spirit and the precepts of Christianity-really, though not directly and explicitly. The rule to do unto others whatsoever we would that they should do unto us, as really forbids that involuntary servitude which exacts of a fellowbeing unrequited service, and robs him of all his dearest rights, as if the practice of such a wrong were mentioned by name, and specially prohibited. A reason doubtless existed for not thus designating it in so many words. It was a social evil, incorporated into the whole fabric of civil society and government. To have singled out the evil, and by direct precept to have prohibited it, would have. been, perhaps, neither the wisest nor the surest mode of redress. It would have been a direct interference of Christianity with civil government. In the language of Dr. Wayland: "If it had forbidden the evil, instead of subverting the principle,—if it had proclaimed the unlawfulness of slavery, and taught slaves to resist the oppression of their masters, — it would instantly have arrayed the two parties in deadly hostility, throughout the civilized world. Its announcement would have been the signal of servile war; and the very name of the Christian religion would have been forgotten amidst the agitations of universal bloodshed. The fact, under these circumstances, that the gospel does not forbid slavery, affords no reason to suppose that it does not mean to prohibit it; mach less does it afford ground for belief that Jesus Christ intended to authorize it."

The Mode of Redress. We have been occupied in the preceding pages with the discussion of the moral character of this institution of slavery. It is no part of the business of the moralist, strictly speaking, to point out the best methods of redressing the wrongs and evils of society. This it is for others to do. One thing, however, I may properly say in this connection. Whatever measures are

adopted, looking to this end, must necessarily be gradual in their operation, in order wisely and well to accomplish their purpose. The social fabric is not to be rudely shaken, nor its whole structure radically changed in a day. Time is requisite, and the slow growth of principle. Much is to be hoped from the progress of society, and the gradual prevalence of more enlightened views, and of a loftier and purer morality. In proportion as society advances, and Christianity obtains a firmer hold on the mind and heart of the race, this system, so utterly at variance with all just notions of right and duty, and so repugnant to the feelings of common humanity, must and will gradually disappear, as the shadows from the mountain side, and the mists from the bosom of the lake, when the sun mounts the heavens in his strength.

Progress of European Society. If we look at the social organization of the European nations, we find them, in the course of centuries, passing through a series of changes, from the state of absolute servitude of the laboring classes, to that of more or less perfect equality and freedom. For some two centuries or more after the Norman conquest, the greater portion of the cultivators of the soil in England were serfs, or villeins, as they were then termed, bound to the soil, and owing service to the proprietor thereof. The peasant belonged to the soil, and, with all his family and descendants, from generation to generation, was at the disposal of the lord of the manor. These unlimited labor-rents were gradually, during the succeeding centuries, commuted into more definite services, and the peasant acquired legal right, or copyhold, as it was termed, to the lands which he cultivated. It is only about two hundred years since the cultivator of the soil in England ceased to be held in personal thraldom.

In many parts of Germany, serfdom still exists; in others,

the peasant is no longer attached to the soil, but, instead of unlimited service, pays his landlord some definite amount of labor as land-rent; in other cases, this is commuted for rent in grain or money, and the servitude becomes almost nominal.

In Russia, the serf was little better than a slave, except that his service was limited. He was bound to work for the owner of the soil a certain number of days in the week, laboring for the rest of the time, for his own subsistence, on lands allotted for the purpose. Nor was it until the accession of the present government that this system was abolished.

Sentiment of Paley. — Soon after the close of the struggle by which the American Colonies became independent of England, Archdeacon Paley, referring to the system of slavery, and to the part which the English government had taken in upholding it, made use of the following language, in his work on Moral Philosophy: "The great revolution which has taken place in the Western world may probably conduce (and who knows but that it was designed) to accelerate the fall of this abominable tyranny; and now that this contest, and the passions which attended it, are no more, there may succeed perhaps a season for reflecting, whether a legislature which had so long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire the most extensive that ever obtained in any age or quarter of the world." Could this excellent moralist, after the lapse of three quarters of a century, be permitted to look upon this Western world as it now is, and behold the present greatness and prosperity of the country that was then just commencing its career, as he beheld with astonishment this dark blot still upon our escutcheon, would he not, and with justice, repeat, with reference to our own nation, the

question then so forcibly put, with reference to the British government, "whether a legislature that had so long lent its assistance to the support of an institution replete with human misery, was fit to be trusted with an empire" so extensive and powerful?

CHAPTER III.

DUTIES PERTAINING TO PROPERTY.

MAN has not only the right to life, and to liberty, but also to property, or the possession and enjoyment of whatever he may, by his own industry or good fortune, or the gift of others, have honestly acquired. Prominent among the duties, therefore, which we owe to our fellow-men, that is, to society, are the duties which have respect to property. The principal topics to be considered are the right of property, the uses of such an institution, the modes in which it may be acquired, the different kinds of property, crimes against property, and the various limitations of the right of property.

§ I. FOUNDATION OF THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY.

Labor and not Law. Whatever man produces as the result of his own skill and labor, is properly his, and no one else has the right to take it from him. It is his property by a natural right. There is need of no law, or social organization and compact, in order to this. His title to use, possess, and enjoy what he has himself produced, by

virtue of his own powers and his own industry, is just as good before as after, without as with, any such legislation or compact. Law and social organization, with its appliances, may confirm and protect him in his right, but do not create it.

Different Theories. - According to the view now taken, it is the labor expended in originally acquiring, or subsequently improving any object of possession, that constitutes the right of property in the same. In the case of land, the labor of cultivation renders it more valuable, and so confers the right of continued possession on him who has created that value. This is the view maintained by Locke, and many others.

Another view of the matter is, that, inasmuch as God, the Creator of all things, provided the gifts of nature for the use of all his creatures, therefore every one has a right originally to all he needs. In this manner, land, as well as other things, comes to be the property of the individual. This is a rule of somewhat indefinite application; and if carried out, would lead, perhaps, to the disorganization of society as at present constituted. As regards strictly the gifts of nature, it is doubtless true that they were intended for all. Light, air, rain, sunshine, and the like, are free to all, and in their nature cannot, under ordinary circumstances, be appropriated. But it is otherwise with that on which, by my toil or skill, I have conferred a value. Water is free to all; but not the water of the well that I have dug for my own convenience. Fire is a commodity which nature places within the reach of all; but not the fire which my labor has kindled for my own use. So land may originally have been free to the first comer; but when he has once taken possession, and expended labor and created value, it is not free to others, so long as he chooses to occupy it.