Chapter II: Part 2

Our notice of the American press would be incomplete without some account of that ample supply of religious literature which is furnished by thousands of weekly, monthly, and quarterly periodicals. The religious newspaper is almost peculiar to America, and is far superior to any similar publication in England. The English paper is more ecclesiastical and less religious; the American, while equally strenuous and careful in the advocacy of denominational claims, supplies much of what we usually obtain here from the _Sunday Magazine_ and the _Family Treasury_. The literary superiority of the religious press over the secular in America arises mainly from the fact that its conductors and contributors are mostly clergymen who have been graduates of colleges, and are possessed of a considerable amount of classical culture and training. Every denomination has a large number of weekly organs. The two leading newspapers of the class are the _New York Independent_ and the _New York Observer_, the former an organ of the Congregationalists, and the latter of the Presbyterians. The _Independent_ was originally conducted by the Rev. Dr. Bacon, the Rev. Dr. Thompson, and the Rev. Richard Storrs, jun.; it afterwards passed into the hands of the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, who wielded it with great power and efficiency in the anti-slavery cause; and it is now managed by Theodore Tilton in company with several others. It contains a great variety of religious, political, and general news, devotional and literary pieces of great merit, together with foreign and domestic correspondence, written with an excellent spirit. Mr. Beecher has established, and conducts, the _Christian Union_, another religious paper, which is rapidly rising to popularity and power. _The Advance_, a religious paper published in Chicago, and conducted by Dr. Patten, is one of the best of the religious papers of America. The _Observer_ is one of the oldest and best established papers, once exceedingly Conservative in its views of slavery, but always distinguished by sound judgment, good taste, and fair culture. The Methodists are well represented by the _Christian Advocate and Journal_, and the Baptists by the _Examiner and Chronicle_. The monthly organ of the American Tract Society has a circulation of about 200,000, which it owes to its catholic character and its extraordinary cheapness. The quarterly literature of the American churches is of a very high character. The _Bibliotheca Sacra_ is the great organ of New England theology, and the _Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review_ is the leading representative of the Calvinism of the Westminster standards. These are the two most powerful reviews. The _Bibliotheca Sacra_ is published at Andover, the scene of the learned labours of Moses Stuart, the biblical expositor, and was established twenty-seven years ago. It differs from the _Princeton Review_ and all British reviews in publishing the names of its contributors, and it has succeeded in gathering to its pages a vast amount of the most versatile talent from nearly all the Congregational Colleges of America. Its most original contributor in the domain of metaphysical theology is Professor Austin Phelps, of Andover, whose articles on 'The Instrumentality of the Truth in Regeneration,' and 'Human Responsibility as related to Divine Agency in Conversion,' published within the last two or three years, prove that much of the genius and spirit of Jonathan Edwards still exists in New England theology. Another eminent contributor, Professor Park, of Andover, who is also its principal editor, has been frequently in collision with Dr. Hodge, of the _Princeton Review_, on points of Calvinistic divinity. Professor Bascom has been recently publishing in its pages a series of articles on 'The Natural Theology of Social Science'--a subject hitherto left too much in the hands of secularists--and has succeeded in lifting it with advantage into the higher sphere of theology. The articles of this review are generally marked by a high style of ability and a scientific thoroughness: and are, many of them, worthy of being reproduced, as they have been, from time to time, in the _British and Foreign Evangelical Review_. The spirit of its management is exceedingly liberal. We observe, for example, that it recently published an article on 'Christian Baptism,' from the professor of a Baptist College, in conformity with a plan adopted by the conductors of securing from representative men of different sects and schools of thought, articles unfolding distinctive, theological opinions, and exhibiting with something like scientific precision the exact peculiarities of meaning attached to the terminology of the respective schools. The _Princeton Review_ is the oldest quarterly in the United States. It was established in 1825 by Dr. Charles Hodge, the well-known commentator on the Epistle to the Romans, who was then, and still is, a Professor in the Princeton Theological Seminary; but it was not till 1829 that it ceased to be a mere repertory of selections from foreign works in the department of biblical literature. It is, beyond all question, the greatest purely theological review that has ever been published in the English tongue, and has waged war in defence of the Westminster standards for a period of forty years, with a polemic vigour and unity of design without any parallel in the history of religious journalism. If we were called to name any living writer who, to Calvin's exegetical tact, unites a large measure of Calvin's grasp of mind and transparent clearness in the department of systematic theology, we should point to this Princeton Professor. He possesses, to use the words of an English critic, the power of seizing and retaining with a rare vigour and tenacity, the great doctrinal turning-points in a controversy, while he is able to expose with triumphant dexterity the various subterfuges under which it has been sought to elude them. His articles furnish a remarkably full and exact repository of historic and polemic theology; especially those on 'Theories of the Church,' 'The Idea of the Church,' 'The Visibility of the Church,' 'The Perpetuity of the Church,' all of which have been reproduced in English reviews. The great characteristic of his mind is the polemic element; accordingly we find him in collision with Moses Stuart, of Andover, in 1833, and with Albert Barnes in 1835, on the doctrine of Imputation; with Professor Park, in 1851, on 'The Theology of the Intellect and the Theology of the Feelings;' with Dr. Niven, of the _Mercersburg Review_, in 1848, on the subject of the 'Mystical Presence,' the title of an article which attempted to apply the modern German philosophy to the explanation and subversion of Christian doctrines; with Professor Schaff, in 1854, on the doctrine of historical development; and with Horace Bushnell, in 1866, on vicarious sacrifice. In fact, a theological duel has been going on between Andover and Princeton for nearly forty years, the leading controversialists of Andover being Stuart, Park, Edward Beecher, Baird, and Fisher, and those of Princeton, Hodge, the Alexanders, and Atwater.[1] Hodge has contributed one hundred and thirty-five articles to the _Review_ since its commencement; Dr. Archibald Alexander--a venerable divine, who resembled John Brown, of Haddington, in many respects--contributed seventy-seven; his son, Dr. James Waddel Alexander, twice a Princeton Professor, and afterwards pastor of the wealthiest congregation in New York, contributed one hundred and one articles; another son, Dr. Joseph Addison Alexander, the well-known commentator on Isaiah, contributed ninety-two, mostly on classical and Oriental subjects; and Dr. Atwater, another Princeton professor of great learning and versatility, contributed sixty-four on theological and metaphysical subjects. The articles in the _Princeton_ on science, philosophy, literature, and history, have generally displayed large culture and research. The review of Cousin's Philosophy, in 1839, by Professor Dod, was one of the most remarkable papers that appeared on the subject in America, and was afterwards reprinted separately on both sides of the Atlantic. Another theological quarterly of America, is the _New Englander_, published at Newhaven, Connecticut, and representative principally of Yale scholarship. Nearly all the leading names in New England theology, such as Bellamy, Hopkins, Emmons, Dwight, Griffin, Tyler, and Taylor, among the dead, and Bushnell, Beecher, and Bacon, among the living, are associated with the venerable University of Yale. Tryon Edwards (the great-grandson of Jonathan Edwards) is one of the contributors to the _New Englander_. The professors and graduates of the college are its principal contributors. Among them are to be found the distinguished names of Dr. Noah Porter and President Woolsey. The former has recently contributed to the _New Englander_, a series of valuable articles, just reprinted in a small volume, on 'The American Colleges and the American Public;' an able discussion of the fundamental principles of University education. The _Mercersburg Review_ is the quarterly organ of the German Reformed Church, and has been conducted, from its commencement, by Dr. Niven and Professor Schaff, the well-known historian. The Baptists have their _Christian Review_, the Methodists their _Methodist Quarterly Review_, the Lutherans their _Evangelical Review_, the Episcopalians their _Protestant Episcopal Quarterly Review_, and the Unitarians their _Christian Examiner_, which reflects from time to time the vicissitudes of Unitarian opinion. There is one fact suggested by this review of the American religious press, viz., that Episcopacy holds a very inferior place beside Independency and Presbyterianism in theological authorship. We all know how greatly things are changed, even in England, since Dr. Arnold deplored, and all but despised, the culture of Dissenters, for we have Dean Alford, but the other day, confessing in the _Contemporary Review_, 'Already the Nonconformists have passed us by in Biblical scholarship, and ministerial training.' But in the United States, the palm of theological scholarship has always rested in the hands of Congregational and Presbyterian divines. The best theological seminaries, the ablest theological reviews, and the most original as well as extensive authorship in the various branches of theology, belong to the two denominations referred to.

We shall now proceed, as briefly as possible, to make some observations of a critical nature upon the intellectual and moral character of the American press generally. It is not, certainly, in any spirit of national superiority that we point to the undoubted fact that, notwithstanding the great expansion of newspaper literature in the States, the wide diffusion of popular education, and the circulation of English books of the best kind at a mere nominal cost, the Americans have as yet produced nothing representatively like our London _Times_, or _Punch_, or the _Athenæum_, or the _Illustrated London News_, or the _Saturday Review_, or the _Art Journal_, or the _Edinburgh_ and _Quarterly_. They have not even produced a single great newspaper writer like Captain Stirling, of the _Times_, Albany Fonblanque, sen., of the _Examiner_, or Hugh Miller, of the _Edinburgh Witness_, for Bennett, Greeley, and Raymond, though capital editors, are all greatly inferior to these men in that art of scholarly, dignified, and tasteful leader-writing, which gives such a power and charm to London journalism. Newspaper writing is, perhaps, the most difficult of all writing; there is none at least in which excellence is so rarely attained. The capacity of bringing widely-scattered information into a focus, of drawing just conclusions from well-selected facts, of amplifying, compressing, illustrating a succession of topics, all on the spur of the moment, without a moment's stay to examine or revise, argues great intellectual cultivation. The articles may not be of a lofty order, or demand for their execution the very highest kind of talent, but the power of accomplishing it with success is very uncommon, and of all the varieties of ways in which incompetency is manifested, an irrepressible tendency to fine writing is associated with the greater number of them. De Tocqueville says that democratic journalism has a strong tendency to be virulent in spirit and bombastic in style. It certainly runs the risk of lawlessness, inaccuracy, and irreverence, with much of vehemence, and with little taste, imagination, or profundity. One serious charge we have to bring against the American newspapers is, that they have sorely vulgarized and vitiated the English language. We are aware that many of them imagine the language of their country to be the standard as to idiom, pronunciation, and spelling, and any English variation from their golden rule as erroneous and heterodox; but such critics are entitled to no consideration whatever. If men of education at the American press refuse to study the style of the great authors who fixed and purified the language of our common forefathers, so that we may have one and not two languages spoken on opposite sides of the Atlantic, let them at least imitate such writers of their own as Washington Irving, Horace Bushnell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, whose pure and native English is wholly free from all the corruptions and affectations of phrase which overrun American newspapers, simply because it is beautifully modelled upon the most elegant and polished writers of English literature. In fact, the Americans have always been greatly in need of a critical organ, like the old _Edinburgh Review_, to purify the literary atmosphere from the clouds and mists of false taste which deface it, to stand censor on books and newspapers, a recognized authority in the literary republic, for whose quarterly judgments readers might look with interest, and authors with trembling. The _North American Review_, though written with great spirit, learning, and ability, and abounding in profound and original discussions on the most interesting subjects, has never filled the place of the _Edinburgh_, and, indeed, its own style is not free from the common sin of affectation. It is pleasant to think of William Cullen Bryant, the poet, hanging up in the office of his newspaper--the _New York Evening Post_--a catalogue of words that no editor or reporter is ever to be allowed to use.[2] Let us hope that the literary men of America, of all classes, will seriously aim at the formation of a purer, chaster, and juster style of writing, for what they have hitherto produced has been defective in taste rather than in talent.

Another great sin of American journalism is its intolerable personality, violence, and exaggeration. This was the disgrace of our own English press at no distant period. Cobbett was a great sinner in this respect, He had much to do with raising the intellectual, and lowering the moral, reputation of the modern newspaper. The wide diffusion of enlightened views on politics and religion is attested, however, in a remarkable manner among ourselves, by the moderation of tone which we now see in journals which, about twenty years ago, were remarkable for their scurrility and violence. It is no longer a recommendation to an English newspaper to be known as an assailant of the Royal Family, the aristocracy, the bench of bishops, or parsons. Several publications that, a few years since, professed atheism and secularism, have become extinct, and the _quondam_ organs of Chartism and fierce democracy have been obliged to become respectable. But many of the American newspapers are much worse than the English were a quarter of a century ago. With us, faction has become less mischievous and shameless; unfounded accusations less common and less malignant; invectives more measured and decorous; not merely because the evil passions which required to be fed with the abuse of individuals have calmed down, but because the British press is now guided by the principle of attacking public opinion, not private characters, measures, not men; and its quarrels are usually governed by the laws of honour and chivalry, which proscribe all base advantages. But an American newspaper cannot assail another newspaper without mentioning the editor's name, and calling him coward or rascal. If you cannot answer your opponent's objections, you caricature his appearance, or dress, or diet, or accent, as Bennett is in the habit of treating Greeley; and if you are foiled by his wit, you recover your advantage by stabbing his character. No allusions become too indecorous for your taste; no sarcasms too bitter for your savage spite; and no character pure enough to be sacred from your charges and insinuations. The American editor pursues his antagonist as if he were a criminal. The _New York World_ lately devoted four columns of its space to illustrate by quotations the amenities of American journalism. The majority of the papers seem to subsist on the great staple of falsehood and personality, and enjoy all the advantages which spring from an utter contempt for the restraints of decency and candour; and we are strongly of opinion that this work of cruel intimidation is pursued with unrelenting eagerness, not from the influence of angry passions or furious prejudices, but in the cold-blooded calculation of the profits which idle curiosity or the vulgar appetite for slander may enable its authors to derive from it. We are not prepared to endorse all the strong statements made by infuriated rivals concerning the proprietor of the _New York Herald_; but he leaves us, in no doubt, himself, as to the light in which he regarded his own frequent chastisements. Immediately after James Watson Webb had severely whipped him in the streets of New York, the whole affair was recounted, in the _Herald_ with a sensational circumstantiality that had an evident eye to business, though we cannot overlook the remarkable good humour with which Bennett treated the whole affair:--

'The fellow,' he says, 'no doubt wanted to let out the
never-failing supply of good humour and wit which have
created such a reputation for the _Herald_, and appropriate
the contents to supply the emptiness of his own skull. He
didn't succeed, however, in rifling me of my ideas. My
ideas in a few days will flow as freshly as ever, and he
will find it to his cost.'

Imagine the London _Times_ degraded to the condition of its responsible editor rejoicing in his own personal chastisement! American journalists fight like their French brethren. They never dream of explanations. Bullets and bowie-knives are the natural sequel of such recriminations as disgrace their newspapers. This extreme violence is part of the loose political morality so common there. Americans seem to be taught almost from their infancy to hate one-half of the nation, and so contract all the virulence and passion of party before they have come to the age of reason; but before their newspapers can be said to enter upon the course of real usefulness which is open to them, they must have come to believe that political differences may exist without their opponents being either rogues or fools. Jefferson said in his day that the scurrility of the press drove away the best men from public life, and would certainly have driven away Washington had he lived to suffer from its growing excesses. James Fenimore Cooper, the celebrated novelist, had a horror of newspapers, and instituted actions at law against a host of them for literary libels. He once remarked, 'The press of this country tyrannizes over public men of letters, the arts, the stage, and even private life. Under the semblance of maintaining liberty, it is gradually establishing a despotism as ruthless and grasping and one that is quite as vulgar as that of any Christian state known.' This view of the case is certainly serious and suggestive. Party violence may be carried to a length that defeats itself, for it may harden public men against all newspaper criticism whatever, to the great injury of public affairs, and thus lower the estimation and disturb the course of public opinion. Nowhere are fools more dogmatic than in politics, and nowhere are wise men more doubtful and silent; but American party writers have no respect for the Horatian maxim, 'in medio tutissimus'--the secret of that moderation of opinion which has distinguished the most genial and sagacious men in our political world. They must really learn to cultivate a love of truth and justice; they should seek to attain the power of holding the scales steadily, while the advantages or disadvantages of every question are fairly weighed; they should stamp upon their professional life the impress of personal rectitude and honour, and not wait--to copy the tone of the old apologies--till a higher standard of public morals, and a more intelligent cultivation of political and literary inquiries, shall have raised for them a new class of readers. It is the prerogative of genius to create the light by which it is to be understood and appreciated; but the working talents of a country, which are identified with its immediate interests, ought at least to rise a little above the surrounding level.

We are led, from this point, to notice another defect in American journalism,--the absence of the anonymous usage, which is, indeed, mainly answerable for the scurrility and violence already referred to. The British editor is usually unknown to the public; the French journalist subscribes his name at the foot of his articles; but the American editor publishes his name and address boldly at the top of his newspaper. The effect of this custom is to identify the authority of the journal with the personal influence of the editor; it tends to a habit of deciding questions on personal grounds, and to a far too marked superfluity of the _tu quoque_ argument. The object of the American journalist is not so much the instruction of the public as the political advancement of himself, for journalism usually forms the first stage in the course of an ambitious politician, or a rising statesman; and the American usage is certainly very well adapted to this end. Our anonymous habit limits the discussions of the press and abolishes egotism, while it certainly tends to debar personalities. It has been remarked, as a suggestive fact, that personality is the common vice of the only free press in the world, which ignores the anonymous principle; and that in England, under a contrary usage, personality is little known, always reprobated, and, indeed, in cases of flagrant personal attacks, the authorship is usually but thinly disguised. It is absurd to defend the American habits as manly and ours as cowardly; for their habit tends to make writers far from circumspect or considerate of the feelings of others. But, in fact, the publicity in which American journalists delight is only akin to the publicity of American life generally. The British public would not tolerate the intrusion of the press into private or family concerns; yet one New York paper published, in the panic, of 1857, the name of every gentleman who bought a silk dress for his wife, or gave a dinner-party to his friends. Other newspapers criticize the dress and appearance of ladies at balls and cricket parties, the personality of their praise being almost as offensive as at other times the coarseness of their vituperation.

We confess that we do not entertain a very high opinion of the morality of the American press, though we admit there has been a sensible improvement within the last thirty years. Emerson made the remark, in his 'English Traits,' that the London _Times_ was an 'immoral institution,' on the ground we presume, of its frequent changes of opinion. We are far from defending the leading journal in its policy of tergiversation--for there can be no doubt it ever fights on the stronger side, upholds no falling cause, and advocates no great principle--but it was never yet bought with bribes or cowed by intimidation. It has sometimes shown that it is conducted on principles superior to mere money considerations, for, during the Railway mania of 1845, when its advertising sheet was overrun with projected lines of railway, realizing to the proprietors the enormous sum of from £2,839 to £6,687 per week, the Thunderer turned its fire on these projects, and lost nearly £3,000 in a single week. We do not charge the American press with any flagrant changes of policy or principle, for we believe it is, in these respects, sufficiently consistent. But we deplore the absence of high moral purpose, as well as independence in its discussions of public questions. The American people demand a large amount of flattery; they have come almost to loathe the wholesome truth; they must be pampered with constant adulations, so that no one will venture to tell them their faults, and, neither at home nor abroad, dare moralists venture a whisper to their prejudice. This is a serious drawback. America wants more writers of the class who are said to prefer their country's good to its favour, and more anxious to reform its vices than cherish the pride of its virtues. Besides, we strongly suspect that the American journalist is very careless about the truth. We mean the truth of fact, which is part of the historic disposition of the age, as opposed to all that is sensational. He resembles the French rather than the English journalist in the tendency to regard good news as more important than correct news. The English journals make it their business to present their readers with news and not advice, with facts and not opinions, so that they can form opinions for themselves, and the power of our press is thus enormously increased, but only on conditions that effectually prevent the arbitrary exercise of it. The American writers for the press have followed our example in some degree, but their disposition to provide startling and sensational intelligence is too often manifested at the expense of truth. Mr. Maverick gives an account of a number of disreputable hoaxes played by the newspapers upon the public of America, which were justified, we presume, to the consciences of the authors by the observation of Lord Bacon--'A mixture of lies doth ever add pleasure; doth any man doubt that if there were taken from men's minds vain opinions, nattering hopes, false valuations, and the like, it would leave the minds of a number of men poor shrunken things?' The 'Moon Hoax,' which was published in the New York _Sun_ in 1835, was one of the most skilful and successful of these literary frauds. Successive numbers of that paper contained a pretended extract from the pages of a supplement to the _Edinburgh Journal of Science_, under the title of 'Great Astronomical Discoveries latterly made by Sir John Herschel, LL.D., F.R.S., at the Cape of Good Hope.' The paper had a remarkable air of scientific research, such as might deceive all but the most learned and wary. The Herschel telescope was represented as affording a distinct view of lunar roads, rocks, seas, cascades, forests, houses, people, and monsters of various shapes. The 'Roorback Hoax' was a shameless attempt to injure the character of J. K. Polk, when he was a candidate for the Presidency, by representing him as possessing forty-three slaves who had his initials branded into their flesh. The deception was wrought by simply adding to a sentence in Featherstonehaugh's Travels in America four lines of the hoaxer's own, recording the disgraceful lie referred to. We confess that we cannot recognise the morality of a transaction which Mr. Maverick records in the history of the _New York Times_, without apparently the slightest suspicion of its dishonesty. When the _New York Herald_ got hold of the single survivor of the ill-fated Atlantic steamer, _Arctic_, which was lost in September, 1854, an assistant on the _Times_ succeeded, by means of an adroit pressman, in purloining an early copy from the _Herald_ press-rooms, and actually published the _Herald's_ report an hour earlier than that journal. We cannot understand what Mr. Maverick means by representing the _Herald_ as 'playing a trick to keep the news from the other papers,' unless the _Herald_ was actually bound to supply its contemporaries gratuitously with the exclusive news it had obtained from the survivor at its own sole expense. The transaction seems to us merely a clever specimen of American 'smartness.'

But we must draw these observations to a close. We cannot but admit that the press of America, with all its defects, is an engine of great power. It is on this ground we desire for it a close approximation to those intellectual and moral qualities which have given British journalism such an influence over the affairs of the whole world. In fact, two such nations as America and Britain, working in the same language, should be always learning from each other; for the eager energy of the one should push forward the occasionally lagging progress of the other, and our matured caution restrain their hasty inexperience. America is great in all that leads to immediate and available results. She has given us several of the greatest mechanical inventions of the age; she has far excelled us in the theory and practice of religious liberty, as well as in the more liberal recognition of denominational brotherhood among the religious sects; while she has furnished a noble example of public spirit in the support of religion, missions, and education. Let us hope that in time she will equal, if not surpass us in a periodical literature, which, if even still more intensely political than ours, will display a breadth and strength of thought, together with a wisdom and dignity, which will add immensely to its power. There is one aspect of Transatlantic literature which already contrasts favourably with our own, and that is its generally cordial recognition of Evangelical Christianity. With the exception of the German and French newspapers, which chafe under the restraints of a Christian country, and scoff at Judaic sabbaths, Pharisaic church-going, and tyrannical priestcraft, there are no newspapers of any position in the States that are avowedly anti-Christian; and there is less disposition than formerly, on the part of the American press generally, to exclude all reference to distinctive Christianity. It was considered a remarkable circumstance at the time of the American revival that several newspapers, notorious for a thinly disguised infidelity, and for a most undisguised enmity to Evangelical religion, should not only publish the most ample reports of the movement, but commend it in a way that has had no parallel in English journalism, even before the tide of public opinion had turned decisively in its favour. It is the common custom still for American newspapers to print the sermons of popular preachers, and to publish a large amount of religious intelligence. The press is also intensely Protestant, and has contributed to the growth of that enormous assimilating power by which American Protestantism has absorbed generation after generation of the Roman Catholic emigrants. The statistics of the Propaganda declare that one half of the whole number has been lost to the Church of Rome; and the explanation is, that they can no more escape from the influence of American ideas than from the effects of the atmosphere and climate.

It becomes, therefore, a matter of the greatest consequence that the literary guides of a nation with such a destiny as America, should understand the responsibilities under which their power is exercised. They should take care, above all things, to use their influence not to materialize the mind of society, by obtruding material concerns too much upon the attention, to the neglect of those moral and spiritual interests which constitute the very foundations of its greatness. This is a real danger, for, as De Tocqueville remarks, the tendency of modern democracy is to concentrate the passions of men upon the acquisition of comforts and wealth. They cannot be ignorant that the most clearly marked line of social progress over the whole world is coincident with the line of the Christian faith; that wherever true religion has had free access to the centres of human action, a palpable advance has been made in knowledge, liberty, and refinement; while poverty, injustice, and licentiousness, which are the ulcers of a depraved society, have in that degree been checked and healed. They must understand that honesty is the grand necessity of the world at this time, in its politics as well as its theology, in its commerce as well as its science. Let these things be understood by the leaders of American thought, and we cannot but anticipate a proud future for their country. It is a subject of just congratulation to England that her children have stamped their character on a vast continent, and, that instead of discontented colonies subjected to her caprice, she can now point to a great people, with all the best life of the ancient nations throbbing in their veins, flourishing exactly in proportion to their freedom, and trained, through all their bloody disasters which almost threatened to ruin their work, to build a stronger rampart, and to reclaim a broader shore for posterity. The interests of humanity demand that a nation so strong in all the material elements of civilization, and manifesting such an impetuous disregard of limit and degree in all its enterprises, should be equally strong in its intelligence and its Christianity.

ART. II.--_Report from the Royal Commission on International Coinage. 1868._

Although during the deplorable struggle between Germany and France public attention has been of necessity mainly directed to the conflict, yet it is impossible, for many reasons, to do otherwise than regret this concentration of interest. The last session of our Parliament was fertile to an unusual degree in measures of public utility and importance; but it is not too much to say that the difficulties incurred by several of these measures in their passage through both Houses would have been greatly enhanced had the engrossing events which have recently agitated all Europe occurred at the time. The only satisfaction which can be obtained in contemplating, even from a distance, the misery inflicted on such countless thousands, arises from the hope that when the last echoes of the strife have faded away, a peace, firm and durable--durable because based on sound principles--may link together those nations who are now suffering from the effects of the struggle. Till this is the case, the evils arising from the war will not be confined to those actually engaged in it. Meanwhile, it is really no slight misfortune that many subjects, not unimportant to the country, should fail to obtain the attention which they would otherwise have received, in consequence of the superior interest of the central European crisis.

Professor Jevons' remarks at the late meeting of the British Association at Liverpool, on the manner in which points of importance were thus swamped, will not readily be forgotten by those who heard them. Among other subjects, the Professor instanced that of an international coinage, which, after having received considerable and careful attention, had receded for a time from that prominence which it deserved.

In this country, the question has been considered from two points of view--the one taken by those who are desirous to adopt a universal system of coinage, as well as a universal system of weights and measures; the other, by those who are aware of the present and increasing deterioration of the gold coinage of the country, arising from the number of coins deficient in full weight which are now in circulation.

Neither of these points have escaped the notice of the active mind of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. R. Lowe). He has become aware that many of the gold coins now in circulation are below the legal tender weight; that the opportunity of a considerable re-coinage might be made use of to assimilate the weight of gold in the sovereign to that contained in twenty-five francs, and that in doing this the expense incurred in the coinage of gold might, by means of a seigniorage, be spared to the country.

To explain these points, it will be well, in the first place, to refer to a report of the then Master of the Mint, and Colonel Smith, late Master of the Calcutta Mint, in reply to the question put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer--

'What would it cost, first to manufacture a sovereign, and
afterwards to keep it in good condition for all time? The
coin is always losing weight by wear, while it passes from
hand to hand, and ends by becoming light (after
three-quarters of a grain of gold have been lost), and is
no longer current. The individual piece has thus a limited
existence, and must be withdrawn and replaced by a new
sovereign of full weight; that, again, by another in due
time; and so on. Now, for what present payment could this
succession be maintained? What is the contract price to
cover the first construction, and all future
restoration?'[3]

To put it in another shape. The person who thinks it worth his while to convert his gold bullion into coin, according to this plan, is to pay for the expense of manufacture, and is also called upon to contribute to a reserve fund, by means of which the natural deterioration of the coin he has caused to be put into circulation is to be provided for.

The coinage of gold in this country is--and it is well to explain this point at the outset--entirely gratuitous as far as the Government is concerned. That is to say, any person possessing gold bullion of the required purity of standard, may, if he chooses, take that bullion to the Mint. And, in due time, the officers of the Mint will return him--weight for weight--an equal quantity of gold coin. _In due time_, however, means in practice, a considerable delay; and delay in money matters means loss of interest. Hence, it arises, that in the natural course of events, no private person takes gold bullion to be coined, himself. But he carries it to the Bank of England. Now, that great corporation, among other duties to the State, has this particular charge. It is bound to buy all gold bullion of standard fineness offered to it, at the rate of £3 17s. 9d. per oz. These payments are made in bank notes; and as bank notes are immediately exchangeable for sovereigns, the result is, that any one possessing gold bullion of the Mint standard, can at once and immediately turn that bullion into gold coins for the slight cost of 1½d. per oz., or something less than ½d. for every sovereign. This is really buying a sovereign at cost price, for the mere manufacture of a sovereign costs fully a ½d., as will be mentioned further on. What is more, the payment, small as it is, does not accrue to the Government, but is retained by the Bank of England, and is considered as being only sufficient to compensate that institution for the trouble and expense of the operation, including the loss of time, and consequent loss of interest incurred. No provision is made to include the loss by wear, which, though imperceptible at the moment, accumulates in process of time to a large amount. Investigation shows that 100 sovereigns lose 8d. a year by fair usage. If the amount of British gold coin in circulation amounts, as it is supposed to do, to eighty millions, sixty-eight being whole sovereigns, and twelve millions in halves, the annual loss would amount to £35,000 from deterioration due to wear alone. The charge for manufacturing sovereigns is not high when all that has to be done is taken into consideration. Great precautions have to be taken in the process to secure the needful quality. Each bar has to be brought to the required standard. Careful assays are made, and great exactness in the weight of each coin is, of course, essential. All these points cannot be attended to without considerable expense. Again, the great amount of valuable property in the shape of coin and bullion necessitates vigilant watching. The total charge is estimated at ½d. each sovereign. Half sovereigns are, in proportion to value, more expensive to strike than sovereigns. They also wear more rapidly. This arises from greater rapidity of circulation, and also from the fact that, weight for weight, each half sovereign presents a greater surface for abrasion than a sovereign. After making careful calculations, the Master of the Mint and Colonel Smith arrived at the conclusion that a charge of £1 13s. 6d. for every £100 coined would be sufficient to cover all expenses. That is to say, that if an arrangement were made with a contractor to undertake to manage the Mint, and to keep the gold coinage in good repair, he would require, to hold him harmless from loss, to be paid about £1 13s. 6d. for every £100 in the average proportion of sovereigns and half sovereigns put into circulation. And this sum is at the present time lost to the community.

It is characteristic of the manner in which public questions are handled in this country, that throughout the report, to which is attached the name of an official in such high place as that of the late Master of the Mint, continual reference is made to the investigations, not of a public officer, but of Mr. Jevons, Professor of Political Economy in Owen's College, Manchester. Mr. Jevons, being desirous of ascertaining the condition of the gold currency, made inquiries of bankers and other suitable persons in all parts of the United Kingdom, requesting them

'to take one or two hundred pounds in sovereigns, and half
the amount in half-sovereigns, from gold received in the
ordinary course of business, and to cause the number of
coins of each date to be counted and stated. The aid thus
requested was furnished with a readiness which I had no
right to expect, and which I cannot sufficiently
acknowledge. Not a few gentlemen, on becoming acquainted
with my purpose, procured very extensive returns, and the
final result was, that this kind of census of the gold
coinage was extended over one-sixth of a million of coins,
thus composed:

Number of sovereigns enumerated 90,474
Number of half-sovereigns enumerated 75,036
------
Total number 165,510

'At least one gold coin in every hundred now existing in
this country was, on the average, enumerated; and, as there
were 321 separate returns received from 213 distinct towns
or localities, including almost every place of commercial
importance, it may be allowed, I think, that sufficient
data were acquired for determining the average character of
the circulation.'--_Journal of the Statistical Society_,
vol. xxxi., p. 439.

Mr. Jevons' inquiry was, as he describes it, made in a private manner, but it was, beyond question, conducted most efficiently and thoroughly. And there is no reason to doubt that he has rather under-estimated than over-estimated the case when he states, that about 45 per cent. of the sovereigns and 62 per cent. of the half-sovereigns now in circulation in the country are lighter than the legal standard. If this statement appears excessive to any one, he can easily verify it for himself. He has only to go to his banker, in whatever part of the United Kingdom he may reside, and ask him to provide out of the gold in his till--out of the ordinary circulation of the locality--100 sovereigns of _full_ weight. Then, if he inquires how many sovereigns have been picked over to obtain this number, he will--within those reasonable limits of variation which every similar calculation is liable to--find that Mr. Jevons' statement gives a correct idea of the ordinary circulation.

But Mr. Lowe, as will have been observed, did not confine himself to the actual deterioration of the existing British gold circulation. His thoughts took a wider range--'a coin which would have the advantage of an international circulation' occurred to him as a possible thing--and, further, that the British sovereign, reduced to an exact equation with twenty-five francs of gold coin of France, Italy, Belgium, Switzerland, &c., might be such a coin. The question of the desirability of an international coinage has frequently been discussed. From some of the remarks which have been made on Mr. Lowe's speech, it might have been imagined to be only a recent idea. But this is far from being the case. Much attention was drawn to the point in 1851. The difficulty then experienced in comparing the value of the articles produced in different countries and shown at the Great Exhibition, naturally suggested the idea of a coinage common to all nations. The International Statistical Congress then took the matter up at their meetings at Brussels, in 1853, and at Paris, in 1855, and at London, in 1860. This last-named meeting was held under the presidency of the late Prince Consort, and his address on its opening was the last public speech delivered by him. In it are to be found these words, which show that the importance of the question of international coinage had not escaped the notice of the Prince:--'The different weights, measures, and currencies, in which different statistics are expressed, cause further difficulties and impediments. Suggestions with regard to the removal of these have been made at former meetings, and will, no doubt, be renewed.' Before this meeting separated, an international commission was formed to report on the question. Further consideration was given to it at Berlin, in 1863. In December, 1865, the idea was put into practice. A formal convention was entered into by France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland; and those four countries established an international currency among themselves. The French Government followed up the subject by giving official notice of this convention, inviting this country, with many others, to send commissioners to attend a conference 'for the purpose of deliberating upon the best means of securing a common basis for the adoption of a general international coinage.'

'The Conference was attended by thirty-three delegates,
representing twenty different countries, viz.:--Austria,
Baden, Bavaria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain,
Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Prussia, Russia,
Spain, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, United
States, Wurtemburg.'

'The delegates were not authorized in any way to bind their
respective countries, but they voted according to their own
opinions.'

* * * * *

'Great value seems to be attached to the cooperation of
England in any measure of this description. England has
been forward in urging the policy of free trade upon
Continental nations; and while her joining in any movement
originated abroad for promoting and facilitating commercial
intercourse would be most favourably received, and would
increase her influence among them, her declining altogether
to enter upon it might appear to be inconsistent with her
general conduct upon such questions.'

'The recommendations of the Conference may be shortly
stated to be:

'I. The adoption of a single gold standard.

'II. The adoption of 9/10 as the proportion of fine gold in
the coins.

'III. That all gold coins hereafter struck in any of the
countries which are parties to the Convention, should be
either of the value of five francs or multiples of that
sum.

'IV. That a gold coin of the value of twenty-five francs
should be struck by such countries as prefer it, and be
admitted as an international coin.

'In other countries steps have been taken with a view to
promote a general international coinage.

* * * * *

'A Bill has been introduced into the Congress of the United
States for altering the value of the American coinage, so
as to assimilate it to that of the Convention of 1865; and
we have received the report of the Finance Committee of the
Senate of the United States, recommending the adoption of
the measure, with certain amendments; together with a
report also presented to the Senate, adverse to the passing
of the Bill.

'A Bill has been introduced into the Canadian Parliament
for the regulation of the currency of that country, in
which provision is made for the adoption by Canada of the
system of the Convention, in the event of the measure above
referred to becoming law in the United States.

'Another Bill has been introduced into the Congress of the
United States, in order to assimilate the coinage to that
of this country, making the half eagle equal to our
sovereign.

'The Federal Parliament of the North German Confederation
has passed a resolution declaring necessary the adoption of
a decimal monetary system.

'Finally, we have received a communication from the Foreign
Office, by which it appears that the Government of Sweden
have proposed to strike a gold coin equivalent to ten
francs, and further to coin pieces of twenty-five francs as
soon as such a coin shall be struck in France.'--_Report
from the Royal Commission on International Coinage_, 1868.

The Spanish Government has recently given notice of being willing to join the Convention (Nov., 1869), and the pattern pieces of the twenty-five franc coin have already been struck at the Paris mint.

This brief _résumé_ of what has actually been done by several other nations, suffices of itself to show that the question deserves, as Mr. Lowe has stated in Parliament, very careful consideration.

Four nations, with more than sixty-six millions of inhabitants, already possess an international coinage. That is to say, any merchant in the furthest point to which the Convention extends knows at once, if he takes up a paper with the prices current at Paris, Marseilles, Bordeaux, or any of the great centres of commerce, what those prices mean, and how nearly they correspond with his own. Other nations besides France, Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, are prepared to join in this uniform coinage. It is not unlikely that the sixty-six millions may be more than doubled shortly. Will it not be a great disadvantage to the thirty or thirty-two millions inhabiting these islands to be outside this great confederation?

The values of the gold in the pound sterling and in twenty-five francs approximate very closely. To enable this country to join the confederation, it would be needful for the values to be equalized. This must be done in one of two ways.

Either the amount of gold contained in the proposed coin of twenty-five francs must be increased by twenty centimes to make it the equivalent of the English full-weight sovereign. Or, the weight of gold in the English sovereign must be diminished to make it equal to that contained in the 25-franc piece. The Royal Commissioners on International Coinage appear to have entertained an aspiration--it can hardly be termed a hope--that the former plan would be adopted; but it can scarcely be looked for. The inconvenience to the nations who have already joined the Convention would be so great as to preclude the idea. The other alternative alone practically has to be considered. It amounts to this: that 2d. in value should be taken out of every sovereign. But to do this without due compensation would be to alter every existing contract. A seigniorage to be charged on all bullion taken to the mint to be coined, is proposed as a method of bridging over this difficulty. To effect this such a charge or seigniorage would have to be proportionate to the amount of bullion subtracted from each sovereign.

It is desirable to trace out what effect such a charge would have. It would be--

'tantamount to an enhancement of the purchasing value of
the coinage in the country of its currency. It immediately
augments the value of the coinage as expressed in its
exchange value for bullion, unless the weight of pure metal
in the coinage be simultaneously reduced to the same extent
as the amount of the seigniorage. The following may serve
as a test example, and avoid the necessity for the use of
fractions:--"What would be the effect of a seigniorage of 1
per cent, in a country where it is imposed for the first
time?" It would be this: that whilst the pieces of current
coin before the imposition of the seigniorage were exactly
worth their weight in uncoined bullion of the same
intrinsic fineness, they would, after its imposition, be
worth 1 per cent, more than their weight in bullion of the
like standard.'--_Mr. Hendriks' Evidence, Royal Commission
on International Coinage_, p. 142.

The sovereign, thus diminished in weight, would still possess exactly the same purchasing power--within the limits of the country--as it previously had. Beyond those limits, as shown by the practice of the French mint authorities, it would still retain its value. It would not be, as the present sovereign now is, undervalued in consequence of the mint charges of other nations.

An objection may be, and has already been, made to the alteration--that such a change would be unfair to all those creditors who had made contracts in the old coin, and would be repaid in the new. This objection is sufficiently disposed of by the fact that, as mentioned before, the purchasing power of the new coin will be equal to that of the old.