Social and Political Views
"When a country is well governed, poverty and a mean condition are
things to be ashamed of. When a country is ill governed, riches
and honour are things to be ashamed of."--CONFUCIUS.
In the above sentences, written long before the dawn of Christian
civilisation, we have an apt summary of the social and political views
of Alfred Russel Wallace.
As we have stated in a previous chapter, it was during his short stay in
London as a boy, when he was led to study the writings and methods of
Robert Owen, of New Lanark, that his mind first opened to the
consideration of the inequalities of our social life.
During the six years which he spent in land-surveying he obtained a more
practical knowledge of the laws pertaining to public and private
property as they affected the lives and habits of both squire and
peasant.
The village inn, or public-house, was then the only place where men
could meet to discuss topics of mutual interest, and it was there that
young Wallace and his brother spent some of their own leisure hours
listening to and conversing with the village rustics. The conversation
was not ordinarily of an educational character, but occasionally
experienced farmers would discuss agricultural and land problems which
were beginning to interest Wallace.
In reading his books and essays written more than seventy years later,
we are struck with the exceptional opportunities which he had of
comparing social conditions, and commercial and individual prosperity
during that long period, and of witnessing the introduction of many
inventions. He used to enjoy recalling many of the discussions between
intelligent mechanics which he heard of in his early days regarding the
introduction of the steam-engine. One and another declared that the grip
of the engine on the rails would not be sufficient to draw heavy trucks
or carriages; that the wheels, in fact, would whiz round instead of
going on, and that it would be necessary to sprinkle sand in front of
the wheels, or make the tyres rough like files. About this time, too,
there arose a keen debate upon the relative merits of the new railroads
and the old canals. Many thought that the former could never compete
with the latter in carrying heavy goods; but facts soon proved
otherwise, for in one district alone the traffic of the canal, within
two years of the coming of the railway, decreased by 1,000,000 tons.
It was during these years, and when he and his brother were making a
survey for the enclosure of some common lands near Llandrindod Wells,
that Wallace finally became aware of the injustice towards the labouring
classes of the General Enclosure Act.
In this particular locality the land to be enclosed consisted of a large
extent of moor, and mountain which, with other common rights, had for
many years enabled the occupants of the scattered cottages around to
keep a horse, cow, or a few sheep, and thus make a fairly comfortable
living. Under the Act, the whole of this open land was divided among the
adjacent landowners of the parish or manor, in proportion to the size or
value of their estates. Thus, to those who actually possessed much, much
was given; whilst to those who only nominally owned a little land, even
that was taken away in return for a small compensation which was by no
means as valuable to them as the right to graze their cattle. In spite
of the statement set forth in the General Enclosure Act--"Whereas it is
expedient to facilitate the enclosure and improvement of common and
other lands now subject to the rights of property which obstruct
cultivation and the productive employment of labour," Wallace
ascertained many years later that no single part of the land so enclosed
had been cultivated by those to whom it was given, though certain
portions had been let or sold at fabulous prices for building purposes,
to accommodate summer visitors to the neighbourhood. Thus the
unfortunate people who had formerly enjoyed home, health, and
comparative prosperity in the cottages scattered over this common land
had been obliged to migrate to the large towns, seeking for fresh
employment and means of subsistence, or had become "law-created
paupers"; whilst to crown all, the piece of common originally "reserved"
for the benefit of the inhabitants had been turned into golf-links!
Again and again Wallace drew attention to the fundamental duties of
landownership, maintaining that the public, as a whole, had become so
blinded by custom that no effectual social reform would ever be
established unless some strenuous and unremitting effort was made to
recover the land by law from those who had made the land laws and who
had niched the common heritage of humanity for their own private
aggrandisement.
With regard to the actual value of land, Wallace pointed out that the
last valuation was made in the year 1692, and therefore, with the
increase of value through minerals and other products since then, the
arrears of land tax due up to 1905 would amount to more than the value
of all the agricultural land of our country at the present time;
therefore existing landlords, in clamouring for their alleged rights of
property, might find out that those "rights" no longer exist.
Yet another point on which he insisted was the right of way through
fields or woodlands, and especially beside the sea. With the advent of
the motor-car and other swift means of locomotion, the public roads are
no longer safe and pleasurable for pedestrians; besides the iniquitous
fact that hundreds are kept from enjoying the beauties of nature by the
utterly selfish and useless reservations of such by-paths by the
landowner.
"This all-embracing system of land-robbery," again he writes, "for which
nothing is too great or too small; which has absorbed meadow and forest,
moor and mountain, which has appropriated most of our rivers and lakes
and the fish that live in them; making the agriculturist pay for his
seaweed manure and the fisherman for his bait of shell-fish; which has
desolated whole counties to replace men by sheep or cattle, and has
destroyed fields and cottages to make a wilderness for deer and grouse;
which has stolen the commons and filched the roadside wastes; which has
driven the labouring poor into the cities, and thus been the chief cause
of the misery, disease, and early death of thousands ... it is the
advocates of this inhuman system who, when a partial restitution of
their unholy gains is proposed, are the loudest in their cries of
'robbery'!
"But all the robbery, all the spoliation, all the legal and illegal
filching, has been on _their_ side.... They made the laws to legalise
their actions, and, some day, we, the people, will make laws which will
not only legalise but justify our process of restitution. It will
justify it, because, unlike their laws, which always took from the poor
to give to the rich--to the very class which made the laws--ours will
only take from the superfluity of the rich, _not_ to give to the poor or
to any individuals, but to so administer as to enable every man to live
by honest work, to restore to the whole people their birthright in their
native soil, and to relieve all alike from a heavy burden of unnecessary
and unjust taxation. _This_ will be the true statesmanship of the
future, and it will be justified alike by equity, by ethics, and by
religion."
These, then, are the facts and reasons upon which Dr. Wallace based his
strenuous advocacy of Land Nationalisation.[48] It was only by slow
degrees that he arrived at some of the conclusions propounded in his
later years, but once having grasped their full importance to the social
and moral well-being of the community, he held them to the last.
The first book which tended to fasten his attention upon these matters
was "Social Statics," by Herbert Spencer, but in 1870 the publication of
his "Malay Archipelago" brought him into personal contact with John
Stuart Mill, through whose invitation he became a member of the General
Committee of the Land Tenure Reform Association. On the formation of the
Land Nationalisation Society in 1880 he retired from the Association,
and devoted himself to the larger issues which the new Society embraced.
Soon after the latter Society was started, Henry George, the American
author of "Progress and Poverty," came to England, and Wallace had many
opportunities of hearing him speak in public and of discussing matters
of common interest in private. In spite of the ridicule poured upon
Henry George's book by many eminent social reformers, Wallace
consistently upheld its general principles.
His second work on these various subjects was a small book entitled "Bad
Times," issued in 1885, in which he went deeply into the root causes of
the depression in trade which had lasted since 1874. The facts there
given were enlarged upon and continually brought up to date in his later
writings. Articles which had appeared in various magazines were gathered
together and included, with those on other subjects, in "Studies,
Scientific and Social." His last three books, which include his ideas on
social diseases and the best method of preventing them, were "The
Wonderful Century," "Social Environment and Moral Progress," and "The
Revolt of Democracy"; the two last being issued, as we have seen, in
1913, the year of his death.
In "Social Environment and Moral Progress" the conclusion of his
vehement survey of our moral and social conditions was startling: "_It
is not too much to say that our whole system of Society is rotten from
top to bottom, and that the social environment as a whole in relation to
our possibilities and our claims is the worst that the world has ever
seen_."
That terrible indictment was doubly underscored in his MS.
What, in his mature judgment, were the causes and remedies? He set them
out in this order:
1. The evils are due, broadly and generally, to our living under a
system of universal competition for the means of existence, the remedy
for which is equally universal co-operation.
2. It may also be defined as a system of economic antagonism, as of
enemies, the remedy being a system of economic brotherhood, as of a
great family, or of friends.
3. Our system is also one of monopoly by a few of all the means of
existence--the land, without access to which no life is possible; and
capital, or the results of stored-up labour, which is now in the
possession of a limited number of capitalists, and therefore is also a
monopoly. The remedy is freedom of access to land and capital for all.
4. Also, it may be defined as social injustice, inasmuch as the few in
each generation are allowed to inherit the stored-up wealth of all
preceding generations, while the many inherit nothing. The remedy is to
adopt the principle of equality of opportunity for all, or of universal
_inheritance by the State in trust for the whole community_.
"We have," he finally concluded, "ourselves created an immoral or
unmoral social environment. To undo its inevitable results we must
reverse our course. We must see that _all_ our economic legislation,
_all_ our social reforms, are in the very opposite direction to those
hitherto adopted, and that they tend in the direction of one or other of
the four fundamental remedies I have suggested. In this way only can we
hope to change our existing immoral environment into a moral one, and
_initiate a new era of Moral Progress._" The "Revolt of Democracy"[49]
was addressed directly to the Labour Party. And once again he drew a
vivid picture of how, during the whole of the nineteenth century, there
was a continuous advance in the application of scientific discovery to
the arts, especially to the invention and application of labour-saving
machinery; and how our wealth had increased to an equally marvellous
extent.
He pointed out that various estimates which had been made of the
increase in our wealth-producing capacity showed that, roughly speaking,
the use of mechanical power had increased it more than a hundredfold
during the century; yet the result had been to create a limited upper
class, living in unexampled luxury, while about one-fourth of the whole
population existed in a state of fluctuating penury, often sinking below
the margin of poverty. Many thousands were annually drawn into this gulf
of destitution, and died from direct starvation and premature exhaustion
or from diseases produced by unhealthy employment.
During this long period, however, although wealth and want had alike
increased side by side, public opinion had not been sufficiently
educated to permit of any effectual remedy being applied. The workers
themselves had failed to visualise its fundamental causes, land monopoly
and the competitive system of industry giving rise to an ever-increasing
private capitalism which, to a very large extent, had controlled the
Legislature. All through the last century this rapid accumulation of
wealth due to extensive manufacturing industries led to a still greater
increase of middlemen engaged in the distribution of the products, from
the wealthy merchant to the various grades of tradesmen and small
shop-keepers who supplied the daily wants of the community.
To those who lived in the midst of this vast industrial system, or were
a part of it, it seemed natural and inevitable that there should be rich
and poor; and this belief was enforced on the one hand by the clergy,
and on the other by political economists, so that religion and science
agreed in upholding the competitive and capitalistic system of society
as the only rational and possible one. Hence it came to be believed that
the true sphere of governmental action did not include the abolition of
poverty. It was even declared that poverty was due to economic causes
over which governments had no power; that wages were kept down by the
"iron law" of supply and demand; and that any attempt to find a remedy
by Acts of Parliament only aggravated the disease. During the
Premiership of Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman this attitude was, for the
first time, changed. On numerous occasions Sir Henry declared that he
held it to be the duty of a government to deal with problems of
unemployment and poverty.
In 1908 three great strikes, coming in rapid succession--those of the
Railway and other Transport Unions, the Miners, and the London Dock
Labourers--brought home to the middle and upper classes, and to the
Government, how completely all are dependent on the "working classes."
This and similar experiences showed us that when the organisation of
the trade unions was more complete, and the accumulated funds of several
years were devoted to this purpose, the bulk of the inhabitants of
London, and of other great cities, could be made to suffer a degree of
famine comparable with that of Paris when besieged by the German army in
1870.
Wallace's watchword throughout these social agitations was "Equality of
Opportunity for All," and the ideal method by which he hoped to achieve
this end was a system of industrial colonisation in our own country
whereby _all_ would have a fair, if not an absolutely equal, share in
the benefits arising from the production of their own labour, whether
physical or mental.[50]
With regard to the education of the people, especially as a
stepping-stone to moral and intellectual reform, Wallace believed in the
training of individual natural talent, rather than the present system of
general education thrust upon every boy or girl regardless of their
varying mental capacities. He also urged that the building-up of the
mind should be alternated with physical training in one or more useful
trades, so that there might be, not only at the outset, but also in
later life, a choice of occupation in order to avoid the excess of
unemployment in any one direction.
In his opinion, one of the injurious results of our competitive system,
having its roots, however, in the valuable "guilds" of a past epoch, was
the almost universal restriction of our workers to only one kind of
labour. The result was a dreadful monotony in almost all spheres of
work, the extreme unhealthiness of many, and a much larger amount of
unemployment than if each man or woman were regularly trained in two or
more occupations. In addition to two of what are commonly called trades,
every youth should be trained for one day a week or one week in a
month, according to the demand for labour, in some of the various
operations of farming or gardening. Not only would this improve the
general health of the workers, but it would also add much to the
interest and enjoyment of their lives.
"There is one point," he wrote, "in connection with this problem which I
do not think has ever been much considered or discussed. It is the
undoubted benefit to all the members of a society of _the greatest
possible diversity of character_, as a means both towards the greatest
enjoyment and interest of association, and to the highest ultimate
development of the race. If we are to suppose that man might have been
created or developed with none of those extremes of character which now
often result in what we call wickedness, vice, or crime, there would
certainly have been a greater monotony in human nature, which would,
perhaps, have led to less beneficial results than the variety which
actually exists may lead to. We are more and more getting to see that
very much, perhaps all, the vice, crime, and misery that exists in the
world is the result, not of the wickedness of individuals, but of the
entire absence of sympathetic training from infancy onwards. So far as I
have heard, the only example of the effects of such a training on a
large scale was that initiated by Robert Owen at New Lanark, which, with
most unpromising materials, produced such marvellous results on the
character and conduct of the children as to seem almost incredible to
the numerous persons who came to see and often critically to examine
them. There must have been all kinds of characters in his schools, yet
_none_ were found to be incorrigible, _none_ beyond control, _none_ who
did not respond to the love and sympathetic instruction of their
teachers. It is therefore quite possible that _all_ the evil in the
world is directly due to man, not to God, and that when we once realise
this to its full extent we shall be able, not only to eliminate almost
completely what we now term evil, but shall then clearly perceive that
all those propensities and passions that under bad conditions of society
inevitably led to it, will under good conditions add to the variety and
the capacities of human nature, the enjoyment of life by all, and at the
same time greatly increase the possibilities of development of the whole
race. I myself feel confident that this is really the case, and that
such considerations, when followed out to their ultimate issues, afford
a complete solution of the great problem of the ages--the origin of
evil."[51]
Closely allied with the welfare of the child is another "reform" with
which Wallace's name will long be associated. That is his strong
denunciation of Vaccination. For seven years he laboured to show medical
and scientific men that statistics proved beyond doubt the futility of
this measure to prevent disease. A few were converted, but public
opinion is hard to move.
In his ideal of the future, Dr. Wallace gave a large and honoured sphere
to women. He considered that it was in the highest degree presumptuous
and irrational to attempt to deal by compulsory enactments with the most
vital and most sacred of all human relationships, regardless of the fact
that our present phase of social development is not only extremely
imperfect, but, as already shown, vicious and rotten to the core. How
could it be possible to determine by legislation those relations of the
sexes which shall be best alike for individuals and for the race in a
society in which a large proportion of our women are forced to work long
hours daily for the barest subsistence, with an almost total absence of
the rational pleasures of life, for the want of which thousands are
driven into uncongenial marriages in order to secure some amount of
personal independence or physical well-being. He believed that when men
and women are, for the first time in the course of civilisation, equally
free to follow their best impulses; when idleness and vicious and
hurtful luxury on the one hand, and oppressive labour and the dread of
starvation on the other, are alike unknown; when _all_ receive the best
and broadest education that the state of civilisation and knowledge will
admit; when the standard of public opinion is set by the wisest and the
best among us, and that standard is systematically inculcated in the
young--then we shall find that a system of truly "Natural Selection" (a
term that Wallace preferred to "Eugenics," which he utterly disliked)
will come spontaneously into action which will tend steadily to
eliminate the lower, the less developed, or in any way defective types
of men, and will thus continuously raise the physical, moral, and
intellectual standard of the race.
He further held that "although many women now remain unmarried from
necessity rather than from choice, there are always considerable numbers
who feel no strong impulse to marriage, and accept husbands to secure
subsistence and a home of their own rather than from personal affection
or sexual emotion. In a state of society in which all women were
economically independent, where all were fully occupied with public
duties and social or intellectual pleasures, and had nothing to gain by
marriage as regards material well-being or social position, it is highly
probable that the numbers of unmarried from choice would increase. It
would probably come to be considered a degradation for any woman to
marry a man whom she could not love and esteem, and this reason would
tend at least to delay marriage till a worthy and sympathetic partner
was encountered." But this choice, he considered, would be further
strengthened by the fact that, with the ever-increasing approach to
equality of opportunity for every child born in our country, that
terrible excess of male deaths, in boyhood and early manhood especially,
due to various preventable causes, would disappear, and change the
present majority of women to a majority of men. This would lead to a
greater rivalry for wives, and give to women the power of rejecting all
the lower types of character among their suitors.
"It will be their special duty so to mould public opinion, through home
training and social influence, as to render the women of the future the
regenerators of the entire human race." He fully hoped and believed that
they would prove equal to the high and responsible position which, in
accordance with natural laws, they will be called upon to fulfil.
* * * * *
Mr. D.A. Wilson, who visited him in 1912, writes:
He surprised me by saying he was a Socialist--one does not expect a man
like him to label himself in any way. It appeared to be unconscious
modesty, like a school-boy's, which made him willing to be labelled; but
no label could describe him, and his mental sweep was unlimited.
Although in his ninetieth year, he seemed to be in his prime. There was
no sign of age but physical weakness, and you had to make an effort at
times to remember even that. His eye kindled as he spoke, and more than
once he walked about and chuckled, like a schoolboy pleased.
An earnest expression like Carlyle's came over his countenance as he
reprobated the selfish, wild-cat competition which made life harder and
more horrible to-day for a well-doing poor man in England than among the
Malays or Burmese before they had any modern inventions. Co-operation
was the upward road for humanity. Men grew out of beasthood by it, and
by it civilisation began. Forgetting it, men retrograded, subsiding
swiftly, so that there were many individuals among us to-day who were in
body, mind, and character below the level of our barbarian ancestors or
contemporary "savages," to say nothing of civilised Burmese or Malays.
What he meant by Socialism can be seen from his books. Nothing in them
surprised me after our talk. His appreciation of Confucius, when I
quoted some things of the Chinese sage's which confirmed what he was
saying, was emphatic, and that and many other things showed that
Socialism to him implied the upward evolution of humanity. It was
because of the degradation of men involved that he objected to letting
individuals grab the public property--earth, air and water. Monopolies,
he thought, should at once revert to the public, and we had an argument
which showed that he had no objection to even artificial monopolies if
they were public property. He defended the old Dutch Government
monopolies of spices, and declared them better than to-day's free trade,
when cultivation is exploited by men who always tended to be mere
money-grabbers, selfish savages let loose. In answer I mentioned the
abuses of officialdom, as seen by me from the inside in Burma, and he
agreed that the mental and moral superiority of many kinds of Asiatics
to the Europeans who want to boss them made detailed European
administration an absurdity. We should leave these peoples to develop in
their own way. Having conquered Burma and India, he proceeded, the
English should take warning from history and restrict themselves to
keeping the peace, and protecting the countries they had taken. They
should give every province as much home rule as possible and as soon as
possible, and study to avoid becoming parasites.--D.A.W.
* * * * *
We may fittingly conclude this brief summary of Wallace's social views
and ideals by citing his own reply to the question: "Why am I a
Socialist?" "I am a Socialist because I believe that the highest law for
mankind is justice. I therefore take for my motto, 'Fiat Justitia, Ruat
Coelum'; and my definition of Socialism is, 'The use, by everyone, of
his faculties for the common good, and the voluntary organisation of
labour for the equal benefit of all.' That is absolute social justice;
that is ideal Socialism. It is, therefore, the guiding star for all true
social reform."
* * * * *
He corresponded with Miss Buckley not only on scientific but also on
public questions and social problems:
TO MISS BUCKLEY
_Rosehill, Dorking. Sunday, [? December, 1878]._
Dear Miss Buckley,-- ... How wonderfully the Russians have got on since
you left! A very little more and the Turkish Government might be turned
out of Europe--even now it might be with the greatest ease if our
Government would join in giving them the last kick. Whatever power they
retain in Europe will most certainly involve another war before twenty
years are over.--Yours very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MISS BUCKLEY
_Waldron Edge, Croydon. May 2, 1879._
Dear Miss Buckley,-- ... My "Reciprocity" article seems to have produced
a slight effect on the _Spectator_, though it did snub me at first, but
it is perfectly sickening to read the stuff spoken and written, in
Parliament and in all the newspapers, about the subject, all treating
our present practice as something holy and immutable, whatever bad
effects it may produce, and though it is not in any way "free trade" and
would I believe have been given up both by Adam Smith and Cobden.--Yours
very faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
He was always ready, even eager, to discuss his social and land
nationalisation principles with his scientific friends, with members of
his own family, and indeed with anyone who would lend a willing ear.
HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE
_38 Queen's Gardens, Bayswater, W. April 25, 1881._
Dear Mr. Wallace,--As you may suppose, I fully sympathise with the
general aims of your proposed Land Nationalisation Society; but for
sundry reasons I hesitate to commit myself, at the present stage of the
question, to a programme so definite as that which you send me. It seems
to me that before formulating the idea in a specific shape it is needful
to generate a body of public opinion on the general issue, and that it
must be some time before there can be produced such recognition of the
general principle involved as is needful before definite plans can be
set forth to any purpose....--Truly yours,
HERBERT SPENCER.
* * * * *
HERBERT SPENCER TO A.R. WALLACE
_38 Queen's Gardens, Bayswater, W. July 6, 1881._
Dear Mr. Wallace,--I have already seen the work you name, "Progress and
Poverty," having had a copy, or rather two copies, sent me. I gathered
from what little I glanced at that I should fundamentally disagree with
the writer, and have not read more.
I demur entirely to the supposition, which is implied in the book, that
by any possible social arrangements whatever the distress which humanity
has to suffer in the course of civilisation could have been prevented.
The whole process, with all its horrors and tyrannies, and slaveries,
and wars, and abominations of all kinds, has been an inevitable one
accompanying the survival and spread of the strongest, and the
consolidation of small tribes into large societies; and among other
things the lapse of land into private ownership has been, like the lapse
of individuals into slavery, at one period of the process altogether
indispensable. I do not in the least believe that from the primitive
system of communistic ownership to a high and finished system of State
ownership, such as we may look for in the future, there could be any
transition without passing through such stages as we have seen and which
exist now. Argument aside, however, I should be disinclined to commit
myself to any scheme of immediate action, which, as I have indicated to
you, I believe at present premature. For myself I feel that I have to
consider not only what I may do on special questions, but also how the
action I take on special questions may affect my general influence; and
I am disinclined to give more handles against me than are needful.
Already, as you will see by the enclosed circular, I am doing in the way
of positive action more than may be altogether prudent.--Sincerely
yours,
HERBERT SPENCER.
* * * * *
A.R. WALLACE TO MR. A.C. SWINTON
_Frith Hill, Godalming. December 23, 1885._
My dear Swinton,-- ... I have just received an invitation to go to
lecture in Sydney on Sundays for three months, with an intimation that
other lectures can be arranged for in Melbourne and New Zealand. It is
tempting!... If I had the prospect of clearing £1,000 by a lecturing
campaign I would go, though it would require a great effort.... I did
not think it possible even to contemplate going so far again, but the
chance of earning a lot of money which would enable me to clear off this
house and leave something for my family must be seriously
considered.--Yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MISS VIOLET WALLACE
_Parkstone, Dorset. May_ 10, 1891.
My dear Violet,-- ... I am quite in favour of a legal eight hours' day.
Overtime need not be forbidden, but every man who works overtime should
have a legal claim to double wages for the extra hours. That would make
it cheaper for the master to employ two sets of men working each eight
hours when they had long jobs requiring them, while for the necessities
of finishing contracts, etc., they could well afford to pay double for
the extra hours. "It would make everything dearer!" Of course it would!
How else can you produce a more equal distribution of wealth than by
making the rich and idle pay more and the workers receive more? "The
workers would have to pay more, too, for everything they bought!" True
again, but what they paid more would not equal their extra earnings,
because a large portion of the extra pay to the men will be paid by the
rich, and only the remainder paid by the men themselves. The eight
hours' day and double pay for overtime would not only employ thousands
now out of work, but would actually raise wages per hour and per day.
This is clear, because wages are kept down wholly by the surplus supply
of labour in every trade. The moment the surplus is used up, or nearly
so, by more men being required on account of shorter hours, competition
among the men becomes less; among the employers, for men, more: hence
necessarily higher wages all round. As to the bogey of foreign
competition, it is a bogey only. All the political economists agree that
if wages are raised in all trades, it will not in the least affect our
power to export goods as profitably as now. Look and see! And, secondly,
the eight hours' movement is an international one, and will affect all
alike in the end.
There are some arguments for you! Poor unreasoning infant!!...
* * * * *
REV. AUGUSTUS JESSOPP TO A.R. WALLACE
_Scarning Rectory, East Dereham. August 25, 1893._
My dear Mr. Wallace,--I have put off writing to thank you for your kind
letter, and the book and pamphlets you were good enough to send me,
because I hoped in acknowledgment to say I had read your little volumes,
as I intend to. The fates have been against me, and I will delay no
longer thanking you for sending them to me.
I do not believe in your theory of land nationalisation one bit! But I
like to see all that such a man as you has to say on his side.
In return I send you my view of the matter, which is just as likely to
convert you as your book is to convert me.
I love a man with a theory, for I learn most from such a man, and when I
have thought a thing out in my own mind and forgotten the arguments
while I have arrived at a firm conviction as to the conclusion, it is
refreshing to be reminded of points and facts that have slipped away
from me!
It was a great pleasure and privilege to make your acquaintance the
other day, and I hope we may meet again some day.--Very truly yours,
AUGUSTUS JESSOPP.
* * * * *
REV. H. PRICE HUGHES TO A.R. WALLACE
_8 Taviton Street, Gordon Square, W.C. September 14, 1898._
Dear Dr. Wallace,--I am always very glad when I hear from you. So far as
your intensely interesting volume has compelled some very prejudiced
people to read your attack on modern delusions, it is a great gain,
especially to themselves. I have read your tract on "Justice, not
Charity," with great pleasure and approval. The moment Mr. Benjamin
Kidd invented the striking term of "equality of opportunity" I adopted
it, and have often preached it in the pulpit and on the platform, just
as you preach it in the tract before me. I fully agree that justice, not
charity, is the fundamental principle of social reform. There is
something very contemptible in the spiteful way in which many newspapers
and magistrates are trying to aggravate the difficulties of
conscientious men who avail themselves of the conscience clause in the
new Vaccination Act. There is very much to be done yet before social
justice is realised, but the astonishing manifesto of the Czar of
Russia, which I have no doubt is a perfectly sincere one, is a
revelation of the extent to which social truth is leavening European
society. Since I last wrote to you I have been elected President of the
Wesleyan Methodist Conference, which will give me a great deal of
special work and special opportunities also, I am thankful to say, of
propagating Social Christianity, which in fact, and to a great extent in
form, is what you yourself are doing.--Yours very sincerely,
H. PRICE HUGHES.
* * * * *
TO ALFRED RUSSELL
_Parkstone, Dorset. May 11, 1900._
Dear Sir,--I am not a vegetarian, but I believe in it as certain to be
adopted in the future, and as essential to a higher social and moral
state of society. My reasons are:
(1) That far less land is needed to supply vegetable than to supply
animal food.
(2) That the business of a butcher is, and would be, repulsive to all
refined natures.
(3) That with proper arrangements for variety and good cookery,
vegetable food is better for health of body and mind.--Yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MR. JOHN (LORD) MORLEY
_Parkstone, Dorset, October 20, 1900._
Dear Sir,--I look upon you as the one politician left to us, who, by his
ability and integrity, his eloquence and love of truth, his high
standing as a thinker and writer, and his openness of mind, is able to
become the leader of the English people in their struggle for freedom
against the monopolists of land, capital, and political power. I
therefore take the liberty of sending you herewith a book of mine
containing a number of miscellaneous essays, a few of which, I venture
to think, are worthy of your serious attention.
Some time since you intimated in one of your speeches that, if the
choice for this country were between Imperialism and Socialism, you were
inclined to consider the latter the less evil of the two. You added, I
think, your conviction that the dangers of Socialism to human character
were what most influenced you against it. I trust that my impression of
what you said is substantially correct. Now I myself believe, after a
study of the subject extending over twenty years, that this danger is
non-existent, and certainly does not in any way apply to the fundamental
principles of Socialism, which is, simply, _the voluntary organisation
of labour for the good of all_....--With great esteem, I am yours very
faithfully,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
MR. JOHN (LORD) MORLEY TO A.R. WALLACE
_57 Elm Park Gardens, S.W. October 31, 1900._
My dear Sir,--For some reason, though your letter is dated the 20th, it
has only reached me, along with the two volumes, to-day. I feel myself
greatly indebted to you for both. In older days I often mused upon a
passage of yours in the "Malay Archipelago" contrasting the condition of
certain types of savage life with that of life in a modern industrial
city. And I shall gladly turn again to the subject in these pages, new
to me, where you come to close quarters with the problem.
But my time and my mind are at present neither of them free for the
effective consideration of this mighty case. Nor can I promise myself
the requisite leisure for at least several months to come. What I can do
is to set your arguments a-simmering in my brain, and perhaps when the
time of liberation arrives I may be in a state to make something of it.
I don't suppose that I shall be a convert, but I always remember J.S.
Mill's observation, after recapitulating the evils to be apprehended
from Socialism, that he would face them in spite of all, if the only
alternative to Socialism were our present state.--With sincere thanks
and regard, believe me yours faithfully
JOHN MORLEY.
* * * * *
TO MR. C.G. STUART-MENTEITH
_Parkstone, Dorset. June 6, 1901._
Dear Sir,--I have no time to discuss your letter[52] at any length. You
seem to assume that we can say definitely who are the "fit" and who the
"unfit."
I deny this, except in the most extreme cases.
I believe that, even now, the race is mostly recruited by the _more
fit_--that is the upper working classes and the lower middle classes.
Both the very rich and the very poor are probably--as classes--below
these. The former increase less rapidly through immorality and late
marriage; the latter through excessive infant mortality. If that is the
case, no legislative interference is needed, and would probably do harm.
I see nothing in your letter which is really opposed to my
contention--that under rational social conditions the healthy instincts
of men and women will solve the population problem far better than any
tinkering interference either by law or by any other means.
And in the meantime the condition of things is not so bad as you
suppose.--Yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MR. SYDNEY COCKERELL
_Broadstone, Wimborne. January 15, 1906._
Dear Mr. Cockerell,--I have now finished reading Kropotkin's Life with
very great interest, especially for the light it throws on the present
condition of Russia. It also brings out clearly some very fine aspects
of the Russian character, and the horrible despotism to which they are
still subject, equivalent to that of the days of the Bastille and the
system of _Lettres de cachet_ before the great Revolution in France. It
seems to me probable that under happier conditions--perhaps in the not
distant future--Russia may become the most advanced instead of the most
backward in civilisation--a real leader among nations, not in war and
conquest but in social reform.--Yours faithfully,
A.R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MR. J. HYDER (Of THE LAND NATIONALISATION SOCIETY)
_Broadstone, Wimborne. May 13, 1907._
Dear Mr. Hyder,--Although it is not safe to hallo before one is out of
the wood, I think I may congratulate the Society upon the prospect it
now has of obtaining the first-fruits of its persistent efforts, for a
quarter of a century, to form an enlightened public opinion in favour of
our views. If the Government adequately fulfils its promises, we shall
have, in the Bill for a fair valuation of land apart from improvements,
as a basis of taxation and for purchase, and that giving local
authorities full powers to acquire land so valued, the first real and
definite steps towards complete nationalisation....
ALFRED R. WALLACE,
* * * * *
TO MR. A. WILTSHIRE[53]
_Broadstone, Wimborne. October 10, 1907._
Dear Sir,--I told Mr. Button that I do not approve of the resolution you
are going to move.[54]
The workers of England have themselves returned a large majority of
ordinary Liberals, including hundreds of capitalists, landowners,
manufacturers, and lawyers, with only a sprinkling of Radicals and
Socialists. The Government--your own elected Government--is doing more
for the workers than any Liberal Government ever did before, yet you are
going to pass what is practically a vote of censure on it for not being
a Radical, Labour, and Socialist Government!
If this Government attempted to do what you and I think ought to be
done, it would lose half its followers and be turned out, ignominiously,
giving the Tories another chance. That is foolish as well as
unfair.--Yours truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO LORD AVEBURY
_Broadstone, Wimborne. June 23, 1908._
Dear Lord Avebury,-- ... Allow me to wish every success to your Bill for
preserving beautiful birds from destruction. To stop the import is the
only way--short of the still more drastic method of heavily fining
everyone who wears feathers in public, with imprisonment for a second
offence. But we are not yet ripe for that.--Yours very truly,
ALFRED R. WALLACE. TO MR. E. SMEDLEY
_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. December 25, 1910._
Dear Mr. Smedley,--Thanks for your long and interesting letter.... Man
is, and has been, horribly cruel, and it is indeed difficult to explain
why. Yet that there is an explanation, and that it does lead to good in
the end, I believe. Praying is evidently useless, and should be, as it
is almost always selfish--for _our_ benefit, or our _families_, or our
_nation_.--Yours very truly,
ALFRED E. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MR. W.G. WALLACE
_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Wimborne. August 20, 1911._
My dear Will,-- ... The railway strike surpasses the Parliament Bill in
excitement. On receipt of Friday's paper, I sat down and composed and
sent off to Lloyd George a short but big letter, on large foolscap
paper, urging him and Asquith, as the two strong men of the Government,
to take over at once the management of the railways of the entire
country, by Royal Proclamation--on the ground of mismanagement for
seventy years, and having brought the country to the verge of starvation
and civil war; to grant an amnesty to all strikers (except for acts of
violence), also grant all the men's demands for one year, and devote
that time to a deliberate and impartial inquiry and a complete scheme of
reorganisation of the railways in the interest, first of the public,
then of the men of all grades, lastly of the share and bond owners, who
will become guaranteed public creditors.... It has been admitted and
proved again and again, that the men are badly treated, that their
grievances are real--their very unanimity and standing by each other
proves it. Their demands are most moderate; and the cost in extra wages
will be saved over and over in safety, regularity, economy of working,
and public convenience. I have not had even an acknowledgment of receipt
yet, but hope to in a day or two....
* * * * *
MR. H.M. HYNDMAN TO A.R. WALLACE
_9 Queen Anne's Gate, Westminster, S.W. March 14, 1912._
Dear Sir,--Everyone who knows anything of the record of modern science
in this country recognises how very much we all owe to you. It was,
therefore, specially gratifying to me that you should be so kind as to
write such a very encouraging letter on the occasion of my seventieth
birthday. I owe you sincere thanks for what you said, though I may
honestly feel that you overpraised what I have done. It has been an
uphill fight, but I am lucky in being allowed to see through the smoke
and dust of battle a vision of the promised land. The transformation
from capitalism to socialism is going on slowly under our eyes.
Again thanking you and wishing you every good wish, believe me yours
sincerely,
H.M. HYNDMAN.
* * * * *
TO MR. M.J. MURPHY
_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. August 19, 1913._
Dear Sir,--I not only think but firmly believe that Lloyd George is
working for the good of the people, in all ways open to him. The wonder
is that he can persuade Asquith and the Cabinet to let him go as far as
he does. No doubt he is obliged to do things he does not think the best
absolutely, but the best that are practicable. He does not profess to be
a Socialist, and he is not infallible, but he does the best he can,
under the conditions in which he finds himself. Socialists who condemn
him for not doing more are most unfair. They must know, if they think,
that if he tried to do much more towards Socialism he would break up the
Government and let in the Tories.--Yours truly,
A.R. WALLACE.
* * * * *
TO MR. A. WILTSHIRE
_Old Orchard, Broadstone, Dorset. September 14, 1913._
Dear Sir,--I wish you every success in your work for the amelioration of
the condition of the workers, through whose exertions it may be truly
said we all live and move and have our being.
Your motto is excellent. Above all things stick together.
Equally important is it to declare as a fixed principle that wages are
to be and must be continuously raised, never lowered. You have too much
arrears to make up--too many forces against you, to admit of their being
ever lowered. Let future generations decide when that is necessary--if
ever.
This is a principle worth enforcing by a general strike. Nothing less
will be effective--nothing less should be accepted; and you must let the
Government know it, and insist that they adopt it.
The rise must always be towards uniformity of payment for all useful and
productive work.--Yours sincerely,
ALFRED E. WALLACE.