TWO WORKS ON SOCIAL POLITICS
The Second Lord Lytton at Knebworth--"Ouida"--Conservative
Torpor as to Social Politics--Two Books: _Labor and the Popular
Welfare_ and _Aristocracy and Evolution_--Letters from Herbert
Spencer
My visit to Cyprus one year, and my visit to Hungary the next, were both
of them retreats from the life of political and even philosophical
thought. They were frank acts of truancy in the regions of pure romance;
where life, individual and social, is a spectacle to be enjoyed, not a
problem of which thinkers compete in devising an explanation. But on
returning from Hungary to England the practical affairs of the moment
met me again halfway, at Vienna, where for a day or two I broke my
journey. My acquaintances at Vienna were few, but they included Sir
Augustus and Lady Paget at the Embassy, whom I had last seen at midnight
on the deck of the Dover packet when I was bound for the shores of
Cyprus more than a year before. Ambassadors, if they know their
business, are necessarily preoccupied with the present, and when
lunching or dining with Sir Augustus it was not possible to forget it.
It was all the more impossible because on these occasions there was
another diplomat present, also an old acquaintance--Sir Henry Drummond
Wolf, who happened to be then on his way home from Persia, and who was
voluble on questions of international, and especially of English,
politics. So far, however, as my own mood was concerned, this
dissipation of romance by realities was a more or less gradual process.
Even when I was again in England my inclinations to the life
romantic--to what Virgil (I think) calls the "_amor ulterioris
ripae_"--survived for many months the new recall of my mind to the
philosophies of prosaic action.
As an illustration of this fact I remember a weekend visit which I paid
that summer to Robert, the second Lord Lytton, at Knebworth. The
occasion was marked by the coappearance of things romantic and practical
in more ways than one. On the day of my arrival one of the first topics
discussed was "Ouida," who at that time was in England, and had been
staying at Knebworth only the week before. "Ouida's" view of life was
nothing if not romantic. Lytton, during the previous spring, had been
spending some weeks in Florence. He was quite alone; and "Ouida," who,
apart from her affectations, was a very remarkable woman, had had no
difficulty in securing his frequent company at her villa, where she fed
him at an incredible price with precociously ripe strawberries. On her
memory of these tender proceedings she had built up a belief that his
nature had been emptied of everything except one great passion for
herself, and she had actually come to Knebworth convinced that a single
word from her would tear him from the bosom of his family and make him
hers alone. The magic word was said. The expected results had, however,
failed to follow--perhaps because the word, or words, had not been very
happily chosen. They had been these: "Why don't you leave this bourgeois
man-and-wife _milieu_ behind you and prove in some Sicilian palace what
life may really mean for people like you and I?"
On the occasion of the same visit another meeting between romance and
reality was this: Knebworth was originally a dignified but plain
structure, built (I should say at a guess) in the time of Charles II;
but, as is well known, the first Lord Lytton (the novelist), inspired by
the taste of his time, and aided by inexhaustible stucco, metamorphosed
it into the semblance of a pinnacled castle or abbey, the old dining
room reappearing in the form of a baronial hall. One evening after
dinner I, my host, and a certain Admiral B---- happened to be in the
hall alone. While the admiral was reading a letter, my host drew me
aside and gave me an amusing description of the rise of the admiral's
family. His grandfather, having accumulated a substantial fortune as a
solicitor, discovered a ruin--a small tower in France--the name of which
was identical with his own. This ruin he bought, and declared that it
was the cradle from which his own family sprang. He then, having bought
an estate in an English county, proceeded to build a Norman castle in
ruins, and adjoining this he built a turreted Tudor mansion. Here was a
family pedigree translated into terms of stone. The builder crowned his
work by the adoption of feudal manners, to which his domestics had so to
adapt their own that when a neighbor, who called on him, asked if Mr.
B---- was at home, the reply of the footman was, "The right honorable
gentleman is taking a walk on the barbican." My host, having finished
his story, was for a moment called away. He had no sooner gone than the
admiral, coming up to me, jerked his thumb in the direction of the
surrounding panels, and said, confidentially, "The whole of this was put
up by that man's father."
But in a much more memorable way romance conquered reality one night in
the drawing-room. The ladies of the party had disappeared; and by way of
doing something Lytton, two other men, and myself became somehow grouped
round a card table with our minds made up for whist. At first we put
down our cards with promptitude and a semblance of attention, but
someone before long made some observation which, though interesting, was
wholly irrelevant to the game. The three others put down their cards to
listen, and had, when they took them up again, some difficulty in
remembering who was to play next. Presently one of them quoted a line of
poetry. It was from Coleridge's "Kublai Khan." Somebody else suggested a
mild doubt as to whether that poem had, as the author contended, really
been composed in a dream. The game once more proceeded, but our host's
eyes had already begun to wander, and at last he frankly threw his own
cards on the table. Everybody else followed him. Cards were things
forgotten. Their place was taken by poetry. Single lines were cited
which the authors had dreamed undoubtedly. The most remarkable was
dreamed by a brother of Tennyson, after a day spent in examining a
bundle of ancient manuscripts. The line--it was Latin--was as follows:
"_Immemorabilium per fulva crepuscula palpans_"--that is to say,
"fumbling among the tawny twilights of immemorables." Lord Lytton looked
as if he were in a dream himself. Presently he spoke as though his mind
were coming back from a distance. "I," he said, "dreamed a poem in
India. It has never been written down, but I still can remember every
line of it. Listen." The poem, which was full of vague Oriental imagery,
was perfectly intelligible, and throbbed with a certain sonority like
that of distant gongs; but no sane man would have written it in his
waking moments. In that fact lay its charm. The author's voice,
naturally low and musical, acquired new tones as he recited it, giving
to it the qualities of an incantation; and round us, as though fashioned
out of shadows, was the large, dimly lighted drawing-room, which the old
novelist had incrusted with impossible heraldries, culminating in
escutcheons of pre-Christian Welsh kings.
The pseudo-Gothic revival, of which Knebworth is a late monument, but
which was inaugurated by Horace Walpole in the stucco of Strawberry
Hill, is, if judged by the strict canons of architectural taste, absurd,
but as time goes on and the taste which produced it vanishes the houses
in which it embodied itself cease to be mere absurdities. They acquire
the rank and dignity of historical documents. They are more than mere
architecture. They represent attempts at a reconstruction of life--a new
fusion of politics with poetry, romance, and mysticism. Their fault is
that this fusion has failed to become actual. And yet these attempts,
though largely recorded in stucco, still evoke visions and atmospheres
from which many of us are loath to be driven into the wintry actualities
of to-day.
For myself, on my return from Hungary, the influence of romance was
further protracted by the fact that I for some time was occupied in
completing my work on Cyprus; but when this at last had received its
finishing touches there was nothing left that could keep other interests
at bay. Radical and Socialist oratory was resounding on every side.
Doctrines with regard to Labor were again being promulgated in forms so
extreme that they reached the verge of delirium, and were yet received
with acclamations. Old statistical errors, for the complete refutation
of which unimpeachable evidence abounded, were shouted afresh, as though
they were not open to question. But in respect of all facts and
principles which lie really at the basis of things, the Conservative
party was, as a whole, dumb.
I began to say to myself daily, "_Semper ego auditor tantum? Nunquam ne
reponam?_" "Will no one wake up this unhappily lethargic mass, and by
forcing the weapons of knowledge and reason into their hands provoke
them and enable them to meet the enemy at the gate?" Every other
interest, philosophic, romantic, religious, fell away from me for the
time. Wherever I was, whether in London or country houses--for in these
respects my habits remained much what they had been--I had with me the
works of economists, statistical reports, multitudes of current
speeches, all bearing on industrial and social questions. At intervals I
dealt with one or another of these in tentative articles contributed to
reviews like the _Nineteenth Century_, till at length I redigested,
rewrote and combined them, thus, after some three years of effort,
producing a succinct book called _Labor and the Popular Welfare_.
This book, in carefully simplified language, dealt comprehensively with
the fundamental causes to which the increased wealth of the modern world
is due, and on which the maintenance, to say nothing of the enlargement,
of this modern increment depends. The argument of the book, in its
general outline, is as follows. Without manual labor there can be no
wealth at all. Unless most of its members are laborers, no community can
exist. But so long as wealth is produced by manual labor only the
amount produced is small. In whatever way it may be distributed, the
majority will be primitively poor. The only means by which the total
product of a given population can be increased is not any new toil on
the part of the laboring many, but an intellectual direction of the many
by a super-capable few. Here is the true cause of all modern increments
of wealth. Let these increments be produced, and it is possible for the
many to share in them. It is on securing a share of them that their only
hope of an ampler life depends, but it is from the efforts of the few
that any increase of their shares must come. The fundamental facts of
the case are, indeed, of a character the precise reverse of that which
the theories of the Socialists impute to them. In proportion as the
wages of labor rise above a given minimum the many are the pensioners of
the few, the few are not the plunderers of the many, and those who
maintain the opposite are mere intellectual gamins standing on their
heads in a gutter.
This thesis I had outlined already in my earlier work, _Social
Equality_, but in _Labor and the Popular Welfare_ it is urged with more
precision, and the general argument is, as in the earlier work it was
not, supported by a skeleton of more or less precise statistics. This
book, by the advice of a friend, was offered to a celebrated publisher,
a pillar of sound Conservatism; but in effect, if not in so many words,
he said he would have nothing to do with it, its subject being, in his
opinion, unlikely to interest, or its argument to benefit, anyone. It
is, I think, not merely an author's vanity which inclines me to regard
his decision not so much as a mistaken literary judgment, but as the
expression of a temperamental apathy with which many Conservatives are
inflicted with regard to social problems. An entire edition of the work
was bought soon after its publication by the Central Conservative Office
as a textbook for the use of speakers. With a similar object in view,
another association, six or seven years later, offered to purchase an
entire edition likewise; but I was obliged to decline the proposal,
because I had come to recognize that the statistical portions of the
work had, in part, become obsolete, and were in part not sufficiently
complete. Meanwhile successive editions of it had been sold to the
English public. It had many readers in America, and a very large sum was
offered me by a Melbourne newspaper for a series of short articles in
which its main arguments should be condensed.
My personal concern, however, in these matters was diminished by the
fact that the argument of this work, as a whole, soon seemed to me
susceptible of a more comprehensive statement. I had already, as I have
said before, attempted in my novel, _The Old Order Changes_, to unite
the problems of industrial and social politics with those relating to
religion and the higher forms of affection, whereas in _Labor and the
Popular Welfare_ I had confined my attention to pure economics only. I
had, indeed, thus confined it in _Social Equality_ also. But it now
began to dawn on me that, quite apart from the sphere of religion, the
philosophy of modern economics could be, and required to be, extended in
what for me was a new direction.
A year or two after the publication of _Labor and the Popular Welfare_ a
work made its appearance which, although it was couched in the driest
terms of philosophy, sold as rapidly as any popular novel, and raised
its author at once from absolute obscurity to fame. This was _Social
Evolution_, by Mr. Benjamin Kidd. Mr. Kidd's style, apart from certain
tricks or mannerisms, was, for philosophic purposes, admirable. But no
mere merits of style would account for the popularity of a work which
consisted, in form at all events, of recondite discussions of evolution
as conceived by the Darwinians on the one hand and the disciples of
Weismann on the other. The popularity of Mr. Kidd's book was due to the
general drift of it. Just as Darwin's theory of evolution, with its
doctrine of the survival of the strongest, provided a scientific basis,
unwelcome to many, for aristocracy, Mr. Kidd's aim was to show that
evolution in its higher forms was in reality a survival of the weakest,
and thus provided a scientific basis for democracy--democracy by
constant implications being identified with some form of Socialism. To
me this book, which I examined with extreme care, seemed, in the
practical bearing, a piece of monumental claptrap, though it was
claptrap of the highest order, and was for that reason all the more
pernicious. Mr. Kidd, in dealing with the facts of social life, seemed
to me to be dealing not with facts, but clouds--clouds which suggested
facts, as actual clouds may suggest a whale or weasel, but which yet,
when scrutinized, had no definite content. To me this book rendered a
very valuable service, I found in it an epitome of everything against
which my own mind protested; and I soon set myself to prepare a series
of tentative studies in which certain of Mr. Kidd's positions were
directly or indirectly criticized. If I remember rightly, these were
published at intervals in the _Contemporary Review_; and their
substance, expanded and digested, appeared by and by in a volume which I
called _Aristocracy and Evolution_.
Of this volume, which was a criticism not only of Mr. Kidd, but of Mr.
Herbert Spencer also, the fundamental thesis was similar to that of
_Social Equality_, and of _Labor and the Popular Welfare_--namely, that
in proportion as societies progress in civilization and wealth all
appreciable progress, and the sustentation of most of the results
achieved by it, depend more and more on the directive ability of the
few; and this thesis was affiliated to the main conclusions of
evolutionary science generally. It was admitted that, within certain
limits, results achieved by the few were absorbed and perpetuated by the
many, though the activities of the originators might have ceased, and
that a proper definition of evolution pure and simple would be: "The
orderly sequence of the unintended." But, at the same time, it was shown
that an "orderly sequence of the unintended," though it is a part of
what we mean by progress, is a small part only, the major part still
requiring the intentional activities of the few, not only for its
initiation, but for its sustentation also.
This argument was set forth with great minuteness, and it was shown how
many most distinguished thinkers, while admitting its general truth,
were constantly obscuring it by formulae which were, in effect, denials
of it. Among the writers thus referred to was Mr. Herbert Spencer, who
in one passage described the Napoleonic wars as an incident in the
process of evolution and in another passage cited them as examples of
the results of the solitary wickedness of one super-capable man. With
regard to these issues I received some interesting letters from Mr.
Spencer himself. His contention was that I had quite misrepresented his
meaning. Economically, at all events, the functions of the super-capable
man were in his opinion as important as they possibly could be in mine.
I replied that if such were his opinion he very often obscured it, but
that I hoped he would acquit me of any conscious unfairness to himself.
His first letters were not without a touch of acerbity, but he ended
with amicably stating what his actual views were, and saying that if I
only amended certain passages relating to himself, he was in entire
agreement with my whole argument otherwise.
[Illustration: HERBERT SPENCER]
I never met Mr. Spencer, and of what he may have been in conversation I
have not the least conception; but a story is told of him which shows
that he must have had a vein of humor in him which his writings do not
suggest. His favorite relaxation was billiards. This game he played with
more than average skill, but on one occasion, much to his own chagrin,
he found himself hopelessly beaten by a very immature young man. "Skill
in billiards, up to a certain point, is a sign," he said, "of sound
self-training. Too much skill is a sign of a wasted life."
To go back to _Aristocracy and Evolution_, though its sale was equal to
some of the works of Herbert Spencer himself, it was by no means
comparable to that of the treatise of Mr. Kidd, to which it was designed
as a counterblast. Of this the main reason was, I may venture to say,
not that it was inferior in point of style or of pertinence, or of
logical strength of argument, but that, while appealing, like Mr. Kidd's
work, to serious readers only, it appealed to the sentimentalism of a
very much smaller number of them--if, indeed, it can be said to have
appealed to sentimentalities at all; whereas Mr. Kidd had a
semi-Socialist audience ready for him, who lived mainly by sentiment,
whose sentimentalities had anticipated his own, and who were only
waiting for some one from whom they might learn to sing them to some
definite intellectual tune. Moreover, unlike _Labor and the Popular
Welfare_, which was equally remote from sentimentalism, _Aristocracy and
Evolution_ did not supply the place of it by providing Conservative
thinkers with arguments suitable for immediate use on the platform.
Here we have the old difficulty which has always beset Conservatives
when face to face with revolutionaries. The revolutionaries, or, rather,
the leading spirits among them--for revolutions are always the work of a
small body of malcontents--require no rousing. They welcome any
arguments, philosophic or otherwise, which may tend to invest them with
the prestige of scientific thinkers; but the Conservatives require to be
roused, and roused in two different ways--first, in respect of the
principles on which their own position rests, and secondly, in respect
of the methods by which those principles can be presented to the
multitude in a manner which shall produce conviction. Looking back on
_Aristocracy and Evolution_, I now think that, if I could have rewritten
it in the light of the above considerations, I should modify, not its
argument, but the manner in which this argument was presented. Much of
its substance I have incorporated in what I have written since; but, as
it stood when I finished it, I felt it so far satisfactory that it
expressed all I had then to say as to the subjects of which it treated,
and my house of political thought was for the time empty, swept, and
garnished. After two years' labor spent on it, though this had been
carried on in very agreeable circumstances--in Highland castles and
shooting lodges, or at the Rodens' house in Ireland--I felt the need of
rest--of forgetting in intercourse with agreeable men and women that
anything like disagreeable men existed, who rendered the labors of
political thought necessary. My mind, however, instead of resting, was
presently driven, or driven back, into activities of other kinds.