TOPICS OF THE DAY.
ENGLISH COLLECTIVISM.
IS English Liberalism about to undergo a change, to modify its traditional doctrines, and to accept, whether with pleasure or reluctance, a strong infusion of "Socialism?" It is quite time to ask the question, and there could hardly be a better opportunity than the present lull in politics. To us it seems clear that the tendency exists, and that the school of thought which on the Continent is called Collectivism, though greatly modified by the English desire for compromise and for concrete plans, is gaining ground visibly among us. We do not rely merely on the wide circulation of that dreamy and dangerous book by Mr. George on the nationalisation of the land, or on the speeches now frequently made in gatherings of distressed men ; we see the spread of the school in much higher quarters. The disposition of Parliament to override the claims of individuals when opposed to the interests, real or presumed, of the whole people becomes, as the Pall Mall Gazette so fre- quently points out, more marked in every Session. An appre- ciable section of Radical candidates begin to base their claims to popular favour upon "philanthropy," sometimes pulpy, occasionally, perhaps, factitious, but often quite genuine, and even practical. The political litterateurs who have so much initiative in English politics, though not often great weight, are bringing forward, in all manner of magazines, journals, and pamphlets, schemes which thirty years ago would have been pronounced ridiculous, and which are one and all penetrated with the same thought, that the whole community should make great, sometimes indeed huge, pecuniary sacrifices, in order that the lower mass should have more enjoyment of their lives. Lecturers go many degrees further than the litterateurs, and the active section of the clergy, who come . daily into contact with misery, and who have not much to lose, are often inclined to go further than both. The spirit is catching the new gener- ation, and we are constantly amazed to find that the Spectator, which Tories often think so rabid, is pronounced by younger Liberals a little antiquated in its views, and incapable of appre- ciating advanced philanthropic schemes. And yet we should have said that the Spectator, too, was a little bitten, and that an article such as we published a fortnight since, on "Children's Dinners," would twenty years ago hardly have appeared in its columns. Some of the proposals current, besides being philanthropic, are gigantic, and three at least are slowly gliding out of the region of speculation into that of practical politics. But for the opposition of Irish theorists, State-aided Emigration on a considerable scale would be already before Parliament as a positive and not a tentative proposal. Both parties are becoming slowly pledged to the most vast of all Collectivist schemes, the "rehousing of the people." And that some measure will be brought forward for the bettering of the people in the Scotch Highlands and Islands which will be essentially Collectivist in tone, if not in form, those who have watched recent events with attention hardly doubt. The English will not long endure a conflict between the laws and the happiness of the only Celtic race whom they regard, possibly in part on sentimental grounds, but in the main for sound reasons, with cordial affection and esteem.
We have no objection to the movement, which, when in- vestigated, is an outcome of Christianity, and could not arise in a country dominated either by Paganism or by the scientific spirit, and we recognise to the full that the tremendous power of the collective State as an agency for good has never been sufficiently employed. Except in supplying food to the starv- ing, in suppressing small-pox, in providing education, and in insuring to the masses the possibility of travelling by railway, "the Country" has as yet done little strictly to be called philanthropic. It might do much more, especially in the direction of alleviating the three great incidents in human life, birth, sickness, and death, through better State provision for scientific attendance. But we want all Liberals, before they give way to the swelling stream of pity, to make up their minds finally and inexorably on three principles, or rather rules of thought, the breach of any one of which will bring them ultimately to ruin. First, that they must them- selves bear the cost of all the good they propose to do, and not steal it from other people ; secondly, that plans for philan- thropic improvement must be as hard, and as practical, and as closely limited by facts, as plans for war or other forms of destructive action ; and thirdly, that when they have done their utmost, they must be content to know that there will remain troubles of humanity upon which they will spend their highest energies in vain. God has decided that women should suffer when the race is born, that man's permanent work shouldl be to sweat for his living, that all should inexorably die,—and against these, and kindred necessities, the human will is vain.
About the adoption of the first rule, we have some mis- givings which many of our friends would pronounce foolish. The English, they would say, are an honest people, and they would) say rightly ; but they are not a people quick of ideas, and we have been astounded to discover how many there are who sin- cerely believe that the State cannot rob, if only it takes away money from the comfortable and expends it for the benefit of the unhappy. That is an utterly immoral doctrine. The State can rob, even within its own area, and does rob very often, while it still more often breaks its own contracts by quasi-criminal negligence. One-half the secularisations of Church property on the Continent have been robberies effected by force, while. the special taxation of State Bonds, except so far as it is a form of bankruptcy, is a criminal breach of contract. Suppose, for example, that the State ordered all great proprietors of land to rebuild their cottages at a loss, without also ordering all other equally large employers of profitable labour, it would* unmistakeably and openly rob. So it would if it adopted suggestion in this month's Fortnightly, and expropriated all unhealthy houses at less than their market value. So it would' if it "nationalised" the land without compensation to owners, whom for two hundred years at least it has promised to keep secure in the enjoyment of their property. And, finally, so it would if it placed upon a class the burden of a philanthropic- scheme, instead of placing it upon the whole people,—if, for in- stance, it put on a progressive Income-tax, in order that the exacted from all with more than a million should be spent upon children's hospitals. Of course, if the specially taxed class agrees, as, no doubt, English Income-taxpayers have agreed, to an impost not borne by the community, no harm is done ; but otherwise, the tax is nothing better than a violent wrong. The State has no more right to decree that Arundel Castle shall be a museum for the benefit of the people of Arundel, than it has to seize the. humblest cottager's home, and turn it into a hospital for the Arundel sick. If we desire to do these grand charities— and we do not protest, rather we should be delighted to pay our share for the children's dinners—we must pay for them out of our own earnings, and not look round greedily to snatch any property which seems too much for its owner. If we do, besides breaking laws outside our legitimate control, we shalt very speedily find that the rain raineth on the just and unjust, and that the system of the Universe does not make pity a reason for injustice. The spirit of accumulation, to which man owes nearly as much as he does to hunger, that beneficent and self-acting whip of Heaven, will receive a fatal shock.
The second rule is nearly as important as the first, and is more disregarded. Human reason was not given to man to be safely set aside whenever a man wanted something for his brother. Statesmen may be excellent men because of their aspirations, but they must carry out their aspirations through hard calculation. What is the use of ordering the children's dinners, if there is not the money to buy them? Take this rehousing of the people, for example. People write of the ini- quity of housing whole families in one room, as if, since the beginning of the world, man had ever done any- thing else ; as if the human race had not dwelt each family in a tent, or a hut, or a room, from the days of Lamech. Two men on earth in every three are Asiatics, and how many rooms do they get? Nevertheless, in our civilisa- tion a family ought to have more, and the evil is great enough for the State to intervene ; but then, admitting that, let us all consider what we are to do. Shouting on hustings will net mend things, nor will philanthropic gush. There are seven millions of houses in the two Islands, of which at least five millions want serious improvements for the sake of hygiene ; and of these, one million at least ought to be re- built. The latter alone will cost £150,000,000, and the 4,000,000 of the former .240,000,000, for every £10 note spent on each house. How far will 10 go ? We venture to say we shall not rehouse Englishmen as they ought to be housed, with two rooms as the family minimum, decent windows, and trapped cloacte, under a new National Debt. That is no reason for not beginning the work, still less a reason for not enforcing the strictest possible Lodging-house Act, but it is a reason for not accepting vague talk with rapture because it is philanthropic. Telling Hodge that he ought to be well housed, and shall be, is not philanthropy, or sense either. We
must, if we are honest, call for scientific estimates, settle about materials, declare what we exactly mean about crowding, and then stoop our shoulders to take up another weighty burden. Our duty is not the less clear for the weight, but for God's sake do not let us shout that, if our objects are only good, the laws of gravitation will be suspended. They won't. Upon the third rule it is useless to say much, for Nature says it with a voice which drowns ours. If every rich man is a Clarkson, and every poor man treated as his brother, both will be born in pain, both will die with pain, and both will have to endure without screaming their modicum of tooth- ache. All the philanthropists alive, or to be born, will not modify the physical conditions of the world much, though they may make it a little happier, and can indefinitely improve its morale.
Previous page
