MR. FAWCETT AT HACKNEY.
THE hearty recognition which Mr. Fawcett has received at Hackney is creditable to the borough, for a speech less calculated to win votes by subterfuges was never uttered to a -constituency. Mr. Fawcett seemed to be even afraid of being supposed to flatter, and exaggerated slightly his differences with that section of working-men which desires to throw all taxation on realised property. Nothing, for example, can be more logically perfect than this argument against throwing all taxation on realised property, but it wants at least one great qualification :— " Nothing, it appeared to him, could be more mischievous and more flagrantly unjust than to throw almost the entire weight of taxation upon the owners of realised property. And some, forsooth ! have ven- tured to propound this in the interests of labour ! If capital were subjected to such a special penalty, what would be the result ? Capital would flow more plentifully to foreign countries. It would be drawn away from our own industry. Was this what labour required ? Why, capital is the fund from which wages were paid. If capital were with- drawn from their industry, the remuneration of labour was not more certain to decline than was the tree to wither if it were cut off from the fertile soil which gave it vigour and life. (Cheers.) But this was not all. It must be remembered that, happily, an increasing number of the labourers of this country were the posessors of realised property. They had millions invested in co-opera- tive and building societies; they had large sums deposited in the savings'- banks. How had this realised property possessed by workmen been accumulated ? Did it indicate some mischievous tendency which ought to be discouraged by a penalty, some shortcoming which ought to be punished by a special tax ? It was not necessary for him to toll them that the workman who had realised property had become the possessor of it by dint of careful thrift, and by many an act of noble self-sacrifice and self-denial. And yet the exercise of these qualities, upon which not only the happiness of a people, but also the greatness of a nation depended, were to be fined by accumulated taxation, in order that the spendthrift who never saved, the drunkard who never practised self- denial, the indolent who never know what honest toil was, might make no contribution to the revenue of the State."
Does not that go in one direction a little too far? If special taxation on property is, in fact, a penal sentence upon thrift, ought not rates also to fall on labour, as in the country dis- tricts they do not fall ? Whether landlord or farmer pays the rates, it is certain that the agricultural labourer does not pay them, unless in the very way Mr. Fawcett deprecates, by the reduction of his wages consequent on the special taxation of his employer. He would help to pay if he paid rack-rent for his cottage, but this, over the greater part of the country, he does not do, the rent being entirely artificial. The true answer to that objection is, of course, to be sought in the history of English rates, but the argument is not com- plete without some notice of the exception to the rule. One form of realised capital—land—is specially fined, say, for example, by the tithe, and though that is perfectly fair— estates being bought subject to that charge—still the demand for tithe does diminish the wage-fund of the landowners.
Nevertheless, for all practical purposes, Mr. Fawcett places the economic view in the strongest possible light, at the risk of affronting every workman who agrees with Mr. Potter. He was equally bold about the Nine Hours' Bill, telling the work- men with plain distinctness that he would support any proposal to protect children, but that he would resist any suggestion of a legislative limit to the work of adult persons, whether men or women. The workmen must limit the hours for themselves, for legislative interference was be- yond the competence of Parliament, which had no right what- ever to single out classes of adalts, and say to them, " You shall not work more than a fixed time." Here, again, we should interpose the rider that a nation has a right to main- tain its own civilisation, and consequently, a right to say no woman shall work in a coal-mine or other analogous employ- ment ; but Mr. Fawcett walks boldly up to the strongest prejudices of his electors, and maintains unhesitatingly the right of contract which the Unionists seem frequently to condemn.
For the rest, Mr. Fawcett spoke out as a convinced Liberal, ready to follow Mr. Gladstone even though he had made errors—as, for example, in submitting a budget to a plebis- citum—or, if Mr. Gladstone retired, any other sufficient leader, provided only that he were not selected merely for his rank or wealth, and declared himself entirely indisposed to des-
pair of the fortunes of the party. They had to extend and raise education, till every competent child in the land had a
chance of entering a University ; they had to readjust local taxation on principles consistent with local self-govern- ment, and as fair to the great towns as the rural dis- tricts ; they had to reform the municipal government of London ; they had to place the laws relating to capital and labour on an equitable basis, to enfranchise the unenfranchised masses, to reform the tenure of land, and to consider whether with the wealth of the Established Church " more could not be done to promote the spiritual and moral welfare of the people." In his method of pursuing many of these objects, and particularly the last, we should probably differ widely from Mr. Fawcett ; but they all are objects which a Liberal party must seek, and which it is well for that party, in its present unnatural depression, carefully to remember.
It is not, however, for the sake of his opinions that we shall be glad to see Hackney thoroughly determined to send Mr. Fawcett back to the House of Commons, but because we see in him a man who will definitely raise the tone of its debates. Let him go which way he will, he will make the discussion loftier, more complete, and more beneficial to the country. Take the case of India, for example. We totally disagree with Mr. Fawcett's fundamental views of the capacity of India to bear taxes, holding that while we have heavily taxed some necessaries of the people, such as salt, and outside the Valley of the Ganges, land, we have never attempted to tax their luxuries, such as tobacco and betel, either of which might yield heavy and unobjectionable returns ; but a debate in the House on Indian finance without Mr. Fawcett to state his view, which, on many points is the native view, would be, as the House is now constituted, no debate at all, but a mere statement, scarcely challenged, of the official wish, as propounded by men _who, even when thoroughly in the right, have not, and cannot have, the minute knowledge which he possesses, and which he uses some- times well, sometimes in the most aggravating manner, but always with a single desire,—that India should be benefited by the ultimate decision. He does not on Indian affairs try to represent any party, any " view," or any person, but India, and though, as we hold, he often fails, the very loftiness of his effort raises the tone of every debater hopeful of his support, or liable to suffer under his attack. He speaks the truth as he sees it in the House, just as he speaks it in Hackney, and the men who will do that and do it effectively are few and far between. "He is as bad as a hair-shirt," says one man, and that is sometimes true ; but if ever a body needed an occa- sional touch of a hair-shirt, an occasional reminder that comfort is not everything, that there is some use in troubling the flesh, that some deference is due to principle, as well as to expediency, it is this House of Commons, which, acred up to its lips, consolled up to its chin, may yet be compelled, if Hackney chooses, to recollect that men not so clothed in the modem armour are the subjects of its legislation. To find a brave defender of the poor in a man determined not to rob the rich, an advocate of equality in a man who will defy a mob as readily as a Duke, a fierce critic of officials in a man who will labour like a slave to master official statements, is a rare piece of luck, which Hackney can enjoy if she chooses, even though Mr. Fawcett coolly tells her to take her own time, to know her own mind, and to be quite sure before she decides that he suits her best. That is rough wooing, but it is for rough, intellectual work, and not for hymn-singing, that the late Member for Brighton is wanted in the House.
Previous page
