the other hand, he who uses his faculties to promote virtue and honour cannot fail to live a life of peace and pleasure, of peace that is steady and unvarying, of pleasure that is pure and holy. "Let your aim,”-I would say to him in conclusion, "be the interest and the good of those around you; let the means you employ be honour and sincerity, and then you will find that in seeking the happiness of your fellow-beings, you have taken the best and most effectual method to advance your own." See EDINBURGH REVIEW, vol. vii. pp. 296-315.; vol. xxviii. p. 60.; vol. xxxiii. pp. 240, 241.; vol. xxxv. pp. 171–173. HUME'S ESSAY ON ELOQUENCE. WHATELEY'S RHETORIC. BRANDE'S DICTIONARY OF SCIENCE, LITERATURE, AND ART. Art. "Eloquence," and the authorities there quoted. PART II. OUTLINES OF DEBATES. QUESTION: Which does the greater injury to Society-the Miser, or the Spendthrift? It may be contended that the Miser does more to injure Society than the Spendthrift: I. Because he withdraws capital from circulation, whilst the other causes its distribution. II. Because he leads people by the influence of example to devote themselves to Mammonworship, than which there is not a more wicked or more pernicious crime. III. Because his avarice tends to abridge the comforts of those around him,- to limit the education of his children in knowledge and virtue,—and to set an example of selfishness to the world. IV. Because the hoarding of money tends to the production of that worst state in which a nation can be placed - when a few are rich and the many poor. V. Because the love of money being the root of all evil, avarice tends to nourish and develope every sort of crime. On the other hand it may be argued that the Spendthrift is more injurious to society than the Miser: I. Inasmuch as, by distributing capital, he prevents those large accumulations which are the bases of all extensive enterprises in trade or commerce. II. Because he, in effect, discourages industry and frugality in the heads of families for what father would hoard for a spendthrift son? III. Because he brings to utter ruin those who are dependent upon him. IV. Because his miserable courses tend to give us a degraded and vile idea of our species, and so to check friendship and sympathy. V. Because he offers a bad example to the world. Upon the question generally, it may be said that the injury done to society by these two characters is nearly, if not entirely, equal. The Spendthrift is as far away from virtue on the one side, as the Miser is on the other: and the effects of prodigality are as bad as those of avarice. The characters are extremes; and are seemingly set up by nature to be mutually counteractive. Thus the world is generally secured from the effects of hoarding avarice, by the fact that miserly fathers usually leave their fortunes to spendthrift sons. The accumulated heaps of one generation are generally dispersed in the next: and in this manner the equilibrium of character is tolerably well-preserved. See M'CULLOCH'S POLITICAL ECONOMY, pp. 504509. ADAM SMITH'S WEALTH OF NATIONS. MAMMON. BY THE REV. J. HARRIS, D.D. 232 QUESTION: Is Universal Peace probable? THE supporters of the negative might say — I. That the present appearance of the world gives no promise that Universal Peace is at all to be expected. Ambition is opposed to ambition-interest to interest and many other sources exist from which quarrels may be anticipated. Disputed territories; mutual jealousies; irritated distrust; and many other causes of hostility, threaten war daily, even in Europe. II. That the principle of hatred and contention implanted in all our hearts cannot fail to produce and foment quarrels, which only appeals to arms can decide. III. That as a large class in every community finds pleasure and interest in war, it is scarcely possible that war can ever cease. IV. That whilst the human race exists, sources of contention cannot altogether cease: but social, domestic, political or foreign discontent will always need to be repressed by military strength. |