the cost of others is, according to the laws of the Church, no better than a common criminal. In a well-governed community all arbitrary raising of prices in the case of articles of food and clothing is peremptorily stopped; in times of scarcity merchants who have supplies of such commodities can be compelled to sell them at fair prices; for in every community care should be taken that all the members should be provided for, and not only a small number be allowed to grow rich, and revel in luxury to the hurt and prejudice of the many.[7] Thus the doctrine of the just price was a deadly weapon with which to fight the 'profiteer.' The engrosser was looked upon as the natural enemy of the poor; and the power of the trading class was justly reckoned so great, that in cases of doubt prices were always fixed low rather than high. In other words, the buyer--that is to say, the community--was the subject of protection rather than the seller.[8] [Footnote 1: _The Living Wage_, p. 27.] [Footnote 2: _Growth of English Industry and Commerce_, vol. i. p. 460.] [Footnote 3: Endemann, _Studien_, vol. ii. p. 60.] [Footnote 4: Lessius, _De Justitia et Jure_, II. xx. 1, 21.] [Footnote 5: _Ibid._] [Footnote 6: Langenstein, _De Cont._; Biel, _op. cit._, iv. xv. 11.] [Footnote 7: Quoted in Janssen, _op. cit._, vol. ii. p. 102.] [Footnote 8: Roscher, _Geschichte_, p. 12.] It must at the same time be clearly kept in mind that the seller was also protected. All the authorities are unanimous that it was as sinful for the buyer to give too little as for the seller to demand too much, and it is this aspect of the just price which appears most favourable in comparison with the theory of price of the classical economists. In the former case prices were fixed having regard to the wages necessary for the producer; in the latter the wages of the producer are determined by the price at which he can sell his goods, exposed to the competition of machinery or foreign--possibly slave--labour.[1] According to the _Catholic Encyclopædia_: 'To the mediæval theologian the just price of an article included enough to pay fair wages to the worker--that is, enough to enable him to maintain the standard of living of his class.'[2] 'The difference,' says Dr. Cunningham, 'which emerges according as we start from one principle or the other comes out most distinctly with reference to wages. In the Middle Ages wages were taken as a first charge; in modern times the reward of the labourer cannot but fluctuate in connection with fluctuations in the utility and market price of the things. There must always be a connection between wages and prices, but in the olden times wages were the first charge, and prices on the whole depended on them, while in modern times wages are, on the other hand, directly affected by prices.'[3] Dr. Cunningham draws attention to the fact that the labouring classes rejected the idea of the fixing of a just price for their services when, from a variety of causes,