of land, the destruction without compensation of all dwellings found
unfit for habitation, and the provision of artisan dwellings by the
municipality. 2. The facilitation of every extension of municipal
administration, in London and all other towns, of gas, water, markets,
tramways, hospitals, cemeteries, parks, museums, art galleries,
libraries, reading-rooms, schools, docks, harbors, rivers, etc. 3. The
provision of abundant facilities for the acquisition of land by local
rural authorities, for allotments, common pastures, public halls,
reading-rooms, etc.
AMENDMENT OF POLITICAL MACHINERY.
_Object._--To obtain the most accurate representation and expression
of the desires of the majority of the people at every moment.
_Means._--1. Reform of registration so as to give a vote, both
Parliamentary and municipal, to every adult. 2. Abolition of any
period of residence as a qualification for registration. 3. Bi-annual
registration by special public officer. 4. Annual Parliaments.
5. Payment of election expenses, including postage of election
addresses and polling cards. 6. Payment of all public representatives,
parliamentary, county, or municipal. 7. Second ballot. 8. Abolition or
painless extinction of the House of Lords.[40]
This is the programme to which a century of industrial revolution has
brought the Radical working man. Like John Stuart Mill,[41] though less
explicitly, he has turned from mere political Democracy to a complete,
though unconscious, Socialism.[42]
THE NEW SYNTHESIS.
It need hardly be said that the social philosophy of the time did
not remain unaffected by the political evolution and the industrial
development. Slowly sinking into men’s minds all this while was the
conception of a new social nexus, and a new end of social life. It
was discovered (or rediscovered) that a society is something more
than an aggregate of so many individual units--that it possesses
existence distinguishable from those of any of its components. A
perfect city became recognized as something more than any number of
good citizens--something to be tried by other tests, and weighed in
other balances than the individual man. The community must necessarily
aim, consciously or not, at its continuance as a community; its life
transcends that of any of its members; and the interests of the
individual unit must often clash with those of the whole. Though
the social organism has itself evolved from the union of individual
men, the individual is now created by the social organism of which
he forms a part: his life is born of the larger life; his attributes
are moulded by the social pressure; his activities, inextricably
interwoven with others, belong to the activity of the whole. Without
the continuance and sound health of the social organism, no man can
now live or thrive; and its persistence is accordingly his paramount
end. His conscious motive for action may be, nay, always must be,
individual to himself; but where such action proves inimical to the
social welfare, it must sooner or later be checked by the whole, lest
the whole perish through the error of its member. The conditions of
social health are accordingly a matter for scientific investigation.
There is, at any moment, one particular arrangement of social relations
which involves the minimum of human misery then and there possible
amid the “niggardliness of nature.” Fifty years ago it would have been
assumed that absolute freedom in the sense of individual or “manly”
independence, plus a criminal code, would spontaneously result in
such an arrangement for each particular nation; and the effect was
the philosophic apotheosis of _Laisser Faire_. To-day every student
is aware that no such optimistic assumption is warranted by the facts
of life.[43] We know now that in natural selection at the stage of
development where the existence of civilized mankind is at stake, the
units selected from are not individuals, but societies. Its action at
earlier stages, though analogous, is quite dissimilar. Among the lower
animals physical strength or agility is the favored quality; if some
heaven-sent genius among the cuttlefish developed a delicate poetic
faculty, this high excellence would not delay his succumbing to his
hulking neighbor. When, higher up in the scale, mental cunning became
the favored attribute, an extra brain convolution, leading primitive
man to the invention of fire or tools, enabled a comparatively puny
savage to become the conqueror and survivor of his fellows.
Brain culture accordingly developed apace; but we do not yet thoroughly
realize that this has itself been superseded as the “selected”
attribute, by social organization. The cultivated Athenians, Saracens,
and Provençals went down in the struggle for existence before their
respective competitors, who, individually inferior, were in possession
of a, at that time, more valuable social organization. The French
nation was beaten in the last war, not because the average German was
an inch and a half taller than the average Frenchman, or because he
had read five more books, but because the German social organism, was,
for the purposes of the time, superior in efficiency to the French.
If we desire to hand on to the after-world our direct influence, and
not merely the memory of our excellence, we must take even more care
to improve the social organism of which we form part, than to perfect
our own individual developments. Or rather, the perfect and fitting
development of each individual is not necessarily the utmost and
highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the
best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine.
We must abandon the self-conceit of imagining that we are independent
units, and bend our jealous minds, absorbed in their own cultivation,
to this subjection to the higher end, the Common Weal. Accordingly,
conscious “direct adaptation” steadily supplants the unconscious and
wasteful “indirect adaptation” of the earlier form of the struggle for
existence; and with every advance in sociological knowledge, Man is
seen to assume more and more, not only the mastery of “things,” but
also a conscious control over social destiny itself.
This new scientific conception of the Social Organism, has put
completely out of countenance the cherished principles of the Political
Economist and the Philosophic Radical. We left them sailing gaily
into Anarchy on the stream of _Laisser Faire_. Since then the tide
has turned. The publication of John Stuart Mill’s “Political Economy”
in 1848 marks conveniently the boundary of the old individualist
Economics. Every edition of Mill’s book became more and more
Socialistic. After his death the world learnt the personal history,
penned by his own hand,[44] of his development from a mere political
democrat to a convinced Socialist.
The change in tone since then has been such that one competent
economist, professedly[45] anti-Socialist, publishes regretfully to the
world that all the younger men are now Socialists, as well as many of
the older Professors. It is, indeed, mainly from these that the world
has learnt how faulty were the earlier economic generalizations, and
above all, how incomplete as guides for social or political action.
These generalizations are accordingly now to be met with only in
leading articles, sermons, or the speeches of Ministers or Bishops.[46]
The Economist himself knows them no more.
The result of this development of Sociology is to compel a revision
of the relative importance of liberty and equality as principles to
be kept in view in social administration. In Bentham’s celebrated
“ends” to be aimed at in a civil code, liberty stands predominant
over equality, on the ground that full equality can be maintained
only by the loss of security for the fruits of labor. That exposition
remains as true as ever; but the question for decision remains, how
much liberty? Economic analysis has destroyed the value of the old
criterion of respect for the equal liberty of others. Bentham, whose
economics were weak, paid no attention to the perpetual tribute on the
fruits of others’ labor which full private property in land inevitably
creates. In his view, liberty and security to property meant that every
worker should be free to obtain the full result of his own labor; and
there appeared no inconsistency between them. The political economist
now knows that with free competition and private property in land and
capital, no individual can possibly obtain the full result of his
own labor. The student of industrial development, moreover, finds it
steadily more and more impossible to trace what is precisely the result
of each separate man’s toil. Complete rights of liberty and property
necessarily involve, for example, the spoliation of the Irish cottier
tenant for the benefit of Lord Clanricarde. What then becomes of the
Benthamic principle of the greatest happiness of the greatest number?
When the Benthamite comes to understand the Law of Rent, which of the
two will he abandon? For he cannot escape the lesson of the century,
taught alike by the economists, the statesmen, and the “practical men,”
that complete individual liberty, with unrestrained private ownership
of the instruments of wealth production, is irreconcilable with the
common weal. The free struggle for existence among ourselves menaces
our survival as a healthy and permanent social organism. Evolution,
Professor Huxley[47] declares, is the substitution of consciously
regulated co-ordination among the units of each organism, for blind
anarchic competition. Thirty years ago Herbert Spencer demonstrated
the incompatibility of full private property in land with the modern
democratic State;[48] and almost every economist now preaches the
same doctrine. The Radical is rapidly arriving, from practical
experience, at similar conclusions; and the steady increase of the
government regulation of private enterprise, the growth of municipal
administration, and the rapid shifting of the burden of taxation
directly to rent and interest, mark in treble lines the statesman’s
unconscious abandonment of the old Individualism, and our irresistible
glide into collectivist Socialism.
It was inevitable that the Democracy should learn this lesson. With the
masses painfully conscious of the failure of Individualism to create
a decent social life for four-fifths of the people,[49] it might have
been foreseen that Individualism could not survive their advent to
political power. If private property in land and capital necessarily
keeps the many workers permanently poor (through no fault of their
own), in order to make the few idlers rich (from no merit of their
own), private property in land and capital will inevitably go the way
of the feudalism which it superseded. The economic analysis confirms
the rough generalization of the suffering people. The history of
industrial evolution points to the same result; and for two generations
the world’s chief ethical teachers have been urging the same lesson. No
wonder the heavens of Individualism are rolling up before our eyes like
a scroll; and even the Bishops believe and tremble.[50]
It is, of course, possible, as Sir Henry Maine and others have
suggested, that the whole experience of the century is a mistake, and
that political power will once more swing back into the hands of a
monarch or an aristocratic oligarchy. It is, indeed, want of faith in
Democracy which holds back most educated sympathisers with Socialism
from frankly accepting its principles. What the economic side of such
political atavism would be it is not easy to forecast. The machine
industry and steam power could hardly be dismissed with the caucus
and the ballot-box. So long, however, as Democracy in political
administration continues to be the dominant principle, Socialism may
be quite safely predicted as its economic obverse, in spite of those
freaks or aberrations of Democracy which have already here and there
thrown up a short-lived monarchy or a romantic dictatorship. Every
increase in the political power of the proletariat will most surely be
used by them for their economic and social protection. In England, at
any rate, the history of the century serves at once as their guide and
their justification.
FOOTNOTES:
[12] See “Socialism in England” (American Economic Association, vol.
iv, part 2, May, 1889), in which a portion of this essay has been
embodied.
[13] “I am aware that there are some who suppose that our present
bourgeois arrangements must be totally destroyed and others substituted
almost at a blow. But however successful a revolution might be, it
is certain that mankind cannot change its whole nature all at once.
Break the old shell, certainly; but never forget the fact that the new
forms _must_ grow out of the old” (H. M. Hyndman, “Historical Basis of
Socialism,” 1883, p. 305).
[14] See the article on “Socialism in English Politics,” by William
Clarke, in the _Political Science Quarterly_, December, 1888.
[15] Even Bentham said this of James Mill (Bain’s Life of J. M., p.
461), of whom it was hardly true.
[16] “Principles of Political Economy,” last edition, 1865, p. 477
(quoting from Feugueray.)
[17] Referred to in a celebrated passage by Adam Smith, “Wealth of
Nations,” book 1, chap. viii.
[18] Not to mention the restrictions imposed by the law of “Settlement”
(13 and 14 Charles II., chap. 12), which enabled two justices summarily
to send back to his village any migrating laborer.
[19] This was noticed by Malthus, “Principles of Political Economy,”
p. 225; see also Prof. Thorold Rogers, “History of Agriculture and
Prices,” and “Six Centuries of Work and Wages.”
[20] Further detail will be found in the following essay. See also
Arnold Toynbee’s “Industrial Revolution.”
[21] Between 1801-1845 the population of Manchester grew 109 per cent,
Glasgow 108 per cent, Liverpool 100 per cent, and Leeds 99 per cent
(Report of Commissioners on State of Health of Large Towns, 1843-45).
[22] W. J. Lecky, “History of the Eighteenth Century,” vol. v, p. 453.
[23] The number of registered electors at the date of the last Election
(1886) was 5,707,823, out of an adult male population of over nine
millions.
[24] Few, however, of Mr. Spencer’s followers appear to realize that
he presupposes Land Nationalization as the necessary condition of an
Individualist community (see “Social Statics,” _passim_).
[25] It is sometimes asserted nowadays that the current descriptions
of factory life under the _régime_ of freedom of contract are much
exaggerated. This is not the case. The horrors revealed in the reports
of official enquiries even exceed those commonly quoted. For a full
account of the legislation, and the facts on which it was founded, see
Von Plener’s “English Factory Legislation.” The chief official reports
are those of the House of Commons Committee of 1815-6, House of Lords
Committee, 1819, and Royal Commission, 1840. Marx (“Capital”) gives
many other references. See also F. Engels’ “Condition of the English
Working Classes.”
[26] Prof. H. S. Foxwell (University College, London, p. 249 of Essay
on the “Claims of Labor” (Edinburgh: Co-operative Printing Company,
1886).)
[27] This statement, though generally true of England, is not
absolutely so. It needed an Act of Parliament in 1758 (32 George II,
c. 61) to free the inhabitants of the “village” of Manchester from the
obligation to grind all their corn and grain at the manorial watermills
(Clifford’s “History of Private Bill Legislation,” vol. ii, p. 478).
Even so late as 1809 they had to obtain the consent of Sir Oswald
Mosley, the lord of the manor, before a company could be incorporated
to provide a water supply (_Ibid._, p. 480). Leeds was theoretically
compelled to grind its corn, grain and malt at the lord’s mills down to
1839, and actually had then to pay £13,000 to extinguish this feudal
“due” (_Ibid._, p. 498).
[28] See its organ, the _Church Reformer_. London; 8 Duke Street,
Adelphi.
[29] The beginning of factory legislation is to be found in the “Morals
and Health Act,” 42 Geo. III, c. 73 (1802). Others followed in 1819,
1825, and 1831; but their provisions were almost entirely evaded owing
to the absence of inspectors. After the Reform Bill more stringent
enactments in 1833, 1844, and 1847 secured some improvement. The Act
of 1878 consolidated the law on the subject. The Radical and Socialist
proposals for further development in this direction will be found at
page 55. Nearly 400 Local Improvement Acts had been passed up to 1845.
In the succeeding years various general Acts were passed, which were
henceforth incorporated by reference in all local Acts. The first
“Public Health Act” was passed in 1848; and successive extensions were
given to this restrictive legislation with sanitary ends in 1855,
1858, 1861, and 1866. Consolidating Acts in 1871, and finally in 1875,
complete the present sanitary code, which now forms a thick volume of
restrictions upon the free use of land and capital.
[30] The _minimum_ income chargeable to Income Tax (£150) closely
corresponds with the _average_ family income. See Fabian Tract, No. 5,
“Facts for Socialists.”
[31] See “The Progress of Socialism.” (London: The Modern Press, 13
Paternoster Row, E. C. Price One Penny.)
[32] See “Capital and Land” (Fabian Tract, No. 7), page 7.
[33] Government Return for 1887-8, see “Board of Trade Journal,”
January, 1889, pp. 76-8.
[34] It is not generally known that the Corporation of London actually
carried on the business of fire insurance from 1681 to 1683, but was
compelled to abandon it through the opposition of those interested in
private undertakings, who finally obtained a mandamus in the Court of
King’s Bench to restrain the civic competitor (Walford’s Insurance
Cyclopædia, vol. iii, pp. 445-446).
[35] C--5550, p. 436. This, by the way, is just about one year’s
rental. We pay every year to the landlords for permission to live
in England as much as the whole outstanding cost of the magnificent
property of the local governing authorities.
[36] See “The Government Organization of Labor,” Report by a Committee
of the Fabian Society, 1886.
[37] See Report of the Annual Meeting at Birmingham, September, 1888.
[38] See resolutions adopted by the Council, at the instance of the
Executive and General Committee, February 8th, 1889. (_Daily News_, 9th
February.) Professor Stuart, M.P., has now introduced a Bill embodying
these astonishing proposals.
[39] It is interesting to compare this programme, with its primary
insistence on economic and social reform, with the bare political
character of the “Five Points” of the Chartists, viz., Manhood
Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, Annual Parliaments, Payment of Members
relieved from the property qualification, and Equal Electoral Districts.
[40] It need hardly be said that schemes of “free land,” peasant
proprietorship, or leasehold enfranchisement, find no place in the
modern programme of the Socialist Radical, or Social Democrat. They
are survivals of the Individualistic Radicalism which is passing
away. Candidates seeking a popular “cry” more and more avoid these
reactionary proposals.
[41] “Autobiography,” p. 231-2. See also Book IV. of the “Principles of
Political Economy” (Popular edition, 1865).
[42] For a forecast of the difficulties which this programme will
have to encounter as its full scope and intention become more clearly
realized, see the eighth essay in this volume, by Hubert Bland.
[43] See “Darwinism and Politics,” by D. G. Ritchie, Fellow and Tutor
of Jesus College, Oxford (London: Swan, Sonneshein & Co., 1889).
[44] “Autobiography,” pp. 231-2.
[45] Rev. F. W. Aveling, Principal of Taunton Independent College, in
leaflet “Down with the Socialists,” August, 1888. See also Professor H.
Sedgwick on “Economic Socialism,” _Contemporary Review_, November, 1886.
[46] That is to say, unfortunately, in nearly all the utterances which
profess to guide our social and political action.
[47] _Contemporary Review_, February, 1888.
[48] “Social Statistics,” _passim_.
[49] See Professor Leone Levi’s letter to the _Times_, 13th August,
1886, and Mr. Frederic Harrison’s speech at the Industrial Remuneration
Conference held in January, 1885 (Report, p. 429).
[50] See Report of the Lambeth Episcopal Conference, 1888; subject,
“Socialism”: also the proceedings of the Central Conference of Diocesan
Councils, June, 1889 (paper on Socialism by Canon Furse).
INDUSTRIAL.
BY WILLIAM CLARKE, M.A.
My object in the following paper is to present a brief narrative of
the economic history of the last century or century and a half. From
this I wish to draw a moral. That moral is that there has been and
is proceeding an economic evolution, practically independent of our
individual desires or prejudices; an evolution which has changed for
us the whole social problem by changing the conditions of material
production, and which _ipso facto_ effects a revolution in our modern
life. To learn clearly what that revolution is, and to prepare
ourselves for taking advantage of it in due course--this I take to be
briefly what is meant by Socialism. The ignorant public, represented
by, let us say, the average bishop or member of Parliament, hears of
the “Social Revolution” and instantly thinks of street riots, noyades,
with a _coup d’état_: a 10th of August, followed perhaps by its Nemesis
in an 18th Brumaire. But these are not the Social Revolution. That
great change is proceeding silently every day. Each new line of railway
which opens up the trackless desert, every new machine which supplants
hand labor, each fresh combination formed by capitalists, every new
labor organization, every change in prices, each new invention--all
these forces and many more are actually working out a social revolution
before our eyes: for they are changing fundamentally the economic basis
of life. There may possibly come some one supreme moment of time in
which a great dramatic incident will reveal to men the significance
of the changes which have led up to it, and of which it is merely
the final expression. And future historians may write of that as The
Revolution just as historians now write of the fall of the Bastille,
or the execution of Louis XVI, as though these events constituted the
French Revolution, instead of being the final terms in a long series
of events which had been loosening the fabric of French feudalism
through several generations. The true prophet is not an ignorant
soothsayer who foretells some Armageddon, but rather he who perceives
the inevitable drift and tendency of things. Somewhat in this spirit
we may consider the economic history of the modern industrial era in
order to discern its meaning, to see what it has led up to, and what,
consequently, are the problems with which we find ourselves confronted
to-day.