in some 
 rules of registration. When a docu¬ 
 ment is registered by authority, and 
 thus becomes more fitted for use as 
 a title or proof, the State renders a 
 service to him in whose favour the 
 registration is made. Now, if for 
 such service a very high remunera¬ 
 tion is required, this high remunera¬ 
 tion is a tax only for a small part; 
 for the greater part, it is an impost. 
 It is exclusively an impost if the 
 registration brings no advantage 
 that cannot be obtained in some 
 other way, or if it is made 
 
NOTES TO THE FIRST PART 
 
 93 
 
 only because prescribed by law.” 
 (Pierson, Problemi, &c., p. 404.) 
 
 Note 12, p. 74.—“ Salt has no 
 impost in England, Belgium, 
 Portugal, B-oumania. In Russia 
 it is taxed at 8* centimes per kilo¬ 
 gramme, at 15 in Germany, at 8 
 in Greece, at 10 in France. The 
 centimes of war, scarcely established, 
 were suppressed, and in the worst 
 days the figure never rose higher 
 than 30 cefitimes. Only in Italy 
 has the impost on salt risen to 55 
 centimes per kilogramme, producing 
 for the State a revenue of 80,616,000 
 lire, or an average of 3.02 per head. 
 
 “ Mantegazza has calculated that 
 7j kilogrammes of salt are necessary 
 for each individual. Now the 
 majority of Italians consume only 
 about 3 kilogrammes on an 
 average.” * (Peopli, Journal des 
 Economistes, Paris, Oct., 1878, 
 p. 151). 
 
 Note 13, p. 75.—“ We know 
 what regulates the selling value of 
 immovable goods. The value of a 
 farm is equal to the capitalised 
 amount of the return that it pro¬ 
 duces. If the return is 1,000 florins 
 and the rate of interest is 4 per cent., 
 the selling value will be 25,000 
 florins. What will happen if a farm 
 that has a letting value of 1,000 
 florins is subjected to a land impost 
 of 10 per cent. ? The selling value 
 of that farm will fall to 22,500 
 florins : the owner will suffer as if 
 2,500 florins were taken out of his 
 pocket. The introduction or the 
 increase of a real impost is com¬ 
 pared—and with perfect truth—to 
 a partial expropriation, without in¬ 
 demnity. Such a measure is always 
 
 very afflicting for the owner at the 
 time.” (Pierson, Problemi, p. 413.) 
 
 Note 14, p. 79.—We give the 
 name of State to civil society con¬ 
 stituted into an autonomous body 
 for the attainment of the common 
 good. But by a happy abstraction 
 we also give this name to the 
 supreme power, which is the chief 
 part of society. We have said by 
 a happy abstraction, because it is 
 power that gives form to society ; 
 and neatly the whole life of society 
 is centred therein. It is like the 
 heart, which diffuses vigour through 
 the whole social body. 
 
 To understand well the nature of 
 the State, taken in this secondary 
 sense, is a thing of so much im¬ 
 portance that the formation of true 
 and just ideas regarding social 
 science depends on it. Now this 
 ought not to be difficult for anyone 
 who recalls the points of doctrine 
 on which we have chiefly dwelt. 
 They are so many resting-places on 
 a royal road, from which we have 
 clear and beautiful views. 
 
 We studied humanity in its 
 origin. We noted the various stages 
 in its development, caused by a 
 primary want or necessity, that of 
 man’s happiness. The desire of 
 happiness is a sap that circulates 
 in hidden channels through all the 
 branches of the human race. It 
 obliges men to join in associations 
 that will satisfy such a want. 
 
 From man we passed on to the 
 family; from the family to the 
 commune ; and from the commune 
 to civil society. In the study of 
 civil society we find that there is 
 one element above all essential to 
 it: we mean the State. 
 
 * This would seem to be the quantity used in a year. The kilogramme is 
 equal to a little more than two pounds avoirdupois.— Trans. 
 
SECOND PART 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 CHAPTER I. . 
 
 MEANING AND OBJECT OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 
 
 Section I.— Utility, Value, and Abundance oe Goods. 
 
 We cannot imagine the life of man on this earth without the 
 existence of a multitude of things external to him—things various 
 in quantity, in form, in the use that he makes of them—which 
 serve to satisfy his wants or to procure him enjoyments. We 
 are convinced of these facts by our experience of human life. 
 
 It is not merely a relation of use that the life of man has with 
 these external things. No, it has other and almost continual 
 relations with them, concurring to their production, their cir¬ 
 culation, their distribution, or their consumption. Man is 
 naturally inclined to occupy himself with his relations in regard 
 to external things, because he depends upon these things for his 
 preservation, and for his more or less prosperous existence. To 
 study, to regulate, and to control such relations that they may 
 have the desired effect is the task of a special science, which 
 takes the name of Economy. 
 
 If Economy confines itself to study and give laws within the 
 limits of the domestic walls, and settles the administrative 
 ordering of the family, it is called Domestic or Private Economy 
 ( Cossa ). 
 
 If, with a wider horizon, it studies the nature, the production, 
 the circulation, the distribution of things, calling in all society, 
 not only as a point of departure, that is, as an agent of pro¬ 
 duction, but also as a point of arrival, that is, as a term in whose 
 favour consumption takes place, it is called Social or Political 
 Economy. 
 
 With regard to the end of Political Economy, Perin speaks 
 thus :—“ The scope that economic science sets before it is one 
 eminently practical. It seeks the method of securing for men 
 who live in society the greatest possible wellbeing, of procuring 
 for them the greatest possible riches, in such a manner that these 
 riches may serve them for the attainment of their last end, which 
 stands highest in the moral order.” (Premiers Princi'pes, &c., 
 p. 3.) 
 
 How, therefore, shall we define Political Economy ? Without 
 
96 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 any pretensions to suppose that there is only one definition, 
 we shall say that it is a science which studies wealth in its relations 
 with civil society. Boccardo defines it as a science that studies 
 the laws of the production, distribution, and consumption of 
 wealth. (Dizionario d'Econ. Pol., ii., 89.) Cossa says more briefly 
 that it is the doctrine of the social order of wealth. ( Primi 
 Elementi.) 
 
 But what is meant by wealth ? The common idea of wealth 
 is so simple that it scarcely ever happens to be defined. As for 
 the idea that economists have of it, it is so various and unprecise 
 that it can scarcely be understood. Before entering on this 
 thorny ground, which we would willingly avoid for our own 
 sake and that of the reader, it is necessary that we should refer 
 to some other ideas of much importance. 
 
 Goods .—The things of which man makes use in order to 
 preserve his life or to procure some satisfaction for himself, have 
 the nature of good. They are, therefore, justly called goods. 
 
 Utility .—Goods cannot be conceived otherwise than as sub¬ 
 stances that have an aptitude for giving man some satisfaction : 
 this aptitude is called utility. The utility of things, with regard 
 to man, appears in a two-fold way. The first is that of being 
 able to become useful, certain conditions being verified. The 
 second is that of being useful, those conditions already existing, 
 which may be reduced to a knowledge of the properties of the 
 object, and to circumstances of time and place that create in man 
 a need, or only a capacity, for using them with satisfaction. 
 
 Through want of some of these conditions it happens that 
 some things are called useless, which, if properly known or placed 
 in other circumstances, would be found most useful, and even 
 necessary. 
 
 Man, composed of matter and spirit, has corporal and spiritual 
 wants, and is capable of various satisfactions. For his corporal 
 nature all those goods are useful, which, being material, are in 
 some degree adapted to his physical constitution, or to the con¬ 
 ditions in which he lives. From the elements that are absolutely 
 necessary for life to the requirements of the most pompous 
 luxury, there is a countless number of material goods that modify 
 the sense of physical wellbeing in man. 
 
 As regards the spiritual part of man, all those things are useful 
 which, procured, give an intellectual satisfaction to the soul. 
 Economy holds account even of these, both because the satisfac¬ 
 tion of the mind and heart often proceeds from a material object, 
 and because man is not a mere vegetable or animal, but a creature 
 that thinks, reasons, grows perfect, advances in civilisation. 
 
 Another distinction. “ Among the utilities of which man 
 avails himself some are furnished spontaneously, gratuitously by 
 nature, without any appreciable effort on his part; others, and 
 by far the greater number, he cannot obtain without more or 
 less trouble, if not with the sweat of his brow. Air, light, water 
 
UTILITY, VALUE, AND ABUNDANCE OP GOODS 97 
 
 are utilities of the former kind, or gratuitous. The properties 
 that human labour confers on matter, such as those of fertility 
 in soil, buildings in stone, machines in iron, and weaving in wool, 
 are utilities of the second kind, or onerous.” (Boccardo, Diz. iv., 
 545.) The gratuitous utilities are also called natural; the 
 onerous, artificial. 
 
 It is proper to make a third distinction of goods. Some are 
 offered by nature in such abundance that there is enough, and 
 more than enough, for all, as happens with air and light. There 
 is no reason, therefore, in normal cases, for appropriating them, 
 and hence they are said to be inappropriate. Others, instead, 
 though offered by nature, are limited in quantity ; for example, 
 lands and mines. These are called appropriable. 
 
 Value .—“ This is of great value to me ” is the expression of 
 a judgment that shows the utility of something for him who 
 wishes to make use of it. Thus a sick man sometimes values 
 a breath of fresh air or a ray of sunshine. Here the word value 
 is identified with that of utility. It means the value of use, an 
 expression that some writers would banish from economic 
 treatises, saying that the word utility suffices. Others wish it 
 to be retained, as that which shows better how the mind 
 appreciates the utility of something. Generally speaking, it is 
 certain that value is often a comparative idea. The utility of 
 one thing is compared with that of another, and a conclusion is 
 drawn as to their equality or inequality. In the former case 
 it is said that one thing is value for another, that they are corn- 
 mutable or exchangeable ; in the latter, it is not so. 
 
 Barter, accordingly, is the exchange of two equal values : 
 each takes the place of the other in possession. The reason for 
 exchange is altogether subjective : he who parts with value 
 does so because he considers that the value which he receives 
 will be more useful to him. 
 
 It is clear that the utility of things, or their value of use, is 
 the foundation of their value of exchange. A thing that is not 
 useful is not desired, and no one will give anything to have it. 
 Utility alone, however, does not constitute value. What more 
 useful than air and water ? Yet what value of exchange have 
 they, in normal circumstances ? Another element is needed to 
 complete the idea of value, and it is the difficulty of acquiring 
 the thing that is useful. The first element (utility) is intrinsic 
 and fundamental. The second (difficulty) is extrinsic and acci¬ 
 dental, but it is also necessary and determinative. 
 
 Some authors place the foundation of value in the cost of a 
 commodity. By cost are understood the expenses, labours, 
 risks, sacrifices, incurred to bring a commodity to an exchange¬ 
 able state. It does not follow that artificial utilities alone would 
 have a value, and natural ones none, because they cost nothing. 
 If this may have had some little truth in primitive society, it 
 cannot well be maintained at the present day. We, all the 
 
 G 
 
98 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 world, value a commodity according to the service that it renders 
 us by its utility, not according to what its production cost. 
 
 Wealth .—According to Adam Smith, who is regarded as the 
 father of political economy, wealth is a synonym for value, the 
 value of exchange. He means that only those things which 
 have the capacity of being exchanged for other useful things 
 are wealth. Say and Kicardo held the same opinion. Others, 
 as Boccardo, make wealth a synonym for utility : “ Wealth is 
 all that which serves to satisfy human wants” ( Biz ., iv., 293). 
 Liberatore thinks that appropriable goods alone deserve the 
 name of wealth, and only when they are found in considerable 
 quantity. 
 
 Section II.— Laws of Value. 
 
 We must first make a distinction between normal and current 
 value. The normal value is that which is intrinsic to an article 
 of merchandise, comes to it from nature, from the qualities in it, 
 and not from the subjectivities of the moment, either on the 
 part of him who gives or of him who receives. The current 
 value is that which follows the changes of the market. The 
 formulae that express the relations of the different kinds of value 
 with the conditions that accompany merchandise are called laws 
 of value. Let us mention some of them :— 
 
 1. “ The value of use, that is, the appreciation of the utility 
 of a thing, is proportional to the nature, gravity, or urgency of 
 the want that the commodity can satisfy, and to the subjective 
 dispositions of him who wishes to use it.” We know that in man 
 there are wants which absolutelv must be satisfied ; and others 
 which, being satisfied, serve only to procure a greater or less 
 degree of wellbeing. As regards the former, necessity pre¬ 
 dominates, and rules the subjective judgment; as regards the 
 latter, the appreciation is arbitrary. Thus it happens that a 
 thing may have value for some, while it has no value for others. 
 Hence justness of ideas, education, moral sentiments, &c., can 
 have an influence on the appreciation of things, and indirectly 
 on the changes of the market. 
 
 2. “ The current value of goods stands in a simple ratio to the 
 demand and in an inverse ratio to the supply.” The demand and 
 the supply are two powers that tell on price in the market. A 
 great demand disposes the purchaser to make sacrifices in order 
 to have wares ; a great supply dispenses him from doing so. 
 
 To find the laws of normal value, we must not forget the dis¬ 
 tinction made between natural and artificial goods. Looking at 
 artificial goods, we observe that some of them are produced in an 
 indefinite quantity; others are of limited production, as, for 
 example, Marsala wine. The law follows :— 
 
 3. “ The normal value of artificial goods of indefinite pro¬ 
 duction is determined by their cost, and tends to keep with it.” 
 
THEORY OF KARL MARX ON VALUE 
 
 99 
 
 This law is easily shown to be true. The tailor who makes a coat 
 consumes values or invests them in the coat. It is only natural 
 that an equation should be made between the normal value of 
 the coat and the amount of values consumed, that is to say, the 
 cost. If, on the other hand, I ask a glass of water from a good 
 housewife, who has just drawn it fresh from the well, and she 
 wishes to make me pay, not on account of any trouble that she 
 had in bringing it, but on account of the satisfaction that it 
 gives me, I refuse, and I go to the well myself. In short, utility 
 given is exchanged or sold ; not so with that which is found 
 gratis. 
 
 The play between demand and supply, to which merchandise 
 is subject in exchange, proves the second part of the law stated. 
 In point of fact, if it happens that by an increased number of 
 consumers the value of merchandise is raised above cost, the 
 producers produce a greater quantity of it, they facilitate the 
 acquisition of it by consumers, and the price is readjusted. 
 Similarly, if the value falls below cost, the producers abstain 
 from production until an equality is re-established. 
 
 It may happen that various wares of the same kind and the 
 same use cost different sums. What will then be the expression 
 of the normal value ? The lowest, the middle, or the highest ? 
 We distinguish. If the production at the lowest cost can be so 
 abundant as to satisfy the requirements of the market, the lowest 
 cost will be an index of the normal value. But if it is insufficient, 
 the higher cost will then determine the normal value. The 
 producer at the lowest cost is then benefited by the necessity in 
 which the market is placed of having recourse to producers at a 
 higher cost. 
 
 As for other kinds of goods, the production of which is neces¬ 
 sarily limited, the following law will apply :— 
 
 4. “ The normal value of artificial goods of limited increase 
 can exceed the cost of production, which represents the lowest 
 value.” Let us suppose a bottle of true Marsala : above what 
 it cost, the demand and the supply may have a contest, and 
 establish a special value. 
 
 Even for natural goods there is need of a distinction. There 
 are some that cannot be imitated by art, nor can satisfactory 
 artificial substitutes be found for them. These have no cost; 
 they have, therefore, only a current value. Other natural goods 
 can be imitated by skill, or at least can be replaced by artificial 
 substitutes in the service that they render to man. The normal 
 value of such goods will be regulated by the cost of producing those 
 which are substituted for them. 
 
 Section III — The Theory of Karl Marx on Value. 
 
 When we said that the normal value of artificial goods tends to 
 keep near the cost, we were very far from asserting that, among 
 
100 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 the expenses of cost, the labour of man ought not to be counted. 
 To omit it would be injustice. The product costs not only an 
 outlay of capital employed on it, but also an outlay of man’s 
 labour, which labour equals the expenses that are necessary to 
 restore to him his lost strength. 
 
 Marx, not content with assigning to labour a fair place among 
 the expenses of cost, extends it so far as to absorb all other 
 expenses, and, by making the cost equal to the labour, gives 
 us his theory of value thus :— Value is equal to the labour spent in 
 the production of merchandise. In other words, value is nothing 
 but labour embodied, crystallised : an article of merchandise 
 is worth as much as the labour contained in it. 
 
 To a first objection against this theory, that one man is slow 
 and another quick at labour, Marx replies that he takes social 
 labour as the unit of comparison, that is, the amount of labour 
 that, making account of social conditions, is normally necessary 
 for the production of anything. 
 
 This miserable theory, abandoned to-day even by the disciples 
 of Marx, has too many defects to deserve the name of scientific. 
 We, who have studied in facts the idea of value, know what men 
 mean when they say, This is worth that. It is true that Marx 
 would not at all have maintained with so much warmth his theory 
 on value if it had not served him as a hook on which to hang 
 another unfortunate theory regarding the origin of capital. But 
 of this elsewhere. 
 
 Section IV.—A Moral Foundation. 
 
 The work of making economy a science or an art entirely 
 autonomous, developing it without any moral idea or principle, 
 finds too many supporters, even among those who have a hundred 
 eyes to shed tears over the economic contests of our day, and 
 not one to see the logical consequences of a material economy 
 that makes no account of morals. 
 
 We assert that political economy ought to be subject to the 
 laws of morals, not only because human acts are moral acts, 
 but because it should aid in carrying out the designs of Providence. 
 
 We know that economic goods have one special reason for their 
 existence, which is the use that man makes of them for the attain¬ 
 ment of his last end. We say man in general, that is all mankind, 
 all the human race. Be it that particular individuals, certain 
 conditions being placed, have a right to the use of these goods; 
 still the goods have this destination, to serve all the human race. 
 And that will be a just economic ordering of society in which 
 all mankind will be secured in the use of the goods indispensable 
 for life. It will be just, because the scope intended by nature 
 in regard to such goods will be attained. 
 
 “ In every well-ordered society,” says the Pope, “ there ought 
 
POVERTY AND PAUPERISM 
 
 101 
 
 to be a sufficient supply of material goods, the use of which is 
 necessary for the practice of virtue ” (Rerum novarum). But 
 virtue is a duty of all mankind. Therefore, there ought to be an 
 abundance of goods for all mankind in a well-ordered society. 
 
 Thus does God wish society to be constituted. To help in 
 making it such as He wishes is an act of good morals. 
 
 Justly, therefore, does G. B. Say conclude : “ The study of 
 
 political economy and the study of morality afford each other a 
 mutual help, without any confusion.” 
 
 Section V.— Poverty and Pauperism. 
 
 Goods were created for man, and are continually produced. 
 The position of man with regard to them, by which he has more 
 or less a right to use them, takes special names, which we ought 
 to remember. A man is rich, if he is able to satisfy his various 
 desires. It is clear that there is no state of absolute riches here 
 below, for the great reason that this world was not made by 
 nature to satisfy all human wishes. Man will always be in a 
 state of insufficiency with regard to his desires. 
 
 He who wants anything is poor, and is said by all to be so. 
 Therefore, all mankind are and always will be poor. To seek 
 perfect riches on earth is to seek what cannot be found. 
 
 This poverty, however, has innumerable degrees. It is 
 commonly called wealth in him who has abundance of goods to 
 satisfy not only his wants, but his desires of greater wellbeing. 
 It takes the name of ease or sufficiency in him who possesses it 
 without any great difficulty or fatigue for himself or those belong¬ 
 ing to him. It bears the name of poverty in him who wants 
 what is necessary for him, according to his condition. It is called 
 misery, if any one wants what is indispensable for life. “ Pauperism 
 is the state of a number of individuals who are permanently in 
 want of what is absolutely necessary for life.” (Antoine, Corso, &c., 
 
 p. 608.) 
 
 It is now easy to understand— 
 
 1. That the Author of humanity having appointed that the 
 distribution of goods should be made by property and labour, 
 there will always be poor people in the world. There are always 
 some who, through inability or sloth, do not work, and some who, 
 through punishment or misfortune, are in want of the necessaries 
 of life, according to their condition. These are poor, and to be 
 helped by charity. 
 
 2. That, however perfect society may be, it will never succeed 
 in banishing poverty from the face of the earth, because the 
 existence of poor people is an effect of the state in which humanity 
 finds itself. The Pope says :—“ Let it be laid down as a principle 
 that we ought to bear with the condition of humanity. To take 
 all social inequalities from the world would be impossible. The 
 
102 THE ELEMENTS OE POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Socialists indeed try to do it, but all such attempts against the 
 nature of things are vain.” 
 
 3. That there is a poverty which ought to be found in all, 
 and which consists in giving, not only theoretically, but practically, 
 a just appreciation to the things of this earth—regarding them 
 as means bestowed on man for the attainment of his last end. 
 Here the words of the Gospel apply : Blessed are the poor in spirit. 
 
 4. That a state of misery is not one of the conditions to which 
 nature has condemned a portion of mankind, but only a con¬ 
 sequence of the conditions in which the human race finds itself. 
 Misery is an exception : it is not the will of God, but is permitted. 
 
 5. That poverty is a consequence, not necessary, but eventual 
 and explicable from the vitiated nature of man. Pauperism is 
 an effect of a disordered and unjust social state. 
 
 6. That, therefore, that social condition which produces the 
 state of poverty called pauperism is vicious and unnatural. 
 
 Pauperism differs from poverty in two chief points, (i.) In 
 the cause : poverty comes from misfortune, unforseen changes, 
 idleness, ingratitude, &c. ; pauperism follows social conditions 
 with regard to labour and production, (ii.) In the effect : 
 poverty afflicts this or that individual; pauperism strikes a large 
 number of individuals, and makes a class of the miserable. 
 
 There are other differences depending on these two. Thus, 
 against poverty a man can often struggle ; against pauperism, 
 never. Poverty is very much the same in extent at all times ; 
 pauperism spreads more or less according to social conditions. 
 Poverty may be fruitful in good : it is often joined with virtue 
 and intelligence. Pauperism is nearly always accompanied with 
 desperation and crime. It is absurd to expect that poverty can 
 be made to disappear altogether from the world : Our Lord says, 
 the poor you have always with you. Pauperism ought to cease : 
 the will of God is that it should cease. 
 
 The condition of society at the present day is such that 
 pauperism, far from diminishing, is increasing more and more. 
 Unbridled competition, which leaves the weak in the power of the 
 strong—the tax system, which weighs most where it should 
 weigh least—the unprotected state of labour, and, chiefly, the 
 want of conscience with which mutual relations are observed, 
 are all so many causes that nourish pauperism. 
 
 Section VI.— The Factors in a Eight Ordering of Society. 
 
 We place here an important question, the solution of which 
 separates us from liberal sociologists. By whose aid ought a 
 right social ordering to be effected ; and, in a special manner, 
 ought the State to interfere with its heavy hand in the production, 
 distribution, &c., of the national riches ? 
 
 Liberalism answers thus :—“ Individual activity ought to be 
 
FACTORS IN A RIGHT ORDERING OF SOCIETY 103 
 
 the only factor in regard to the economic position of the citizens. 
 The work of individuals, who oppose and rival one another in the 
 market with a view to their private wellbeing, necessarily creates 
 a condition of things that is beneficial for all the citizens. There 
 is a necessary connection between individual and general pros¬ 
 perity : the former being procured, the latter follows. The 
 State ? Why should the State interfere ? It fulfils its office 
 by being the guardian of individual rights.” 
 
 In these last words, which show us the erroneous idea that 
 liberalism has of the State, we find the principle that gives rise 
 to economic liberalism, or the system of free competition, accord¬ 
 ing to which it is said that political economy ought to be governed. 
 
 We might a priori demonstrate how such a theory conflicts 
 with the organic idea of society, with the task that ought to be 
 a special one of the State, and with the most elementary know¬ 
 ledge of the nature of man. 
 
 We cannot permit that anyone should call us tyrants, or enemies 
 of individual liberty, because we refute the assertions of socialists. 
 We are ready to admit the advantages of free competition, and 
 to defend it in that just measure which the order of things 
 requires. But from the fact that it is attended with some benefits, 
 there is ground to conclude, by a general assertion, that every 
 social economic good is to be traced to free competition, this we 
 cannot admit—just as, while we recognise the benefits of rain, 
 we cannot admit that rain alone will help the fields. 
 
 The liberalists have written many pages to prove the advantages 
 of free competition in all the vicissitudes through which the 
 markets pass. But many who can argue marvellously on 
 economic laws do not take into account that the application of 
 those laws is entrusted to the free activity of man, and that this 
 too often is not cold or dumb like an economic law, but is subject 
 to the continual breath of human passions, which can turn it 
 out of its natural course. 
 
 The weak elements have precious interests which in the fluctua¬ 
 tions of free competition can thus be lost—all for the advantage 
 of the insatiable selfishness of the strong. 
 
 But the erroneousness of economic liberalism is much better 
 shown by its disastrous effects than by subtle disquisitions ; 
 because, with misfortune for all, liberalism has reduced its prin¬ 
 ciples to practice. Capitalism, pauperism, the isolation of the work¬ 
 man, the idleness of multitudes, are the sad consequences of liberal 
 individualism. Alarmed thereby, some of the most earnest 
 supporters of liberalism invoke here and there the intervention 
 of the State. 
 
 It is a fact well known and felt at the present day that the 
 actual state of society, which is a fruit of. liberalism, cannot 
 be maintained. It ought to be changed. 1 Hence arise two classes 
 of men:— 
 
 1. Socialists, who refer all the disastrous effects occasioned by 
 
104 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 economic liberalism to tbe existence of private property, and 
 therefore wish to see it abolished, communism being sub¬ 
 stituted in its place. 
 
 2. Social Christians, who wish that a just economic ordering 
 of society should be produced by three factors, (i.) Private 
 Activity. Those who rank as masters or operatives in the 
 economic world ought to govern their mutual relations according 
 to justice, and to be guided by the light of a right social 
 conscience. Leo XIII. therefore calls all to labour for the solution 
 of the social question, which is in great part an economic one. 
 (ii.) The Church. “Nor is it to be supposed that the Church 
 is so entirely devoted to the care of souls that she forgets what 
 pertains to a mortal and earthly life. She wishes and strives 
 most earnestly that the proletariat may emerge from their miser¬ 
 able state and attain to a better condition. And herein she 
 gives no small aid by calling and training men to virtue. For 
 Christian morals, when they are preserved truly such, contribute 
 by themselves to worldly prosperity. . . . The Church concurs 
 directly to the welfare of the proletariat by creating and promoting 
 whatever can contribute to their relief. Nay, in conferring 
 benefits of this kind, she so signalises herself that she elicits the 
 praise even of her enemies.” (Rerum novarum.) (iii.) The State. 
 We refer elsewhere to the duty of the State with regard to the 
 assistance of private activity and the protection of the weak. 
 Rulers ought in the first place to concur to the settlement of the 
 social question “ with all the power of laws and institutions, 
 administering the affairs of the State in such a manner that the 
 natural result may be public and private prosperity.” ( Rerum 
 novarum .) 
 
 Themes. —Political Economy is both a science and an art—Can a nation 
 
 «/ 
 
 that has many great waterfalls be called rich ?—Rossi has asserted that 
 value is “ an expression of the relation that exists between human wants 
 and things in general” : this definition is to be rejected—The Christian idea 
 of riches—It is only in accordance with the Christian idea that riches have 
 a social function—Man can honestly propose to himself to arrive at his 
 greatest wellbeing in this world on condition (i.) of keeping his activity 
 submissive to moral laws, and (ii.) of seeking his advancement through 
 labour—Smith says that the human race is a great commercial society, and 
 every man a trafficker—It has been asserted that value is not in proportion 
 to the intrinsic utility of things, but rather to the service rendered by the 
 producer. (See Boccardo, Econ. Pol. I. 23.) 
 
 If Christian resignation is a duty, when is it a duty ? and is it a duty in 
 the present state of the poor ?—An economic equality of all mankind is 
 not only impossible, and, if attempted, could not last, but it is irreconcilable 
 with the social condition of man—The wellbeing of man is to be expected 
 only in part from economic goods—What the Church has done for the well¬ 
 being of peoples—The abandonment of Christian principles—above, of 
 justice and charity towards the poor, and below, of mutual solidarity— 
 iB the cause of present social disorders. 
 
THE PRODUCTIVE PROCESS 
 
 105 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF GOODS^ 
 
 [As Brants has done, we here treat of two subjects together, and this 
 because we believe that it is more natural to do so, and that the reader 
 will thus more easily perceive the connection between producer and product. 
 Let us explain. When studying production, we see the nature of a product, 
 its causes appear distinctly to us, and we weigh the degrees of causality. 
 If immediately we proceed to distribution, the reader does not forget any 
 of the elementary ideas that ought to guide us to an equal distribution, and 
 by one act of the mind he connects, as is ^natural, the production and 
 the distribution of goods. We hope that we are not mistaken.] 
 
 Section I.— The Productive Process. 
 
 Man avails himself of the goods of this world. He gathers them 
 to him, applies them to his uses, and by them, if we may so speak, 
 fills up the voids within him, which are called wants. 
 
 One thing is required, and it is that these goods should have 
 a relation to the wants of man, so that they may satisfy him. 
 They are then immediately useful, because this alone is required 
 that he may apply them to himself or may not abstain from 
 their application. 
 
 Some goods are placed by nature in a state of immediate utility ; 
 for example, air and light. Others have need of being 
 elaborated—brought to such a state of fitness that they may be 
 immediately useful to man. This can and should be the work 
 of man himself. Immediate utility is the whole reason for 
 appreciating such goods. In a state of mere potential utility, 
 man could not appreciate them ; they would be for him as if 
 they did not exist. Hence the bringing of a thing from a state 
 of potential utility to a state of actual or immediate utility is 
 justly called production. 
 
 It also happens that a thing, from a state of immediate utility 
 with regard to one want, may pass to a like state with regard to 
 another. This is also called production, because it is always true 
 that the thing has, under the hands of man, gone through a process 
 by which it has acquired a utility that was not in it before. And 
 production is precisely that operation by which new utilities are 
 created. 
 
 “ A grave error was committed by the Physiocrats* and is 
 committed every day by the multitude, supposing that pro¬ 
 duction consists in bringing into existence things that did not 
 exist before : an error from which arose the famous theory of some 
 French economists, who held that agriculture alone among 
 industries deserves the title of productive, as that which alone 
 
 * The leader of the Physiocrats was a Frenchman, Francis Quesney 
 (1694-1774). He regarded land as the only source of wealth, taking no 
 account of labour or capital.— Trans, 
 
106 THE ELEMENTS OE POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 creates new matters—adds new things to those from which man 
 derives advantage. 
 
 “ Whatever may be the kind of industry in which human 
 labour is excercised, it never produces things, but utilities. The 
 labour of all men united could not succeed in forming the smallest 
 particle of matter, as it could not succeed in destroying or 
 annihilating the least atom. To weave a piece of cloth is nothing 
 but to arrange threads of wool in a peculiar manner, more suited 
 to the use for which they are intended. To make a field of wheat 
 or a plantation of trees grow is nothing but to place a certain 
 matter, called seed, in such conditions that it can assimilate to 
 itself the elements of other matters, drawn from air, earth, and 
 water, and thus form a new combination called a plant.” (Boc., 
 Diz., iv., 206.) 
 
 From what has been said, it is understood that production is 
 very often the destruction of one or more utilities for the acquisi¬ 
 tion of a greater utility. 
 
 Many a time it happens that the utility of a thing with regard 
 to human -wants in general makes no increase whatever, because 
 the thing undergoes no transformation. It merely changes 
 place ; for example, it passes from a place where there is abun¬ 
 dance of it to another where it is scarce—which is done by means 
 of commerce. This is also called production, because it is always 
 true that the object is brought into a state of immediate utility, 
 which it had not before. 
 
 We may give the name of productive process to that series of 
 operations necessary to bring an object from the state in which 
 it is found to a state of immediate utility that is desired. It is 
 a laborious process, for it implies the consumption of human 
 strength, of values often great and various, which are called 
 the expenses or the cost of production. 
 
 The valuation of the product will be the result found by subtract¬ 
 ing the value that the object had, plus the sum of the values of all 
 the expenses of production, from the value that it has acquired. 
 If there is a remainder, the production is remunerative—so 
 much the more as the remainder is greater. This is because the 
 utility introduced into the object is so much more appreciated 
 than the sum of the different utilities that were consumed during 
 the productive process. 
 
 And if there is no remainder, must we say that production is 
 useless ? No : an advantage has been gained. Values have been 
 destroyed, it is true, but they revive in the product. During the 
 production, moreover, the producers have lived : and this is an 
 advantage. Does not humanity live by the destruction of values ? 
 and if these do good in any way the service rendered by them is 
 an,advantage. Only in the case that the value produced is less 
 than the values consumed, can or should it be said that the pro¬ 
 duction was disadvantageous for the producer or for society. 
 
 Laws of Production .—Hence it is understood how the climax 
 
THE FACTORS IN PRODUCTION 
 
 107 
 
 of production is reached when the remainder after the subtraction 
 mentioned above increases daily more and more, and how the 
 fundamental law of production is, 44 The maximum by means of 
 the minimum.” 
 
 Thus the net product will always become more abundant. 
 It is also called income or revenue, from which results the wealth 
 of society. 
 
 The abundance of a product is not always and wholly for the 
 advantage of him who produces it. Oftentimes it happens that 
 the advantage is all for society and nothing for the producer. If 
 the greater abundance of a product finds in the market the same 
 price as at first, the income of the producer is undoubtedly 
 increased. But if the competition of producers causes a fall in 
 price, a greater supply of the product will turn to the advantage 
 of the consumers, not of the producers. 
 
 We must not, however, forget that production has naturally 
 as its scope to serve the needs of all civil society by means of 
 consumption. 
 
 This consideration suggests some other laws to which pro¬ 
 duction is subject. 
 
 “ Production ought to be proportionate to consumption ”— 
 that is, it ought to be regulated by the wants for which consump¬ 
 tion is required. A product has value inasmuch as it is useful, 
 and it is useful inasmuch as it satisfies a want. If we take away 
 the want, then—weighing every circumstance of to-day and 
 to-morrow—the product has no longer any utility or value. The 
 over-production of an article may occasion evils for producers 
 as well as for workpeople—leading to idleness, vice, &c. 
 
 “ Production ought to be subordinate to the moral and religious 
 interests of humanity.”—The reasonableness of this law appears 
 from almost every point of view in Christian sociology. The 
 economic man is to be at the service of the moral and religious 
 man. Hence the production of whatever offends good morals 
 ought to be prevented; and the productive process ought to be 
 carried on in such a way as to respect them. Even the preserva¬ 
 tion of the life of man is a moral work ; therefore, confections of 
 noxious elements ought to be prohibited. 
 
 When a value is consumed in the process of production, we say 
 that it renders a productive service. When, on the other hand, 
 no value succeeds to a value consumed, then there is a mere 
 destruction of utility, and the service is said to be unproductive ; 
 such, for example, is the service of the wine with which I allay 
 thirst. 
 
 Section II.— The Factors in Production. 
 
 It is very natural to man to provide for his wants. These 
 wants calling for satisfaction, and the shyness of nature to grant 
 the means, unless constrained to do so, persuade him very soon to 
 
108 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 apply himself to the work of production. To find out the 
 factors in production, we have, therefore, only to examine facts. 
 
 And facts, in every productive operation, show us always a 
 skilful hand, an object on which this hand works, and an instru¬ 
 ment or means of which it makes use. So it is with the man 
 who tills the field ; so it is with the sculptor who shapes the 
 marble ; so it is always. Do we not here see the factors in pro¬ 
 duction ? They are (i.) nature ; (ii.) labour ; and (iii.) capital. 
 
 We must not, however, regard these three agents as separated 
 from the person of man, who with his mind and hand directs 
 and governs the productive operation. We shall see in due time 
 how nature acts when 'possessed, by man, how capital springs 
 up and increases under the care of the proprietor—to say nothing 
 of labour, which, apart from man, is not even conceivable, whether 
 we consider the labour of the brains or the labour of the hands. 
 
 Hence three positions from which men concur to production : 
 as land proprietors, as capitalists, and as industrialists. These 
 three agents should aid one another in the work of production. 
 This result is secured by special contracts, of which it will be 
 necessary to speak. 
 
 Section III.— Harmony in Work. 
 
 Facts demonstrate that the abundance and perfection of a 
 product are more notable according as the union of the three 
 agents, nature, labour, and capital, is more strict. 
 
 It is, therefore, the design of nature that the greatest harmony 
 should reign among them—the source of so much individual and 
 social good. Hence we infer that men, who are respectively 
 invested with proprietorship over nature, over capital, and over 
 labour should—according to the intention of the Creator— 
 agree well together. “In the present question it is a great 
 mistake to suppose that one class is inimical to another, as if 
 nature had made the rich and the poor to be struggling in a 
 continual duel. This is so opposed to reason that, on the contrary, 
 it is most true that, as in the human body the various members 
 agree together and form that order which is called symmetry, 
 so nature desires that the said two classes should live in concord 
 and thus form an equilibrium. Each has need of the other : 
 capital cannot do without labour, nor labour without capital.” 
 {Rerum novarum.) 
 
 But harmony between moral beings, of unequal condition, 
 ought to be the effect of justice first, and then of charity. Who¬ 
 ever among them finds himself stronger ought not to abuse his 
 strength to the prejudice of others. Not enough. As it is for 
 production for oneself and for the whole human race that the 
 productive faculties are given, and this scope is not attainable 
 without the intimate union of which we speak, we ought to 
 
A GREAT PROBLEM 
 
 109 
 
 sacrifice every particle of self-love. And is the proprietor the 
 stronger ? Let him remember that by an ordinance of nature 
 his lot is not separated from that of the labourer, who is, of 
 necessity, weaker. To this weakness, his strength ought to extend 
 a helping hand. It ought to exercise that material and moral 
 guardianship which every master, let him be a proprietor or a 
 capitalist or an industrialist, owes to his dependants, and which 
 bears the name of Christian Patronage. To this the Pope alluded 
 when he said : “We wish that they (the more 'prominent citizens) 
 would consider that they are not free to care or not about the 
 poor ; they are truly bound to have suph care.” (Encyc. Graves 
 de communi re.) 
 
 This patronage implies 
 
 1. That the labourer ought to be secured beforehand against 
 cases of misfortune. 
 
 2. That some plan should be adopted to supply him with 
 means of living in old age, when he can no longer work. 
 
 On this point, Father Lapeyre, treating of Catholic association, 
 maintains that to farm labourers there ought to be assigned 
 a pension not in money, but in the enjoyment of some land. The 
 learned writer adds that the State could prevent any alienation 
 or sequestration of such ground. A mortgage for old age would 
 thus be taken on the youth of the labourer. 
 
 By this means the labourer would not be tempted to seek the 
 town, there to enjoy his pension with injury to the family life, 
 which ought not to be brought into troubles away from the 
 cultivation of the beautiful country. 
 
 3. The labourer ought to have the protection of his employer, 
 and to feel the benefit of a true and sincere affection. 
 
 Section IV.—A Great Problem. 
 
 The distribution of goods is a great problem that interests 
 humanity, and that, not being well solved, gives rise to many 
 and most serious inconveniences—individual, domestic, and 
 social. It is a problem of justice, of morals, of Divine Providence. 
 
 It consists in this. Worldly goods, of whatever kind, are 
 destined by nature to serve for the satisfaction of all mankind. 
 To answer this purpose, they should pass into the possession of 
 the individual, who, by consumption, destroys what is appreciable 
 in them. And these goods are not originally in the possession 
 of anyone. Nature did not consign to any individual a single 
 particle of worldly goods. By what law is everyone to obtain his 
 respective part ? 
 
 If in the world there were only a precise quantity of goods, and 
 of those goods alone which are absolutely necessary to maintain 
 life, one single rule would suffice, that of dividing in equal parts 
 the whole mass among all human beings. But nature was 
 
110 THE ELEMENTS OE POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 generous : it lavished goods on humanity ; it gave them not only 
 for the wants but for the conveniences of life. How then are 
 they to be distributed ? Has nature, which did not make the 
 distribution, given us any rules, at least in substance, on the 
 matter, and, if so, what are they ? Here they are :— 
 
 1. There are in the world some goods that escape the private 
 possession of everyone. By this fact nature has clearly shown 
 that it does not wish these goods to come into anyone's possession. 
 
 2. Of appropriable goods—just because such—nature permits 
 the appropriation, provided it does not interfere with the use 
 that the whole human race should make of them. 
 
 3. Nature also wishes the private appropriation of goods, 
 which serves to bring about more easily and fully the object 
 for which they were intended. 
 
 4. Nearly all worldly goods are rendered useful to man by 
 means of services for which man fits them. In the same manner 
 as the creation of worldly goods constitutes creative nature their 
 absolute mistress, so the fact by which new utilities are introduced 
 into these goods ought to give to the agents who have a share 
 in it a right of mastership over them. If, therefore, man, as 
 proprietor, capitalist, or labourer, concurs to their production, 
 the produce ought to be his in proportion. 
 
 5. Where—in any region—neither proprietorship nor labour 
 gives the quota of produce necessary for human life, there 
 beneficence ought to make its contribution. No creature should 
 perish through want of those means which nature has given in 
 abundance for the subsistence of all. 
 
 These general rules are the foundation on which Christian 
 economy proceeds in the distribution of the goods of this lower 
 world. Justice and charity are their substance. 
 
 Section Y.—Proprietorship or Ownership. 
 
 To arrive at an accurate analysis of the idea of proprietorship 
 or ownership we must set forth clearly the natural relations, or 
 those which nature has placed, between man and the external 
 world. 
 
 Man ought to live. The external world ought to supply him 
 with the means—on one condition, that he should labour. 
 
 This world was given to man, not as an individual, but as a 
 species. He then labours, not as a species, but as an individual. 
 The world, in so far as given by nature, has the same relations 
 with all the individuals of the human species. In so far as it ought 
 to be worked by individuals, that it may yield fruit for all, it 
 enters into special relations with those who work it. Can these 
 be relations of ownership ? 
 
 Let us first of all see what ownership means. The idea of owner¬ 
 ship is elementary ; it is one of those ideas which constitute the 
 
PROPRIETORSHIP OR OWNERSHIP 
 
 111 
 
 patrimony of common sense. To analyse it exactly is, therefore, 
 not easy ; yet to do so is a thing of the utmost importance. We 
 proceed to the attempt with brevity. If I see a man holding 
 an umbrella in his hand, and consider that he not only uses it 
 to keep off the rain, but may make a present of it, or may sell it, 
 and will not allow anyone to snatch it out of his hand, I say that 
 it is his property, or he has the ownership of it. 
 
 From this fact, which the idea of ownership has suggested 
 to me, I infer that, to constitute it, the right of using a thing 
 is not enough, but one should be able to give it away, and to 
 drive off any person who would try to hinder its use. Ownership, 
 therefore, includes—(i.) a positive right to dispose of a thing as we 
 please, and (ii.) a negative or defensive right, to prevent the thing 
 from passing into the hands of others. 
 
 Let us now return to our example. There are two facts con¬ 
 nected with the man who carries the umbrella. In the first I see 
 that he may throw it into a fire, and reduce it to ashes, to be 
 blown away by the winds. In the second I see another man who, 
 with a strong arm, snaps the umbrella out of his hand, and takes 
 it off with him. A feeling of reproof and condemnation rises in 
 my soul at each occurrence. 
 
 In the first case I see a man who abuses what belongs to him. 
 The thing possessed is not absolutely his: it is his because the 
 absolute owner has granted it to him that it may be of service 
 to him. In other words, God, who is the Absolute Master of all 
 things, has given this thing not to him directly, but to mankind, 
 that it may serve them. The power of an individual to take a thing 
 to himself and make it his own is not directly from God, but 
 consequently on the established order. To withdraw things 
 from the design for which God created them and gave them 
 to mankind, is what no owner can lawfully do. 
 
 He, however, who reduces a thing possessed to such a state 
 that it can no longer be of service to any man, does not offend 
 against what is called commutative justice, which is a relation 
 between two particular individuals, and carries with it the obliga¬ 
 tion of restitution. He does not offend against this justice 
 solely because there is wanting an individual who has for himself 
 alone a right to the use of a thing. But truly he offends against 
 divine justice, which wishes that things created for a purpose 
 should attain it, and does not allow that anyone should hinder 
 them from doing so. To this Absolute Master he should in some 
 manner make satisfaction. 
 
 He sins also against society, which has a right to use this thing 
 that God created for mankind. A proprietor should always 
 remember that, if the ownership of a thing is his, yet the use of it 
 is, under given conditions, common to the whole human race. 
 
 Liberalism has created an idea of ownership that cannot be 
 maintained; it is contrary to the designs of the Creator; it is 
 unnatural. Liberalism has substituted the absolute for the 
 
112 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 relative, and constituted the owner a despot over that which he 
 owns. It has removed his obligations from the tablets of the 
 moral law. Accordingly, he stands free from all responsibility, 
 before God and man, in the use of what he calls his own. Owner¬ 
 ship thus conceived, no reason appears why there should be any 
 condemnation for prodigality, luxury, dissipation, &c. 
 
 But, we repeat, this idea of ownership cannot be admitted. 
 There is a general scope for which God has destined useful things, 
 and from which there should be no deviation: it is the service 
 of the whole human race. Every idea that we form of private 
 ownership ought to be subordinate to this general scope, over the 
 attainment of which God Himself watches. If, under the regime 
 of private ownership, this scope is hindered, ownership goes beyond 
 its limits and requires to be brought back to its duty. 
 
 The point is this: the reason for the world, external to man, 
 is the service that it renders to the whole human race. Take 
 away this end, and, in the actual order of things, no purpose for 
 its existence can be found. 
 
 Now, that an individual may possess himself of a thing with the 
 view of attaining fully the end designed by the Creator, we can 
 understand, and it is all right. That he may withdraw the thing 
 from the attainment of this end, either by depriving it of an 
 aptitude for attaining such end, or by turning it entirely to his own 
 service, is absolutely wrong. In such case the thing does not 
 realise the intentions of the Creator ; on the contrary, it frustrates 
 them. From these considerations we conclude:— 
 
 1. An owner has not a right to abuse a thing possessed : he 
 cannot destroy it, nor deprive it of the powers with which nature 
 supplies it. 
 
 2. He cannot deny the fruits of it to his brethren who have 
 need of them, and who are willing to comply with the conditions 
 that justice requires, so as to attain the scope intended by the 
 Creator. 
 
 3. The only admissible idea of a private owner is the evangelical 
 one, which makes him an administrator of goods for the whole 
 human race ; and in this point there is perfect harmony between 
 faith and reason. 
 
 4. The idea of ownership given by St. Thomas is true : it should, 
 he says, be so conceived that the thing may be one's own, but the 
 use of it common. 
 
 According to these ideas, the assertion is very logical that 
 private property has a social function which the owner ought to 
 keep in view when exercising his rights. “ And let no one," says 
 Weiss, “regard this as an injury to personal power, because no one 
 exists outside the social body, nor can anyone be imagined without 
 obligations towards the solidarity of human interests." * 
 
 * The following remarks of Abbe Naudet in his little work on Sociology 
 (chap, v.) are very just:—“ Say to one of onr great proprietors that he 
 has no right to leave his lands uncultivated, that the land should nourish 
 
RIGHT AND EFFECTS OF OWNERSHIP 113 
 
 Pope Leo XIII. teaches the social function of ownership, and 
 shows its advantages thus :— 
 
 “ We have seen that this labour question cannot be solved 
 unless we take as a principle that private ownership should be 
 held sacred. The laws, therefore, ought to favour this right, 
 and to encourage as many as possible to become owners. 
 
 “ Many advantages will follow from this; and, first of all, 
 a more equal division of national wealth. Revolutions have 
 separated the citizens into two castes, differing widely from each 
 other. On the one side, a powerful faction, because exceedingly 
 rich : which, having in its grasp all kinds of production and 
 traffic, exhausts all the sources of wealth, and exercises great 
 influence on the affairs of State. On the other side, a weak and 
 needy multitude, with ulcerated minds, always ready for dis¬ 
 turbance. Now, if the industry of this multitude were roused 
 with the hope of obtaining some ownership in land, the one class 
 would gradually draw nearer to the other, an end being put to 
 the immense distance between extreme poverty and enormous 
 wealth. 
 
 “ Moreover, there would be a greater supply in the fruits of 
 the earth. When men know that they work on their own 
 ground, they tire themselves far more willingly; nay, they learn 
 to love the soil cultivated by their own hands, from which they 
 expect not only food, but an abundance of good things for them¬ 
 selves and their families. It is easy to understand how such 
 alacrity tends to increase the produce of the land and the wealth 
 of the nation. 
 
 “ Another advantage would follow—attachment to their 
 native place. Men would not exchange their own country for 
 a foreign one, if their own enabled them to lead a tolerable life.” 
 (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 Section VI.— The Right and the Effects of Ownership. 
 
 The idea of private ownership having been explained, let us 
 see if a right exists to it. We have seen that such a right could 
 be given ; we have now to inquire if it has been given. 
 
 There are in man some goods so personal that the discussion 
 whether they belong to him who has them cannot be serious. 
 
 man and not be used, in vast extent, as a hunting-ground for idlers. The 
 great proprietor will look at you in astonishment, and candidly answer : 
 ‘ The land is my own, and I can do what I like with it.’ He is mistaken. 
 He imagines himself honest, and he is in error. He is evidently ignorant of 
 his social duty, because, as Monsignor Ketteler observes in one of his admir¬ 
 able discourses, the doctrine that makes man the God of his property—that 
 gives him the right to destroy the fruits of property, which he ought to 
 distribute among his poor brethren—that gives him the right to satisfy his 
 unbridled sensuality as he pleases, is a doctrine not only unchristian, but 
 unnatural.” — Trans . 
 
 H 
 
114 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 My mind is mine, the moral energy that carries me to study is 
 mine, just as much as strength belongs to the man who digs with 
 his spade. Such goods nature gives to the individual, and they 
 are naturally his. But of goods that are external to man, can he 
 have ownership ? Masters in natural law bring forward an 
 abundance of arguments to prove that private ownership is a 
 natural right. We w T ill summarise here the arguments of which 
 the Pontiff makes use in Rerum novarum :— 
 
 1. There ought to be a proportion between him who uses a thing 
 and the thing itself. Man makes use of the things of this world, 
 and so does the beast. But man excels the beast by reason. 
 Besides the use of external goods, which is proper even to the 
 beast, we must allow to man something more that corresponds 
 to reason, with which he is enriched. This something more is 
 ownership, of which rational creatures, who can adapt the means 
 to the end, are alone capable. As man is rational, he provides 
 for himself against the future. But this cannot be done other¬ 
 wise than by private ownership, with which he secures the means 
 of existence for the morrow. 
 
 2. Nature does not yield fruit without labour. But he who 
 labours on a field leaves, as it were, an impress of his own person¬ 
 ality on it. This personality, though infused into an object, 
 does not cease to belong to the labourer. On the other side, it is 
 so incorporated with the object as to make one thing with it. 
 “ Seeing that, to obtain the goods of nature, man employs the 
 industry of his mind and the strength of his body, he thereby 
 makes his own that part of the earth which he brings into cultiva¬ 
 tion, and on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his 
 personality ; so that he may justly possess that part as his own, 
 and no one has a right to molest him in doing so.” 
 
 3. The Pontiff adds the consent of the human race in practically 
 recognising the right of the individual to private ownership, and 
 the sanction that divine and human laws have always given to 
 such a right. 
 
 We will add an argument that St. Thomas sets forth in an 
 admirable light. There is no need to demonstrate that the 
 means of living for the individual as well as for society, must be 
 derived by labour from nature, and that production will be so 
 much the more abundant as labour will be the more assiduous, 
 but take away from man the right of ownership, and let him 
 learn that the ground on which he works is not his own, that the 
 fruit of his toil and diligence will not be his own, and what will 
 you see ? . . . You will see the spade fall from his hands, and the 
 thoughtful head of the scientist, who is building castles in the air 
 for some new invention, begin to nod with sleep. Ah, com¬ 
 munism ! Communism is a system of universal poltroonery, and, 
 therefore, of famine for all. “ If the way were opened to envy, 
 recrimination, and discord—every stimulus being taken from 
 individual genius and industry—the very sources of riches would 
 
DUTIES OF AUTHORITY TO OWNERSHIP 115 
 
 be dried up; and the dreamt-of equality would be nothing in 
 fact but universal abjection and misery/’ (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 If, therefore, without private ownership, the means intended 
 by nature for the preservation of civil society cannot be procured, 
 and this preservation is an ordinance of nature, we must say 
 that private ownership is also an ordinance of nature. 
 
 Effects of Ownership ).—If the right of the individual to the 
 appropriation of goods cannot be denied, what effect does 
 this right produce in him, when he is lawfully in possession 
 of it ? 
 
 There are two consequences of ownership. The first is that 
 the owner can dispose at his pleasure of the thing owned. He can, 
 therefore, sell it, make a present of it, &c., within the limits of the 
 just rights of ownership well conceived. The second is that the 
 owner—just because he is the owner—is the master of those 
 products, or of those parts of a product, which are true effects of 
 the productiveness of the thing possessed. The effect being 
 proper to the cause, it should pertain to him to whom the cause 
 itself pertains. 2 
 
 Section YII.—Duties of Political Authority with regard 
 
 to Ownership. 
 
 To derive the right of private ownership from the supreme 
 authority was, and perhaps still is, a foolish idea of economists 
 not distinguishing well between one thing and another. Political 
 authority— 
 
 1. Should safeguard the rights of private ownership : both 
 because the violation of them grievously injures the right of 
 individuals, and because it is disastrous to the public weal. “ It 
 is a principal duty of rulers to secure private ownership by wise 
 laws. It is most necessary, in these times of unrestrained greed, 
 that the people should be kept to their duty ; for, though all may 
 justly strive to improve their condition, yet neither justice nor the 
 public good allows any one to seize the property of another, under 
 the absurd pretence of making an equality in fortunes.” (Rerum 
 novarum.) 
 
 2. It can and should, when morality, the public safety, or the 
 public welfare requires it, place limits to the use of private owner¬ 
 ship. Hence the laws that forbid men to carry arms, to sell 
 poisons, &c. 
 
 3. It can and should make enactments with regard to services, 
 rights of way, &c. 
 
 4. It can, if expedient, limit the rights of hunting, cutting wood, 
 fishing, &c. 
 
 5. It has a right of expropriation when the public good requires 
 such, and it exercises the same with the least possible injury to 
 private good. 
 
116 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECO NOME 
 
 6. It can and should guard the right of inheritance, and modify 
 it with a view to the welfare of families. 
 
 7. In resard to minors, wonem persons misbie to manage 
 their property, it has a right to limit or even to prevent the use 
 thereof. 
 
 b - xes.—D r. Render said, * ' It is not only an anti-Chgis tian bntaaaMifc- 
 natcral doctrine that makes man a God over his substance, are grants he. 
 the rinht to terra to the satisfaction er his pleasures and his tnrestrained 
 sensuality those fruits of property wmzh he onnnt to distribute among his 
 poor brethren."—Cement IT. in the 13th century permitted, to strangers 
 the cultivation of the third part of an estate on which the owner obstinately 
 refused to permit any : mem: :m by what right !—d: :o*dxng to Henry 
 George.* private ownership is the cause of the intolerable inecuRides that 
 exist am:n-r men—line same e:::e asserts that tae my means :: abolishing 
 present pauperism. whiz-h in z reuses day by day. is me abolition of private 
 ownership—Su Thomas admits that it may in a certain sense be said that 
 God wished the earth to be the common patrimony of ah 2a, 2 m q. lxvL. a. 
 
 2 —The difference b*etween ownership and possession—Ownership supposes 
 reason and liberty—What class of people are enemies of pmvate ownership ?— 
 
 If present social disorders are owing to private ownership 1—Socialism 
 would not remedy present social disorders—What remedies are suggested 
 by Christian Democracy ? 
 
 CHAPTEE m. 1 
 
 ABUNDANCE OF WORLDLY GOODS. 
 
 Section L—Nattbe. 
 
 As some philosophers. given to atheism. speak often of nature 
 to avoid mention of God. so sene economists, seized with, a similar 
 desire, speak often of labour, and avoid mention of God even under 
 the name of nature, as if artificial riches were the produce of 
 human activity alone. This slur thrown on nature is unjust, 
 
 F or on what would the labour of man fad if not on nature 7 It 
 is absurd to suppose that an arm wielded in vacancy can produce 
 anything. 
 
 Examining nature in connection with the wants of mam to 
 satisfy which it was created, we hud it enriched with a great 
 abundance of elements and powers. Of natural elements, some 
 are brought by nature itself to a state of immediate utility, as 
 fruits : others require to be dug up. as iron : others have to be 
 worked on. and so placed in a condition to be consumed, as wheat. 
 
 The Creator has given certain powers to nature, by means of 
 which a produce passes to a more or less advanced state of 
 maturity or perfection Of tnese powers some are organic! as 
 the vegetative in plants and reproductive in animals: others 
 
 * An American author (1539-lStf7b who wrote several books on Land 
 questions. It was only to private ownership in lard that he was opposed. 
 
 He taught respect for private ownership in everything else.— Tram. 
 
THE EARTH 
 
 117 
 
 are inorganic, as cohesion, gravity, attraction, &c. These powers 
 man can increase, regulate, apply in such a way as to obtain a 
 more abundant, speedy, perfect production. 
 
 To deny all this abundance of elements and pow T ers that nature 
 supplies to production is necessarily to mistake facts, and to 
 oppose what they clearly teach. Whoever attentively examines 
 productive facts sees at once that the various goods which nature 
 provides for production are diversified in the relations that they 
 can have with man, and in the ways in which they can concur 
 to productive operation. 
 
 The cultivable earth is certainly the most important of the pro¬ 
 ductive instruments prepared by nature. A waterfall, a mine, 
 a spa, are elements that concur to production in a manner 
 different from that of cultivable ground: but, in common with 
 it, they can enter into the ownership of man. The heat of the 
 sun, the force of the wind, &e., differ in this, that they cannot 
 be appropriated ; but everyone can use them to obtain products. 
 
 It is, indeed, true that a man with knowledge and skill can 
 obtain from such free elements some special services that a man 
 without ability cannot derive from them. And thus, in a certain 
 way, he takes possession of them; but it is an indirect possession— 
 that is to say, through owning the means that are adapted to 
 obtain such special services. 
 
 Section II. —The Earth. 
 
 Providence concurs to the work of production by the power 
 that it continually infuses through natural agencies. Between 
 these agencies a difference must be pointed out: some act as 
 direct causes of production ; others instead as simple instruments 
 that help the work of man. We treat of the former in this section, 
 as they represent nature in its productive work; and we bring 
 them all together under one name, The Earth. 
 
 The earth produces very little of itself : it requires the labour 
 of man. Man by labour draws the earth near to him, makes it 
 his fellow-labourer, with a view to reap fruit from it. 
 
 Nature has deposited in the earth a productive virtue, by 
 which it prepares within itself in the most admirable manner 
 the elements of produce. 
 
 The earth is a producer only in the sense given by us to the 
 word “ production ” : it has not a creative, but a transforming 
 power. If we analyse chemically a little stalk of corn, we find 
 elements that were in the ground by the disposition of nature, 
 or placed there under the form of manure by the hand of man, 
 or drawn from the atmosphere. 
 
 Accordingly, the earth may well be called a machine, which 
 elaborates certain materials, in order to restore them afterwards 
 in elements of consumption for man. 
 
118 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Section III. —Land Ownership. 
 
 Our ancestors showed that they had very precise ideas about 
 the services that the earth renders to the human race when they 
 called it a kind mother ( alma parens). In the same spirit Sully 
 remarks that tillage and pasturage are the two great paps that 
 nourish the human race. 
 
 We are not going to assert that the cultivation of the earth 
 is alone fruitful. Some have said and written so, but they have 
 said and written wrong. Only a false idea of production could 
 lead to such a strange opinion. We say that even other 
 industries, which, by modifying or transforming the fruits of the 
 earth, adapt them to supply our wants, are productive. We 
 recognise, however, that the earth is the first mother of all pro¬ 
 ductions, that its fruits are the basis of all utilities, and that 
 agriculture is the queen of industries. 
 
 What, indeed, do other industries do but work on the “ rough 
 materials ” that the earth after labour has given to them ? 
 
 Hence a special importance attaches to land riches before 
 all others. For if goods are to be valued by the utility that they 
 render to men, land is the place on which all other goods can be 
 raised. Thus Weiss says :—“ Land property united with labour 
 is the primitive form of capital. All forms of movable capital 
 can be reduced to this, and ought to permit of being so reduced— 
 otherwise they are not capital in reality.” (p. 478.) 
 
 On account of this special importance that agriculture has over 
 other industries, it is highly proper that the owner of land should 
 exercise his social functions and discharge the duties of Christian 
 patronage towards his dependants, lest ownership being dis¬ 
 sociated from labour, the most necessary of industries should be 
 neglected.* 
 
 “ We do not grow weary of repeating that ownership in general, 
 and land ownership in particular, is not—no, it is not a sinecure, 
 a mere title to income, a guarantee of individual wellbeing, as it 
 was understood in the ancient law of Pagan Rome, and much 
 less is it that open field for the speculation of capitalists which 
 the new paganism of classic economy would make it; but it is an 
 office, a mission, a right confirmed and ennobled by the task of 
 a social function, as has been proclaimed by the Rome of 
 Christian ages, from St. Paul to Leo XIII. Riches, like personal 
 faculties, are subordinated in the plan of nature to purposes 
 assigned for him who holds them, whether as an individual or as 
 a sharer in civil community, and consequently they imply 
 grave responsibilities, both individual and social.” So said 
 Mauri at the Congress of Padua. ( Atti , p. 150.) 
 
 * A very interesting and instructive book, Contemporary Ireland, by a 
 French gentleman, Mr. L. Paul-Bubois, has lately (1908) appeared. It 
 would be well for Ireland if Englishmen understood Irish affairs as 
 thoroughly as this Frenchman.— Trans. 
 
LAND RETURN 
 
 119 
 
 Section IV. —Land Return. 
 
 In common language we say that revenue or income or return 
 is the net produce of a productive operation. 
 
 But we have seen that every produce can be the effect of several 
 causes. Now that fraction of the land produce which is due to the 
 productive force of the soil or farm takes the name of “ land 
 return/'" Let us give an example. Titus sows a quintal of wheat 
 value for 32 lire * ; he spends about 50 lire in manuring it, and 
 70 lire in wages to labourers. He obtains in produce ten quintals 
 of wheat value for 300 lire. This procluce is due in proportion 
 partly to labour ; partly to capital, that is, seed, manure, plough, 
 &c. ; and partly to the natural powers of the soil. This last 
 portion is called the “ land return.” Hence the difference is seen 
 between return and rent. The rent is the sum paid to the owner 
 for the temporary use of the land in the state in which it is found, 
 and, therefore, with the things that are on it, with the capital 
 invested in it, and making account also of circumstances in which 
 the ground is placed—circumstances that can raise or lower the 
 rent. The “ return ” takes its place in the amount of rent, 
 because no owner gives for nothing the vegetative forces of his 
 land; and, looking into the rent, we shall find, besides the portion 
 that is due as interest on capital, that portion also which 
 corresponds to compensation for the use of the productive forces 
 of the soil. This is the “ land return.” 
 
 The same quantity of wheat being sown in different fields, 
 and the same amount of capital and labour being expended on 
 it, the produce is not the same; it varies from field to field. 
 Whence the difference ? From the difference of the productive 
 qualities of the respective fields. Therefore, the productive force 
 is not the same in all lands, and accordingly the return is not 
 the same. 
 
 But return is the fruit of every ground, because in every ground 
 we find productive powers. In every agricultural produce there 
 is a portion that is due to the natural force of the soil from which 
 it is drawn. The Pope calls this productive force “ an 
 inexhaustible fecundity.” ( Rerum novarum.) 
 
 From these brief remarks it may be gathered that the return 
 is something positive and absolute, as regards the soil, in which 
 are the natural and indestructible forces of production, and as 
 regards the produce, of which a part is undoubtedly due to the 
 aforesaid productiveness. 
 
 Ricardo, an English economist, framed a theory on return that 
 is certainly very ingenious, and as such deserving of the applause 
 with which it was hailed, but in reality apt only to generate 
 
 * The word “ quintal ” is derived from L. centum, a hundred. It denotes 
 a measure of 100 Ihs. The Italian lira is equal to about ten pence English. 
 Lire, the plural, is pronounced much like Leary.— Trans. 
 
120 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 confusion, and to take away from return that absolute and 
 positive character which we recognise in it. He substituted a 
 relative for the absolute character of return. He mistook return 
 for its valuation. 
 
 When is there return according to Ricardo ? Return arises 
 when, in any region, after the cultivation of the better lands, 
 the cultivation of the worse is turned to. The same capital and 
 the same labour spent on the two kinds of land give a greater 
 produce in the former and a less in the latter. The difference 
 is the land return. Even on the same land (still according to 
 Ricardo) the return may be made sensible. Cultivated with a 
 coefficient of 100 between capital and labour, it gives 1,000. 
 If I add a second capital of 100, I shall not have a produce of 
 2,000, but of 1,700. The difference is due to the strength of the 
 soil, and is the return. 
 
 We reject this theory, which, if it does not annul the positive 
 existence of land return, never appreciates it, and thus leads to 
 disastrous consequences. 
 
 Other economists have waged a more exterminating war 
 against land return. They absolutely and always deny it. Their 
 principle is that everything comes from labour. Why does one 
 piece of land produce more than another ? Because it carries 
 labour -within it, spent on it in the past, and capital that was 
 introduced, also a fruit of labour. 
 
 Marx, setting out from another principle, that all value comes 
 from labour incorporated in produce, arrives at the same con¬ 
 sequence—that is, there ought to be nothing for the owner of a 
 farm by reason of the possession of the farm. If, therefore, a 
 man lets land, to take a price as compensation for the productive¬ 
 ness of the land let by him to a tenant is an injustice. 
 
 After the arguments used, nothing remains for us but to 
 conclude. Every piece of land is in a way to produce, and, 
 certain conditions being given, does in fact produce a utility, 
 which is called its return. This return belongs to him w r ho 
 lawfully owns the land, because the effect follows the owmer 
 of the cause. 
 
 Section Y.—Which is the Best Form oe Ownership ? 
 
 The existence of owners of land follows as a consequence from 
 the state of human affairs. But owners may have small or large 
 properties. And here the question a-rises : which is the best 
 kind of ownership—the small, or the large, or any other ? 
 
 An excessive smallness of ownership, that which makes neither 
 a people of owners nor a people of beggars, carries with it great 
 inconveniences, and cannot be called useful. It does not place 
 the owner in a position to procure the coefficients of a culture 
 truly productive. Economically, in short, it has a bad effect. 
 Socially it has also another effect to be feared—a proletariat 
 
WHICH IS THE BEST FORM OF OWNERSHIP? 121 
 
 of country people. From too little ground it is very difficult 
 to rise honestly to a decent position, and very easy to descend 
 to a worse. Thus, a very small property does not suit. Only 
 as an exception is there any utility to be found in it. 
 
 What about the latifundium or large landed estate ? As an 
 exception, when formed into small properties, it may have some 
 advantages. Certain costly works may be accomplished on the 
 estate of a latifundist. But, as a rule, it has also great incon¬ 
 veniences. It puts the owner into the occasion of giving up the 
 cultivation of land—of abandoning country life, and going away 
 to some city, far from his tenants, there to spend his time in 
 luxury and amusement. 
 
 He who separates himself entirely from what he possesses, 
 dispenses himself from every burden that possession and pro¬ 
 duction imply, and selfishly secures to himself an income for an 
 easy life, is the most unnatural type of an owner that can be 
 found. Society is indebted to him for nothing—except for the 
 decay that he causes in one of the sources of social wellbeing. 
 
 Another discreditable side of his character is shown by the 
 latifundist that is unconscious of his social position. He secures 
 an income for himself by means of rent. This is a contract, as 
 we have seen, not in itself to be condemned. And if the lati¬ 
 fundist entered into it mindful of his social duties, he would 
 accompany it with such conditions as to render it useful to his 
 brethren. The division of his property among many small holders 
 would be a means of benefiting them, and placing many families 
 on a way of living, at least not worse than before. 
 
 But this renting is not without trouble or responsibility. To 
 be free from it, the landlord often has recourse to the system 
 of large rents. He consigns his whole property to one single 
 individual, the middleman, who is placed between him and the 
 cultivators. The conditions of the contract may not be equally 
 advantageous; but at all events the security and the absence 
 of care are a great compensation for any disadvantage. 
 
 This intermediate master, longing to attain a dignified position, 
 and unable to mount thereto on the small margin left him above 
 the rent—what does he do ? He makes profit out of the poor 
 families of the labourers. 
 
 Their wages consist of a few quintals of wheat, a little Indian 
 corn, and a small monthly payment of money. As regards the 
 quality of the commodities granted to them, truth compels us 
 to say that what is most worthless, what is most decayed by time, 
 what is considered in the market as fit only for beasts, is the 
 portion of the poor country people. Of the low damp gloomy 
 cabins given them to inhabit, there is no need for a long de¬ 
 scription. And no one dares to object; for the position is pre¬ 
 carious from year to year. Everyone is mindful of St. Martin’s 
 Day and the First of March, which too often present a sorrowful 
 procession of carts, laden with ragged bundles, and stooped 
 
122 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 emaciated figures—pale barefooted children and ill-clothed 
 mothers—who go to another impoverishment, another martyrdom. 
 
 And if, far off in the gay city, the pleasure-seeker considers 
 that his income is too small, the next settlement day will afford 
 him am opportunity, not to be neglected, of raising the rent. 
 
 What will the middleman then do ? Unfortunate himself, 
 he considers that he has a right to add new misery to the fate of 
 the miserable tenants, by squeezing them still more. 
 
 For the rest, it is easy to understand how property accumulated 
 in the hands of a few becomes a source of envy, of greed, and often 
 of fierce conflict in society. The Pope counts among the causes 
 of the social question at the present day that “ wealth is accumu¬ 
 lated in a few hands and poverty widely spread." This is a 
 state of things that cannot be in the designs of Providence : a 
 few privileged men raised high on the throne of ownership, and 
 below, in the shade, a host of miserable wretches. 3 
 
 What, therefore, is the best form of ownership ? By “ best" 
 we here understand, not only that which contributes to a more 
 abundant and perfect production, but also that w'hieh helps to 
 attach the family to the domestic roof—fomenting love, peace, 
 and concord, and being a source of life for all civil society. 
 
 So much being premised, we say that a preference is to be 
 given to moderate ownership. On land that a man can call his 
 own, he lays the basis of improvement for himself and his house. 
 He lives tranquil, looks forward confidently to the future, envies 
 the lot of none. His thoughts are generous, and out of the fruits 
 of his farm he does not grudge something to the needy, some¬ 
 thing for the wants of his country and of his Church. We find 
 such moderate owners here and there over the land, even on the 
 Alpine hills. Their families in the district or parish where they 
 live are like the chief walls of a house : they hold it all well 
 together, they do honour to it. 
 
 For the good of all, every effort should be made to increase 
 the number of these moderate owners; and it is to be desired 
 that the laws should move in their favour. The Pope says 
 expressly : “ The laws ought to favour this right (of private 
 ownership), and to cause the number of owners to increase as much 
 as possible." And a little before, among the counsels that he 
 gives to the prudent workman, is the following :—“ If he is wise, 
 he will easily turn his mind to thrift, and, corresponding with the 
 impulse of nature, act in such a way that there may remain 
 after his expenses something to be employed in the acquisition of 
 a little property." 
 
 Section YI.—Aid for Small Owners. 
 
 The duty of coming to the aid of small ownership, of freeing 
 it from proximate or remote danger of diminution or total ruin, 
 is only too evident. Experience and study will show the most 
 
AID FOE SMALL OWNEES 
 
 123 
 
 effectual means. Before all it is necessary to have recourse to 
 the State, whose intervention is required in a matter that deeply 
 concerns the existence of the people. Let the State promote 
 such a distribution of land property that every day the number 
 of moderate owners may increase. It is understood that public 
 power has not the faculty of taking from one man to give to 
 another. Yet all nations are convinced that certain regulations 
 ought to emanate from public authority, tending to direct the 
 transmission of property towards those centres in which it may 
 contribute most to the common good. 
 
 The public power will succeed by opportune laws regarding 
 inheritance ; by a more equitable scale of public tributes accord¬ 
 ing to the rules that we have already mentioned ; and by helping 
 those institutions which have as their object the defence of 
 property and the advance of rational agricultural industry. 
 
 1. Some people recommend a law of succession that would 
 anticipate or supersede the will of the testator. It should prevent 
 property from being too much diminished by unwise divisions, 
 or becoming, by excessive accumulations in one place, a great 
 estate. Everybody can understand that the question is a knotty 
 one. Others propose that the Hoferrolle should be established. 
 This is the name (German) given to a public register kept by the 
 State, in which every head of a family describes the possession 
 that will pass to one heir, without any division. The Hoferrolle , 
 however, is a poor remedy, because it leaves the effect to the 
 views and wishes of the heads of families, of whom very few 
 know how to rise to a calm consideration of social things. Others 
 again propose the institution of what the Germans call Anerben- 
 recht, and the French call the system of Famille Souche. It 
 consists in this, that, antecedently to all will of a testator, it is 
 settled that a farm shall pass entire to one only heir. To each of 
 the co-heirs a quota will be given—in fixing which the law can 
 intervene, so that the heir may not be burdened with debts. 
 
 To the co-heirs, instead of capital, either in money or in kind, 
 a quota might be fixed to be paid every year, by way of pension. 
 More useful socially would be an institution that would be in a 
 position to accept the annual incomes fixed for the co-heirs, and 
 to realise the same in capitals, which it would transfer to them. 
 Thus would be formed new centres of ownership and of capital. 
 Our banks might be able to accomplish this work. 
 
 The portion of the eo heirs is not regulated according to the 
 exchange value of the property inherited, but according to the net 
 produce. And the reason is—if the heir is an honest man, as he 
 ought to be, he will remember that land capital is not to serve 
 for the uses of life. Its produce does so ; because the true 
 inheritance to be divided is the produce. All with a view 
 that neither the Anerbe nor the property may be laden with 
 debt. 
 
 2. The country house, the farming implements, and the land 
 
124 THE ELEMENTS OE POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 itself to a certain extent—say two hectares, or about five acres— 
 should not be liable to sequestration or alienation. 
 
 3. A tributary system should be adopted by which (i.) a small 
 property—say below one hectare—would be exempt from any 
 succession tax; (ii.) by which he who has more pays more— 
 to be obtained by a progressive impost on large properties ; and 
 (iii.) by which a minimum of agricultural return would be free 
 from all imposts. We have said that the impost should be 
 raised from that which is over and above the wants of individual 
 and domestic life. To tax what is indispensable for life is a 
 social injustice. Now when a rural property is scarcely sufficient 
 to enable the owner, who toils on it, to live there with his family, 
 this property leaves no margin for contributing to the public 
 good. 4 The owner is entitled by social justice to enjoy whatever 
 it yields, (iv.) The system of imposts should extend to every 
 fertile sod, so that, the tributary burden falling on many shoulders, 
 each sod may suffer less. At the present day agriculture groans 
 under the scourge of ma ny charges, while thousands and thousands 
 of speculations, however profitable, are untouched. 5 A bill has 
 been brought in to apply taxation to the returns on commercial 
 transactions. We shall see if it arrives in port. 
 
 4. Every means should be taken to facilitate agrarian credit. 
 The owner often finds himself in need of capital to defray the 
 expenses of cultivation. He requires money, he requires credit 
 at the lowest interest. The establishment, therefore, of Raiffeisen 
 Rural Chests and of Social Banks ought to be made easy. There 
 are other forms of agrarian co-operation explained by writers on 
 the subject.* 
 
 5. A convenient diminution, if not a total abolition, of standing 
 armies should be made, so as not to withdraw hands from agricul¬ 
 ture, but rather to give them to it. An understanding among 
 different States might here be attended with much good. 
 
 6. The organisation of owners should be promoted. It is 
 not at all true that organisation is suited only for the labouring 
 classes. It brings advantage to all the classes that are respectively 
 inferior to the upper classes. Owners must defend themselves 
 against unfair action taken by the government, against over¬ 
 bearing industrialists, against intermediate dealers in buying as 
 well as in selling. The organisation that we have maintained 
 and recommended will serve this purpose admirably. 
 
 The assistance of private individuals is also to be sought. It 
 gives life to institutions, of which some are a substitute for law, 
 as far as can be, and would not exist if the law existed ; others 
 
 * See People's Banks, by Henry W. Wolff. London: P. S. King & 
 Son.—Also Political Economy, by C. G. Devas, M.A. London : Long¬ 
 mans, Green & Co.—Much valuable information on organising work can be 
 obtained from the Secretary of the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society, 
 22 Lincoln Place, Dublin. In 1907 the I.A.O.S. counted 912 branch 
 societies and 82,472 members, with a trade turn-over of £2,017,623.— Trans . 
 
LABOUR 
 
 125 
 
 complete the law, with which and under which they act. The 
 work of individuals will be rendered efficacious by the institution 
 of Secretaryships for the People, Rural Chests, Mutual Help 
 Societies, Banks, Provision Stores, Rural Unions, &c. All, 
 however, should be catholic—that is to say, free from every 
 taint of private speculation. 6 
 
 Themes. —Make a short commentary on those words of Return novarum : 
 “ The right of private ownership being derived, not from human but from 
 natural law, the State cannot abolish it, but may temper its use, and 
 harmonise it with the common good. The State is therefore unjust and 
 cruel, if, under the name of tributes, it requires from individuals more than 
 their quota”—The emigration of a multitude of small holders is a sign 
 that land ownership does not give that ease or comfort with which, generally 
 speaking, the small holder is content: what remedies are efficacious to 
 remove or to lessen the social evil of emigration ?—When an individual 
 acquires lawfully the possession of some goods, it does not at all follow that 
 civil society renounces its rights. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 
 MAN MUST WORK. 
 
 Section I.— Labour. 
 
 Labour means human activity applied to the works of nature, 
 in order to have produce. Man alone is capable of this most 
 noble function, because he alone, having reason, knows how to 
 adapt means to an end—how to direct his powers, that, co¬ 
 operating with nature, he may reap profit from them. We do 
 not give the name labour in its proper sense to the fatigue of oxen 
 or other animals that draw the plough. They weary themselves 
 blindly as brutes. Men alone labour. Labour, however, is 
 certainly fatiguing. Whether it is performed by body or mind, 
 it causes fatigue—to endure which man is not impelled except 
 by proportionate motives. 
 
 These motives are:—(i.) Necessity. Land not cultivated 
 has a very poor productive power, which is soon exhausted. 
 In order to live, man must consume some useful things, and 
 these he ought to create for himself by labour, (ii.) The desire 
 of being in a better position. Man produces in proportion to the 
 labour that he expends. If he labours more, he produces more 
 for the wants of life, and so he is better off. (iii.) Duty. We 
 Christians recognise this prerogative in labour : it is a duty 
 imposed on us by the Creator. It is, moreover, a punishment 
 here inflicted on the whole human race for original sin. This 
 last motive gives strength to the obligation of labour ; and at the 
 same time explains the condemnation, so grave, so general, to 
 which humanity has been subjected.* 
 
 * Many labouring men lead a very penitential life. Happy for them 
 when they know how to sanctify their work by pious intentions !— Trans. 
 
126 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Unchristian sociologists do not recognise these elements of 
 morality in labour, but regard it as a disgrace, a burden, a slavery. 
 With these there can be no love of labour, except in so far as it 
 appears advantageous. 
 
 History gives an admirable confirmation of what we have 
 just said. What idea of labour was entertained in pagan society ? 
 What account was made of labourers ? Aristotle, in his 
 Politics , says that labour is unworthy of man. Plato, in his 
 Republic, speaks of it only with contempt. Even the great 
 Cicero himself, in the Tusculan Disputations, refers to it as a 
 thing fit only for a barbarous civilisation. Naturally, a like 
 opinion was held of labourers. In those splendid times, they 
 who enjoyed the fruits of the labour of others were those who 
 spoke of them with so little consideration—those magnates who 
 wasted the substance of the people and diverted themselves 
 in the circus. To-day there is again the same contempt for 
 labour. We know districts in which the rich speak of the lower 
 classes with disdain, scorn, and abuse. What injustice and 
 ingratitude ! If such conduct was a blemish on pagan ages, 
 it is also a blemish on ours, which tends to paganism. The 
 same causes, the same effects ! 
 
 The economy of liberalism regards the value of labour only 
 in its economic relations. With it labour is a necessary fact, 
 because this fact accompanies another fact, which is produce ; 
 and from the value of the latter, it j udges the value of the former. 
 Nor is the conclusion without logic ; the value of a stream of water 
 is known by the benefit that it brings to a meadow. This is the 
 theory of mercenary labour—a theory that, in practice and in 
 times of abundance, satisfies both masters and labourers, but 
 never satisfies human dignity or justice. 
 
 From the analysis made of labour, it follows that it is essentially 
 a work of man, that is, of a rational creature. It is an act of the 
 reason, which knows, and of the will, which decides. To regard 
 it in a mere mercenary light is to place it on a level with the work 
 of beasts of burden. 
 
 Yet more. Labour is not chosen by man, but is imposed on 
 him by a precept. A high moral principle presides over the fact 
 of labour. No one, according to our view, can free himself from 
 it. The most comfortable social position can no more dispense 
 a man from this duty than the opportunity of being dishonest 
 can dispense him from the duty of being honest. Production is 
 also benefited by this morality of labour, because the abundance 
 and perfection of produce are sure to be in proportion to the 
 labour, and to the love with which this labour is undergone. 
 It is, therefore, a monstrous injustice to regard labour as an 
 ordinary article of merchandise, and to subject it to the changes 
 of the market. 
 
 Has labour therefore a value, and what is it ? Yes, it has 
 a value, and by means of a proper contract it may be bartered. 
 
PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOUR 
 
 127 
 
 Hence Christian economists do not hesitate to call it quaedam 
 merx, or merx sui generis, a peculiar kind of merchandise. The 
 exchange of labour, however, is not made for any commodity 
 whatsoever that serves man; but for that commodity which is, 
 in quantity, designed as a tax by nature for the support of him 
 who labours. In short, in the contract of labour there is an 
 exchange of which one quantity is labour, and the other quantity, 
 or term of the equation, should not be simply a commodity, 
 but such a measure of commodity as is naturally required for the 
 maintenance of the labourer. This is an element that ought 
 to enter essentially into the valuation of labour, and make labour 
 worth as much as a man’s life, which depends on it. 7 
 
 The fruits of labour we ought to consider, not only in their 
 relation with the individual, but with all society. There are 
 labours that are advantageous to the individual in so far as they 
 are beneficial to society. Their fruits pass to individuals by way 
 of the social body. Such are public works : man enjoys them 
 because he lives in society. There are other labours that do 
 not bear fruit at all for the individual, but for the social body— 
 often not even for the present social body, but for one to come. 
 
 The man who makes a good his own, in so far (either directly 
 or indirectly) aids society. And thus he fulfils a twofold duty, 
 that of promoting both private and public weal. 
 
 We must be careful not to give the name of labour only to 
 that movement of the limbs which leads to material produce. 
 Into such an error those may fall who do not consider that man 
 has wants and duties, moral and religious, which he wishes to 
 satisfy—wants and duties to which material production is not 
 superior, but subordinate. If, therefore, these interests exist, 
 and manual labour is not capable of satisfying them, we must 
 admit that there are other labours which are no less important 
 or necessary for the wellbeing of mankind. 
 
 The social state, for which nature destined man, originates 
 many labours that, without society, would have no reason to 
 exist. Such are all those labours, physical and intellectual, 
 which are required to give existence and increase to private and 
 domestic wellbeing—to which the social body aspires, as to its end. 
 
 Labour, so ordered as to satisfy the physical and moral wants 
 of man, has every reason for its existence and congruity. If 
 this end is neglected, labour is no longer labour—that is to say, 
 it is no longer a rational use of strength ; it is blind fatigue, like 
 that of a beast; it is a disorder that man ought to banish from 
 his life. How many of those labours which are only beastly 
 fatigues ought to disappear from the world ! 
 
 Section II. —Productivity of Labour. 
 
 Is that new utility w T hich follows a productive process due 
 to labour ? Is it due wholly or in part ? 
 
128 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 The first question is therefore an inquiry if labour is pro¬ 
 ductive. Reasoning must lead us to facts. Before production 
 we have elements with an aptitude to become a utility, or rather 
 with power to give existence to a new utility. Untouched by 
 the hand of man, these elements will never produce a utility 
 that does not exist. Let his hand draw near, let labour be spent 
 on them : a new utility exists. To what is it due ? 
 
 Some one will answer : To nature. In part we do not deny 
 it. In a natural object there is the virtue of a new utility. But 
 such virtue does not come into activity without labour. This 
 consequence shows the causality of labour in produce; it 
 declares the productivity of labour. 
 
 The encyclical in several places recognises the productivity 
 of labour. Of agricultural labour it says :—“ The soil that is 
 tilled by the hand and skill of the cultivator is no longer what 
 it was before : from being wild it becomes fruitful—from being 
 barren, fertile. These improvements are now so blended with it 
 that for the most part they are inseparable from it/ 5 Further 
 on, it asserts that, to provide society with an abundance of 
 material goods, “ the toil and skill of the poor are most 
 efficacious and necessary, whether applied in fields or in work¬ 
 shops. Indeed it may be said with truth that it is by the labour 
 of the working classes that States grow rich. 55 
 
 Is every produce, therefore, properly and entirely due to 
 labour ? Neither one supposition nor the other is true. It is 
 not true that every produce comes from labour, because there are 
 things into the production of which labour does not enter much 
 or little. Fruits given by uncultivated ground are certainly not 
 due in any way to labour. Nor is it true that produce depending 
 on labour is exclusively due to labour. We proved what part 
 nature has in production, and we shall see what part capital has 
 in it. To mistake the causality of nature and capital, by attribut¬ 
 ing it entirely to labour, is not justice, because it is not truth. 
 
 How far does the productivity of labour extend ? It cannot 
 be generally defined. There are products whose value is due 
 in a greater degree to nature and capital, and in a less degree 
 to labour. We may take as an example a gold ear-ring, whose 
 value is owing chiefly to its precious metal. And there are 
 others in which labour preponderates. A German-silver watch 
 owes its value chiefly to labour, and very little to material. 
 
 It is, therefore, evident that ownership and labour are the two 
 levers on which the public wellbeing depends. This contribu¬ 
 tion which labour brings to the common prosperity is called 
 the social function of labour. 
 
 Every good of this world has naturally a two-fold mission— 
 to help the human individual and all mankind in general. Often 
 the social function goes contrary to the individual; often it is 
 not so. But neither society can stop for itself the current that 
 runs generously to benefit the individual, nor can the latter 
 
RELATIONS BETWEEN LABOUR AND PRODUCE 129 
 
 oppose an obstacle to it when it rushes on to benefit society. 
 This is a principle that often turns up in the course of our thoughts, 
 and it leads us here to assert the social function of labour. 
 
 Labour produces; and produces for the individual. Quite 
 true. But let us be permitted to ask if, in the intentions of nature, 
 it produces only for the individual. And how would the general 
 end of the preservation of the whole human race be thus attained ? 
 Will it be said, by the labours of each one ? But can each one 
 produce by himself all that he needs ? And if there is anyone 
 who cannot produce, must he perish ? And if anyone, even 
 through idleness, has no produce, and finds himself with empty 
 hands, must he cease to live ? 
 
 Behold how and why the produce of labour should come forth 
 from the hands of the individual and fall into the bosom of society, 
 carried thither on the streams of justice and charity ! “ Work¬ 
 
 people concur very much to the common good ... In every 
 well-ordered State there ought to be a sufficient supply of material 
 goods, the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue. 
 Now, to provide these goods, the labour and skill of the poor, 
 whether employed on the land or in the workshops, are supremely 
 necessary and efficacious. Indeed it may be truly said that it is 
 by the labour of the working classes that States become rich.” 
 (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 By the light of this function, the labourer grows much in 
 worth and nobility. Outside of it, he makes a miserable figure— 
 all selfishness. We wish him to be what he ought to be, the 
 Angel of Divine Providence. 
 
 Section III.— Relations between Labour and Produce. 
 
 Considering labour in relation to produce, we ought to pay 
 attention to three elements :—(i.) The duration of the labour; 
 (ii.) its intensity; and (iii.) the love or diligence with which 
 it is performed. We ought also to consider in produce (i.) its 
 abundance and (ii.) its perfection. Both should accompany 
 produce in order that production may be successful. An abun¬ 
 dant, but imperfect, produce does not satisfy ; a good, but scarce, 
 produce does not suffice. 
 
 To establish the relation that exists between produce and 
 labour, we must make account of the various elements noted above. 
 If it immediately appears that the quantity of produce is pro¬ 
 portional to the duration of labour, whoever seriously reflects 
 will remember that with the duration of labour its intensity will 
 be inversely proportional; and, likewise the love or diligence in 
 performing it. It is well known then that if an abundance of 
 produce is to be expected from the duration of labour, its 
 excellence or perfection is to be expected rather from the love or 
 diligence with which that labour is performed. 
 
 i 
 
130 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 We may, therefore, venture to say that the produce obtained 
 by multiplying together the duration, intensity, and diligence 
 of labour is in a direct ratio with the produce obtained by multi¬ 
 plying together the abundance and perfection of the produce. 
 
 To obtain, therefore, a produce that may satisfy, we must 
 keep an eye on the elements by which labour influences produce, 
 and, having carefully studied their nature, maintain or increase 
 their coefficients, which are, as it were, the sources of all produce.* 
 These sources are moral or physical according as they influence 
 the spiritual or the material part of man. 
 
 Section IV.— Moral Coeeficients of Labour. 
 
 It is proper that we should give the first place to moral co¬ 
 efficients. With us a man is a man, and not merely an animal; 
 and his muscles obey the dictates of his will, enlightened by 
 reason. The ox obeys the goad. Not so with man: his goad 
 is his will. The first source of productive labour is, therefore, 
 in the mind ; and those motives, those considerations, which will 
 be capable of deciding the human will to labour will be moral 
 and most powerful coefficients to labour. They are according 
 to the genius, the intellectual views, and even the passions, to 
 which the individual gives himself.-j* We shall refer to the chief 
 of them :— 
 
 1. Here we must place the Christian idea of labour. It shows 
 that labour is a duty and a merit. It makes the labourer feel a 
 great dignity—that of being by his work, whatever it may be, a 
 collaborator with Divine Providence. This idea does not demean 
 or deject the labourer, who, therefore, does not hate his condition. 
 On the contrary, he loves it; and, while he wipes away the sweat 
 from his brow, he sings the most j oyous ditties. 
 
 The idea of the cremationists J regarding labour, common to 
 all those who have no Christian feelings, reduces labour to a 
 necessity. Necessity degrades, and degradation causes hatred. 
 To hear the socialists, one would suppose that they had nothing 
 but praise for labour and labourers ; but at what do they aim ? 
 At the avoidance of labour. They shun it so much that they 
 oblige the State to impose it on them. They are the leaders of 
 
 * The celebrated American inventor, Edison, has remarked of his 
 wonderful inventions that they are due to 2 per cent of inspiration (derived 
 from books), and 98 per cent, of perspiration (spent on experiments). Plenty 
 of intellectual work !— Trans, 
 
 f Coefficient is a word often used in Algebra. It generally denotes a 
 figure placed before a letter. Thus, let x represent an unknown quantity. 
 Then 2x represents twice that quantity. Here 2 is the coefficient of x, 
 and 2x is the product (twice x) obtained from the multiplication of a: by 2.— 
 Trans. 
 
 I A cremationist, it need hardly be said, is one who advocates the burning 
 of the human body after death.— Trans. 
 
PHYSICAL COEFFICIENTS OF LABOUR 
 
 131 
 
 discontented, unprincipled, furious workmen, because full of 
 rancour and hatred. 
 
 2. Vocation. A vocation to labour, rather than to anything 
 else, is the call of the Author of man. There is reason to believe 
 that this call will be accompanied with a special fitness for labour. 
 Not even of this element does socialism make account, for it 
 delivers us all, like a flock of sheep, into the hands of the State. 
 The State will then employ us at that work which it judges most 
 useful, and so we must carry the chain. 
 
 3. The hope of bettering one’s condition. The workman, no 
 matter how lowly his employment, hopes by labour to enlarge 
 and adorn his house, to obtain more light for his rooms, to furnish 
 his table with food more worthy of himself and his family. He 
 always dreams of a future more prosperous. Poor dreams, 
 which are often only illusions, but dreams that make him live 
 content,' and work well with a healthy stomach and a light heart! 
 According to the Pope, “ the proximate end that the workman 
 proposes to himself is the acquirement of some property.” It 
 is easy to understand how socialism, which would have all classes 
 labouring under the direction of the State, defeats this hope, 
 and thus induces workmen to throw away the spade, the hammer, 
 and the trowel. 
 
 To these conditions of labour must be added all others that 
 are capable of giving satisfaction to the spiritual part of the 
 workman. A certain variety of work—an honest liberty in 
 fulfilling his duties as a man, a father, a husband, a Christian— 
 a kindly smile beaming on the countenance of the employer— 
 these things console the mind of the workman and continually 
 develop new germs of activity. 
 
 Section V.— Physical Coefficients of Labour. 
 
 Having dealt with the nobler part of man, which commands, 
 it is proper that we should consider the inferior part, which, 
 a living instrument, executes the commands given by the former. 
 Poorly can the mind be the centre of strong enterprising energies, 
 if the powers of the body are weak, if the muscles are languid. 
 To be in good form, the man who labours has various needs 
 to be provided for :— 
 
 1. An abundant wholesome nutritious food—especially good 
 bread.* To give poor labourers a tainted or decaying food, 
 or food in small quantity, besides being an injustice, is a mistaken 
 speculation. Their labour will be feeble, deficient, and the 
 produce will be scarce. Some employments put a special trial 
 
 * Some excellent little books on matters of this kind, such as Woman’s 
 Share in the Industrial Revival of Ireland, by the Most Rev. Dr. Kelly, 
 Bishop of Ross, have been published by the Catholic Truth Society of 
 Ireland.— Trans. 
 
132 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 on the vital organs of poor workmen. For these a special kind 
 of sustenance would be required. 
 
 2. A healthy dwelling. Nature has granted a real super¬ 
 abundance of some goods that are strictly required. How much 
 air, how much light, it has given ! And why should poor work¬ 
 people be stinted with regard to them ? Their houses should 
 therefore be airy, clean, neat, not damp ; in short, healthy. 
 Improvements of this kind have been undertaken with happy 
 success by Catholics here in Italy, as well as elsewhere. Even 
 economical institutions ought to lend a hand. Government and 
 social bodies ought to facilitate the work. In the Journal of 
 Economists , G. Spera has made some very good remarks on this 
 subject. He shows the model of a workman's house, and proposes 
 to secure the ownership of it to the occupant after a fixed number 
 of years, or even sooner, if the head of the family should be taken 
 away by a premature death.* The breaking up and scattering 
 of a family would thus be avoided. 
 
 3. Favourable conditions for work. This applies to work¬ 
 people shut up in close places, where the air is made poisonous 
 even by the work itself. It is a duty of employers to take such 
 precautions as will preserve their workpeople not only from sudden 
 accidents, but from a slow death. As the robust health of work¬ 
 people is a matter of great importance for society, the public 
 power can make such legal regulations as will secure it. 
 
 4. A division of labour. Children who work in play divide 
 the labour among them, that is, they assign a task to each one, 
 so that the work may be well done. This shows that the efficacy 
 of a division of labour in obtaining a more abundant and perfect 
 produce is dictated by nature itself. A consciousness of the 
 limits of one's power suggests that, when mind and hand are 
 assiduously applied to the making of one single article, they acquire 
 a technical skill that is of admirable service in expediting and 
 perfecting the operation. A division of labour has always been 
 practised among workingmen. It increases with the increase 
 of industries. Who has not heard that it takes eighteen men 
 to make a pin ? The division of labour also presents great 
 social advantages : it creates in society a great variety of occupa¬ 
 tions, among which each person can choose that for which he 
 feels himself born, and practise it with skill and pleasure.! 
 
 5. Machinery. Every contrivance of which man avails himself 
 
 * It has been calculated that one-fourth the human race die before six 
 years of age, half before sixteen, and that only one person in 100 reaches 
 the age of sixty-five.— Trans. 
 
 t It would be a blessing if someone, with sufficient knowledge and 
 experience, would compile a little book describing the different trades and 
 other ordinary employments common in Ireland, so that a boy, reading 
 it, would be able to form a good judgment on what occupation would be 
 most suitable for him. We have seen two such works in the German 
 language.— Trans. 
 
LIMITS OF LABOUR 
 
 133 
 
 in performing work may be called a machine, but common use, 
 as well as economic language, keeps this name for a complex 
 mechanism that acts, rather by being guided by man than in 
 aiding him. A machine presents the advantage of a notable 
 decrease in the expenses of production, and, therefore, of the 
 price at which products can be sold. This results from two 
 causes. First, a saving of the workman's hand : a machine 
 can do as much as several or even many men. Secondly, speed : 
 there is little proportion between the amount of work done by 
 a man-and that by a machine in the same time.* 
 
 The things produced by machines offer ground for a classifica¬ 
 tion of them. Some machines are useful for production in the 
 sense explained : they do quickly what man would require much 
 time to do. Others do what man absolutely could not do : for 
 example, the photographic machine, or camera. 8 
 
 Section VI.— Limits of Labour. 
 
 In the materialistic ideas of man as a machine and labour as 
 an article of merchandise the question whether labour ought 
 to have any limits beyond those imposed by a want of strength 
 or the convenience of the market is idle, not to say absurd. With 
 us the workman is not a machine, but a rational creature, for 
 whom labour ought to be the means of attaining very superior 
 goods. He therefore requires— 
 
 1. Rest on festive days. That man cannot labour assiduously 
 all the days of the week is shown by physiological and historical 
 facts. That a day of rest for one and all should be Sunday 
 is shown by reasons from the moral and the religious order, which 
 prove that the workman should rest even on other days, according 
 to laws emanating from religious authority. 
 
 2. Rest at night. Nature has many ways of manifesting its 
 laws. The dark curtain that is drawn at the close of a bright 
 day, and the weariness that oppresses the limbs, and the silence 
 that becomes so deep and solemn on all sides, tell clearly that 
 night was destined for the repose of man. Why should economic 
 reasons have power to subvert the ordinances of nature ? 
 
 3. A just arrangement of the hours of labour. It is known that 
 the workman cannot give to labour all that time which is not 
 required for sleep. He must take his meals ; he must have some 
 honest recreation; he must give a thought to the care of his 
 
 * It is said that by machinery coal can be put into ships at the rate of 
 400 tons an hour ; that a stone-crusher does the work of 600 men; and 
 that a steam-shovel can do as much work in eight minutes as a hand-shovel 
 in ten hours. As a rule, machinery has not lessened, but greatly increased, 
 employment. Provision, however, should be made for men thrown out of 
 work during the period of transition.— Trans. 
 
134 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 family. Even physically, he could not continue in daily labour, 
 say of twelve hours. There is need, therefore, to limit the time 
 of labour, and not to leave it in the hands of masters.* 
 
 But how many hours of labour ought there to be in the day ? 
 The socialists are thrown into a pleurisy by eight hours, as every¬ 
 body knows. These men, with a view to make an impression 
 on the multitude and to gain a point for themselves, do not care 
 for logic or facts, but indulge in assertions that absolutely cannot 
 stand. How then, in such a case, is a proper measure to be 
 assigned ? 
 
 We know that there are light labours, heavy ones, and very 
 heavy ones. To subject the workmen of such different occupa¬ 
 tions to one uniform measure would be to commit the grossest 
 injustice under the plea of the most scrupulous justice. We 
 also know that a labour, light for one person, may be very heavy 
 for another. 
 
 It is proper, therefore, to acknowledge the impossibility of 
 having one fixed rule, and also the need of seeking aid from 
 laws and from the societies of workingmen. Let the law T s deter¬ 
 mine the maximum duration of a day’s work. This can and 
 should be done : there is a certain limit beyond which neither 
 human strength nor moral order permits men to go. And this 
 is the task of the public power. 
 
 If this task is abandoned to the compacts that are made between 
 masters and workmen, it will fall into the waves of free competi¬ 
 tion, and be engulfed in them, nearly always with loss to the 
 weaker party. The Pope assigns this duty to the State when he 
 says: '* If masters oppress the working classes with unjust 
 burdens, or degrade them by conditions repugnant to human 
 personality and dignity ; if they injure health by excessive work, 
 or by work unsuited to sex or age : in these cases it is evident that 
 the force and authority of the law ought, within certain limits, 
 to interfere.” That the law should not go farther is proved by 
 the impossibility of finding a just, general standard, as well as 
 by the function assigned to the State, which, according to Leo 
 XIII., “ should not undertake more than is required for the 
 remedy of the evil or the removal of the danger.” 
 
 However, w x e admit that even when the State has done its 
 part, all danger of abuse is not quite taken away. This is what 
 we have wished to be the task of Trade or Class Unions : to which 
 if the State will grant a legal personality, it will have fully dis¬ 
 charged its duty. It is only mediately that the State can come 
 to a practical determination with regard to each kind of labour— 
 that is, by means of assistance from societies of workingmen. 
 
 * Some people maintain that the man who works eight hours a day can 
 actually do more than the man who works ten. The latter comes home at 
 night quite tired out. 
 
 Every good master will have a careful eye to the physical, intellectual, and 
 moral welfare of all persons in his employment.— Trans. \ 
 
LIMITS OF LABOUB 
 
 135 
 
 On this point, the Encyclical speaks with admirable clearness:— 
 “It is neither just nor humane to require of a man so much 
 labour as stupefies his mind or enfeebles his body. The activity 
 of man, like all his nature, has limits beyond which it cannot 
 go. His strength is improved by exercise and use, provided, 
 however, that from time to time he has an intermission for rest. 
 The daily work, therefore, should not be prolonged beyond the 
 hours that strength permits. How long the intervals of rest 
 ought to be, must be judged of by the nature of the work, by 
 circumstances of time and place, and by the health of the work¬ 
 men. Those, for example, who work fin quarries, or in mines of 
 iron, copper, &c., far underground, should have shorter hours 
 in proportion as their labour is more trying on health. Begard 
 should also be had to the season of the year, because it not un- 
 frequently happens that labour easily borne at one time is at 
 another intolerable or very difficult.” {Rerum novarum.) 
 
 For the rest, this point is complex enough at the present day, 
 and may be more so to-morrow or some other time. It is 
 proper, if we would arrive at a solution of it to keep an eye to the 
 relation that it may have with the material and moral welfare 
 of the individual, and with the interests of society in general. 
 
 In farming, for example, circumstances may occur in which 
 a prolongation of the hours of labour beyond the maximum 
 limit would be a duty. This is when the crops require to be 
 cared for or gathered in, lest the severity of the weather should 
 ruin them. The occasion is urgent, and the work must be finished 
 in a few days. In calamities of this kind, who does not see that 
 the common good permits country people to spend some extra 
 energy for a few days, precisely because, being only for a few days, 
 it cannot seriously injure health ? Without doubt, in such a 
 case, an increase of wages is to be allowed, so that it may be 
 possible for the labourer to have a sustenance proportioned to 
 his greater need. But even this matter should be under certain 
 just rules, lest otherwise, through the excessive greed of an 
 employer, a labourer should agree to a time-table truly inhuman, 
 and be an impoverisher of himself, contrary to the dignity of 
 human nature. The Class Unions have here, as is evident, a great 
 deal to amend. 
 
 4. No unfair opposition. The workman, in the struggle that 
 he has to maintain with the employer, finds to-day that, besides 
 society-men, he has other competitors—women and children. 
 Monsignor Bandi speaks on the subject thus :— 
 
 “ The devouring competition entered homes. It found there 
 some hands unemployed—that is to say, not producing. They were 
 the two hands of the good wife, which took care of everything 
 in the house, and which she clapped with joy on the return of the 
 weary workman. There were also the tender hands of little 
 boys and little maidens, who, like so many angels, filled the house 
 wfith gladness. What are all those hands to do ? Let them 
 
136 THE ELEMENTS OE POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 produce, let them produce : a workman can do very well without 
 so much festivity and poetry, provided he lives ! 
 
 “ And so crowds of women and children bade farewell to their 
 domestic peace, and took the road to the factory. They worked 
 by day and they worked by night. They worked all the day 
 long, and even on festival days. The modest little girl and the 
 rude little boy worked together. They worked without guardian¬ 
 ship, and without rule, except to work quickly and well; and 
 for so much work they received very, very little reward.” (Pastoral 
 Letter, March 6, 1901.) 
 
 Now, it is easy to prove that this state of affairs is altogether 
 unnatural. Woman has a mission eminently domestic. Her 
 physical constitution and her duties as a wife and a mother 
 do not permit her to engage in the work of a factory. Schuler 
 informs us that in Switzerland the mortality among working 
 women is 27 per cent, greater than that among working men. 
 The statistics of military recruits say that among the sons of 
 working women the percentage of mortality rises higher than 
 among others. According to the Pope : “ Some kinds of work 
 do not suit woman, born for domestic duties, which are a great 
 protection for her modesty, and have a natural correspondence 
 with the education of children and the wellbeing of the family.” 
 (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 With regard to the injuries that work does to children, w T e 
 might easily make a long discourse. Physical injuries, because 
 their tender limbs, which require to grow, are oppressed by the 
 weight of work: this may lead to lameness, or some other 
 deformity that will last for a lifetime. Intellectual and moral 
 injuries, because work does not allow them time to adorn their 
 minds with knowledge and to mould their hearts to virtue. Amid 
 the jesting, the licentiousness of an ill-ordered workshop, it may 
 easily be imagined what nobility of sentiment, what correctness 
 of judgment, they can acquire. 
 
 Let us again quote the encyclical : “As for children, great 
 care should be taken not to let them enter a workshop before their 
 physical, intellectual, and moral powers are sufficiently developed. 
 For as the buds of spring are destroyed by rough weather, so those 
 powers beginning to appear in childhood are destroyed by prema¬ 
 ture excitement, and thus the education of children becomes 
 impossible.” 
 
 Let no one, therefore, be surprised if Catholics from an early 
 date raised their voices against the labour of women and children. 
 Among the first was the celebrated Bishop of Mayence, Monsignor 
 Ketteler,* who, elected to the Parliament of Berlin, proposed the 
 
 * Some forty years ago, this great far-seeing Bishop was an enthusiastic 
 advocate for founding societies, unions, guilds, &c., but always on Christian 
 principles, as the certain means of elevating their members intellectually 
 and morally. He met with many obstacles. Prince Bismarck was a bitter 
 enemy of all legislation in favour of the working classes : he would hear of 
 
LIMITS OF LABOUR 
 
 137 
 
 five following points in his social programme :—(i.) The prohibi¬ 
 tion of work to children under fourteen years of age ; (ii.) the 
 prohibition of factory work to married women; (iii.) an obligation 
 of rest on festal days: (iv.) a maximum of ten hours for the 
 day's work; and (v.) the appointment of Inspectors for work. 
 The “ Centre ” warmly supported this programme and carried 
 it triumphantly against all parties, including the socialists, who, 
 during many years, had opposed such bills as were proposed 
 by the “ Centre ” for the protection of the lower classes. 
 
 no law to limit their hours of work by day or night, to secure days of rest 
 for them, &c. If they wished to improve their condition, they should 
 rely on self-help alone. His so-called Culturkampf (struggle for civilisation) 
 was in reality a cruel persecution of the Church. It did great evil during 
 the ten years of its course. History, however, shows that right ideas cannot 
 be put down, and that the attempt to crush them is soon discovered to be 
 unjust. 
 
 The year 1890 brought a great change for the better, and Bismarck had 
 to quit Berlin. The Emperor William II. put himself at the head of the 
 movement in favour of labour, and invited all the States of Europe to an 
 International Conference in Berlin on the protection of working people. 
 He wrote personally to the Pope, in order to gain his support for the Con¬ 
 ference. The Pope, in compliance, wrote to the Archbishop of Cologne. 
 Then followed a general pastoral letter from the Bishops of Germany, express¬ 
 ing their warm sympathy with the cause. In 1891 Pope Leo XIII. came 
 out with his grand encyclical on the labour question, Rerum novarum. It is 
 full of philosophy as well as religion, and is justly regarded as a most 
 valuable document from the highest authority. Its principles will hold 
 good till the end of the world. 
 
 Some of the most important societies now in Germany are the Catholic 
 Workmen’s Society ( Katholischer Arbeiterverein), the People’s Society 
 (Volksverein ), the Workwomen’s Society, the Journeymen’s Society, the 
 Young Men’s Society, the Boys’ Society. When the number of workmen 
 in a locality is not sufficient to form an Arbeiterverein, the Volksverein, in 
 which all classes can join, suits very well. The head-quarters of these 
 societies are at Munich-Gladbach, a large manufacturing town about twelve 
 miles west of Dusseldort. 
 
 The Workmen’s Societies adopt every imaginable means of improving 
 their condition. They feel that as men and as Christians they are entitled 
 to a fair share in the fruits of civilisation. They have halls, bureaus, reading- 
 rooms, libraries, lectures, discussions, bands, concerts, newspapers, pam¬ 
 phlets, &c. They make Retreats ; they have days of General Communion ; 
 they take part in religious processions. They offer great protection for young 
 men coming into town from the country. Thus they are a powerful bulwark 
 against Socialism, paralysing in many respects its efforts. They give special 
 courses of instruction to trade unions within their own ranks, mindful of 
 the advice of their great champion Mr. Windthorst: “ Catholics, whatever 
 their calling, ought to do everything in the best way.” At the same time 
 all their conduct is regulated by the words of the Gospel: “ What doth it 
 profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul ? ” 
 
 The President of every Workmen’s Society is a Priest appointed by the 
 Bishop of the diocese. A Conference is held from time to time by the 
 Presidents, or a Congress by the Delegates of the workmen. Some of these 
 Delegates have even been admitted to an interview with the Lord Chancellor. 
 In 1906 the Alliance of Catholic Workmen’s Societies of West Germany 
 (about a dozen dioceses) counted 656 Societies and 114,613 members ; the 
 Alliance of South Germany 853 Societies, and 105,271 members ; and the 
 Alliance of Berlin 750 Societies and about 100,000 members.— Trans. 
 
138 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 In a point of paramount importance for society at large, in¬ 
 volving the most sacred rights, there is no doubt that the State 
 ought to interfere with wise precautions. 
 
 5. An occasional rest during the time of work. Besides the 
 time given to sleep and to meals, the workman ought to have 
 a while, varied according to the season and the work, for honest 
 rest. It is a claim of nature. Trade and other such Unions 
 will do well if, for the advantage both of workers and masters, 
 they draw up a suitable time-table. This is a basis recommended 
 by the Pope : “Asa general rule, it may be said that the amount 
 of rest necessary for a workman ought to be in proportion to the 
 amount of strength consumed by labour ; for the waste of strength 
 ought to be repaired by rest." 
 
 Nor is it necessary that the workman should expressly stipulate 
 for his rest: nature has made the bargain for him. “ In every 
 agreement that is made between masters and workpeople, it is 
 always a condition, expressed or understood, that there should 
 be proper rest for soul and body. To agree otherwise would 
 be contrary to morals ; for it is never lawful to promise a neglect 
 of the duties that man owes to God and to himself." (Rerum 
 novarum.) 
 
 Section VII.— Labour oe Women and Children. 
 
 A question may here arise : Will it, therefore, be said that 
 women, and also children, are to have no labour ? 
 
 No one intends to maintain such a doctrine. If a general 
 condemnation falls on the labour of women and children, it is 
 because an objectionable state of affairs is only too common. 
 For the rest, if due reserve is secured for the maiden, the wife, 
 the mother, and if they are allowed to fulfil their respective duties, 
 every motive urges that they should apply themselves to some 
 work for the prosperity of the family. The same reasoning 
 holds good for children, who, in proportion to their strength, 
 ought to begin to work, and to lend a hand in carrying the burdens 
 of the family. Indeed the Pope, with great propriety, speaks 
 thus :—“ A work suitable for a strong grown man cannot reason¬ 
 ably be required from a woman or a child." Therefore there is 
 work suitable for woman and child, to which they may well 
 submit. Bather, they ought to do so, because the family is an 
 organism, for whose wellbeing all its members should, according 
 to their strength, combine. 
 
 On this subject it is to be observed that factories have taken 
 out of the hands of woman many occupations in which she 
 formerly engaged under the shade of the domestic roof. Spinning, 
 weaving, knitting, &c., afforded her employment, without leaving 
 her house, her children, her domestic affairs. Now she has no 
 longer such work: how could she compete with a machine or a 
 
LEGAL GUARDIANSHIP OF LABOUR 
 
 139 
 
 mill ? Treating of family industries, Father Viguerou, in an 
 article that appeared in the Social Reform of Dec. 1, 1901, main¬ 
 tained the necessity of establishing syndicates of women working 
 at home. The Trade Unions will be able to solve, at least in 
 part, this problem. 
 
 Section YIII.—Legal Guardianship of Labour. 
 
 In the Rerum novarum, Leo XIII., when speaking of labour, 
 deals minutely with some points to whi'ch social legislation ought 
 to extend. They are (i.) to make rest on festal days obligatory ; 
 (ii.) to guard the moral interests of workpeople; (iii.) to fix the 
 maximum length of a day's w^ork; (iv.) to fix the minimum 
 amount of wages; (v.) to protect women and children from 
 
 excessive labour; (vi.) to defend Trade Unions, so that when it 
 is not justice for the State to extend its action in any case, they 
 may interfere with practical decisions. As regards this last 
 purpose, the Catholic Social Congress of Genoa did not hesitate 
 to assert that, in an extreme case of general abuses, either on the 
 part of employers or on the part of workpeople, if councils of 
 conciliation and arbitration are unable to prevent strikes or 
 wrongs, it would then be well that the State should interfere, 
 either by transforming those councils into real tribunals with 
 public authority, or by establishing a suitable tribunal that 
 would hear the claims of both parties, and apply in each case the 
 moral law of justice, for which the State ought to provide in its 
 code. Another point (vii.) is to have a Minister of Labour, who, 
 by means of carefully prepared statistics, would see not only the 
 state of agriculture, manufactures, industries in general, but also 
 the condition of the working classes, the lives that they lead, 
 the difficulties that they have to contend with, &c. 9 
 
 The justice of such arrangements must be admitted by every¬ 
 body. Why in the world should the law, which is so zealous 
 in protecting the rights of property, leave to the mercy of the 
 strongest the rights of labour ? Is not labour one of the chief 
 levers by which humanity is maintained ? “ It is just that the 
 
 Government should take an interest in the workingman, so that 
 he may have some share in that abundance which he produces— 
 that, being properly housed, clothed, and fed, he may be able 
 to lead a life less painful. Let it therefore favour as much as 
 possible whatever can improve his condition. It may be assured 
 that this care, far from injuring anyone, will be a benefit for all. 
 Because it could not be for the good of the commonwealth that 
 those persons from whom such important advantages are derived 
 should be sunk in misery." (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 Catholics have at present a strong and convincing literature 
 that aims at procuring legislation on labour. The studies of 
 Yogelsang and Ratsinger, the speeches of De Mun and Lieber, 
 
140 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 as well as the powerful appeals of Cardinal Manning, are a proof 
 of it. Everyone knows how explicitly and forcibly, in the 
 Congress of Zurich, the views of Catholics were declared in favour 
 of a legal protection for labour. 
 
 Italy, we regret to say, is still far behind in these matters. 
 Switzerland. Austria. Germanv. France, and Russia have resmla- 
 
 . 1 7 O 
 
 tions not yet so much as honoured with a discussion by our 
 legislators. We have the law of 1893, which forbids the employ¬ 
 ment of children in a wandering peddling traffic. We have the 
 law of 1886, which permits (L) the work of children in lighter 
 employments at nine years of age, and in mines, even far under¬ 
 ground, at ten: (ii.) only eight hours of work between nine and 
 ten years of age; (iii.) no dangerous or unhealthy work up to 
 fifteen years: (iv.) no ordinary night work to children under 
 twelve, but in exceptional cases it may occur for six hours : 
 (v.) from twelve to fifteen years, night work only for six hours. In 
 fine, we have the law of 1898 on accidents, and on the institution 
 of a " National Providence Chest/ 5 
 
 To these a useful addition has been made by a recent law 
 (June 19, 1902), which raises to twelve the minimum age for 
 the employment of children in factories, and in works (not under¬ 
 ground) connected with caves, mines, and galleries. It forbids 
 night work to boys under fifteen years, and to all girls of minor 
 age. 
 
 There is the sum total. Free to women anv work, anv contract. 
 
 « ' » 
 
 any time table, any wages, any condition ! For the victims of 
 labour the law does not move a finger. 10 We Catholics are, 
 therefore, right when we call not only for an exact application 
 of the few regulations that exist on labour, but for a true renova¬ 
 tion, whatever that costs, of the laws themselves. 11 
 
 Section IX.—International Legislation on Labour. 
 
 Labour is such a fact that it has a connection with all the other 
 facts of social economic life : and its good or ill fate often depends 
 on a cause, or a variety of causes, existing far from it. 
 
 He who considers that the wases of labour are connected with 
 the prosperity of the master, that the master is influenced by the 
 abundance of the produce, that the value of the produce depends 
 on the largeness of the market—he who considers that, so far 
 as laws go, competition can never be wholly abolished, but, 
 by the present means of transport, may, like a great ocean, 
 rush from country to country, from kin gdom to kingdom— 
 sees at once the lines of legal protection for labour vanish 
 away over the wide world. Grant that one or two States make 
 regulations in favour of the working classes : their efficacy 
 may be little or nothing through the competition of a neigh- 
 bourinr State. 
 
INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION ON LABOUR 141 
 
 The protecting State may injure itself and its own industries. 
 In point of fact, if it lessens the length of a day's work, which in 
 an adjacent State is twelve or fourteen hours, how can its 
 manufacturers compete with those on its borders ? 
 
 A movement for international guardianship was begun in 
 1857 by Daniel Legrand, of Alsace, who begged of all the 
 governments in Europe to prevent the employment of 
 children under twelve years, and also to forbid night work 
 and Sunday work. Nothing came of it. But an idea so just 
 could not die. In 1862 we find it repeated by the found¬ 
 ation of the “ International Association of Working Men " ; in 
 1890 by the Berlin Conference ; in 1897 by the Zurich Congress ; 
 and in 1900 by the Paris Congress. All civil governments 
 ought accordingly to agree, as far as possible, on one general 
 basis of labour legislation. 
 
 It is well known with what wisdom and eloquence the great 
 Christian democrat, Gaspar Decurtius, maintained his thesis at 
 the Zurich Congress. It was after that event that he received 
 a splendid Brief from the Holy Father, confirming the reasonable¬ 
 ness of his views. Thus does the Pope speak :—“ Many argu¬ 
 ments are not needed to prove the reasonableness of such pro¬ 
 vision. For if there is any grave and laudable reason why the 
 public authority should interpose with legislation in defence of 
 the interests of the working classes, there certainly cannot appear 
 any one more grave or laudable than that of protecting the 
 weakness of children and women, from whom the generation to 
 succeed the present will take its rise, and on whom the greatness 
 and power of a people depend. On the other hand, it is evident 
 to all how imperfect would be the protection given to labour by 
 different laws passed by different States. Because, as it often 
 happens that various articles of merchandise, coming from a 
 distant region, meet in one place, to be sold there, the rules 
 for the labour of workmen in one place might turn to the 
 advantage of industry among one people and to the injury of 
 industry among another." 
 
 Hence it is manifest how praiseworthy is the “ International 
 Association for the Protection of Labour," to whose interests 
 our excellent Toniolo has consecrated so much of his large mind 
 and generous heart. 12 
 
 Themes. —Freedom of labour : how it should be understood, and in 
 what sense it is a right of every individual—If laws on labour, imposing a 
 discipline with proper titles, violate the freedom of individuals—To place 
 the working classes in a state of comparative comfort is not only a social 
 duty, but an advantage—In setting a value on labour, some err by defect 
 and others by excess: what are the defects and the excesses to be 
 avoided ?—The division of labour increases with the progress of civilisation. 
 
142 THE ELEMENTS OE POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 CHAPTER Y. 
 
 CAPITAL IS REQUIRED AS WELL AS LABOUR. 
 
 Section I. —Utility of Capital. 
 
 Nature and man are the great sources of production: nature 
 with all its riches, and man with his energy. But these two 
 coefficients would give very little result if a third, which is of 
 immense efficacy in production, were not joined with them. 
 The countryman alone with the field near his door, the fisherman 
 alone with the fish in the neighbouring water, would be of small 
 account. Something more is needed : for the former, manure 
 or seed ; for the latter, a hook or a net. This something, which 
 varies for every kind of labour, and is not always the same 
 for the same labour, is called “ capital.” 
 
 Section II.— Different Views of Capital. 
 
 In explaining the idea of capital, there is not among economists 
 that harmony which would be desirable. Let us set forth the 
 chief opinions held about it. 
 
 Antoine, who asserts that he has first-class authors on his side 
 to show why an economic good may be called capital, will have it 
 to be a thing of some importance. And, therefore, he defines 
 capital as “an economic good of a certain importance.” He 
 afterwards says that capital of enjoyment is destined for con¬ 
 sumption, and capital of production for the formation of a product. 
 Others specify capital from its employment in productive opera¬ 
 tions, and therefore define it as “ any economic good applied 
 to production.” Others again admit the specification of this 
 second opinion, but make an addition to it—that capital is an 
 economic good which is already the effect of a productive opera¬ 
 tion. With Cossa they define capital as “ any product employed 
 in production.” 
 
 We must keep in mind these different modes of regarding 
 capital, when we read or hear discussions on the matter, so as 
 not to become victims of equivocation. As for what we shall 
 say in this chapter about capital, we premise that we adopt the 
 third opinion, which is that of Cossa. The other two concepts 
 of capital disturb a little, we imagine, that order which helps so 
 much in a scientific treatise. 
 
 It remains, therefore, clear that by capital we are not forthwith 
 to understand only money. Money cannot of itself be called 
 capital, because, as money, it is incapable of entering as a factor 
 into any productive operation. Money is capital in so far as it is 
 easily convertible into any product whatever, capable of being 
 
THE THEORY OF MARX ON CAPITAL 
 
 143 
 
 employed in successive productions. The meaning of capital is 
 now obvious. 
 
 When a produce is abundant, the employment of it varies 
 according to views and tastes. One man makes a reserve fund 
 from it for future events ; another devotes it all to consumption, 
 in order to procure himself pleasures; another applies it to a 
 new production; while a fourth divides it conveniently for the 
 three destinations aforesaid. 
 
 You will not, therefore, be a simpleton if you give the name 
 of capital to an object. The same object, rendering materially 
 the same service, may be capital or not. For example, a house 
 that serves you as a dwelling is not capital; the same house 
 used as a factory is capital. The horse on which you ride for 
 diversion is not capital; but, if you are a medical man, the same 
 horse, which takes you on your visits, is capital. 
 
 It is very important to distinguish between fixed and circulating 
 capital. If we take the examples of a mill and seed, you under¬ 
 stand at once how the former is such a kind of capital that it is 
 worn by use, but it lasts for many productions : it is fixed capital. 
 The seed is circulating capital, because it serves only once : other 
 productions will require new seed. Even here the same object 
 may be either fixed or circulating capital, according to its destina¬ 
 tion. The ox that serves for labour is fixed capital; the ox that 
 is fed for the shambles is circulating capital. 
 
 Section III.— The Capitalist. 
 
 He who is possessed of some capital is called a capitalist. But 
 as there is a common meaning, which is not scientific, given to 
 capital, the same occurs with capitalist. In ordinary language, 
 a capitalist is anyone provided with means, especially money, 
 and in good quantity. 
 
 We cannot separate the person of the capitalist from capital, 
 and as we consider that capital should be specified from its employ¬ 
 ment in production, so we consider that the capitalist is he who 
 employs his own capital directly in a productive work. We 
 have said directly , because we consider, and we repeat it, that the 
 capitalist is truly a producer by his capital as the labourer is 
 by his labour; and that he is, therefore, subject to changes of 
 prosperity and adversity, not only during the productive period, 
 but in the result of the production. He who, by a contract or 
 in any other way, rids himself of this eventuality, or throws it 
 on the shoulders of another, may, according to our view, be a 
 rich man, but he is not a capitalist. To the latter we attribute 
 rights that we deny to the former. 
 
 Section IV. —The Theory of Marx on Capital. 
 
 From his theory on the value of merchandise, Karl Marx 
 derived another, no less famous, on capital. The value of an 
 
144 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 article of merchandise, he says, is nothing but the labour incor¬ 
 porated in it: to buy an article of merchandise is to pay for 
 the labour required to produce it. 
 
 What then is labour ? An article of merchandise, says Marx. 
 And what is its value ? That which is required to produce it. 
 
 Now, to produce labour there are physical powers required 
 in the labourer, which, to be maintained, have need of material 
 means. Labour is therefore paid for by supplying the means 
 that preserve the strength of the workman. But labour is a special 
 kind of merchandise—one that produces not only what is necessary 
 to preserve the strength of the workman, but much more : it 
 produces a surplus-value. In short, every product contains the 
 value of labour, that is, what is required for the preservation 
 of the strength of the workman, and yet more—that is to say, the 
 surplus-value. 
 
 Now, what follows ? That when a capitalist buys the labour 
 of a workman, he pays him in value, but not in surplus-value. 
 He pays him according to what the labourer needs to live, or he 
 pays him nourishment in the wages of so many days, and the 
 surplus-value he keeps for himself. Accumulated surplus-values 
 form capital, which, consequently, is a theft committed to the 
 loss of the labourer, to whom the surplus-value as well as the 
 value of his labour ought to belong. 
 
 Having shown in a previous chapter how the theory of Marx 
 on value cannot be maintained—having shown what part nature, 
 in addition to labour, has in production—we now hold in our 
 hands the elements of proof that will do justice also to the 
 ingenious theory of Marx on capital. 13 
 
 Section V.—Productivity of Capital. 
 
 The question that we have discussed with regard to nature 
 as well as to labour, that is, if they have each a share in the 
 causality of produce, applies also to capital. 
 
 What then is to be said of it ? If causality were a thing visible— 
 if that mysterious thread which binds the effect to the cause 
 could be cut, knotted, or twisted at will—we might easily show 
 everyone that it is now simple, now double, now triple ; and that, 
 when it is triple, one of the threads binds to capital its quota 
 of produce. 
 
 But that thread is invisible, and causality does not appear 
 except in the reality of causes and effects. We know, however, 
 that when we admit a before and an after, and the after evidently 
 depends on the before, causality is there. 
 
 Now, is it true that if to labour and nature we join the power 
 of capital in production, the produce is greater ? Y es, it is true. 
 There is therefore a before —capital. There is an after —a greater 
 amount of produce. Here we have the relation of dependence ; 
 
PRODUCTIVITY OF CAPITAL 
 
 145 
 
 because there cannot be found outside of capital any other power 
 that could be the cause of that produce. It remains, therefore, 
 that we must acknowledge the productivity of capital. 
 
 Antoine says :—“ Capital has a double office in production, 
 (i.) As every production requires a certain time, the workman 
 must live on his savings during it, that is to say, with capital, 
 (ii.) Labour requires assistance from the forces of nature, which 
 man, by his activity, turns into useful instruments. Now t , 
 these instruments are capital. That capital thus understood 
 is a means indispensable for production and for an increase of 
 economic goods, is a truth more than evident. Take away 
 provisions, implements, &c., and man will be obliged to seek 
 his daily support in the spontaneous fruits of the earth. The 
 prehistoric man already made use of capital, which consisted of 
 smooth stones, bows and arrows, hooks, &c.—things that he 
 carried with him when going to hunt or to fish.” 
 
 And here observe how the productive function of capital is 
 accomplished—by the consumption of itself. When speaking of 
 production, we showed that it takes place by the consumption 
 of existing values. The capital is consumed; it loses its value 
 that it may have produce in return. 
 
 Nor need you urge, against what has been here stated, that fixed 
 capital remains after the productive period. It remains indeed, 
 but no longer what it was : it is worn down, more or less. Its 
 fixity is relative : if it is fixed for a number of productive turns, 
 it at last finds its death in production. It must be renewed. 
 Fixed for a number of productive turns, it is afterwards for a 
 number circulating. From this point of view, capital appears 
 to us as a factor that, disappearing in production, should reappear 
 in produce. 
 
 So much being granted, the question whether a quota of produce 
 belongs to capital is out of place. Capital produces, and that 
 which is its produce ought to belong to it, or to him who owns it. 
 
 From the quota of produce that belongs to capital, take away 
 the value of the capital that has been consumed, and you will 
 have the net result or produce, which in economy is called “ profit,” 
 and more frequently “ interest.” 
 
 That capital has a function in favour of society is only too 
 evident from what we have said of its nature and its productive 
 power. If, a productive enterprise having been completed, 
 and the produce having been divided between master and work¬ 
 man, everything belonging to each party has been consumed, 
 the productive process would never advance. Suppose, instead, 
 that after a first production, all the produce is not consumed, 
 but at least a part is saved, and that this part is employed in the 
 purchase of machines, implements, &c., for a more extensive 
 and rational production—it is clear that there will be a more 
 perfect productive process and a more abundant produce. Without 
 capital, the productive force of the land would be exhausted 
 
 K 
 
146 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 little by little. In like manner it would be impossible to raise the 
 fine buildings, or to procure the powerful machinery, required 
 for the progressive development of industries. 
 
 And does not all this become advantageous to society ? The 
 population of the world has been increasing in the course of 
 ages. Where or how would so many new hands have been able 
 to find labour, by which they would procure bread for their 
 families, if they were entirely without capital ? 
 
 The progress that the world has made in regard to economy, 
 whose benefits we all enjoy, is due mainly to the power of large 
 capitals, which have so immense a part in the productions of the 
 present day. And the hope of greater economic goods pleases 
 humanity. That it is so we bless God, who shows that even 
 from the hardest rock or the most arid soil He can draw bread 
 for His children, who are multiplied on earth. This is a point of 
 view from which it seems to us that large capitals have a 
 providential mission. 
 
 Themes. —A disciple of Marx, wishing to show that the value of a product 
 is entirely due to labour, argues thus :—“ If from a piece of iron value a 
 shilling, I make a farming implement, its value will become half-a-crown ; 
 the increase of value is due to labour alone ; if now, by my labour, I return 
 this implement to a piece of iron, its value will again become a shilling.” 
 How is he to be answered ?—All kinds of industries, in order to be practised, 
 have need of capital—How an increase of capital is an element of civilisa¬ 
 tion : the larger the capital possessed, the less is the strength of man required 
 in the work of production. 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 INDUSTRY. 
 
 Section I.—Varieties of Industry. 
 
 The different modes by which the agents of production accom¬ 
 plish the productive process and attain their scope are called 
 “ industries/' Now, grouping together those which are most 
 alike, we may reduce all industries to three classes.* * 
 
 * It would be better if many of our young men would turn to some good 
 industry rather than aim at the medical or legal profession. There are too 
 many doctors and lawyers who, notwithstanding the importance of their 
 services, find it no easy matter to earn a respectable livelihood ; whereas, 
 if they had taken to some “ business ” career, they might, with their abilities, 
 have become far more prosperous. We may hope that the new National 
 University in Dublin, directed by an enlightened senate, and giving a better 
 tone to education all over the country, will fit many of its students to take 
 an efficient part in developing by every possible means the material resources 
 of Ireland. This will be the way to have agriculture, manufactures, and 
 commerce flourish. 
 
 A striking example of the enormous wealth to which some men attain 
 by an industrial pursuit is that of Mr. Andrew Carnegie. Born in 1837, he 
 began, when about ten years of age, to earn his bread as a bobbin-boy in 
 
SMALL AND LARGE INDUSTRIES 
 
 147 
 
 The first consists of those which have for their object to bring 
 ns the fruits of nature, either by taking them without more 
 ado, as the fisherman takes fish, or by co-operating with nature 
 in the production and ripening of a crop, as the farmer does. 
 This industry is said to be “ agricultural/' 
 
 A second class of industries have as their object to work on the 
 products of other industries, and thereby to give them a utility 
 for us that they had not before. These are called “ manufactur¬ 
 ing" industries. 
 
 The third class of industries is that whose business it is to carry 
 things to a place where they will have a special utility. These 
 industries are called “ commercial." 
 
 Section II. —Small and Large Industries. 
 
 Industry has existed at all times. Man, from the earliest 
 ages, found that he should apply his intellectual and physical 
 powers to natural agents, in order to have production from them. 
 Thus he gives himself to work—devotes himself to industry. 
 
 Naturally we do not regard man as alone, but in society, and 
 first in domestic society. Here he easily exercised his industry, 
 assisted by those belonging to him, and destined its produce, 
 not only for the use of his own household, but for the use of other 
 persons. From these other persons he expected a return in the 
 fruits of their industry. 
 
 Industry strictly domestic, although it has ceased in great 
 measure, cannot be said to have entirely disappeared. And for 
 the advantages, especially moral ones, that it brings to the family, 
 in whose bosom it keeps alive a cordial union, which is the founda¬ 
 tion of all their good, it would be very desirable to have it 
 extensively revived. 
 
 But we must not hesitate to acknowledge that, confined within 
 the domestic walls, it would not be sufficiently productive for the 
 demands of modern society. 
 
 Very soon, the number of men in the world having increased, 
 the need of a division of labour was felt, and also the need of 
 employing large capital in production, so as to increase its fruit. 
 
 Alleghany City, Pennsylvania. Retiring from business in 1901, he trans¬ 
 ferred into new hands the Carnegie Steel Co. at a valuation of 500,000,000 
 dollars, say £100,000,000. Unlike most men of wealth, Mr. Carnegie is not 
 of a grasping character. On the contrary, he has shown himself most 
 generous. With good intentions for the welfare of the poorer classes, he has 
 founded an immense number of libraries ; but, sad to say, it would seem 
 that many of the books placed on the shelves of those libraries would be 
 much better thrown into the fire than placed in the hands of youth. Up 
 to 1904 his benefactions exceeded £14,000,000, of which £11,000,000 were 
 gi\ en in the United States, with the assurance of much more to come. He 
 gave £2,000,000 to the Universities of Scotland, his native country, and 
 £500,000 for improving and beautifying Dunfermline, his native town. 
 
 Of steel it may be said that through successive improvements in its 
 manufacture it has now twice the strength of iron. It is not fibrous, but of 
 
148 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 And so industry passed beyond the domestic walls, profiting 
 of social inequalities, and engaging other hands for labour, and 
 even some capital, more or less. Here were the small industries, 
 which continued universally until our times. They did not 
 cease to exist through any want of vitality or through an in¬ 
 sufficiency of good results. No, they were suffocated by new 
 conditions that sprang up around them. 
 
 The history of economy in modern times totally separates its 
 productive facts from those of ancient times. The human genius 
 opened out to marvellous conquests in nature. It seized on 
 new forces, over which it ruled, and, by means of special inventions, 
 made them a suitable substitute for the physical fatigue of man. 
 Behold, therefore, machinery in the field of industry! It. 
 devours much and produces much. 
 
 On the other hand, the overthrown barriers made communica- 
 
 equal strength in all directions. Houses, with a steel frame-work, are built 
 to the height of twenty stories, and are common in the United States. 
 
 The property of Mr. H. H. Rogers, New York (at one time a newsboy),, 
 who carried on the “ Standard Oil ” business, and who died in 1909, was 
 estimated at £10,000,000. 
 
 A highly useful book, as showing the industries that exist in Ireland, and 
 also those that might be developed in different localities, is The Irish Manu¬ 
 facturers’ Directory and Year-Booh, published annually in Dublin, by Mr. 
 K. J. Kenny, 58 Middle Abbey Street. Another valuable little book is The 
 Key to the World’s Progress, by Mr. C. G. Devas, one of a cheap series by 
 Messrs. Longmans. Its chief object, however, is to show that true progress 
 ought not to be merely material. For temporal glory and prosperity are 
 too often accompanied with a host of vices, which prey like a cancer on the 
 vitals of society ; and the Scripture assures us that sin maketh nations 
 miserable. (Prov. xiv. 34). 
 
 The success of Mr. Charles Dickens in a literary career was very great—- 
 we might say exceptional. He began life in a blacking-store, and after his 
 death his will showed property to the extent of £80,000. But such success, 
 apart from other considerations, was very small in comparison with that 
 of Mr. Carnegie or Mr. Rogers. 
 
 A most instructive lecture on the Literary Life, by the Very Rev. P. A. 
 Canon Sheehan, D.D., appeared in the Irish Monthly, April, 1909. 
 
 Little need be said of students who desire to become priests, or to devote 
 their lives entirely to the service of God. There is ample room for them ; 
 and it is highly creditable to many Catholic families in Ireland that for 
 generations past they have always endeavoured to give at least one of their 
 members to the Church. No more useful or meritorious work can be 
 imagined than to labour for the salvation of souls. 
 
 It is a pity that more of our young men, especially such as would feel 
 obliged by circumstances to emigrate, do not think of competing for some 
 of the higher situations at home or abroad in the Civil Service, but leave 
 them to be taken by Englishmen and Scotchmen, who are far from being 
 their superiors in genuine talent or ability. N6 doubt there are some dis¬ 
 advantages connected with them, but is there any position in life free from 
 all objection ? If Irishmen were excluded from employment in those rather 
 enviable situations, would there not be loud complaints of such injustice ? 
 The position is respectable, the salary good (sometimes rising above £1,000), 
 the hours of business very moderate, the responsibilities less than in many 
 other conditions of life ; there is an annual vacation; there is leave of absence 
 in case of sickness, with continued pay ; and a liberal pension is allowed on 
 retirement, which takes place at a comparatively early age, when a man 
 
SMALL AND LARGE INDUSTRIES 
 
 149 
 
 tion easy between people and people, and widened immensely 
 the old market-place. Behold the large industries ! These have 
 certainly their advantages, of which economists discourse at 
 great length. Nor without reason; for, having lowered much 
 the price of products, they rendered the acquisition and use of 
 them more easy and therefore more general. We wish, however, 
 to place under the eyes of the student some reflections that are 
 socially of the greatest importance. 
 
 The large industries are naturally the rivals of the small ones, 
 which can scarcely, except for some special reason here and there, 
 survive. Attracted by the large industries, small patrimonies, 
 which supported many respectable positions, should, by the 
 force of things, flow thither, and there they remained like branches 
 without a trunk, their energies exhausted. Masters became 
 servants; capitalists, workingmen. 
 
 can still be of much service to his country. To disregard all these advantages, 
 saying that a son of Ireland ought not to be a servant of England (even 
 though his prospects in Ireland may not be good), seems to be a serious 
 mistake, and may leave many a deserving youth to spend his life in a con¬ 
 stant struggle with poverty—a high price to pay for the indulgence of a 
 hobby. 
 
 No wonder that an intelligent writer in the Irish Educational Review 
 (July, 1909, p. 613) asks :—“ How many Intermediate Exhibitioners have 
 been in menial employment in the City of Cork ? One, I am told, is, or 
 was, a coal heaver; others are earning a scanty wage, barely sufficient to 
 keep soul and body together.” 
 
 If men insist on a total separation from England, may they not have to 
 wait for it till the Greek Calends ? Is it not better to make a virtue of 
 necessity ? There is no just reason to suppose that a man holding one of 
 those situations would cease to be a patriotic Irishman. He would rather 
 disarm prejudice, and promote the interests of Ireland wherever he went. 
 His experience in different regions would enable him to give prudent advice 
 with regard to matters of trade and commerce. Moreover, he could easily 
 afford to assist his relatives, if they required his aid. But perhaps the 
 best feature of all in the case is that he would have ample opportunity for 
 practising his religious as well as social duties. 
 
 Some of our Colleges—notably Blackrock—that have applied themselves 
 to the development of this mine, have been wonderfully successful. 
 Candidates require a good all-round education in the first place, and then 
 a special grinding that will fit them to deal accurately with strict examination 
 tests. Careless work has no chance. A limit is put to age. 
 
 There are other situations of a still higher order in the Civil Service, but 
 we have not referred to them, as they are not open to competition. They 
 are filled by appointment. 
 
 If Ireland had the same favourable conditions of existence as other 
 countries under English rule, such as Australia, Canada, South Africa, &c., 
 there would be plenty of congenial situations for young Irishmen in their 
 native land, and there would be little need of emigration. 
 
 It is to be hoped that all situations in the Banks, Railways, &c., of Ireland, 
 which earn their money by Irish business, will soon be thrown open to public 
 competition. Many of those situations, however, will be far less remunera¬ 
 tive and far more risky than those to which we have alluded above. 
 
 Whatever position in life a man may occupy, he ought to bear a high 
 character for honesty, truthfulness, and all other such virtues, which he 
 should practice not merely from worldly motives, but in accordance 
 with the dictates of a good conscience.— Trans. 
 
150 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Tlius society, which, in order to have stability, requires many 
 various classes, found itself to consist for the most part of poor 
 workmen, and a small minority of capitalists, rising suddenly 
 and often recklessly to the top of the ladder. 
 
 We will not say that in these conditions social life is impossible. 
 We will only say that it is possible under one or other of the 
 following alternatives. Either breathe into the social body 
 such an abundant spirit of Christianity as will give the upper 
 classes a proper consciousness of their social duties, so that they— 
 mindful that might is not right—may share with the lower classes, 
 as justice and charity require, those good things of God wdiich their 
 industry has brought forth ; or—because it is in no man’s power 
 to secure that first alternative—guarantee that, by special 
 contracts or provident regulations, the lower classes will be 
 protected under the shield of State supervision from the 
 exorbitant demands of the upper. 
 
 In taking these precautions, it is proper to bear in mind the 
 numerous abuses for which large industries offer an easy 
 opportunity. Low wages, unhealthy places for work, association 
 of sexes, a time-table inconsistent with age, with sex, with home 
 duties, with decorum, with strength, with humanity—these are 
 grave abuses, which injure families and all society. 
 
 Leo XIII., after acknowledging that “ the wonderful progress 
 in arts and in new methods of industry, the changed relations 
 between masters and workpeople, the large fortunes accumulated 
 in the hands of a few, the poverty of the multitude, the greater 
 self-reliance and closer combination of the working classes, and a 
 moral deterioration have brought about a conflict,” asserts in 
 clear language that “ there is an obligation on employers to allow 
 workpeople sufficient time to comply wfith their religious duties, 
 not to expose them to corrupting influences and dangerous 
 occasions, not to turn away their minds from the family spirit 
 and the love of thrift, not to impose work on them disproportioned 
 to their strength or unsuited to their age or sex . . . Let 
 
 capitalists and employers remember that to oppress the poor 
 and needy for the sake of gain, or to traffic in the misery of others, 
 is not allowed by any law, divine or human.” {Rerum novarum.) 
 
 The large industries, as systematised and managed at the present 
 day, are characterised by a marked separation of labour from 
 capital. These two things, which ought to act in harmony, 
 are formed into two opposing camps, each struggling for a defence 
 and triumph of its own interests. 
 
 Facts are only too numerous in confirmation of what has been 
 here said. “ By degrees the working classes, isolated and defence¬ 
 less, have been placed at the mercy of inhuman masters, and 
 exposed to the greed of unrestrained competition. . . . These 
 
 evils have been increased by a monopoly of labour, and by the 
 concentration of all branches of trade in the hands of a few, so 
 that a very small number of rich men have laid on a countless 
 
THE UNDERTAKER OR CONTRACTOR 
 
 151 
 
 multitude of poor people a yoke little better than slavery.’" 
 (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 Such a state of affairs has been caused for the most part by 
 large industries, which, unless a remedy is applied in time, 
 threaten the very existence of civil society. 
 
 Section III.— The Undertaker or Contractor. 
 
 The union of property and labour in a productive work is 
 certainly more effectual when property and labour are in the 
 hands of only one individual. This, however, in the present 
 condition of industry, happens seldom. It oftener happens 
 that two or three individuals are in possession of the pro¬ 
 ductive agents. To bring them together is necessary for 
 production. This is done by means of co-operative societies 
 or the like. 
 
 But these do not always suit the conditions of the different 
 proprietors. Special contracts are then made, by which it is 
 agreed that one person alone, who is really master neither of 
 capital nor labour, should assume the responsibility of uniting 
 both. And this through special contracts, by which, with 
 confident anticipation, he releases proprietors, capitalists, and 
 labourers from danger of loss in production. He takes all the 
 risk on himself, and proceeds to production. This new character 
 who makes his appearance, in addition to the three agents already 
 mentioned, is called the undertaker or contractor. 
 
 What, therefore, is an undertaker ? Boccardo defines him 
 as one whose profession consists in conceiving and conducting 
 an agricultural, manufacturing, or commercial enterprise. His 
 essential function in the undertaking to which he devotes himself, 
 and in which many others besides him are concerned, is, says 
 Concede-Seneuil, to foresee and to provide for contingencies; 
 to associate and to direct labour and capital in production; to 
 suit products to the wants of the times ; and to adapt the supply 
 to the demand. “ It is enough,” continues the same author, 
 “ to cast a look on modern society, in order to observe that 
 among those who compete, by any title, in the production of 
 goods, there are three distinct classes. Some persons have 
 capital, and confide to others the care of employing it: they are 
 capitalists. A second class entrust to others the employment 
 of their personal labour : they are men of wages or salary. The 
 last, in fine, study to give of themselves employment to labour 
 and capital, either their own, or received on loan: they are 
 undertakers.” ( Diz ., II., 442.) 
 
 Is the undertaker a help to production ? Without doubt. 
 He is a man of special technical ability, who groups three agents 
 together, so that the production may be more abundant and 
 perfect. And this is a benefit for all civil society. 
 
152 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Does he deserve a reward for his work ? Who can doubt it ? 
 What wonder ? His technical ability has had an effect, and the 
 effect ought to be his by every right. 
 
 This remuneration, which is the portion of the produce due 
 to the technical aid of the undertaker, is called “ profit. 55 
 
 Besides the title of causality, there is another of which we 
 must make account in settling the proportion of produce that 
 constitutes profit. It is the risky character that is inseparable 
 from every produce. The undertaker pays by anticipation for 
 labour, rent of land, interest of capital. He then goes forth to 
 take his chance—either a notable profit or a serious loss—not 
 only a loss of profit, but perhaps a wreck of all his anticipations. 
 If the result of a hazardous eventuality is good, to whom ought 
 it to pertain if not to the adventurer ? That is to say, to the 
 undertaker. 
 
 Section IY.—The Contract of Labour. 
 
 Labour and capital require to be united. Hence, special 
 contracts for this union. These contracts, as they mostly occur 
 by a bargain that the proprietor or capitalist makes for the 
 work of the labourer, take the name of “ contracts of labour/ 5 
 
 What are the coefficients of such a contract ? The liberal 
 school recognises only two—the capitalist and the labourer. It 
 does not care whether there is any freedom of consent between 
 the parties who make a bargain. The contract is thrown on the 
 waves of free competition. We recognise a third coefficient, 
 which, properly speaking, would be the first, and which, as the 
 Pope says, is “ anterior and superior to the free will of the con¬ 
 tracting parties. 55 It is natural justice. 
 
 Though we have set forth in a former chapter the characteristics 
 of labour that raise it immensely above common merchandise, 
 we admit that the contract of labour is just, and is agreed to 
 freely between two parties. The encyclical makes mention of 
 three coefficients when, speaking of the duties of the workman, 
 it says that he is “ to perform honestly and faithfully the work 
 that was freely and according to equity contracted for. 55 
 
 Nor does this natural justice enter into the contract of labour 
 only with regard to wages, but it enters generally, for the defence 
 of every purpose that nature intends by labour. For instance, 
 in regard to rest, to which the workman has a right, the Pope 
 says: —“ In every agreement that is entered into between 
 masters and workmen, there is always the condition, expressed 
 or understood, that both kinds of rest will be allowed. Nor 
 would it be just to agree otherwise; because it is never lawful 
 for anyone to ask or to promise a neglect of the duties that a man 
 owes to God and to himself. 55 (Rerum novarwn.) 
 
WAGES 
 
 153 
 
 Section V. —The Co-operative System. 
 
 A very obvious mode of uniting capital with labour in production 
 is that of the co-operative societies. They would appear the 
 ideal of industrial enterprises, but they are not equally practical. 
 By the large industries, which require immense capital, they are 
 avoided more and more every day. Brants gives us three types 
 of them. 
 
 The first type is that of a co-operation of persons. Several 
 workmen place themselves at the head of the enterprise. They 
 study its difficulties, and settle about them. They provide 
 means, work together, and, the production being finished, divide 
 the produce. 
 
 The second type is that of a co-operation of capitals. They 
 are companies into which it is necessary that each member should 
 enter with some capital. Shares are formed; and each work¬ 
 man, according to the amount of his funds, takes a number of 
 them. In the division of the produce, account is made of the 
 number of shares that each one holds. 
 
 The third type is that of Societies with participation in benefits. 
 This system is in substance that of men receiving wages, of which 
 we shall soon speak. Its special feature is that, at the end of the 
 production, it calls together the workmen (who have already 
 received their wages), and gives them a portion of the net profits. 
 
 Section YI.—Wages. 
 
 The most common mode at present of uniting capital with 
 labour is that of wages. It is a system much exposed to the 
 abuses of capital, and therefore requires to be supplemented by 
 honesty in the contracting parties, and by such regulations as 
 may place them in a position of sufficient freedom. 
 
 We may, therefore, define wages as that quota which is 
 anticipated on the future produce for the workman by the 
 capitalist or undertaker, who takes on himself the risk of the 
 production. 
 
 Production, even the most safe or promising, is subject to two 
 conditions, which are inseparable. They are (i.) a certain space 
 of time before having the produce, and (ii.) a more or less probable 
 chance of a result little remunerative, perhaps not at all so, but 
 disastrous. And thus production takes so far a gaming character. 
 The game affects the capitalist; it does not affect the workman. 
 Wages anticipate and secure for the needy workman his quota 
 of the produce. It follows that they are a real advantage for him. 
 
 A question is asked : Are there any natural principles from 
 which springs the right of a workman to a reward for his work ? 
 
 There ought to be, and there are, in our opinion, two. The 
 first is that labour is productive. Labour, like everything else 
 
154 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 in the world, is a design of God, and He designed it in so far that, 
 by itself, it can realise the phenomenon of production. Now, 
 common sense teaches that the produce should go to the producer, 
 as to its cause. The encyclical alludes to this principle when it 
 reasons thus :—“ Would it be justice if he who has not laboured 
 should enjoy the fruits of another man’s labour ? As the effect 
 follows its cause, so it is right that the fruit of labour should 
 belong to him who labours.” But the destination of human 
 labour to production cannot be final. Labour has as its end 
 to serve man, by its fruits. Here we see the second principle of 
 wages. The fruit of labour, or the produce, ought, by the arrange¬ 
 ment of nature, to serve for the satisfaction of the wants of him 
 who labours. Behold the words of the Pope : —“ To labour is to 
 exert oneself in order to provide for the wants of life, and 
 especially for its preservation : in the sweat of thy face shalt thou 
 eat bread.” 
 
 Observe how the first principle brings directly to the capitalist 
 the duty of giving the labourer a just payment, and to the labourer 
 the right of claiming it. The second brings a duty directly to 
 the labourer, who ought to use his wages for his own support. 
 It is also useful to observe how the second principle takes its 
 origin from the first; for we do not mean to say that the 
 labourer has a right to wages by himself, but because his labour 
 is productive. So that if there was a time in history when 
 labour did not produce as much as was required for the support 
 of the labourer, he had not a right to the usual wages, but only to 
 that quota which corresponded to the productivity of his labour. 
 
 In what measure then are wages due to the workman ? Do 
 the two principles above-mentioned throw any light on the 
 subject ? We believe that theoretically they may indeed supply 
 an answer to the question. The first says that the labourer has a 
 right to the whole quota of produce that is the effect of his labour. 
 Can there be any doubt of it ? The second offers a more specific 
 determination, inasmuch as it also points out the use for which 
 the produce of labour is intended. So that if the whole produce 
 of labour passes naturally into the ownership of the labourer, 
 ■we must remember that of one portion of it the labourer has not 
 the free use : it should be employed as nature wishes. Of the 
 portion that remains, after this appointed use, the labourer, who 
 is master of it, can dispose as he pleases, and therefore can even 
 make a present of it. 
 
 But we are not yet come to the measure of wages. We have 
 reasoned on the right that the labourer has to a part of the produce. 
 The man under wages, however, wishes to be treated with other 
 considerations. We spoke of a special contract, which contains 
 some favourable elements for the labourer ; and compensation 
 for these elements is made to the capitalist by a particular 
 advantage, which is the probability of a greater quota of produce 
 than would otherwise fall to him. 
 
WAGES 
 
 155 
 
 We see, therefore, that the second principle takes away from 
 the free disposal of the contracting parties a portion of the wages 
 (that which is needed for the wants of the labourer) ; and leaves 
 the rest to the bargain of the labourer with him who buys his 
 labour. The words of the encyclical on this point are well known. 
 The Pope, having shown the opinion of classic economy, which, 
 misunderstanding the natural origin of wages, abandons every¬ 
 thing to the contract between the labourer and the capitalist, 
 says :— 
 
 ' 4 To this kind of reasoning a fair-minded man cannot easily 
 or entirely agree ; for there is one consideration of the greatest 
 importance that it omits. To labour is to exert oneself in order 
 to provide for the wants of life, and especially for its preservation : 
 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread. Human labour has, 
 therefore, two characteristics impressed on it by nature. First, 
 it is personal, because the active power belongs to him by whom 
 it is exercised, and for whose advantage it has been given. 
 Secondly, such labour is necessary, because man requires the 
 fruit of labour for the maintenance of life : the preservation of 
 life is an indispensable duty imposed by nature. Now, if we 
 consider labour only inasmuch as it is personal, there is no doubt 
 that the workman can agree to a payment lower than is just; 
 for as he is free to work or not, so he is free to accept small wages 
 or even none at all. But far differently must we judge when 
 account is made not only of personality , but also of necessity : 
 two things separable in thought, but not in reality. The preserva¬ 
 tion of life is a duty, in which no one can fail without crime. 
 Hence follows, as a necessary consequence, the right of seeking 
 means of support, which with poor people are reduced to wages 
 for their work. 
 
 Let it be granted then that a workman and an employer 
 make a bargain by mutual consent especially with regard to 
 the amount of wages ; there always enters an element of natural 
 justice, anterior and superior to the will of the contracting parties, 
 and it is that the remuneration should not be less than is required 
 for the support of the workman in frugal and decent comfort. 
 If through necessity, or through fear of a worse evil, the workman 
 agrees to harder conditions, which, being imposed by the employer 
 or contractor, must willingly or unwillingly be accepted, this is 
 to suffer violence, against which justice protests/’ 
 
 We ought not to forget that the labourer is a man, and that 
 therefore wages ought to be sufficient, not for the support of an 
 animal that leads a merely animal life (as the English school 
 would have it), but of an animal that is rational, a human being, 
 who has duties of improvement towards himself and of worship 
 towards God, which he is enabled to discharge by a good use of 
 his wages. The same Holy Father, in the encyclical Graves de 
 communi, explaining the programme of Christian Democracy, 
 says of workmen : —“ That at home and in public they may freely 
 
156 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 comply with their moral and religions duties; that they may 
 feel themselves not to be beasts but men, not pagans but 
 Christians; and that they may thus more easily and earnestly 
 devote themselves to the attainment of the one thing necessary , 
 the supreme good, for which we are born.” 
 
 A minimum of wages, below which neither the labourer nor 
 the employer can go without offending against natural justice, 
 is shown by what is required for the support of a frugal and well- 
 conducted workman. Take notice, however, of every word. It 
 is said that this is the minimum, but not that it is the maximum. 
 If justice is offended by going below the minimum, it may also 
 be offended by stopping at that amount—if, taking every cir¬ 
 cumstance into account, a sum is not given to the workman pro¬ 
 portional to the productivity of his labour. 
 
 “ Family wages” are so called because they are sufficient for 
 the support not only of a workman, but also of his family. Now 
 comes the question : Ought the wages of the workman to be 
 “family wages”? 
 
 Nearly all Catholic economists say so. But they are not 
 unanimous in assigning a title for it. Some maintain that family 
 wages, in the same manner as individual wages, are due by natural 
 justice. Others argue thus : As, the labourer being rational, 
 individual wages ought to correspond to the requirements of a 
 creature endowed with reason, so, having from nature a right 
 to form a family, and, it being formed, having a right to support 
 and educate it, the wages ought to be family wages, in order that 
 the labourer who has a family may be able to fulfil his duties 
 towards it. Such is the opinion of Liberatore, Steccanella, 
 Pottier, and others of great weight. 
 
 Others, opposing this view, go with Antoine, who derives 
 not from commutative justice, but from social justice, the right 
 of the labourer to sufficient wages for the support of his family : 
 “ but if family wages are not an object of commutative justice, 
 they are not less required by social order or less necessary for 
 the common good of society.” 
 
 The encyclical (Rer. nov.) does not decide this point. Only 
 on one occasion does it make mention of family wages—where it 
 exhorts the labourer to make a wise use of the fruit of his labour. 
 " When the wages of a workman are sufficient to maintain himself, 
 his wife, and his children in reasonable comfort, he will easily, 
 if he is a wise man, study thrift.” 
 
 For the rest, Christian Democracy has adopted the principle 
 of family wages, and the Catholic Congress of Social Studies 
 held at Genoa in 1891 solemnly proclaimed the workman's right 
 to them. 
 
 Another question regarding wages is this : Should the State 
 interfere in the contract of labour, and secure to the labourer 
 at least a minimum of wages ? Some absolutely deny it, and 
 they appeal to the authority of the Pope, whose encyclical is silent 
 
WAGES 
 
 157 
 
 on such a duty in the State. Cathrein would have the State 
 interfere, but only when justice is endangered. The State, he 
 says, can fix the smallest amount of wages, if there is danger of 
 their being lowered beyond the limits of justice ( Philos . Moral., 
 p. 419). Many declare without any hesitation that this is a duty 
 of the State, since it concerns the wellbeing of the workman and 
 his family, and therefore of all society. 
 
 As for those who maintain that there should be no interference, 
 because the Pope does not claim it, or rather he excludes it, we 
 may be permitted to recall the true terms of the subject, and the 
 manner in which the Pope treats it. 'Two questions appear for 
 consideration : first, if the State ought to fix a minimum of wages 
 for each particular industry; and secondly, if it ought to fix a 
 general minimum, below which no employer could descend. 
 
 The first question, we believe, ought to be settled by having 
 no interference of the State, because it is beyond the power of 
 the State to have such a knowledge of minute elements as is 
 indispensable for a just rule. Here we believe that between the 
 State and the contracting parties there is room for the action of 
 societies or guilds. And this agrees well with what the encyclical 
 says :—“ In these and similar cases—such as the hours of labour 
 in different trades, the sanitary precautions to be observed in 
 workshops, &c.—that authority may not meddle without cause, 
 especially when there is so great a variety of affairs, times, and 
 places, it will be better to reserve these things for the judgment 
 of Boards, such as we shall mention presently, or to take some 
 other way of protecting, in accordance with justice, the interests 
 of the wage-earners—the State giving, if necessary, its approval 
 and support.” This would suit exceedingly well. 
 
 The second question we settle by calling for the interference 
 of the State. And it appears to be what the encyclical desires. 
 The Pope treats of this point when he shows what the State 
 ought to do for the solution of the social question. Let us hear 
 how he refers to it:—“ We now approach a subject that is of 
 great importance, and that requires to be well understood, so as 
 not to fall into one or other of two opposite extremes. The 
 amount of wages, we are told, is fixed by free consent. Therefore 
 the employer, having paid the wages, has done his part, and does 
 not seem to owe anything more. Then only is an injustice done 
 if the master does not pay the full wages, or if the workman 
 does not perform the full work agreed to. In these cases, but 
 in no others, it is proper that the State should interfere, so that 
 each one's right may be protected.” Here the Pope sets forth, 
 as everyone sees, the theory of the liberal classical school. He 
 then refutes it. Among the points refuted is this, that the defence 
 of rights as agreed to by the parties is the only reason to justify 
 the interference of the State. But the Pope wishes this inter¬ 
 ference for something more, which is not agreed to by the parties 
 —it urges of itself. And what can this be if not that minimum 
 
158 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 for which we look—that is to say, a decision in regard to the 
 minimum of wages ? 
 
 As for the exception made by Cathrein, “ if there is danger of 
 wages being lowered beyond the limits of justice,” we do not 
 know why it should be an exception, and not the rule. For 
 there is always danger; and just because such danger threatens 
 the common good, we wish to see it removed by the State. 14 
 
 Themes. —Labour is not merchandise ; but, in part at least, it may be 
 valued like merchandise, weighing it between supply and demand— 
 Labourers being disorganised, there is need for a labour market, in which 
 wages would be free from the chances of supply and demand ; the laws of 
 labour should be established in the market; a minimum of wages, and other 
 conditions of justice, should be secured for the labourer. 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 Section I.— Systems and Contracts. 
 
 The ideal of agricultural industry would be that of a working 
 man, who cultivates his own ground, and reaps its fruits for him¬ 
 self and those belonging to him. But, for a very complex variety 
 of causes, this cannot be, except in a few cases. The social fact, 
 as it exists, is that of landlords and tenants. The former own 
 the ground, and have need of tenants for its cultivation. The 
 latter have need of those who will trust the land to them, on 
 which they may expend their labour. Here we see the owner 
 of the ship and the crew : their united efforts are required for a 
 successful voyage. 
 
 Various systems are proposed for uniting the work of the 
 agriculturist with the land of the proprietor, so that the well¬ 
 being of both parties may be the result. There are three principal 
 systems, of which we ought to make mention: (i.) that of 
 mezzadria or metayage; (ii.) that of rent; and (iii.) that of 
 wages. 
 
 On these various forms we may pronounce the same judgment 
 as on the various forms of government. They are in themselves 
 all good : each one, however, may be abused by the malice or 
 the greed of men. To obviate abuses, various contracts are 
 strengthened with special conditions, of which some are imposed 
 (and wisely too) by law, others are left to the free will of the 
 contracting parties. In making such engagements, the follow¬ 
 ing considerations should be kept in mind :— 
 
 1. Whatever may be the form of contract to which the owner 
 and the worker agree, they ought to remember well that they enter 
 into relations not only economical, but also moral—relations 
 which, besides affecting both, have a great influence on public 
 
MEZZADRIA OR METAYAGE 
 
 159 
 
 life. And this is nothing but the application of a general principle. 
 The material world is subordinated to the moral, and the man 
 who uses the former for the attainment of the ends proposed by 
 the Creator, should act in such a manner that a wave, as large as 
 possible, of morality and religion should enter the ocean of social 
 life. 
 
 2. The productive process in agricultural industry takes a 
 longer time than in other industries. The capital and labour 
 that you employ on a field or a vineyard will not give fruit this 
 year. They will give it next year, and for a series of years, 
 longer or shorter according to the generosity with which you 
 treat the soil, and the kind of cultivation that you initiate or 
 promote. 
 
 3. It is necessary, as well for the owner as for the worker, 
 and also for the public, that capital should be expended in the 
 cultivation of land. This is a condition required that the soil 
 may act like a machine and give produce for all. Left to itself, 
 or rather subjected to an impoverishing treatment (there is no 
 want of modes), it wastes its resources, and enters into a state 
 of barrenness, not to be remedied in a single year, nor easily. 
 
 4. We must take into account that the net produce of the land 
 cannot be separately valued every year. A variety of causes 
 influence agricultural production, so that one year it is abundant, 
 another year scarce. It even happens that a very bad year 
 occurs at intervals : owing to the inclemency of the weather, 
 the harvest is totally ruined, and the net produce is nothing. 
 To provide for this calamity, it is, therefore, proper to take an 
 average on a certain number of harvests. 
 
 5. It will be for the advantage of both parties, and more in 
 accordance with the designs of nature, that intercourse between 
 the landlord and the farmer should be direct or immediate. Hence 
 the exclusion, as far as possible, of speculators and middlemen. 
 On every occasion and in every way, let the proprietor be mindful 
 of that Christian patronage which he owes to those who work 
 under him. If he does not deal immediately with them, let him 
 assist them by special clauses , which may protect them from the 
 rapacity of an agent. 15 
 
 Section II. —Mezzadria or Metayage. 
 
 Nature and labour must be united in order to give place to 
 that process which ends in produce. What better arrangement 
 of an industry than that of bringing together the owner and the 
 worker ? This is one of the results of the contract of mezzadria 
 or metayage, which regards the owner and the worker as partners 
 in a company ; the former brings the capital of his property, and 
 the latter the capital of his labour. At the end of the year there 
 is a distribution of the produce. 
 
 The advantages of this contract are evident. The owner and 
 
160 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 the worker, having a community of interests, find themselves 
 very much in a fraternal state of mind. They are companions ; 
 and if the worker pronounces the word “ master/’ he does not 
 feel it burning on his lips. They run the same risk; nor will 
 the chance of an unfavourable season fall only on one. It is 
 certainly the ideal of an agricultural contract. “ Mezzadria, 
 precisely because it inspires Christian ideas, is the agricultural 
 contract that most raises the legal condition of the cultivator, 
 as a companion of the owner ; that most favours a union of 
 classes, co-ordinating individual to social interests; and that 
 most secures the moral and civil value of the cultivator. It will 
 always, therefore, remain the ideal of Catholic economists.” 
 (Mauri, at the Congress of Padua.) 
 
 Yet we must not close our eyes to the fact that even this contract 
 often becomes, on one side or the other, ruinous, and therefore 
 unadvisable : not through any defect of the contract, but through 
 the evil minds of the contracting parties. The lot of the mezzadro 
 or metayer is found less pleasant, indeed sad, if the owner lays 
 on him some heavy conditions, in the form of a supplement to 
 the contract, requiring so many days of actual work, lessening 
 the amount of crop by an anticipated percentage, and so on. 
 Even the lot of the owner may be unfortunate. It happens when 
 the mezzadro, not guided in his actions by the light of a Christian 
 conscience, lessens the quantity of crop due to the master; ventures 
 to make unjust anticipations; in short, avails himself of his 
 position as companion to rob with a safe hand. 
 
 The history of mezzadria is very ancient, and we find among 
 the customs of different localities a great variety of conditions. 
 Many of these no longer suit the requirements of our time and the 
 changed methods of production. Hence the necessity of revising 
 agricultural contracts and framing them to meet the needs of the 
 present day. This task of revision was declared in the Congress 
 of Taranto to be a duty on Catholics, who, in some places, have 
 complied with it, especially for the good of the tillers. A Catholic 
 journal, treating of the subject in a very sensible article, concludes 
 thus:— 
 
 “We cannot admit a contract of mezzadria unless it has 
 the following provisions : security for the families of the tillers, 
 or for such of them as have permanent employment on the land, 
 that they will receive a portion of the produce sufficient for the 
 wants of life and labour ; compensation for lasting improvements ; 
 safeguarding of the productive powers of the soil; direct co¬ 
 operation, as much as possible, with the owner, in the manage¬ 
 ment of the farm. 
 
 “ The question of the division of the produce thus becomes 
 a secondary thing. A tiller who, on a fertile or irrigated farm in 
 Piedmont, on land treated according to the Solari* method, 
 
 *Solari is the name of a celebrated Italian agriculturist,who lately employed 
 chemistry and electricity with much success in the treatment of the soil.— 
 Trans. 
 
RENT 
 
 161 
 
 receives the third part of the produce, will have much more per 
 acre than a tiller who, on some farms in the neighbourhood of 
 Gubbio, receives three-fourths of the produce. The share 
 should never be disproportioned to the labour; nor can the 
 greater fertility of a farm ever be by itself a motive for lessening 
 the share of the tiller. 
 
 “ The care of the productive powers of the soil requires the 
 aid of the proprietor with capital, and his direct supervision, 
 that which alone recalls land proprietors to the useful exercise of 
 their natural duty of patronage. 
 
 “ Examining the agricultural contracts of different districts 
 by the light of these principles, Catholic landowners, well inten- 
 tioned, will be the first to acknowledge in what points and in 
 what measure such contracts should be revised—thus cutting 
 away the roots of social agitation. Custom, if it sometimes 
 becomes law, can never be invoked when it violates justice : this 
 would be contrary to our character as Christians.” (Avvenire 
 d’Italia.)™ 
 
 Section III. —Rent. 
 
 A system universally known and practised is that of rent. 
 The owner lets to the tenant a farm to be cultivated and 
 reaped by him alone, and receives in compensation an annual 
 amount, either in money or in kind. What characterises this 
 contract is that a return is secured to the owner, and the 
 tenant takes on himself the fortunate or unfortunate result of 
 the harvest. 
 
 As is evident, this contract presents two elements economically 
 appreciable. One of these is in favour of the owner, and it is the 
 certainty of a moderate return; the other is in favour of the 
 tenant, and it is the expectation of a more abundant income. 
 The certainty indemnifies the former for renouncing a larger 
 return, and the prospect of a plentiful crop seems to the latter 
 a good reason for running the risk of the event. 
 
 As in mezzadria, the tenant here promises himself a com¬ 
 pensation for his toil. This compensation is reckoned by the 
 remainder that is left or net produce, the rent being deducted. 
 But, as has been said, this remainder cannot be valued except as 
 an average on a number of years. Therefore, it may happen 
 that in some year, for many reasons, there is no remainder. Yet 
 the rent—by the nature of the contract—is equally to be paid. 
 The tenant should therefore be in a position to pay the rent and 
 to defray the expenses of life. 
 
 Here you see the reason why rent, differing from metayage, 
 is more suited for those places in which country people enjoy a 
 certain economic power. It is a system that presents some 
 special advantages. The tenant, acquiring a certain autonomy, 
 
 L 
 
162 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 feels that he is not a slave. He works the ground with greater 
 alacrity, and looking forward to the produce, which will be all 
 his own, employs every art to make it abundant. Often this 
 diligence results in domestic fortunes, which contribute so much 
 to the prosperous stability of families. 
 
 It is necessary, however, that special conditions should accom- 
 pan 3 ^ the contract, so that it may not become ruinous for the 
 tenant. Above all, the amount of rent should be moderate. 
 To fix it, it must be remembered that the tenant has to live by the 
 fruits of his labour; that the quantity of produce for him is un¬ 
 certain, while his wants are certain; that he should have the 
 fruits of his material and intellectual labour, and also' of the 
 capital that almost every day he must expend in order to have 
 profitable cultivation. 
 
 A considerable time should be allowed for the payment of rent. 
 The land is like a machine that does not give all its produce 
 in a single year. It is providentially economic. Being well 
 nourished, it serves for several crops. Now, the tenant, who 
 wishes to derive profit from his rented farm, should give it good 
 nourishment. He should lay out on it a capital that is his own. 
 Even labour is a capital. It is that of the workingman, and 
 it enters in a manner into the ground ; nor is it wholly exhausted 
 by one harvest. To evict the tenant from the farm after a short 
 time is to prevent him from reaping the fruits of capital that belong 
 to him alone. 
 
 That clause is also to be condemned which gives the owner 
 the right of evicting the tenant for any failure in the terms agreed 
 to. At least, let it not be so general. The failure may be a 
 thing of little or no consequence, and it may not depend on the 
 will of the tenant. To deprive a man of his only means of 
 existence is neither justice nor charity. 
 
 On the other hand, the landowner should, by appropriate 
 conditions in the contract, safeguard his own position. Let him 
 not be content with a rent too low. The tenant might then 
 find himself rather much in danger of neglecting cultivation, 
 of yielding to sloth, and thus the land would not bear fruit— 
 which would be an evil for all parties. Let the owner often visit 
 his fields and take note of their improvement. Let him weigh 
 well the material and moral power of his tenants in regard to 
 solvency, and let him look for reasonable security. Let him also 
 endeavour to place such conditions in the contract as will promote 
 religious and virtuous habits among his tenants. 
 
 As regards security, which, in the great disorders of our times, 
 may justly be required by the owner, and, on the other side, 
 cannot be given by many of the tenants, a proposal of collective 
 rent has been providentially made by Catholics. It works in this 
 way. An association of tenants is formed, which charges itself 
 with the rent of an extent of land proportioned to the amount 
 of capital and labour that it feels itself able to employ. The 
 
PERPETUAL RENT 
 
 163 
 
 cultivation can then be made, either by assigning to each family 
 of the tenants a portion of the ground with all its relative re¬ 
 sponsibilities, or by entering on a common cultivation under the 
 guidance of a technical director chosen by the cultivators. 
 
 Section IV. —Perpetual Rent. 
 
 The idea of uniting a landowner and a tenant for ever would 
 appear a mere poetic fancy. I say -poetic fancy, because the 
 miseries with which humanity is afflicted are too well known. 
 Yet this idea, so eminently Christian, was for many centuries a 
 fact. Even in our own times it still exists to some extent by 
 means of the contract that bears the name of emphyteusis. 
 
 This is a contract by which the owner of an immovable property 
 grants for a long time or for ever the use dominion* of it at an 
 annual fixed rent. The characteristic of this contract is that it 
 separates the direct dominion, which remains with the owner, 
 from the use dominion, which passes to the tenant or emphyteuta. 
 
 He who reflects ever so little will at once see the economical 
 and social advantages of this contract. The emphyteuta applies 
 himself with great courage to the improvement of his farm. His 
 ideal is always to increase the difference between the net produce 
 that it gives him and the lease rent that he has to pay, certain, 
 as he is, that he and his children will enjoy the fruits of their 
 labour. By emphyteusis the social function of land property, 
 that of providing for the establishment and permanence of families 
 in a particular locality, is doubly fulfilled, the emphyteutic 
 farm recognising two masters. 
 
 The economical and social benefits of emphyteusis were ex¬ 
 perienced above all in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, 
 when it seemed the only contract offering a means of reducing 
 uncultivated estates to a remunerative condition. 
 
 Modern legislation has unnaturalised emphyteusis, so changing 
 its conditions as to make it a real sale, though with a long 
 indefinite period for full payment, compensated for by the pay¬ 
 ment of an annual rent. 
 
 Since the benefits of emphyteusis flow from it as emphyteusis, 
 as that emphyteusis which the Romans and the men of the Middle 
 Ages practised, it is only fair to conclude that the emphyteusis 
 of our days cannot bear the same beneficent fruits. How 
 necessary would it be in this case to return to antiquity ! 17 
 
 * An example may help to make this point still more clear. The dominion 
 of use, including usufruct, entitles a tenant to cultivate a farm, and to enjoy 
 all its fruits; but the dominion of ownership of the farm belongs to the 
 landlord. The aforesaid dominion of use, when hereditary, is called 
 emphyteusis. This last word is derived from the Greek emphuteuo, ** I 
 plant or improve land.”— Trans. 
 
164 
 
 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Section V.—Rural Wages. 
 
 The system of wages is very general in agriculture. The land- 
 owner, taking on himself all the risk and responsibility of his 
 venture, looks forward to a plentiful gain, and from day to day 
 secures for the labourers a produce that supplies their wants. 
 This contract is realised in several ways. Sometimes the owner 
 hires the labourer for a whole year, and pays him in a certain 
 quantity of food, firewood, &c., leaving the rest of the family 
 to think of completing by their labour the earnings of their head. 
 Sometimes the whole family are engaged by the owner : he 
 makes a certain allowance for each person, and he has a right 
 that all their work shall be for his benefit. 
 
 This kind of contract, if ruled by justice, offers the advantage 
 of securing food for the labourer, and also of enabling him to 
 balance his domestic accounts, and to lay by some savings for 
 future needs. It establishes relations of domesticity and 
 Paternity between the owner and the labourer, when both enter 
 into it with the honesty of a Christian conscience. The owner 
 does not then require an excessive amount of work, or work on 
 festive days; on the contrary, he allows the labourer to feel 
 at ease as a Christian man and a member of a family. Let the 
 owner bear in mind that if the labourer has promised labour, 
 yet labour is not an article of merchandise, nor has the labourer 
 bartered his soul, his dignity, his family. In so far he has 
 promised labour as it is for the good of himself, his soul, his 
 family, and according to the will of God. 
 
 More frequently it happens that employment is uncertain. 
 The labourers are not sure of work, either on land or in any other 
 way. At every turn of the seasons, they must look out for new 
 work and new masters. They may have to change their work 
 and their masters every week, perhaps every day. Towards 
 these poor men the master risks no obligation, not even that of 
 giving them work; so that there is no resource left for them but 
 to stand in the market-place. This is the place where labour is 
 regarded as a real article of merchandise. In large towns, at an 
 early hour in the morning, the labourers may be seen drawn up 
 in lines like soldiers, with their iron tools on their shoulders— 
 offering their services, and wrangling as if everyone strove to 
 see who could lower the wages most. The amount of wages 
 is thus tossed about on the waves of demand and supply, and 
 there it rests where the strongest wave leaves it. If labour is. 
 urgent, and many men are needed, the amount rises and the 
 labourers are hired. If labour is not urgent and many men are 
 not needed, the amount falls, and a good many are left idle in the 
 market-place. 
 
 It is easily understood that matters cannot prosper in this way. 
 The labour market is a social disgrace. Labour, if it is to be 
 
TRANSPOET OF GOODS 
 
 165 
 
 ■viewed as a merchandise, is yet a merchandise so peculiar and 
 precious that it essentially differs from all other merchandise. 
 To fix its price then by the sole criterion of demand and supply, 
 and to call that just, is to forget altogether the purpose for which 
 God intended labour, and to abandon every idea of justice. 
 
 Accordingly, let us conclude :— 
 
 1. Rural wages are certainly not of themselves to be con¬ 
 demned. On the contrary, they are an advantage to those 
 labourers who cannot enter into the contract either of mezzadria 
 or rent. 
 
 2. It is desirable that fixed permanent wages should be sub¬ 
 stituted for small daily payments. 
 
 3. The Christian patronage that a master should practise in 
 regard to his dependants requires that he should have a special 
 consideration for their wants and fatigues. Let him be eager 
 to give them employment, and indulgent in rewarding them, 
 so that they who, in the hour of their master’s need, are all heart 
 and hand for him, may feel, in the hour of their own need, that 
 he has a heart for them. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRY. 
 
 Section I.—Transport of Goods. 
 
 Life has a chequered course. The face of the earth is immense, 
 and its productions are wonderfully various. Climates are 
 different, vegetables are different, minerals are different. It 
 does not follow that the man who lives in one place, and wishes 
 to avail himself of the productions of another, must go thither. 
 The shoulders of men, the backs of animals, the waves of the sea, 
 are admirable means of transport. This is commerce. 
 
 A question may be asked : is commerce productive ? Some 
 say no ; because it does not impart any new utility to the thing 
 that it transports. A little observation, however, will decide 
 for the affirmative. 
 
 It is true that change of place does not introduce into an article 
 transported any new element that substantially increases, lessens, 
 or modifies it. Let us, however, remember that the value does 
 not lie in the article, but in its relation with our mind, which 
 regards it as needful or useful. This being granted, everyone 
 understands that an article may have no utility whatever in one 
 place, and, therefore, be of no value (because there is a super¬ 
 abundance of it or no one cares about it), and in another place 
 it may have great value. The art by which it passes from the 
 former to the latter place is that which puts it into the condition 
 of having value. This art is, therefore, a productive industry. 
 
166 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 “ Judging superficially, it may appear that the gain of the 
 merchant is not justifiable. But we must consider (i.) that some 
 producers have often need to sell in large quantities, while pur¬ 
 chasers have the convenience of being able to buy in small 
 quantities; (ii.) that the times seldom correspond when the 
 former are ready to sell and the latter to buy ; and (iii.) that 
 producers and consumers, being seldom much acquainted, do not 
 know how to come into contact for the transaction of business. 
 Commerce, which removes these difficulties, is, therefore, a useful 
 intermediary. In point of fact, wherever industries of all kinds 
 are most advanced, there are large commercial houses, in which 
 different products are collected, and from which they are after¬ 
 wards distributed/' (Agnelli.) 
 
 Section II.— Exchange ; Value ; Money ; Price. 
 
 If every man were provided with all that might be useful to 
 him, the notion of value in exchange would have no existence. 
 It would never be necessary that a man should deprive himself 
 of one thing in order to procure another. But such are the 
 conditions in which man lives that he desires many things besides 
 what he requires. Hence the origin of exchange or barter, by 
 which a man gives of his superabundance that he may obtain 
 what he wants. 
 
 The reason for barter is the utility of things. But not all things 
 that are useful are bartered : only those which have value. 
 Barter, therefore, is an exchange of values. The values that are 
 exchanged ought to be equal; otherwise, there would be in the 
 hands of one of the parties a portion of value without title. 
 
 Where shall we find the measure of value ? The measure 
 of a quantity ought to be a unit of the same species, constant, 
 pot subject to easy or notable variations. But value is essentially 
 variable, as its constituents are variable, and the conditions that 
 create it are variable. To think, therefore, of a precise absolute 
 measure of value is a mistaken idea. 
 
 It is necessary to be content with an approximate relative 
 measure, taking as the unit of comparison that value which 
 is least subject to change. Such is the value of the precious 
 metals, from which money is coined. 
 
 It is proper, however, to observe that the introduction of money 
 into exchange was anterior to the monetary use of those metals. 
 Before thinking of the value of money, a sign was thought of. 
 The barter of merchandise in kind presented, from the earliest 
 days of social life, many difficulties in execution, and a useless 
 expenditure of force. The idea then sprang up of a merchandise 
 that, by common consent, would represent all sorts of merchan¬ 
 dise, and that would, so to say, bring all sorts of merchandise 
 close to hand. Such was the origin of money, which, as a 
 
EXCHANGE; VALUE; MONEY; PRICE 
 
 167 
 
 simple representative sign, may well be formed from a thing of 
 little or no value.* Very soon, however, it was understood 
 how money could be more useful, if, besides having a nominal 
 value, it had also a real value. Thus the introduction of metals 
 into monetary affairs is most ancient. 
 
 For simple barter, the contract of buying and selling was 
 substituted, at least in common practice. It denotes the exchange 
 of a certain quantity of merchandise for a certain quantity of 
 money. Sale, if well considered, has not a confined scope, but 
 is directed to other sales, until an exchange is effected. Hence 
 Say observes that sale is a half exchange, and Brants calls it a 
 fraction of exchange. 
 
 The portion of money that is given in purchase takes the 
 name of price. It is substituted for the value, and is an expression 
 of the value. The price is normal or current, and under either 
 form is subject to the same laws as value : (i.) the current price 
 of merchandise is directly proportional to the demand and 
 inversely proportional to the supply ; (ii.) the normal or natural 
 price is regulated by the cost of production, which tends to an 
 equality. We may add another law : (iii.) the current price 
 fluctuates about the natural price, as its centre. 
 
 The condition of the market may raise the current price above 
 the natural, and thus favour the first producers; but the profit 
 that they make very soon attracts others to engage in the same 
 production. Thus the supply is increased, until the current 
 price is re-adjusted to the normal. 
 
 In like manner, if, by a particular event—for instance, the 
 offer of an equivalent commodity—the current price falls below 
 the normal, then the number of producers will be lessened, the 
 supply will be diminished, and the price will be recomposed. 
 
 Christian economists have another term for price. They call 
 it “ just ” when it corresponds with the estimation of the value 
 in which anything is generally held. The classical or liberal 
 school does not admit the possibility of an unjust price. Accord¬ 
 ing to it, all justice is in the hands of the contracting parties : 
 whatever price they agree to is just. 
 
 We admit not only the intervention of conscience in fixing a 
 just price, but also in certain cases the intervention of the State, 
 (i.) Let the State prohibit private monopolies; that is, of those who 
 gather into their possession a whole produce, so as to sell it at an 
 exorbitant price, (ii.) When producers, taking advantage of a 
 peculiar condition of the market, raise too much the price of goods 
 that are of the utmost necessity, the State can and should interfere 
 to fix the maximum price. No one has a right to promote his own 
 interests with injury to the poor and needy. 
 
 * Bank notes or postal orders, for example, are in themselves only paper.— 
 Trans. 
 
168 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Section III.— Value of Money. 
 
 By value we here mean the same thing as when speaking 
 of other merchandise. We showed that value is the capability 
 of one article in regard to exchange for another. The value of 
 money will be its power to purchase goods. This being granted, 
 it is easily understood that money has a two-fold value—namely, 
 the value of the material of which it is composed, or the real 
 value, and the value of an intermediary merchandise, which is 
 called the conventional value. 
 
 The former is not reckoned, except in some region where money 
 is considered for the material of wdiich it is composed. However, 
 it is the foundation of the latter, and it ought to be so. Money 
 that has not a real value is a cheat for him who does not know 
 what it is ; offered by way of convention, it is an illusion, to which 
 no people submit. If a man, after a series of bargains, finds 
 himself in possession of coin that has a real value, he has some¬ 
 thing ; if the coin has not a real value, he has nothing. To 
 say the least, it appears strange. Hence it is proper that the 
 nominal should coincide as much as possible with the real value. 
 
 The conventional value* is certainly what gives a formal 
 character to money, and makes it capable of being what it is— 
 a representative for all kinds of merchandise. And this value, 
 according to definition, serves only for one purpose—exchange. 
 With this service there is money ; without it, none. Hence it 
 comes that money, as such, has only one use—a use that consists 
 in its consumption, that is, in its employment. Money, therefore, 
 has only one scope—exchange. Exchanged, it is consumed ; 
 it no longer exists for him who had it, it exists for him who has it. 
 As then a thing is said to be productive when it is susceptible 
 of a value different from that which it has directly, money, which 
 has only one value, that of exchange, is essentially unproductive. 
 
 The value of anything being its power of acquisition, it follows 
 that the value of money, like that of all other commodities, is 
 variable. It does not avail to say that a piece of money has 
 always the same name—for instance, a shilling or a crown. Here 
 we do not treat of names, but of things. The value of money 
 is reckoned from the quantity of goods that can be acquired by 
 it. If yesterday I bought a kid for five shillings, and to-day it 
 is worth eight, this is because money has fallen in value. Some 
 one may say : No, it is because the kid has risen in value. The 
 expression is reversed, but it amounts to the same thing. The 
 
 * Although twenty shillings will buy as much as a sovereign, yet the 
 metal in twenty shillings is worth only about the third part of a sovereign. 
 A silver shilling is in substance worth about four pence. In like manner 
 the metal in 240 pence, instead of being worth a sovereign, is scarcely worth 
 the fourth part of a sovereign.— Trans. 
 
VALUE OF MONEY 
 
 169 
 
 idea of value is a relation—the relation of two interchangeable 
 things. In the act of changing, there is an equality. If the 
 conditions of the things change, this means that their value is 
 changed : that of one is increased, that of the other is diminished. 
 Suppose that yesterday I bought three loaves for sixpence, and 
 to-day I get only one for sixpence : this means that the money 
 which was yesterday worth three loaves is to-day worth only one. 
 
 Money," says Say, “ is worth what it buys, and is worth neither 
 more nor less." 
 
 Hence the law : The price of merchandise is inversely propor¬ 
 tional to the real value of money* This law is a consequence of 
 that of supply and demand. The value of money being increased, 
 there is a less supply of it, and a greater supply of the corresponding 
 merchandise. 
 
 Many Catholic economists admit, in our present economical 
 conditions, a third value of money—namely, a value virtually 
 productive. Money is virtually every kind of merchandise, 
 because every kind of merchandise can be procured with it. He 
 who has money can buy merchandise to be employed in production, 
 and the productive virtue of the merchandise is virtually contained 
 in the money. The consequence is that, when a man lends money 
 to serve as a capital for production, he has a right to require 
 interest. Let us hear Antoine :— 
 
 “ Money taken on loan can, in special economical circumstances 
 of the time, represent or not things whose use is not distinct 
 from their substance. At one period, most of those who take 
 it on loan do so in order to provide better for their domestic 
 wants or their pleasures ; at another, for the needs of industry 
 or commerce, that is, to exchange it for things whose use is distinct 
 from their dominion. Coin is nothing but a representative of 
 saleable things, and has no other utility for the borrower than that 
 of the things which it represents to him. 
 
 “ In the former case, money, because it represents things 
 whose use is not distinct from their substance, has not, at ieast 
 generally, any utility distinct from consumption. Hence every 
 agreement by which interest is required for the sum lent is unjust. 
 In the latter case, as it is not unjust to require, besides the capital, 
 a compensation for the service rendered, so it is not unjust, as 
 we have said, to claim, in addition to the restoration of the thing, 
 a payment that corresponds to rent. 
 
 “ For the rest, we shall not pause to demonstrate that, in the 
 present economic order, money is the equivalent of an endless 
 multitude of things productive of benefits. Once more, this 
 would be to question the reign of modern capitalism." 
 
 * Lest the meaning of this law should not be obvious to all, it may be well 
 to observe that the higher the price of anything, the lower is the value of 
 money, because a larger sum of money is required to buy it; and the lower 
 the price of anything, the higher is the value of money, because a smaller 
 sum of money suffices to buy it.— Trans. 
 
170 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 Section IV.— Merchants ; Profits ; Wholesale and Retail 
 
 Business. 
 
 Merchandise is produced by the hands of a man, and it is then 
 distributed into the hands of a hundred or a thousand men for 
 consumption. But this distribution is not immediate. The 
 merchandise, before reaching the hands of the consumer, passes 
 through the hands of one or more intermediaries, who are thus 
 carriers of it, and who are called merchants. 
 
 These are true producers. Although, as we have already said, 
 they carry the merchandise such as it leaves the hands of the 
 producer, yet they place it in a state to be useful, with advantage 
 both to the producer and the consumer. They have, therefore, 
 a right to a gain or profit. This gain ought to be realised on the 
 conditions that accompany contracts of buying and selling. 
 
 They ought to buy at one price and sell at a higher. Their 
 gain, therefore, ought to be made at the expense of the producer 
 and the consumer, for whose advantage they exist and work. 
 Thus commerce or traffic is found to be a field of honest and 
 lawful gain, on which many families prosper. 
 
 “ But if the service rendered by commerce is useful, yet it is 
 not gratuitous. Everyone can ascertain the difference of price 
 between that which is bought directly from the producer and that 
 which is bought from the vendor. The greater the number of 
 intermediaries the higher does this difference rise : it may arrive 
 at a very large percentage. Therefore the tendency to reduce 
 as much as possible the number of intermediaries is justified.” 
 (Agnelli, Nozicmi, &c., p. 39). 
 
 But even here it is necessary that the living breath of honesty, 
 the spirit of Christianity, should animate commerce, so that it 
 may not be injurious, but useful, to civil society. Contracts 
 ought to be made with sincerity, on the part of the seller and also 
 on that of the buyer. Blind speculation has unnaturalised 
 commerce, which, instead of being for the benefit of all, is so 
 managed as to make the opulence of a few. The art of devoting 
 oneself to commerce has become the art of turning oneself every 
 way. 
 
 The profit of the merchant is lawful indeed, if moderate, if 
 without fraud. The man who gives himself to commerce with 
 unbridled conscience thinks only of making a fortune for himself 
 as soon as possible. If he sees the chance of some extraordinary 
 profit, he does not hesitate. Rather he consoles himself, saying : 
 “ It is all business.” And this sort of business often means the 
 ruin of one or more families. The world is full of such examples. 
 
 Two classes of merchants present themselves in the market— 
 the wholesale and the retail. The former come more in contact 
 with producers, the latter with consumers. Both are useful; 
 but too great a number of them is injurious to all. This is only 
 
CO-OPEBATIVE SOCIETIES 
 
 171 
 
 too clear. When merchandise, going its rounds, gives some 
 profit to very many, it reaches the consumer at an exorbitant 
 price. This man will then buy in smaller quantity, and the injury 
 passes on to the producer, who will find less demand for his goods. 
 Still the consumer casts an eye on them, wishing to have them ; 
 but his means are exhausted. He is unable to procure them, 
 and this want is a loss to other industries. It is evident, there¬ 
 fore, that as a consequence of having a multitude of small 
 merchants or traders, the prices of goods will become high. 
 
 Section V.— Co-operative Societies. 
 
 The excessive number of small merchants who speculate on 
 the space that divides the consumer from the producer or from the 
 wholesale merchant has given rise to two great evils. 
 
 One is the adulteration of merchandise. Either the producer, 
 to save expense in cost, or the intermediary, to create a new 
 source of gain, can adulterate merchandise in a thousand ways. 
 They then require payment for what it ought to be, not for what 
 it is. Oftentimes the adulteration injures the consumer not only 
 in his purse, but also in his health, which is affected by unwhole¬ 
 some or poisonous ingredients. 
 
 The other evil, already pointed out, is that of charging too 
 much. 
 
 These two evils are felt chiefly by the poorer classes, who, 
 not having good means, give the preference to wares of a low 
 price. 
 
 With a view to protect such people from these two evils, Co¬ 
 operative Societies have been established. They have the effect 
 of lessening very much the number of intermediaries, and of 
 bringing the producer more into contact with the consumer. 
 If these Societies are guided and governed by honest, conscientious 
 men, they can be a source of notable gain for the members enrolled 
 in them. Catholics have established some of them here and there 
 amid the blessings of the poor. 
 
 Themes. —The value of wealth can be neatly defined by its power of 
 acquisition—It is not possible that the value of all wealth should rise or fall 
 at the same time ; while, on the other hand, it is possible that at the same 
 time there may be an increase or decrease of prices—Every variation in the 
 value of money carries with it an inversely proportional variation of price. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 Here we pause. Not at all imagining that we have finished 
 a complete treatise on the matter in hand; but because, having 
 regard to the object of our work, it seems to us that there is 
 
172 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 no other road that we need travel. We have laid down principles, 
 with arguments, from which anyone desirous of further knowledge 
 can proceed to extensive investigations. The first steps being 
 made from these pages, the road will at once open out to more 
 ample studies. 
 
 If others are pleased also to pause, we venture to hope that 
 such ideas as they have here met will help them to live without 
 being undone in society, which is troubled with so many contests. 
 Making themselves masters of these ideas, they will be able to 
 join in paving the way for the triumph of the Church of Christ, 
 in winch alone is to be found the welfare of individuals and of 
 nations. 
 
 ‘T 
 
NOTES TO THE SECOND PART. 
 
 Note 1, p. 103.—This mode of 
 considering economical laws comes in 
 a direct line from that humanism 
 which in the 18th century was 
 held as a dogma by philosophers of 
 the Rousseau stamp. For them 
 nature was everything : it had made 
 no mistake, and it could make none. 
 
 From like philosophy, Smith and 
 Benson went on to assert that men 
 are naturally bound by the law 
 of solidarity, and Bastiat derived 
 his Economical Harmonies —hideous 
 harmonies, which sound sorrowfully 
 in the ears of so many poor people ! 
 
 The 19th century gave birth to a 
 philosophy that has the same 
 consequences. Spencer and Darwin 
 declare a struggle for existence 
 natural in the world; in which 
 struggle it is too evident that 
 triumph goes with the strong and 
 defeat with the weak. If nature 
 wishes things so, let it alone, let 
 it pass. If it is so, says an 
 Englishman, if the laws of the 
 struggle for existence and the 
 survival of the strongest should be 
 applied as strictly to human society 
 as to plants and animals, then, let 
 us say it plainly, Christianity, which 
 comes to the aid of the poor and 
 weak, and which stretches out its 
 hand to sinners, is mere folly. 
 Jesus of Nazareth spoke in vain, or 
 rather He stood up against the un¬ 
 changeable laws of nature. (See 
 Gregoire, Le Pape, &c., p. 108.) 
 
 Note 2, p. 115.—Against the 
 theory just stated with regard to 
 ownership, there is an objection 
 made, which, in appearance, is 
 rather formidable. It runs thus :— 
 Is it or is it not true that God gave 
 the earth to the human race, in 
 order to make use of it ? To assert 
 that a man can become master even 
 of a hand’s-breadth of land, and i 
 
 can keep it from others, is to say 
 that God created that hand’s- 
 breadth for him alone. Can this be 
 maintained ? 
 
 The objection is propped up by 
 some arguments from the Bible, 
 and even by the text. The earth He 
 has given to the children of men 
 (Ps. cxiii. 16). Thus the difficulty 
 takes the force of that Babylonian 
 confusion of ideas on which it rests. 
 
 We answer. It is true that God 
 gave to all the human race every 
 hand’s-breadth of land, and that 
 He did not create even a thumb’s- 
 breadth for any one man alone ; 
 and that therefore the human race 
 has a right to every particle of the 
 soil. This universal right does not, 
 however, exclude a particular right. 
 The universal right can only be for 
 use, which certainly is not denied 
 to any one who observes the con¬ 
 ditions intended by the Creator for 
 this use. Rather, this universal 
 right confirms and demands a par¬ 
 ticular right of ownership. Because, 
 as has just been shown by us, there 
 could not be an abundance of pro¬ 
 duce for universal use without 
 private ownership. We may here 
 apply the old saying : “ The big 
 pot is the one that boils worst.” * 
 
 Weiss speaks well on this 
 subject:— 
 
 “ No individual has been imme¬ 
 diately invested by God, or as is 
 too commonly said, by nature, with 
 the ownership of this or that special 
 part of the goods of the earth. Only 
 humanity in general has been placed 
 in possession of a real right to the 
 whole. The individual may have 
 a personal right to a part of the 
 whole ; still it is a personal, not a 
 real, right. It is only when fie 
 succeeds, without injury to justice, 
 in turning possibility into reality, 
 claim into appropriation, that his 
 
 * The meaning of this Italian adage seems to be that, if different kinds 
 of meat and vegetables are put into one large pot, they will nob be so well 
 cooked as if they were put into several small pots. So land, when held by 
 many persons, will be better cared for than when held by only one.— Trans, 
 
174 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 right to anything becomes a right 
 in fact. But he does not thereby 
 deprive society of what previously 
 belonged to it as a whole. Nor does 
 he, because he makes something his 
 own, cease to be a member of 
 society; on the contrary, he is 
 bound to society by new chains. 
 
 . . . When a man has lawfully 
 
 and actually acquired the ownership 
 of certain goods, it is not at all 
 necessary that society should re¬ 
 nounce its own rights.” (P. 125.) 
 
 The encyclical also answers this 
 objection very clearly :— 
 
 “ That God has given the earth 
 for use and enjoyment to the whole 
 human race is not at all opposed to 
 the right of private ownership. 
 For God granted the earth to men 
 in general, not that He wished them 
 to have a promiscuous dominion of 
 it, but inasmuch as He assigned no 
 portion of it to any person in par¬ 
 ticular, leaving that to be fixed by 
 the industry of men and the laws of 
 different peoples. Moreover, the 
 earth, though divided among in¬ 
 dividuals, remains, nevertheless, for 
 the service and benefit of all, 
 because there is no one in the world 
 who is not fed by it. Those who 
 are without property, supply for it 
 by labour ; so that it may be truly 
 said that the universal means of 
 providing for the wants of life 
 consist in labour—either on one’s 
 own land, or at some industry, the 
 payment for which is derived from 
 the fruits of the earth, or from what 
 is exchanged for them.” (Rerum 
 novarum.) 
 
 Note 3, p. 122.—It is the thought 
 of early writers, such as Seneca, 
 Pliny, Ammianus Marcellinus, &c., 
 that the ruin of the Roman Empire 
 was to be attributed, among other 
 things, to the inhuman system of 
 large landed estates. Fancy—104 
 years before Christ, 2,000 masters 
 had the whole Roman territory in 
 their hands. (Cicero, De Officiis, 2, 
 25, 73.) Under Nero, as Pliny 
 relates, half the province of Africa 
 was the property of six men ! 
 
 Note 4, p. 124.—In August, 1893, 
 the Abbe Lemire presented himself 
 as a candidate for election with the 
 
 following programme :—“ I wish 
 that the house and garden, occupied 
 by every workman and his family, 
 and acquired by his labour, should 
 be protected from sequestration, 
 and should be free from imposts 
 and from the expenses of succes¬ 
 sion.” 
 
 Note 5, p. 124.—To know that in 
 Italy the holdings expropriated by 
 the revenue authorities from 1888 
 to 1893 (only five years) for non¬ 
 payment of taxes rose to 20,000 lire, 
 is a thing that shocks. How many 
 owners then became poor labourers ! 
 
 Note 6, p. 125.—Rural Unions are- 
 much the same as Trade Unions, to 
 which they stand in the relation of 
 species to genus. 
 
 In the great abandonment and 
 distress of the agricultural classes, 
 there ought to be solicitude for them. 
 It might appear that country people, 
 by their position, as mostly small 
 farmers, and especially as honest, 
 timid, far removed from the dis¬ 
 turbance of new ideas, would be 
 insensible to the evils of isolation 
 created by liberalism. But facts 
 prove that, if a little later, yet no 
 less bitterly, the waves of affliction 
 break over them, and the storm 
 rages in the midst of those fields 
 which were formerly so quiet and 
 so silent. 
 
 There are here immense multi¬ 
 tudes of poor people who, all their 
 life long, know that they belong to 
 *civil society only because the ex¬ 
 chequer is mindful of them ; because 
 the liberal or illiberal trader pre¬ 
 pares unpleasant surprises for them ; 
 because a new storm, which is called 
 a crisis, bursts on their little field 
 or vineyard; because a rumour is 
 come to their ears that prayers and 
 religious instruction have been pro¬ 
 hibited in the schools, and so on. 
 All this means, for the peasantry, 
 that everything most dear to them 
 must be sacrificed according to the 
 pleasure of those who command. 
 
 To bring these country people 
 into concrete form, to put them in 
 such a position that their influence 
 will tell on public life, is social 
 charity and justice. This is the 
 object of the Rural Unions. 
 
NOTES TO THE SECOND PART 
 
 175 
 
 A model draft of Statutes for 
 Rural Unions was approved of by 
 the Catholic Congress of Pavia. 
 
 Note 7, p. 127.—The theory of 
 labour as a merchandise is anything 
 but recent: it has a long beard. 
 Before the light of the Gospel shone 
 on the moral side of labour, it was 
 considered only as a necessary 
 phenomenon. Thus viewed, labour 
 is a disgrace, as the galley chains 
 are a disgrace. Labour was re¬ 
 garded as a chain by the pagans, 
 with whom labourers were slaves. 
 The horrible fact of slavery was a 
 consequence of pagan ideas on 
 labour. 
 
 The pagan theory of labour being 
 renewed by our Antichristians, the 
 same and even worse consequences 
 follow. Labour as a merchandise 
 has given birth to competition, to 
 the bourse, to the market-place; it 
 has confounded contract with 
 justice; it has put the condition 
 of labourers below that of slaves. 
 The ancients bought the labourer 
 and his labour ; they took charge of 
 both. Our moderns buy only the 
 labour. They separate it from the 
 workman, who alone must think of 
 himself, his misery, his present, 
 and his future. 
 
 Note 8, p. 133.—There is an 
 objection made against machinery, 
 tending to show that it is socially 
 injurious. It is said that it takes 
 the work from workmen, and is the 
 mother of idlers. 
 
 We admit that the introduction 
 of new machinery may cause a 
 special inconvenience to some per¬ 
 sons who have therefore need of 
 special help. But that the incon¬ 
 venience will have vast proportions 
 or last a long time—no ! Machinery 
 creates new occupations, either for 
 making or for managing itself, or 
 because, by giving its products at 
 a lower price, it puts consumers 
 into a better economical position. 
 This enables them to satisfy new 
 wants, and to originate new manu¬ 
 factures, requiring the employment 
 of workers. 
 
 Withal we do not venture to say 
 that the objection thus loses all its 
 force. We rather say that there is 
 need of special vigilance on the part 
 
 of the Government, and of various 
 institutions, that work-people will 
 be protected, so that machinery may 
 be not only economically but 
 socially useful. 
 
 Note, 9, p. 139.—Those towns 
 which have endeavoured, by the 
 establishment of a Labour Office, 
 to supply for the deficiencies of the 
 law, are worthy of all praise. 
 
 Note 10, p. 140.—On the very 
 important case of accidents in 
 labour, Italy has nothing but the 
 poor little law of 1898, which 
 imposes an obligation on employers 
 to insure their labourers with the 
 “ National Chest,” or with other 
 institutions, or by means of 
 associations among industrialists 
 themselves. 
 
 Note 11, p. 140.—The idea of the 
 need of legislation on labour 
 having entered the modern con¬ 
 science, various projects have 
 appeared. We do not consider it 
 our duty to make an exposition of 
 all. We shall merely give the chief 
 points that are proposed by Catholic 
 Sociology:—(i.)The maximum day’s 
 work, ten hours for trades and the 
 like, nine hours in mines ; (ii.) festal 
 rest; (iii.) absolute prohibition of 
 night work to women and children, 
 and limitation of it to men ; (iv.) pro¬ 
 hibition of work to children under 
 fourteen years; (v.) absolute pro¬ 
 hibition of unhealthy or dangerous 
 work to women ; (vi.) prohibition of 
 work to women on Saturday after¬ 
 noon : and this that they may find on 
 Sunday a true rest, a peaceful quiet, 
 which alone is capable of restoring 
 their strength ; (vii.) prohibition of 
 work to women for at least six weeks 
 before they become mothers and 
 for four weeks after; (viii.) insurance 
 arrangements for workmen and 
 their families, but practical and safe 
 arrangements, not easily to be 
 violated by interested persons; 
 (ix.) the appointment of a Minister 
 of Labour, and of some minor 
 bodies, who will facilitate for him 
 the accomplishment of his duties 
 in favour of the working classes. 
 
 Note 12, p. 141.—Among the 
 ancient pagans there could not 
 
176 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 exist any protection for labour 
 except that which was dictated 
 by individual or social convenience. 
 Labour was secured by means of 
 slavery; labour was secured, but 
 not the labourer. He was fettered. 
 
 Christianity came, and kindled 
 on earth the fire of charity and 
 justice. Christianity, a religion pre¬ 
 eminently social, had no need of 
 means to guard labour ; itself alone 
 was the strongest guardian. It 
 threw the light of true ideas on 
 labour. For human toil in this 
 life, it announced a reward in the 
 future life. It said that masters and 
 labourers are equal before God; 
 and on behalf of the poor working 
 classes it raised loud the voice of 
 justice and charity. 
 
 If these instructions and precepts 
 were reduced to practice, who does 
 not see that labour would be pro¬ 
 tected, as property is protected ? 
 The rights of all would be protected. 
 But alas ! by reason of human 
 malice and frailty, the spirit of the 
 Gospel does not circulate through 
 all the windings of the social body, 
 so as to produce its effects. And 
 how did the Church endeavour to 
 apply a remedy to these evils ? In 
 the Middle Ages, it instituted 
 corporations or guilds for the 
 different arts and trades. A long 
 paean might be sung in praise of 
 the social benefits of these corpora¬ 
 tions which the Church, in her 
 maternal solicitude, established for 
 the welfare of poor people. 
 
 What were they ? The very name 
 “ corporation ” tells that they were 
 associations. They were associa¬ 
 tions of all the workers engaged in 
 the same trade or art. And, you 
 may be assured, they were not sham 
 associations. The workman depen¬ 
 ded for everything on his guild. 
 From it he received occupation, by 
 it his wages were fixed, in it he was 
 helped, and to it he had recourse for 
 the defence of his rights. It was 
 enough to inform the guild of an 
 injury done him, that it should 
 assume his defence as its own. And 
 religion, the sure guarantee for 
 honesty and justice, animated these 
 guilds. Public law made account of 
 them, and respected their decisions. 
 
 Delabonna says :—These associa¬ 
 tions formed so many families. 
 
 societies, fraternities, distinguished 
 by their banners and by their half- 
 ecclesiastical, half-secular dress, with 
 particular rules, their own tribunals, 
 paid lawyers, syndics, agents, 
 keepers, sweepers, porters, &c. 
 Thus were distinguished at Florence, 
 says Varchi, the societies of judges, 
 notaries, physicians, merchants, &c. 
 Every association or confraternity 
 had its own head, who at Venice 
 was called “ Gastaldo,” at Milan 
 “ Abbot,” and at Florence “ Prior,” 
 and each one of them had its 
 own holy Patron painted on its 
 banner. 
 
 It was these associations that 
 made Florence for two centuries the 
 ideal of a democratic people, who 
 are regarded even at the present 
 day with envious admiration. 
 
 And how does the Church now 
 provide for the guardianship of 
 labour ? By endeavouring to re¬ 
 establish those old guilds, which the 
 revolutionary storm of the last 
 century broke up and scattered over 
 the world. The injunctions of 
 Leo XIII. are so well known that 
 to record them here would be a 
 waste of time. The anxious cares 
 and noble efforts of many excellent 
 Catholics, who have founded such 
 guilds or business unions, are known, 
 as are also known the deplorable 
 indolence and indifference of some 
 short-sighted ones. 
 
 Note 13, p. 144.—But capital, a 
 strong force in the hands of man, 
 easily offers occasion for great 
 abuses, which fall under the name 
 of capitalism. 
 
 From the analysis made of capital 
 it follows that it ought to be an 
 instrument of production in the 
 service of labour, and therefore of 
 man, and of all human society. It 
 is by its nature a force, but a force 
 intended to serve. If he who owns 
 this force makes use of if to enslave 
 labour, to domineer over society, 
 to destroy everything according to 
 the rule of his own wishes, what is 
 such conduct but flagrant capitalism? 
 
 At the present day, capitalism 
 reigns supreme. Amid so many 
 venal souls, and in the weakness to 
 which labour is reduced by the 
 isolation of the working classes, it 
 is natural that capitalism should 
 
NOTES TO THE SECOND PART 
 
 177 
 
 have free play for every act of 
 deceit, of arbitrary and arrogant 
 dealing. It is a deity, ruling the 
 world, and calling that its right 
 which is only brute force. 
 
 The injury that capitalism does 
 to society is not so easily described. 
 It is like a huge monster, more 
 hungry after a meal than before. 
 By means of labour, it becomes the 
 scope of human life. To it all aspire, 
 as to a position that is the citadel 
 of happiness. Hence contention, 
 demoralisation, &c. 
 
 Note 14, p. 158.—Treating of 
 wages, an expression, “ natural 
 justice,” fell from our pen for the 
 first time in this work. It was 
 suggested to us by the Pontiff, who, 
 in Rerum novarum, where he speaks 
 of wages, says : “ Let it be granted 
 
 that a workman and an employer 
 make a bargain by mutual consent, 
 and especially with regard to the 
 amount of wages: there always 
 enters an element of natural 
 justice.” What the Pontiff means 
 by natural justice is explained in the 
 words following, which tell us that 
 natural justice is “ anterior and 
 superior to the will of the contracting 
 parties, and it is that the remunera¬ 
 tion should not be less than is 
 required for the support of the 
 workman in frugal and decent com¬ 
 fort. If through necessity, or 
 through fear of a worse evil, the 
 workman agrees to harder con¬ 
 ditions, which, being imposed by 
 the employer or contractor, must 
 willingly or unwillingly be accepted, 
 this is to suffer violence, against 
 which justice protests.” It is very 
 evident that by natural the Pope 
 means commutative justice. (See 
 Bucceroni, Cas. Consc., p. 245.) 
 
 For the rest, there is no want of 
 reasons to show how properly 
 commutative justice, which regu¬ 
 lates the relations between master 
 and workman in regard to wages, 
 may be called natural. It is natural 
 justice because it is not the law or 
 the will of man, but nature itself, 
 anterior and superior to every human 
 contract, that binds to a minimum. 
 
 The abandonment in which laws 
 and social conditions have left work¬ 
 people at the present day, has 
 exasperated their minds. The priva¬ 
 
 tions to which they are subject, the 
 want of those very goods which are 
 in great part the result of their 
 labour, have raised within them a 
 feeling that they have a right to 
 reaction. The social atmosphere is, 
 in the natural course of things, so 
 formed that this plant of right grows 
 marvellously big, often luxuriating 
 at the cost of duty. And the work¬ 
 people think of throwing on the 
 capitalist the needs with which they 
 find themselves oppressed. They 
 say to him :—“ Either give us what 
 we demand, or not one of us will 
 work any more. Your manufactory 
 will remain empty, and your capital, 
 both fixed and circulating, will bear 
 no fruit.” 
 
 Behold the strike, which, as it is 
 defended by the lips of liberalists or 
 socialists, has such an absolute 
 character of quarrel that it is 
 altogether unworthy of men ! The 
 capitalist and the workman appear 
 like two giants, each armed to the 
 teeth, and thirsting to destroy his 
 adversary. 
 
 Is the strike therefore to be 
 absolutely condemned ? Before all 
 things it must be remembered that 
 the strike is accompanied with great 
 inconveniences. It is easy to under¬ 
 stand how the strike is a loss to the 
 employer, who sees his capital use¬ 
 less, and cannot meet his engage¬ 
 ments ; to the workman, who spends 
 his days in idleness ; and to society 
 at large, which finds the sources of 
 its wellbeing dried up. These are 
 direct losses ; and they are accom¬ 
 panied with so many other evils 
 that it would not be easy to count 
 them. 
 
 Even this point did not escape 
 the attention of the Pope, who 
 says :—“ When workmen have re¬ 
 course to a strike, it is often because 
 the work is too long or too heavy, 
 or because they consider the wages 
 too low. . . . Such strikes are 
 
 injurious not only to the employers 
 and to the workmen themselves, but 
 to trade and to the general interests 
 of all; and, by the violence and 
 excitement to which they give rise, 
 often endanger the public peace.” 
 Hence Leo XIII. shows that it is 
 a duty of the State to keep an eye 
 on these matters, which are serious, 
 and to prevent them. To prevent 
 
 M 
 
178 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 them, however, not absolutely, or 
 as if they were absolutely unjust in 
 themselves, but by rendering re¬ 
 course to them unnecessary. The 
 most efficacious and salutary remedy 
 is to be beforehand with the 
 authority of the laws and to 
 prevent the strike, removing in 
 good time the causes from which 
 it is foreseen that a conflict 
 may arise between employers and 
 workpeople.” (Rerum novarum.) 
 
 Is a strike just ? Who can deny 
 it ? The very theory of economic 
 liberty has no right to proclaim it 
 unjust. In competition everyone 
 thinks of putting himself in a 
 
 E osition to make his demands felt. 
 
 iet us, however, say: We would 
 wish society to be so constituted 
 that a strike would be illegal, and 
 therefore unjust; but under the 
 regime of economic liberty this is 
 an extreme measure, which should 
 be tried only after other means have 
 been exhausted. The remarks of 
 Cardinal Manning are well known. 
 He tells us that a strike is a kind of 
 war; if it takes place for a just 
 cause, it is a right, and it is inevit¬ 
 able ; it is the only means of defence 
 in the hands of the workingman. 
 
 Note 15, p. 159.—We believe that 
 landowners as well as peasants have 
 a special importance in social life, 
 and we would wish account to be 
 made of them, so that laws and 
 private institutions may have regard 
 for them, and endeavour to improve 
 their condition. 
 
 Property in land has some 
 characteristics that evidently dis¬ 
 tinguish it from all other kinds of 
 property. It is a true property, 
 which makes a real cordial nearness 
 between the owner and the thing 
 owned. The members of a family 
 that own a vineyard, a farm, and a 
 country house, feel their hearts 
 filled with a warm affection for then- 
 property, which they regard as the 
 basis of their life. This contributes 
 to their stability. It helps to make 
 them love the country in which 
 they were born and bred—that 
 country which is like a tender 
 mother to them. The owner of a 
 piece of land lets his sweat fall more 
 abundantly on it, and more willingly 
 sinks his capital in it, because he 
 
 is not disturbed by any fear that 
 another will right or wrong enjoy 
 its fruits. But who, except a man 
 perfectly secure about the future 
 possession of his farm, will give 
 himself to careful assiduous cultiva¬ 
 tion, which, if it is largely remunera¬ 
 tive, is also expensive ? 
 
 Now this certainly concerns not 
 only those engaged in rural labour, 
 but society in general, which from 
 no other source than from the pro¬ 
 duce of the earth can derive the first 
 elements of subsistence. But land 
 cannot give these excellent advan¬ 
 tages if it is not sufficiently and 
 properly tilled. It is like a machine, 
 near which nature has placed the 
 machinist—that is, the countryman. 
 The countryman has indeed often 
 to undergo great fatigue ; but nature 
 has made him compensation with 
 special advantages, which he alone 
 enjoys who works on the mountain 
 side, in the vineyard, on the farm, 
 in the pure fresh air, under the azure 
 dome of heaven. 
 
 Nor is it only the life of the body 
 that is benefited, but also that of 
 the soul. The lofty and spacious 
 sky, the gilt and tinted clouds, the 
 boundless horizon, the green fields, 
 help wonderfully to shake off all 
 moral torpor, to detach the heart 
 from earthly things, and to wrap 
 it up in a little ecstasy of spirituality. 
 Out there in the open country the 
 voice of God is heard, as it was 
 heard in Eden. 
 
 Hence, in the country the people 
 are more healthy, more robust, more 
 moral, more religious. This is a 
 fact, and you have seen the reasons 
 for it. It follows:—(i.) That it is 
 well for a nation that there should 
 be many toilers on the land. There 
 will then be a greater produce of 
 what is indispensable for the life 
 of all. The country families will 
 be so many nurseries of strong, 
 vigorous lives. There will be blood 
 to circulate by matrimonial alliances 
 through cities and towns; it will 
 keep good, and it will renew the life 
 of the whole nation, (ii.) That the 
 decrease in the number of hands 
 given to agriculture, as shown by 
 late statistics and confirmed by 
 daily experience, is a real public 
 misfortune. 
 
 The regime of free competition 
 
NOTES TO THE SECOND PART 
 
 179 
 
 has therefore brought many evils 
 on owners and labourers. As for the 
 former, it is enough to consider the 
 condition in which they find them¬ 
 selves when they have to sell their 
 produce. Every other seller puts 
 a price upon his wares, and regulates 
 it according to the cost of produc¬ 
 tion, the expenses of storage, and 
 his individual or domestic wants. 
 Not so with the cultivator of land. 
 He must expect that the market 
 will fix the price. He cannot say : 
 “ These grapes cost me twelve 
 shillings a quintal; I ought to gain 
 more than five shillings a quintal on 
 them, that I may be able to live.” 
 No, if the market so chooses, it will 
 give him only eight or ten shillings 
 a quintal. 
 
 Not enough yet. The producer 
 produces for one who, not having 
 produce of the same kind, can give 
 him other merchandise in exchange. 
 This means an approaching of the 
 producer to the consumer, which is 
 attended with mutual advantage. 
 Free competition has placed between 
 these two a middleman, who 
 speculates on the contract of barter. 
 These middlemen are intermediate 
 merchants, who find easy admission 
 for their promises to spare producers 
 the trouble of seeking buyers, and 
 consumers that of seeking sellers. 
 In fact they put a tax on both. 
 They tax the former by lowering the 
 price at which they buy in a par¬ 
 ticular region ; they tax the latter 
 by raising the price, so as to make 
 them pay dearly for the service 
 rendered by bringing the desired 
 merchandise within their reach. 
 This intermediate commerce, which, 
 without due restraint under the 
 regime of liberty, makes new re¬ 
 cruits every day, is one of the 
 causes that have very much injured 
 modern agriculture. 
 
 It is easy to understand how this 
 state of affairs leads to a two-fold 
 prostration, that of the farmer and 
 that of the labourer. The farmer, 
 his means exhausted, has not where¬ 
 with to incur the expenses of a wise 
 improved cultivation. Laden with 
 debts, he drags out a miserable life, 
 and makes the poor labourer drag 
 out a still more miserable one, on 
 whose shoulders alone he can lay 
 a portion of his distress. 
 
 Thus tillage declines, and the 
 source of national wealth is dried 
 up. The farmer who finds himself 
 thus straitened, endeavours to free 
 himself from his difficulties, and 
 throws, as much as he can, those 
 evils on the labourer. Hence the 
 sad state of many country people 
 at the present day. 
 
 To come to the aid of the farmer 
 and the labourer is therefore an 
 urgent necessity, and it is at 
 the same time social justice and 
 charity. The ordering of agricul¬ 
 tural industry will be just and 
 profitable when this noble object is 
 kept in view. 
 
 Note 16, page 161.—Professor 
 Toniolo, in an eloquent speech at 
 the Congress of Padua, referred to 
 these matters thus :—“ Mezzadria, 
 in order to bestow its benefits, 
 knows how to conform to social 
 conditions, and even to agricultural 
 science, things of themselves vari¬ 
 able, and in this way it corresponds 
 better to the idea of justice. If, for 
 example, in some regions of Venetia, 
 where the land is barren or im¬ 
 poverished, a division of the crop 
 in kind were made by halves, the 
 peasant would not have so much as 
 the necessaries of life. And else¬ 
 where, according to the prevailing 
 mode of culture, in which sometimes 
 capital, sometimes labour, has a 
 greater importance, it is natural 
 that a larger share of the crop 
 should fall to one party rather than 
 the other; so that our approval, 
 favourable to this practice, goes 
 directly to unequal partnership in 
 general rather than exclusively to 
 mezzadria. But in such cases the 
 flexibility of the mode of contract 
 is commendable simply because it 
 accommodates itself to equity. 
 
 “ At the same time there are in 
 this flexibility of the system some 
 essential conditions that cannot be 
 renounced without unnaturalising 
 mezzadria itself. Among these, for 
 example, is the condition that makes 
 mezzadria a company or society, by 
 which both the partners share in 
 the care of the agricultural business 
 and both divide the risks of a return. 
 When instead the owner of the land, 
 who ought to be an enlightened 
 director of the work, neglects it 
 
180 THE ELEMENTS OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 
 
 altogether, leaving its cultivation 
 to the experiments of a peasant as 
 in Venetia, or when between himself 
 and the peasant, who, being part¬ 
 ners, ought to be united by the 
 bonds of mutual confidence, a 
 speculator steps in, such as the 
 duty-collector of Sicily, who on the 
 one hand legalises the absence and 
 indifference of the master and on 
 the other cheats and afflicts the 
 workman, there is no longer question 
 of accessory methods or reasonable 
 flexibility, but of violation of the 
 substantial justice to be expected 
 from the contract. Thus there may 
 be a mezzadria merely in name, but 
 in reality a flagrant perversion of it. 
 
 “ As much may be said with 
 regard to the contributing of capital. 
 The essence of partnership cultiva¬ 
 tion implies that not only the 
 returns should be shared, but also 
 the sacrifices necessary for the agri¬ 
 cultural work. And therefore if 
 one party furnishes labour and 
 personal care in cultivation, and 
 the other, the owner, furnishes land, 
 all the expenses for the preparation 
 of the ground, or for the permanent 
 improvement of it, ought, by the 
 nature of this contract, to be borne 
 by the owner." This fundamental 
 contract being secured, the supply¬ 
 ing of capital for use may vary in 
 proportion according to circum¬ 
 stances, through that elasticity 
 which we have said to be just and 
 beneficial. In which case, however, 
 it not unfrequently happens that 
 on lands whose crops (vines, olives, 
 &c.) give an absolute predominance 
 to a loving intelligent intensity of 
 labour over a small capital for use, 
 all this capital remains for the 
 benefit of the proprietor, without 
 his subtracting anything from the 
 half of the produce justly due to the 
 peasant. On this hypothesis, which 
 has been happily met in Tuscany, 
 as shown by Canon Moretti in his 
 admirable discourse, the sacrifice or 
 merit of the labourer equals that of 
 the owner or capitalist, without any 
 offence of justice. 
 
 “ But when, in other parts of 
 Italy, we see nominally and even 
 
 practically maintained the division 
 of the natural produce into half 
 and half, yet a claim made on the 
 peasant for the rent of a cottage 
 built on the farm, for payment in 
 money for the forage of his cattle 
 in the fields, for interest often 
 usurious in regard to the cattle, 
 which the peasant would have been 
 able to expend in cultivation and 
 which the proprietor anticipated, 
 and in fine a succession of presents 
 to the master—in these conditions 
 the mask of mezzadria conceals 
 little less than real slavery with 
 miserable wages. 
 
 “ It is for this degeneration of the 
 proper economical character of 
 mezzadria that we intend to provide, 
 recalling it to its Christian traditions. 
 Let it also be observed that customs, 
 such as that so happily existing in 
 Tuscany and referred to by Canon 
 Moretti, by which the produce in 
 kind is divided into two equal parts, 
 although the capital, whether exist¬ 
 ing in soil improvement or technical 
 skill, pertains to the proprietor 
 alone, reflect a traditional Christian 
 idea in its highest expression; and 
 it is that the merit and dignity of 
 the mezzadro labourer are so great 
 as to equal the contribution of the 
 proprietor, who gives both land and 
 capital. The history of economy 
 never showed a higher or more 
 practical esteem for labour.” 
 
 Note 17, p. 163.—The contract 
 of land return offers analogous 
 advantages. It consists in the loan 
 that a creditor makes of a farm, 
 binding himself never to claim it 
 back and reserving to himself an 
 annual pension from it. We say 
 loan to indicate that in such a con¬ 
 tract the tribute-payer acquires not 
 only a use dominion, but also a 
 direct dominion, over the farm, 
 which, for the rest, is saleable, the 
 annual pension being reserved. 
 Manzi remarks that the present 
 conditions of credit have reduced 
 land return to an historic value, and 
 nothing more. But even of it we 
 ought to say, Let the old customs be 
 revived ! 
 
 M. H. Gill & Son, Limited, Dublin and Waterford.