PHILANTHROPY AND THE STATE.*
THE late Mr. Gray's representatives have done well to publish
the fragment of history and criticism from which we borrow the title of this article. We may not agree with the view there set out, but we acknowledge the importance of the issues raised and the moderation with which they are pre- sented. The purpose of the work is best described in the author's own words :— " The movement which I describe," he says (p. 13), "as a transition from philanthropy to social politics rests on the breaking down of the simple old doctrine of individualism. What social faith is to be substituted is yet undetermined, and that hesitation explains the confusion which still exists as to the proper spheres of philanthropy and social politics respectively."
In the author's phraseology the "transition from philanthropy to social politics" means "an immense extension of the prin- ciple of State control, or what followers of Herbert Spencer would call Government interference" (p. 89). Elsewhere he comments on "the immense change of thought and emotional perceptiveness which has come about in recent years." Of this change Mr. Gray attempts to supply the history. His attitude is eulogistic rather than critical, and he is fully in sympathy with the movement which he chronicles. Even if, as he declares in the passage above quoted, he is uncertain as to his ultimata destination, he is carried along in a popular movement from which he shows little disposition to detach himself.
The other books in our list may be cited (our space unfortunately forbids us to do more) as apt illustrations of the thesis which Mr. Gray has set out. Canon and Mrs. Barnett in their preface decline "to discuss the details of any ideals or of any far-off visions." More prosaically we interpret this as meaning that they decline to accept any general principles of action. They appeal rather "to all parties to believe that somehow good will come" from a benevolent frame of mind, and "to use their near eight and do the next good thing that lies at their feet." Mr. Gray's phrase, "emotional perceptiveness," seems to describe this attitude very aptly. We doubt, however, whether we can afford to disregard those larger generalisations as to conduct which, often to our great advantage, enable us to resist the impulse of the moment. A swimmer in mid-stream must make up his mind on which bank of the river he means to land, regardless of the eddy which causes him a temporary difficulty. "Why," the authors ask, "do people care for social reform P" It is not, we are told, because they want their rights, but because they are impelled by a Divinity which shapes our ends, and by religion, "which has been the unfailing motive to social reform." The sentiment is admirable, but it appears to evade the difficulty. To characterise the motive is not the same thing as to show the road. What the * (1) Philanthropy and the State; or, Social Politics. By B. Kirkman Gray. London: P. S. King and Son. [7s. 6d. net.]—(2) Towards Social Reform. By Canon and Mrs. Barnett. London : T. Fisher Unwin. 15s. net.] —(5) Fabian Resays in SOCiA1113711. With a New Preface by the Editor, Bernard Shaw. London : The Walter Scott Publishing Company. [61. net.)—(4) Leaders of Socialism. By G. E. S. Taylor. London: The New Age Press. fls. net.1— 0) Socialism in Local Government. By W. G. Towler. With an Introduction by Captain H. N. Jesse]. London; G. Allen and Sons. [58. net. J—(6) Our Irrational Distribution of Wealth. By Byron C. Matthews, Ph.D. London G. P. Putnam's Sons. [Ss. net.]—(7) Twenty.eight Years of Co-partnsrship at Guise. Translated by Lneurin Williams. London: Labour Co-partnership Association. [6/L net.]—(5) Economic Science in Relation to Practice. By A. C. Pigou, London: Draosaillan an Co. [la. nat.] swimmer in the stream of conflicting theory wishes to know to on which side of him the social reform for which religion supplies the motive really lies. Does it rest in the hope that the State, whose aggrandisement popular clamour now pro- claims, can meet an ever-increasing number of responsibilities which it is the inalienable prerogative of the individual, and not the State, to create, and which the individual alone, and not the State. has the power to limit ? Or, on the other hand, does the future of society depend, as far at least as its material basis is concerned, on the developed competence of the individual to preserve a right pro- portion between the responsibilities which he inherits and creates, and his means of discharging them ? The pleasant optimisms of Canon and Mrs. Barnett give no satisfactory answer to such questions. The difficulty of sitting down to write a consistent treatise like Towards Social Reform on the pleasant assumption that somehow good will come out of all our amiable musings, without the assistance of fixed principles, becomes painfully apparent. Thus on p. 104 it pleases one of the authors to talk of the Poor Law "with its prison-like refuge," and a few lines further on to play the benevolent autocrat and demand "fuller powers" for detaining people there. Mrs. Barnett in her paper on " Some Principles of the Poor Law" argues that the Poor Law should adopt the principle of "restoration to industrial efficiency." The whole history of the Poor Law from the time of Elizabeth is a long chronicle of unsuccessful attempts to achieve this most desirable object. A. general principle has been accepted—and Canon Barnett, for many years a member of the Whitechapel Board of Guardians, has wisely acted on it—that it is better to deter the poor man by every legitimate means from coming on the Poor-rate than to trust to the ability of the law to reinstate him when once he has become dependent. It may be that the safeguards recommended in the past to protect the gratuitous maintenance provided by the Poor Law from abuse are defective, but, with all respect for the "emotional perceptiveness" of our authors, the proposal to substitute for deterrent safeguards a warm invitation to come in and be restored to industrial efficiency seems to us hopelessly uncritical, and, when the whole weight of the evidence is against the ability of the public authority to fulfil its undertaking, hopelessly mischievous.
Even Mr. Bernard Shaw in his new preface to the Fabian Essays admits that if he and his friends were writing now they would "certainly be much more careful not to give countenance to the notion that the unemployed can be set to work to inaugurate Socialism." Canon Barnett has been an advocate of universal pensions on the unanswerable ground that limitation was certain to provoke deceit, to give an opportunity for invidious patronage, and to establish a privileged class. His agitation has succeeded in getting, not what he wanted, but what the politician of the day thinks better. Canon Barnett is disappointed and distressed by seeing "instances of neighbours' deceitfulness" and "by examples of injustice on the part of those in authority " ; and, as final conclusion, he tells us that "the great boon of pensions is not increasing truth and goodwill." In plain words, when for the economic order we substitute the rule of the political "boss," the bitterness of the inequalities of life is increased rather than diminished. The contrast is between the attempt to produce gratuity and privilege by means of taxation, the favourite device of "emotional per- ceptiveness," and the orderly progress of a free civilisation, where, in Bastiat's illuminating phrase, satisfactions on6reuses are ever tending to become satisfactions gratuites. The generalisation which we would oppose to the arguments of "emotional perceptiveness" is that only by the disciplinary economy of free exchange, and not by burdensome taxation for the endowment of incompetence, can the task of dis- charging life's obligations be brought nearer to "gratuity." The propaganda of Socialism in the hands of the Fabian Society has become a policy of opportunism, and Canon and Mrs. Barnett are part of their harvest. Mr. Shaw is entitled to his paean of self-gratulation on the progress of the Socialist movement. Indeed, if the event were not so serious, it would be impossible not to be amused at the pertinacious way in which the Socialists dog the steps of the party politician. They have already succeeded in making more than one party leader thoroughly contemptible. They have no responsibility, they command a certain number of votes, and these are
used to squeeze and embarrass the "emotionally perceptive" statesman who abjures general principles,—and, as we gather from Mr. Shaw's preface, the fun at times grows wildly hilarious.
In Leaders of Socialism we have an account of some thirteen prominent Socialists. The author, "though anxious to gather together into one unified Parliamentary party all the elements of Socialist attack," is very scornful of the " creeping" methods of the Fabians. It is, he justly remarks, a delusion to think that Socialism is social reform. "The day for physical rebellion is perhaps past ; the day of political revolt has at last come." The biographical notices are coloured by these predispositions, and praise is given to the revolutionist who sees that Socialism involves a definite breach with the present economic order rather than to the permeating or Fabian type of Socialism of which the panegyric is written in Mr. Shaw's preface.
Mr. Towler's Socialism in Local Government warns us as to the extent to which municipal ambition is jeopardising the
credit of the country. Municipal trading is not Socialism, but it is fast producing a state of affairs which, resulting in economic catastrophe, may give an opportunity for some revolutionary experiment. Mr. Towler is to be congratulated on an excellent bit of work, which should. prove most useful to speakers in the campaign against Socialism that is now obviously imminent.
The author of Our Irrational Distribution of Wealth describes himself as of the "Department of Economics, Barringer High School, Newark, N.J.," and the refrain of his teaching is that "the source of permanent improvement lice in the direction of public ownership." America is a go-ahead country, and appears to have teachers of Socialism in her high schools.
Twenty-eight Years of Co-partnership at Guise gives an account of M. Godin's well-known iron-foundry, and may be usefully contrasted with the railing accusation brought against civilisation by the American writer above quoted. The familistere of M. Godin may seem too artificial for general imitation, but it is only one illustration of the fact too fre- quently ignored in these discussions,—viz., that though all things are not yet perfect, the existing organisation shelters and protects millions of families in a greater degree of comfort and security than at any other period of the world's history.
Economic Science in Relation to Practice is the inaugural address of Professor Pigou, Professor of Political Economy at Cambridge. As perhaps befits the occasion, Professor Pigou's treatment of the subject is strictly academical. Political economy is now in a stage where—with all respect be it said—it appears to us to suffer from the over- refinement of its exponents. We may be asking for what is impossible, but we fear that the usefulness of the study is lessened by the necessity under which its professors in this country seem to labour of so magnifying the importance of apparent exceptions that the generalisations which we look for in science are overshadowed by endless qualifications and deductions. If the science cannot emerge from the obscurity which such treatment involves, we fear we must rest content with the old rule-of-thumb and "the treatment of each case on its merits," the well-known formula of the obscurantist and the philistine. This attitude of the political economist appears to be part of the spirit of the age. The "man in the street" remembers not Mill's impassioned defence of liberty and free .trade, but his unfortunate admission that for new communities regulation and protection may be desirable. .Action will not be guided by general principles so diffidently stated, and "emotional perceptiveness" will be decisive in every crisis. Perhaps this is unavoidable, but we confess that we should be gratified if our academic economists saw their way to issue a more fighting apologia.
Previous page
