725 



MONASTERY. 



MONEY. 



7_>0 



king once was a monarch, the kingly office may cease to confer the 

 undivided sovereignty ; and it may even dwindle into complete insig- 

 nificance, and become a merely honorary dignity, an was the case with 

 the apxfv &cu:i\(iis at Athens, and the rex tacrijiculiu at Kome. (Creu- 

 y.er'.s ' Abriss der Romischen Antiquitiiten,' 133.) 



In Sparta there was ad-iMe 1 ue of hereditary kings, who shared the 

 sovereign power with some other magistrates and an assembly of 

 citizens. The government of Sparta has usually been termed a re- 

 public, but some ancient writers have called it monarchical, on account 

 of its kings ; and Polybius applies the same epithet to the Koman 

 republic, on account of its two consuls. (' Philological Museum,' vol. ii., 

 p. 49, 57.) 



States which were at one tune governed by kings possessing the 

 entire sovereign power, and in which the king has subsequently been 

 compelled to share the sovereign power with a popular body, are 

 usually styled mixed monarchies or limited munarclua. These expres- 

 sions mean that the person invested with the kingly office, having 

 once been a monarch, is so no longer ; and they may be compared with 

 such expressions as paes &vaes, which occur in the Greek poets. 



Governments are divided into winarchist and republic! ; and therefore 

 all governments which are not monarchies are republics. As we have 

 already stated, a monarchy is a government in which one person 

 possesses the entire sovereign power; and consequently a republic is a 

 government in which the sovereign power is shared between several 

 persons. [REPUBLIC.] These definitions of monarchy and rc/nili/ii' 

 however do not agree with existing usage; according to which, the 

 popular though royal governments of England and Belgium, for ex- 

 ample, are monarchies (namely, mixed or limited monarchies), not 

 republics. 



The popular usage of the terms in question, to which we have 

 adverted, is mainly owing to three causes. 1. Kings not possessing 

 the entire sovereign power have in many cases succeeded kings who 

 did possess the entire sovereign power ; in other words, kings not 

 monarch* have in many cases succeeded kings who were monarchy. 

 2. Both in royal monarchies and in royal republics, the crown or regal 

 title usually descends by inheritance. 3. Kings who are not monarchs 

 usually affect the state of monarchs properly so called ; they intermarry 

 only with persons of monarchical or royal blood, and refuse to inter- 

 marry with persons of an inferior degree. 



Governments such as those of England and Belgium are included by 

 popular usage, together with republics, in the term " free or constitu- 

 tional governments," as distinguished from pure monarchies, absolute 

 monarchies, or despotisms. 



According to the existing phraseology therefore, the use of the two 

 terms in question is as follows : 



Monarchies are of two sorts, namely, first, pure, absolute, or un- 

 limited monarchies, that is, monarchies properly so called ; and secondly, 

 limited, mixed, or constitutional monarchies, or monarchies improperly 

 so called, that is, republics presided over by a king or kingly govern- 

 ments where the king is not sovereign. 



Republics are states in which several persons share the sovereign 

 power, and in which the person at the head of the governing body 

 doe* not bear the title of king. Accordingly, Holland with a stadt- 

 liuMer, Venice with a doge, and England with a protector, are called 

 republics, not monarchies If the head of the Venetian aristocracy 

 had been styled king instead of doge, and if his office had desended by 

 inheritance instead of being conferred by election, Venice would have 

 been called a monarchy, and not a republic. The only exception to 

 < ige of which we are aware occurs in the case of Sparta, which is 

 commonly called a republic, and not a monarchy, although it had 

 i ' ary kings. The reason of this exception probably is, that there 

 being ttco lines of kings at Sparta, it was thought too gross an in- 

 accuracy to call its government monarchical ; though its government 

 would have been called monarchical, if there had been only one king, 

 in spite of the narrow powers which that king might have possessed. 



MON ASTER V. [MONACHISM.] 



MONESIX. A non-azotised organic substance resembling saponin, 

 found in the bark of the Chrijaii/ili i/lImn : //i/r//i:i, 



MONEY is the medium of exchange by which the value of commo- 

 dities is estimated, and is at once the representative and equivalent of 

 such value. 



Barter is naturally the first form in which any commerce is carried 

 on, A man having produced or obtained more of any article than he 

 requires for his own use, exchanges a part of it for some other article 

 which he desires to possess. But this simple form of exchange is 

 adapted to a rude state of society only, where the objects of exchange 

 are not numerous, and where their value has not been ascertained with 

 precision. As soon as the relations of civilised life are established in a 

 community, some medium of exchange becomes necessary. Objects of 

 every variety are bought and sold, the production of which requires 

 various amounts of labour ; these at different times are relatively abun- 

 dant or scarce ; labour is bargained for as well as its products : and at 

 lon-th the exchangeable value of things, in relation to each other, 

 :i-s defined, and needs some common standard or measure by 

 which it may be expressed or known. It is not sufficient to know that 

 a given quantity of corn will exchange for a given quantity of a man's 

 labour, for their relative v:<lne is nut always the same; but if a standard 

 is established by which en.!: can be measured, their relative value can 



always be ascertained as well as their positive value, independently of 

 each other. 



As a measure of value only money is thus a most important auxiliary 

 of commerce. One commodity from its nature must be measured by 

 Hi vehjht, another by its length, a third by its cubic contents, others 

 by their number. The diversity of their nature, therefore, makes it 

 impossible to apply one description of measure to their several 

 quantities ; but the value of each may be measured by one standard 

 common to all. Until such a standard has been agreed upon, the 

 difficulties of any extensive commerce are incalculable. One man may 

 have nothing but com to offer for other commodities, the owners of 

 which may not have ascertained the quantity of corn which would ba 

 equivalent for their respective goods. To effect an exchange these 

 parties would either have to guess what quantity of each kind of goods 

 might justly be exchanged for one another, or would be guided by 

 their own experience in their particular trades. Whenever they wanted 

 a new commodity their experience would fail them, and they must 

 guess once more. But with money all becomes easy ; each man aflixes 

 a price to his own commodities, and even if barter should continue to 

 be the form in which exchanges are effected, every bargain could be 

 made with the utmost simplicity : for commodities of every description 

 would have a denomination of value affixed to them, common to all 

 and understood by everybody. 



But however great may be the importance of money as a measure of 

 value in facilitating the exchange of commodities, it is infinitely more 

 important in another character. In order to exchange his goods it is 

 not sufficient that a man should be able to measure their value, but he 

 must also be able to find others who, having a different description of goods 

 to offer as an equivalent, are willing to accept his goods in exchange, 

 in such quantities as he wishes to dispose of. Not to enlarge, however, 

 upon the obvious difficulties of barter, which have been sufficiently 

 indicated under BARTER, it will suffice to observe that all its difficulties 

 are removed if some one commodity can be discovered which represents 

 a certain amount of labour, and which all persons agree to accept as an 

 equivalent for the products of their own industry. If such a commodity 

 be found, it is no longer necessary for men to exchange their goods 

 directly with each other ; they have a medium of exchange, which 

 they can obtain for their own goods, and with which they can purchase 

 the goods of others. This medium, whatever it may be, is Money. 



When money has assumed the character of a medium of exchange 

 and equivalent of value, the cumbrous mechanism of barter gives place 

 to commerce. But what must be the qualities of an article which all 

 men are willing to accept for the products of their own labour '! It is 

 now no longer like a weight or measure, the mere instrument for 

 assessing the value of commodities ; but, to use the words of Locke, 

 " it is the thing bargained for as well as the measure of the bargain." 

 A bargain is complete when money has been paid for goods ; it has no 

 reference to the price of other goods, nor to any circumstance whatever. 

 One man parts with his goods, the other pays his money as an absolute 

 equivalent. But though money as a medium of exchange thus differs 

 from money as a mere standard of value, yet in both characters it 

 should possess, if it be possible, one quality above all others an in- 

 variable equality of value at all times and under all circumstances. As 

 a measure of value it is as essential that it should always be the same, as 

 that a yard should always be of the same length. And unless, as a 

 medium of exchange, its value be always the same, all bargains are 

 disturbed. He who gives his labour or his goods to another in exchange 

 for a delusive denomination of value instead of for a full equivalent 

 which he expects to receive, is as much defrauded as one who should 

 bargain for a yard of cloth and receive short measure. 



But however desirable may be the invariableness of money, complete 

 uniformity of value is an impossibility. There is no such thing as 

 absolute value. All descriptions of measures correspond with absolute 

 qualities, such as length, weight, and number, and may be invariable. 

 But as value is a relative and not an absolute quality, it can have no 

 invariable measure or constant representative. The value of all com- 

 modities is continually changing ; some more and some less than others. 

 Their real value depends upon the quantity of labour expended upon 

 them ; but temporary variations in their exchangeable value are caused 

 by abundance or scarcity by the relations which subsist between 

 supply and demand. No commodity yet discovered is exempt from 

 the laws which affect all others. If precisely the same quantity of 

 labour were required for a long series of years to produce equal 

 quantities of any commodity, its real value would remain unchanged ; 

 but if it were at the same time an object of demand amongst men, 

 variations in the proportion between its supply and the demand for it 

 would affect its exchangeable value. It follows therefore, that to be 

 an invariable standard, money must always be produced by the same 

 amount of labour, and in such quantities as shall constantly bear the 

 same proportion to the demand for it. 



But even if any description of money could be invented which 

 possessed these extraordinary qualities, the value of all other article:! 

 would still be variable, and thus its representative character would In; 

 disturbed. At one time, for example, a given denomination of money 

 will represent a certain number of bushels of wheat; at another time 

 the same money, unchanged in real value or demand, will represent a 

 much greater number. Every application of machinery, every addition 

 to the skill and experience of mankind, facilitates production, r.nd l-y 



